![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Mouillé was copied or moved into Palatalization with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Palatalization (phonetics) was copied or moved into Palatalization (sound change) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
"Several mechanisms of palatalization" doesn't look well. The "esh" sound [ʃ] is not a palatalization of [s]; it's postalveolar. There are several palatal sibilants one could mention. The difference should be made clear between the physiological/phonetic mechanism of palatalization, and the phonological function. In English, some instances of [ʃ] can be considered a palatalization of [s] from the diachronical POV, but /ʃ/ is not really a palatal(ized) consonant and it's a phoneme in its own right. -- Pablo D. Flores 11:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there's some big confusion here, with "palatalization" meaning at least two completely different things that should be differentiated very clearly. In Russian, for example, ш is palatal (IPA: ʂ), while сь is palatalized (IPA: sʲ).
Some letters with a háček are palatal (š, ž, č: ʂ, ʐ, tʂ-ligature), while others are palatalized (ď, ť, ň, ľ: dʲ, tʲ, nʲ, lʲ).
David Marjanović (... that's tʃʲ-ligature for you!) 23:52 CET-summertime 2005/8/2
I'm cleaning up the article, and removed the following:
I removed this because it does not show the digraph <sj> being used for contrastive [sj] vs [sʲ]. Does the person who wrote this have an example of a true contrast, so we can put the illustration back in? kwami 02:46, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
The whole last section about local traditions needs to be reworked by someone who knows the literature. I've merely tried sorting out what was already in the article, along with some comments on this page. kwami
I speak Russian and i don't understand what /akʲa/ is. There's now such word as "акя" and i can't even think of a word which includes that sounds in that order. There should be an example from the actual language. I would think of an example myself, but i don't know jack about phonology.-- Amir E. Aharoni 19:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The article says: "Sometimes palatalization is part of a synchronic grammatical process, such as palatalizing the first consonant of a verb root to signal the past tense".
Is there an example for this?-- Amir E. Aharoni 19:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what happened to the template and I don't know what was in there, but the article needs to be fixed now it was deleted. -- Mkill 10:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Are there any consonants which cannot be palatalized? -- 84.61.41.214 08:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
When a sound is formed on the palate it is palatal. When the sound migrates to be formed on the palate it is palatised.
This is the same as: digit - digital - digitised. It is NOT 'digitalised' is it? Then why is it 'palatalised'? Bill, 2009 April.
In English please. So everyone can understand it.--
Standforder (
talk) 02:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Still, these are all link'd in the article, as should! There's no room to explain all of them in full detail here… -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The Jargon in this article really should be cleaned up.Anhydrobiosis 01:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhydrobiosis ( talk • contribs)
What is the difference between palatalization and yod-coalescence? Are [ʃ] and [ʒ] palatal consonants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.207.252 ( talk) 01:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I wonder what does it mean. In Russian there are many examples when sounds are followed with [j] and are not palatalized. For example, подъём[подйом], въезд[вйэзд], съезд[cйэзд], вражья[вражйа].-- Anuclanus ( talk) 22:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The articla says Russian тема is pronounced [ˈtˢʲɛmə] but this pronounciation is definitely non-Russian. There is no [s] or [ts] there.-- Anuclanus ( talk) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a stub article called Mouillé that contains (currently unsourced) information about the development of palatal laterals and nasals in Romance. I propose that any usable information be sourced and merged into the " Diachronic palatalization" section of this article, and for Mouillé to be redirected to Palatal consonant (since mouillé is just French for "palatal(ized)", and I don't think it means anything more than that when used in English, if it is actually used in English with any significant frequency). CapnPrep ( talk) 01:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The article currently uses -ize in the title, but the body of the article uses -ise. This is strange; shouldn't the two be consistent? Would I be breaking MOS:RETAIN or following it if I changed -ise forms throughout the article to -ize? — Eru· tuon 08:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we split this article into two. This article, Palatalization, should continue to describe the secondary articulation of consonants, but material on the sound change should be moved to Palatalization (sound change).
It wouldn't work to disambiguate them as Palatalization (phonetics) and Palatalization (phonology), since the articulatory feature is both phonetic and phonological, and the titles Palatalization (historical linguistics) or Palatalization (diachronic linguistics) would be less readable for non-linguists. There isn't an appropriate parenthetical disambiguator for the articulatory feature, because it involves both phonetics and phonology. Therefore, it should remain as the un-disambiguated article name. (Not sure what the technical term for this is.)
As an amateur historical linguist, it is clear to me that the palatalization sound change is much more varied than described in this article. Some of its incarnations include change to a palatal place of articulation, addition of a palatalized secondary articulation, fronting, retraction, raising, diphthongization, monophthongization, alveolarization, alveolo-palatalization, palatal-alveolarization, retroflexion, assibilation, affrication, and frication. (This list assumes the broader definition of palatalization that includes vowel as well as consonant changes.)
At the moment, the article does not describe all of these. Because of the need to constantly disambiguate between the phonetic or phonological feature and the sound change, it is very difficult to add them. If the sound change were given its own article, it would be easy to describe the these variations: just create sections.
In addition, the article should, ideally, list examples of the secondary articulation and of the sound change, as Elision and Debuccalization do. This is impossible in the current article form. Since the secondary articulation and the sound change both occur in the same languages, but in different cases, the same language would have to be mentioned twice.
Splitting the articles would be an option based on common practice. Phonetic and phonological features are frequently described in separate articles from sound changes. This is the case for Sibilant versus Assibilation, Voice (phonetics) and Voicelessness versus Consonant voicing and devoicing, Glottal consonant versus Debuccalization. Velarization does not have separate phonetic–phonological and sound change articles, but velarization as a sound change has fewer examples that I can think of than palatalization.
For these varied reasons, I propose splitting the article into two, and titling them Palatalization and Palatalization (sound change). What do others think? (If there are any problems in the way I'm proposing this move or split, let me know or correct them, since I'm new to this.)
I think this move is fairly commonsense and uncontroversial, so I'll go ahead with it if there are no objections. — Eru· tuon 23:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we have two votes for splitting to Palatalization (phonetics). I also think this is a good idea, since it would be good to have a disambiguation page. — Eru· tuon 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Ƶ§œš¹ has registered his support for Palatalization (historical linguistics), and I have noted mine for Palatalization (sound change). Does anyone else have an opinion either way, like you, Trɔpʏliʊm? — Eru· tuon 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
One of typically clueless Wikipedian “change for a change”, not for improvement. The splitting created appearance of two different (albeit related) phenomena, bu failed miserably on explaining the difference. After deliberation, they decided that [tʲ]—[t] (and similar) opposition of Slavic languages pertains to palatalization (phonetics), whereas [ɲ]—[n] opposition of Romance languages ( mouillé) pertains to palatalization (sound change). IMHO the basis of this “classification” is that IPA has a distinct character for [ ɲ, hence it’s a distinct sound, whereas [tʲ] is represented with a modifier, hence it’s only a modified [t] sound. A cute “science”.
Also, examples in “(phonetics)” are chosen arbitrarily. They include Slavic and Gaelic (where it’s phonemic, not just allophonic), but exclude Chinese (where it’s phonemic as well). Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 12:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I moved the section on mouillé (palatal consonants) to Palatal consonant § Mouillé, because technically it's about palatal /ɲ ʎ/, not palatalized, although these palatal consonants arose by palatalization. It should originally have been moved there, rather than here. — Eru· tuon 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
See vertical vowel system for some discussion and sources on suprasegmental palatalization in Central Chadic. I've yet to add coverage of this into the main article of the language group. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Another question though is whether a case where underlying representation such as /dam ʲ/ is realized as [dem] (or perhaps [dʒem]) — with possibly no phonetic palatalization — belongs in this article or under Palatalization (sound change). -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The below message was originally posted underneath #What's so bad about /anʲa/?.
Well, I have to disagree on sibilant offglide in Russian palatalized t. Indeed, such a phenomenon is possible and quite frequent, but nevertheless it's a typical feature of some dialects that should be avoided in standard normative speech. -- 95.26.43.198 ( talk) 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm still confused by the text in Other uses. It seems to me that it contradicts the examples at Russian phonology#Palatalization. All the examples show pal. there, even the only one actually written with [i], rather than [ɪ]: . — Sebastian 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Padgett (2001) even points out that palatalization may come along with "other phonetic properties such as frication or burst" that help contribute to a distinction.
I think this article can be dramatically improved if we write the examples a bit differently: (I still not exactly sure what Palatization is, I'll probably get it soon after reading the article a few times...)
1. IMHO the examples should have the palatalized and unpalatalized consonants side by side so that we see and hear the difference.
2. Examples should be given first and formost in the English language which is spoken by the readers of this WP article, even though palatalization in English does not distinguish the sound as a different consonant.
3. Several quick examples from SEVERAL languages, first of all European ones but not just, should be shown in sub sections.
4. Each consonant that can be palatalized should be under a section of its own. L - palatalized sounds so. unplalatalized so. T palatelized sounds so unpalatalized sounds so. These consonants are the ones that can be palatalized, all the other's cannot be palatalized.
I'm willing to assist if someone puts up sets of words in their language. I know how to articulate foreign accents, in many languages which I speak. I'll put it up for your native testing and then publish it in this article. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 08:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The article provides a very technical description of palatization, with examples from languages that many English-speaking readers are not familiar with. After going through this article, I have no idea what palatization sounds like.
It would be very helpful if examples of (allophonic) palatization in English were provided.
I found some examples:
Source: https://englishphonetics.net/blog/vowel-length-palatalization.html
I'm not familiar enough with the matter to judge whether these are good examples. I'm not familiar enough with the matter to judge whether these are good examples.
A picture of the tongue position would also help to clarify "the body of the tongue is raised toward the hard palate and the alveolar ridge during the articulation of the consonant." Han-Kwang ( t) 08:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Mouillé was copied or moved into Palatalization with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Palatalization (phonetics) was copied or moved into Palatalization (sound change) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
"Several mechanisms of palatalization" doesn't look well. The "esh" sound [ʃ] is not a palatalization of [s]; it's postalveolar. There are several palatal sibilants one could mention. The difference should be made clear between the physiological/phonetic mechanism of palatalization, and the phonological function. In English, some instances of [ʃ] can be considered a palatalization of [s] from the diachronical POV, but /ʃ/ is not really a palatal(ized) consonant and it's a phoneme in its own right. -- Pablo D. Flores 11:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there's some big confusion here, with "palatalization" meaning at least two completely different things that should be differentiated very clearly. In Russian, for example, ш is palatal (IPA: ʂ), while сь is palatalized (IPA: sʲ).
Some letters with a háček are palatal (š, ž, č: ʂ, ʐ, tʂ-ligature), while others are palatalized (ď, ť, ň, ľ: dʲ, tʲ, nʲ, lʲ).
David Marjanović (... that's tʃʲ-ligature for you!) 23:52 CET-summertime 2005/8/2
I'm cleaning up the article, and removed the following:
I removed this because it does not show the digraph <sj> being used for contrastive [sj] vs [sʲ]. Does the person who wrote this have an example of a true contrast, so we can put the illustration back in? kwami 02:46, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
The whole last section about local traditions needs to be reworked by someone who knows the literature. I've merely tried sorting out what was already in the article, along with some comments on this page. kwami
I speak Russian and i don't understand what /akʲa/ is. There's now such word as "акя" and i can't even think of a word which includes that sounds in that order. There should be an example from the actual language. I would think of an example myself, but i don't know jack about phonology.-- Amir E. Aharoni 19:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The article says: "Sometimes palatalization is part of a synchronic grammatical process, such as palatalizing the first consonant of a verb root to signal the past tense".
Is there an example for this?-- Amir E. Aharoni 19:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what happened to the template and I don't know what was in there, but the article needs to be fixed now it was deleted. -- Mkill 10:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Are there any consonants which cannot be palatalized? -- 84.61.41.214 08:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
When a sound is formed on the palate it is palatal. When the sound migrates to be formed on the palate it is palatised.
This is the same as: digit - digital - digitised. It is NOT 'digitalised' is it? Then why is it 'palatalised'? Bill, 2009 April.
In English please. So everyone can understand it.--
Standforder (
talk) 02:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Still, these are all link'd in the article, as should! There's no room to explain all of them in full detail here… -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The Jargon in this article really should be cleaned up.Anhydrobiosis 01:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhydrobiosis ( talk • contribs)
What is the difference between palatalization and yod-coalescence? Are [ʃ] and [ʒ] palatal consonants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.207.252 ( talk) 01:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I wonder what does it mean. In Russian there are many examples when sounds are followed with [j] and are not palatalized. For example, подъём[подйом], въезд[вйэзд], съезд[cйэзд], вражья[вражйа].-- Anuclanus ( talk) 22:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The articla says Russian тема is pronounced [ˈtˢʲɛmə] but this pronounciation is definitely non-Russian. There is no [s] or [ts] there.-- Anuclanus ( talk) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a stub article called Mouillé that contains (currently unsourced) information about the development of palatal laterals and nasals in Romance. I propose that any usable information be sourced and merged into the " Diachronic palatalization" section of this article, and for Mouillé to be redirected to Palatal consonant (since mouillé is just French for "palatal(ized)", and I don't think it means anything more than that when used in English, if it is actually used in English with any significant frequency). CapnPrep ( talk) 01:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The article currently uses -ize in the title, but the body of the article uses -ise. This is strange; shouldn't the two be consistent? Would I be breaking MOS:RETAIN or following it if I changed -ise forms throughout the article to -ize? — Eru· tuon 08:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we split this article into two. This article, Palatalization, should continue to describe the secondary articulation of consonants, but material on the sound change should be moved to Palatalization (sound change).
It wouldn't work to disambiguate them as Palatalization (phonetics) and Palatalization (phonology), since the articulatory feature is both phonetic and phonological, and the titles Palatalization (historical linguistics) or Palatalization (diachronic linguistics) would be less readable for non-linguists. There isn't an appropriate parenthetical disambiguator for the articulatory feature, because it involves both phonetics and phonology. Therefore, it should remain as the un-disambiguated article name. (Not sure what the technical term for this is.)
As an amateur historical linguist, it is clear to me that the palatalization sound change is much more varied than described in this article. Some of its incarnations include change to a palatal place of articulation, addition of a palatalized secondary articulation, fronting, retraction, raising, diphthongization, monophthongization, alveolarization, alveolo-palatalization, palatal-alveolarization, retroflexion, assibilation, affrication, and frication. (This list assumes the broader definition of palatalization that includes vowel as well as consonant changes.)
At the moment, the article does not describe all of these. Because of the need to constantly disambiguate between the phonetic or phonological feature and the sound change, it is very difficult to add them. If the sound change were given its own article, it would be easy to describe the these variations: just create sections.
In addition, the article should, ideally, list examples of the secondary articulation and of the sound change, as Elision and Debuccalization do. This is impossible in the current article form. Since the secondary articulation and the sound change both occur in the same languages, but in different cases, the same language would have to be mentioned twice.
Splitting the articles would be an option based on common practice. Phonetic and phonological features are frequently described in separate articles from sound changes. This is the case for Sibilant versus Assibilation, Voice (phonetics) and Voicelessness versus Consonant voicing and devoicing, Glottal consonant versus Debuccalization. Velarization does not have separate phonetic–phonological and sound change articles, but velarization as a sound change has fewer examples that I can think of than palatalization.
For these varied reasons, I propose splitting the article into two, and titling them Palatalization and Palatalization (sound change). What do others think? (If there are any problems in the way I'm proposing this move or split, let me know or correct them, since I'm new to this.)
I think this move is fairly commonsense and uncontroversial, so I'll go ahead with it if there are no objections. — Eru· tuon 23:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we have two votes for splitting to Palatalization (phonetics). I also think this is a good idea, since it would be good to have a disambiguation page. — Eru· tuon 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Ƶ§œš¹ has registered his support for Palatalization (historical linguistics), and I have noted mine for Palatalization (sound change). Does anyone else have an opinion either way, like you, Trɔpʏliʊm? — Eru· tuon 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
One of typically clueless Wikipedian “change for a change”, not for improvement. The splitting created appearance of two different (albeit related) phenomena, bu failed miserably on explaining the difference. After deliberation, they decided that [tʲ]—[t] (and similar) opposition of Slavic languages pertains to palatalization (phonetics), whereas [ɲ]—[n] opposition of Romance languages ( mouillé) pertains to palatalization (sound change). IMHO the basis of this “classification” is that IPA has a distinct character for [ ɲ, hence it’s a distinct sound, whereas [tʲ] is represented with a modifier, hence it’s only a modified [t] sound. A cute “science”.
Also, examples in “(phonetics)” are chosen arbitrarily. They include Slavic and Gaelic (where it’s phonemic, not just allophonic), but exclude Chinese (where it’s phonemic as well). Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 12:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I moved the section on mouillé (palatal consonants) to Palatal consonant § Mouillé, because technically it's about palatal /ɲ ʎ/, not palatalized, although these palatal consonants arose by palatalization. It should originally have been moved there, rather than here. — Eru· tuon 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
See vertical vowel system for some discussion and sources on suprasegmental palatalization in Central Chadic. I've yet to add coverage of this into the main article of the language group. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Another question though is whether a case where underlying representation such as /dam ʲ/ is realized as [dem] (or perhaps [dʒem]) — with possibly no phonetic palatalization — belongs in this article or under Palatalization (sound change). -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The below message was originally posted underneath #What's so bad about /anʲa/?.
Well, I have to disagree on sibilant offglide in Russian palatalized t. Indeed, such a phenomenon is possible and quite frequent, but nevertheless it's a typical feature of some dialects that should be avoided in standard normative speech. -- 95.26.43.198 ( talk) 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm still confused by the text in Other uses. It seems to me that it contradicts the examples at Russian phonology#Palatalization. All the examples show pal. there, even the only one actually written with [i], rather than [ɪ]: . — Sebastian 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Padgett (2001) even points out that palatalization may come along with "other phonetic properties such as frication or burst" that help contribute to a distinction.
I think this article can be dramatically improved if we write the examples a bit differently: (I still not exactly sure what Palatization is, I'll probably get it soon after reading the article a few times...)
1. IMHO the examples should have the palatalized and unpalatalized consonants side by side so that we see and hear the difference.
2. Examples should be given first and formost in the English language which is spoken by the readers of this WP article, even though palatalization in English does not distinguish the sound as a different consonant.
3. Several quick examples from SEVERAL languages, first of all European ones but not just, should be shown in sub sections.
4. Each consonant that can be palatalized should be under a section of its own. L - palatalized sounds so. unplalatalized so. T palatelized sounds so unpalatalized sounds so. These consonants are the ones that can be palatalized, all the other's cannot be palatalized.
I'm willing to assist if someone puts up sets of words in their language. I know how to articulate foreign accents, in many languages which I speak. I'll put it up for your native testing and then publish it in this article. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 08:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The article provides a very technical description of palatization, with examples from languages that many English-speaking readers are not familiar with. After going through this article, I have no idea what palatization sounds like.
It would be very helpful if examples of (allophonic) palatization in English were provided.
I found some examples:
Source: https://englishphonetics.net/blog/vowel-length-palatalization.html
I'm not familiar enough with the matter to judge whether these are good examples. I'm not familiar enough with the matter to judge whether these are good examples.
A picture of the tongue position would also help to clarify "the body of the tongue is raised toward the hard palate and the alveolar ridge during the articulation of the consonant." Han-Kwang ( t) 08:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)