![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I've never heard the name "schwer" for this sound and suspect it is a neologism. There is already an article r-colored vowel which describes this sound and its near ally ɝ. There's no need for separate articles, and neologisms in titles are best avoided. Therefore this should be merged with r-colored vowel. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 15:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Hrmm. I wonder where I got that idea from then. I guess I need to hear a sound file for /ɚ/ and /ɝ/ vs. /ɹ̩/ then. Tom e r talk 17:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think "schwer" might be a typo of "schwar" which is a term I've seen for [ɚ], I guess it's an analogy to Schwa. -- Chlämens 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Most American singers I hear don't use R-coloured vowels in their singing, even though they do in their speech, so I added a counterexample to Celine Dion. I don't have any good reference for this and welcome an improvement, or someone just striking the whole paragraph.
Isn't one the reasons that the r-colored vowels don't happen, in say, Spanish, is because they roll their r's? Cameron Nedland 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
An anon just added "and some dialects of Portuguese" to the end of the first paragraph. I've never heard of r-colored vowels being present in any dialect of Portuguese, and would like verification of the claim before it is returned to the article. -- Angr 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I am Dutch, but I seldomly hear people talk with rhotic sounds. (Except for some isolated individuals in just a few words.) Moreover it might on occasion be heard in English borrowings, but only by speakers who really proficient in English. Can anyone elaborate the claim of this article that it occurs in Dutch? The above occurrences of a rhotic vowel look insufficient to me to claim that they "occur in Dutch". -- JorisvS 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
From the image, it seems as though the only difference between regular schwa and r-colored schwa is formant three. Doesn't formant three indicate lip rounding? Considering the English rhotic is labialized, it seems as though the image doesn't indicate the R-coloredness of "schwer" just the lip-rounding aspect. That being the case, the image doesn't seem nearly as relevant. AEuSoes1 17:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Both American Heritage [1] and MW [2] give pronunciations of apparatus with the r being [ɹ] at the beginning of the third syllable.-- Atemperman 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do it. They cover the same ground. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
After rereading the Vocalic r, I realised that some of it did not deal with R-coloring, so I decided to let the article remain for the time being, and merge only the section that was out of place into this one. FilipeS 22:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right. I'm not thinking very brightly, lately. I will merge the rest when I have the time. FilipeS 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems as though the Sanskrit ऋ (and its longer equivalent ॠ) deserve to be mentioned here: they are mentioned as vowel sounds ("containing [consonantal] r") by the ancient grammarians, and they are usually thought to have been pronounced as the vocalic retroflex approximant in ancient times. (Today they are usually pronounced "ri" as a result of changes in Hindi and other Indian languages). Grover cleveland 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary ©2008 appears to be specific about the rhotic applying to Midwestern American English rather than general American English. They further provide the examples, e.g., Midwestern American English, in which r is pronounced before a consonant (as in hard) and at the ends of words (as in far).
I'm not religious about this, but offer this information in case some of you are.
regards, -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 04:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If the Sanskrit vowel ऋ corresponds to a PIE vowel, then how can it be retroflex? Weren't retroflex sounds in Indo-Aryan a result of Dravidian influence? GSMR ( talk) 04:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
So you're okay with that now? Retroflex or not, a consonant like r can be syllabic. No contradiction there. This article itself says, “A vowel may have either the tip or blade of the tongue turned up during at least part of the articulation of the vowel (a retroflex articulation)”... So I'm removing {{Contradict|date=November 2009}}. Okay? — Gyopi ( talk) 09:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see your original question was something different, but I don't think that's a contradiction, either (though 'Citation needed' there is still valid).— Gyopi ( talk) 10:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving the section on Sanskrit (which I originally, misguidedly added) to this section: I'm convinced it doesn't belong in the article: also the section on Czech etc. syllabic [r] is not an "R-colored vowel"! It's not even a vowel of any kind... Grover cleveland ( talk) 09:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The ancient Indian language Sanskrit possessed short and long versions of a vowel sound often referred to as "vocalic r". [1] It is represented in Devanagari by ऋ (short form) and ॠ (long form), and in IAST transliteration by ṛ (short form) and ṝ (long form), and is thought to correspond to original vocalic "l" or "r" in Proto-Indo-European. [1] The grammarian Pāṇini classified this vowel as retroflex [2] and its pronunciation is thought to have been a retroflex approximant [ɻ] in classical Sanskrit (c. 500 BC). citation needed Earlier grammarians classified its sound in the Vedic period as velar. [2] In Middle Indo-Aryan languages, the sound developed into a short vowel, usually /i/, but sometimes /a/ or /u/ (the latter sound especially when adjacent to a labial consonant).
However, when Sanskrit words containing this sound are borrowed into modern Indo-Aryan languages such as Hindi or Nepali its pronunciation changes to [ɾɪ] (short form) or [ɾiː] (long form), [3] leading to forms such as " Krishna" for Kṛṣṇa and " Rigveda" for ṛgveda, a pronunciation that is also prevalent among contemporary pandits. [4] In the Southern Indo-Aryan language Sinhala, vocalic r in Sanskrit words is pronounced as [ur] or [ru], depending on the phonological context.
In Czech and Slovak, the syllabic r is present in many common words. Strč prst skrz krk! ( Czech and Slovak for “Stick a finger through your throat!”) is a sentence with no obvious vowels, where each of the four r’s is syllabic (the most sonorant segment of a syllable), or in other words, vocalic (acting as a vowel).
- References
- ^ a b Burrow, Thomas (2001). The Sanskrit Language (1st Indian ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 105. ISBN 8120817672.
- ^ a b Deshpande, Madhav M. (1993), "Genesis of Rgvedic Retroflexion", Sanskrit & Prakrit: Sociolinguistic Issues, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p. 178, ISBN 8120811364
- ^ Cardona, George (2003), "Sanskrit", in Cardona, George; Jain, Dhanesh (eds.), The Indo-Aryan Languages, New York: Routledge, p. 257, ISBN 0700711309
- ^ Coulson, Michael (2006). Sanskrit. Chicago: Contemporary Books. p. 5. ISBN 0071426663.
{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)
Are r-colored vowels only found in American English, or in other rhotic varieties of English as well (e.g. West Country, Scots)? (Although presumably they would be r-coloured;) ) Iapetus ( talk) 11:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The sections "In singing", "In Mandarin Chinese" and "In Quebec French" need source citations. Lisapaloma ( talk) 13:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I dimly recall from past reading that in General American there is r-coloring in words like "fear" and "bear", though there is no mention of it in this article.
I thought that "fear" is between /fɪr/ and /fir/ for many Americans (though /fɪr/ or /fir/ for others), and that this in-between sound never appears except before /r/.
And I thought that "bear" is between /bɛr/ and /ber/ for many Americans (though /bɛr/ or /ber/ for others), and that again this in-between sound never appears except before /r/.
Am I just remembering wrong here? Duoduoduo ( talk) 16:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, Triphthong#First segment is the nucleus says that in British Received Pronunciation, [eɪ] becomes [ɛə] before /r/. (Sorry I can't render the diacritic underneath the ɪ and the ə.) Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
"bear" has a "tensed ash (ae)" in the current trend of American accents, sitting in the shadow of the cot-caught merger. This is sometimes loosely transcribed with [ɛə], but in reality, many languages have ɛ phonemes that overlap this sound. Also, it's somewhere between ɛ and æ, but even further fronted (in terms of formants). This doesn't have anything to do with r-coloring; r-coloring is a process that makes vowels more rhotic. 24.194.51.254 ( talk) 19:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I propose that this article be renamed to Rhotic vowel, which currently redirects to this page. The primary reasoning is for consistency across article titles. As the article for R-like consonants is named Rhotic consonant, it would make since for R-like vowels to likewise be named Rhotic Vowel. This also would stay consistent with other article titles such as Nasal vowel. Zombiedude347 ( talk) 02:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
would this make /ɹ/ a semivowel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livakno ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
IP, please re-read the lead, specifically this part: R-colored vowels can be articulated in various ways: the tip or blade of the tongue may be turned up during at least part of the articulation of the vowel (a
retroflex articulation) or the back of the tongue may be bunched. In addition, the vocal tract may often be constricted in the region of the
epiglottis.
What does it have to do with
Talk:Voiced_alveolar_and_postalveolar_approximants#Two_symbols;_only_one_explained (pharyngealization aside, [
ɹ can be pharyngealized as most other consonants)? I was talking about rhotic consonants, not rhotacized (retroflexed/pharyngealized/whatever) vowels.
Sol505000 (
talk)
03:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
the second one affects both (since the topic of that article is purely phonetic yet the full article is filled with phonology terms and discussion). My answers is "OK" while your answer is "OR". Once a questiones is asked it has to be discussed, and the asker doesn't own the question once it's in public discussion.This is putting words in my mouth as your interpretation of what I said is not the same as what I actually said. You should've asked for clarification first and then maybe ask me to make a separate thread here, or make it yourself.
So it's has nothing to do with "put words in my mouth" or something and I didn't mention you at all when tagging that articleYet you're admitting that the reason you tagged this article was me.
For rhotic vowel I believe if using phonology term on phonetics is OR then it should be moved to retroflex vowel or vowel coarticulated with retroflex approximant.You do realize that rhotic vowel is a redirect to this article, right? It's not its actual title.
The tone of this entire article is weird since apart from phonetic topic the entire article is filled with phonology discussion and more importantly the article title is named after phonology term.I'm not sure whether that's the case. In the case of vowels, rhotic or rhotacized seems to be a well-defined term describing a range of retroflex-like coarticulations. This is in contrast to the term rhotic consonant, which is purely phonological and phonetically meaningless. Sol505000 ( talk) 03:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we want WP:OR labels such as "rhotic approximant" or "non-rhotic approximant" in the article. These names make sense only when discussing the phonology of particular language(s)/dialect(s), not when discussing the sounds (phones) themselves. A "rhotic" is not a type of sound as it can be almost anything.You didn't say the combination of "rhotic" and "consonant"
is not a type of sound. You said exactly rhotic
is not a type of sound as it can be almost anything.So if you believed I put words in your mouth you should check if there's any inconsistency between what you said and what you meant to say, as your statement, per common understanding, would mean
whether it's OK or it's OR to apply an ad hoc phonology term (rhotic) for phonetic purpose(my interpretation or "put words in your mouth"). That no longer that important now that you have (at least partially) clarified what you really meant to say.
In the case of vowels, rhotic or rhotacized seems to be a well-defined term describing a range of retroflex-like coarticulationsdoesn't seem to stand because sources in the article seems to use the term "rhotic vowel" phonologically. "R-colored vowel" also is not too much better than rhotic because "r-colored" and "r-like" aren't semantically different enough. No terms seems to be completely without OR problem if we requires phonetic (as opposed to phonology) strictly, give this sound is an acoustic unbrella term allowing different kind of articulations (just like the rhotic alveolar consonant). 146.96.28.222 ( talk) 01:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like to learn the origin of the term name. Why is it called "colored" when it has nothing to do with colors? Wolf O'Donnel ( talk) 04:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I've never heard the name "schwer" for this sound and suspect it is a neologism. There is already an article r-colored vowel which describes this sound and its near ally ɝ. There's no need for separate articles, and neologisms in titles are best avoided. Therefore this should be merged with r-colored vowel. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 15:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Hrmm. I wonder where I got that idea from then. I guess I need to hear a sound file for /ɚ/ and /ɝ/ vs. /ɹ̩/ then. Tom e r talk 17:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think "schwer" might be a typo of "schwar" which is a term I've seen for [ɚ], I guess it's an analogy to Schwa. -- Chlämens 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Most American singers I hear don't use R-coloured vowels in their singing, even though they do in their speech, so I added a counterexample to Celine Dion. I don't have any good reference for this and welcome an improvement, or someone just striking the whole paragraph.
Isn't one the reasons that the r-colored vowels don't happen, in say, Spanish, is because they roll their r's? Cameron Nedland 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
An anon just added "and some dialects of Portuguese" to the end of the first paragraph. I've never heard of r-colored vowels being present in any dialect of Portuguese, and would like verification of the claim before it is returned to the article. -- Angr 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I am Dutch, but I seldomly hear people talk with rhotic sounds. (Except for some isolated individuals in just a few words.) Moreover it might on occasion be heard in English borrowings, but only by speakers who really proficient in English. Can anyone elaborate the claim of this article that it occurs in Dutch? The above occurrences of a rhotic vowel look insufficient to me to claim that they "occur in Dutch". -- JorisvS 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
From the image, it seems as though the only difference between regular schwa and r-colored schwa is formant three. Doesn't formant three indicate lip rounding? Considering the English rhotic is labialized, it seems as though the image doesn't indicate the R-coloredness of "schwer" just the lip-rounding aspect. That being the case, the image doesn't seem nearly as relevant. AEuSoes1 17:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Both American Heritage [1] and MW [2] give pronunciations of apparatus with the r being [ɹ] at the beginning of the third syllable.-- Atemperman 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do it. They cover the same ground. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
After rereading the Vocalic r, I realised that some of it did not deal with R-coloring, so I decided to let the article remain for the time being, and merge only the section that was out of place into this one. FilipeS 22:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right. I'm not thinking very brightly, lately. I will merge the rest when I have the time. FilipeS 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems as though the Sanskrit ऋ (and its longer equivalent ॠ) deserve to be mentioned here: they are mentioned as vowel sounds ("containing [consonantal] r") by the ancient grammarians, and they are usually thought to have been pronounced as the vocalic retroflex approximant in ancient times. (Today they are usually pronounced "ri" as a result of changes in Hindi and other Indian languages). Grover cleveland 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary ©2008 appears to be specific about the rhotic applying to Midwestern American English rather than general American English. They further provide the examples, e.g., Midwestern American English, in which r is pronounced before a consonant (as in hard) and at the ends of words (as in far).
I'm not religious about this, but offer this information in case some of you are.
regards, -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 04:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If the Sanskrit vowel ऋ corresponds to a PIE vowel, then how can it be retroflex? Weren't retroflex sounds in Indo-Aryan a result of Dravidian influence? GSMR ( talk) 04:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
So you're okay with that now? Retroflex or not, a consonant like r can be syllabic. No contradiction there. This article itself says, “A vowel may have either the tip or blade of the tongue turned up during at least part of the articulation of the vowel (a retroflex articulation)”... So I'm removing {{Contradict|date=November 2009}}. Okay? — Gyopi ( talk) 09:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see your original question was something different, but I don't think that's a contradiction, either (though 'Citation needed' there is still valid).— Gyopi ( talk) 10:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving the section on Sanskrit (which I originally, misguidedly added) to this section: I'm convinced it doesn't belong in the article: also the section on Czech etc. syllabic [r] is not an "R-colored vowel"! It's not even a vowel of any kind... Grover cleveland ( talk) 09:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The ancient Indian language Sanskrit possessed short and long versions of a vowel sound often referred to as "vocalic r". [1] It is represented in Devanagari by ऋ (short form) and ॠ (long form), and in IAST transliteration by ṛ (short form) and ṝ (long form), and is thought to correspond to original vocalic "l" or "r" in Proto-Indo-European. [1] The grammarian Pāṇini classified this vowel as retroflex [2] and its pronunciation is thought to have been a retroflex approximant [ɻ] in classical Sanskrit (c. 500 BC). citation needed Earlier grammarians classified its sound in the Vedic period as velar. [2] In Middle Indo-Aryan languages, the sound developed into a short vowel, usually /i/, but sometimes /a/ or /u/ (the latter sound especially when adjacent to a labial consonant).
However, when Sanskrit words containing this sound are borrowed into modern Indo-Aryan languages such as Hindi or Nepali its pronunciation changes to [ɾɪ] (short form) or [ɾiː] (long form), [3] leading to forms such as " Krishna" for Kṛṣṇa and " Rigveda" for ṛgveda, a pronunciation that is also prevalent among contemporary pandits. [4] In the Southern Indo-Aryan language Sinhala, vocalic r in Sanskrit words is pronounced as [ur] or [ru], depending on the phonological context.
In Czech and Slovak, the syllabic r is present in many common words. Strč prst skrz krk! ( Czech and Slovak for “Stick a finger through your throat!”) is a sentence with no obvious vowels, where each of the four r’s is syllabic (the most sonorant segment of a syllable), or in other words, vocalic (acting as a vowel).
- References
- ^ a b Burrow, Thomas (2001). The Sanskrit Language (1st Indian ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 105. ISBN 8120817672.
- ^ a b Deshpande, Madhav M. (1993), "Genesis of Rgvedic Retroflexion", Sanskrit & Prakrit: Sociolinguistic Issues, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p. 178, ISBN 8120811364
- ^ Cardona, George (2003), "Sanskrit", in Cardona, George; Jain, Dhanesh (eds.), The Indo-Aryan Languages, New York: Routledge, p. 257, ISBN 0700711309
- ^ Coulson, Michael (2006). Sanskrit. Chicago: Contemporary Books. p. 5. ISBN 0071426663.
{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)
Are r-colored vowels only found in American English, or in other rhotic varieties of English as well (e.g. West Country, Scots)? (Although presumably they would be r-coloured;) ) Iapetus ( talk) 11:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The sections "In singing", "In Mandarin Chinese" and "In Quebec French" need source citations. Lisapaloma ( talk) 13:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I dimly recall from past reading that in General American there is r-coloring in words like "fear" and "bear", though there is no mention of it in this article.
I thought that "fear" is between /fɪr/ and /fir/ for many Americans (though /fɪr/ or /fir/ for others), and that this in-between sound never appears except before /r/.
And I thought that "bear" is between /bɛr/ and /ber/ for many Americans (though /bɛr/ or /ber/ for others), and that again this in-between sound never appears except before /r/.
Am I just remembering wrong here? Duoduoduo ( talk) 16:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, Triphthong#First segment is the nucleus says that in British Received Pronunciation, [eɪ] becomes [ɛə] before /r/. (Sorry I can't render the diacritic underneath the ɪ and the ə.) Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
"bear" has a "tensed ash (ae)" in the current trend of American accents, sitting in the shadow of the cot-caught merger. This is sometimes loosely transcribed with [ɛə], but in reality, many languages have ɛ phonemes that overlap this sound. Also, it's somewhere between ɛ and æ, but even further fronted (in terms of formants). This doesn't have anything to do with r-coloring; r-coloring is a process that makes vowels more rhotic. 24.194.51.254 ( talk) 19:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I propose that this article be renamed to Rhotic vowel, which currently redirects to this page. The primary reasoning is for consistency across article titles. As the article for R-like consonants is named Rhotic consonant, it would make since for R-like vowels to likewise be named Rhotic Vowel. This also would stay consistent with other article titles such as Nasal vowel. Zombiedude347 ( talk) 02:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
would this make /ɹ/ a semivowel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livakno ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
IP, please re-read the lead, specifically this part: R-colored vowels can be articulated in various ways: the tip or blade of the tongue may be turned up during at least part of the articulation of the vowel (a
retroflex articulation) or the back of the tongue may be bunched. In addition, the vocal tract may often be constricted in the region of the
epiglottis.
What does it have to do with
Talk:Voiced_alveolar_and_postalveolar_approximants#Two_symbols;_only_one_explained (pharyngealization aside, [
ɹ can be pharyngealized as most other consonants)? I was talking about rhotic consonants, not rhotacized (retroflexed/pharyngealized/whatever) vowels.
Sol505000 (
talk)
03:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
the second one affects both (since the topic of that article is purely phonetic yet the full article is filled with phonology terms and discussion). My answers is "OK" while your answer is "OR". Once a questiones is asked it has to be discussed, and the asker doesn't own the question once it's in public discussion.This is putting words in my mouth as your interpretation of what I said is not the same as what I actually said. You should've asked for clarification first and then maybe ask me to make a separate thread here, or make it yourself.
So it's has nothing to do with "put words in my mouth" or something and I didn't mention you at all when tagging that articleYet you're admitting that the reason you tagged this article was me.
For rhotic vowel I believe if using phonology term on phonetics is OR then it should be moved to retroflex vowel or vowel coarticulated with retroflex approximant.You do realize that rhotic vowel is a redirect to this article, right? It's not its actual title.
The tone of this entire article is weird since apart from phonetic topic the entire article is filled with phonology discussion and more importantly the article title is named after phonology term.I'm not sure whether that's the case. In the case of vowels, rhotic or rhotacized seems to be a well-defined term describing a range of retroflex-like coarticulations. This is in contrast to the term rhotic consonant, which is purely phonological and phonetically meaningless. Sol505000 ( talk) 03:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we want WP:OR labels such as "rhotic approximant" or "non-rhotic approximant" in the article. These names make sense only when discussing the phonology of particular language(s)/dialect(s), not when discussing the sounds (phones) themselves. A "rhotic" is not a type of sound as it can be almost anything.You didn't say the combination of "rhotic" and "consonant"
is not a type of sound. You said exactly rhotic
is not a type of sound as it can be almost anything.So if you believed I put words in your mouth you should check if there's any inconsistency between what you said and what you meant to say, as your statement, per common understanding, would mean
whether it's OK or it's OR to apply an ad hoc phonology term (rhotic) for phonetic purpose(my interpretation or "put words in your mouth"). That no longer that important now that you have (at least partially) clarified what you really meant to say.
In the case of vowels, rhotic or rhotacized seems to be a well-defined term describing a range of retroflex-like coarticulationsdoesn't seem to stand because sources in the article seems to use the term "rhotic vowel" phonologically. "R-colored vowel" also is not too much better than rhotic because "r-colored" and "r-like" aren't semantically different enough. No terms seems to be completely without OR problem if we requires phonetic (as opposed to phonology) strictly, give this sound is an acoustic unbrella term allowing different kind of articulations (just like the rhotic alveolar consonant). 146.96.28.222 ( talk) 01:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like to learn the origin of the term name. Why is it called "colored" when it has nothing to do with colors? Wolf O'Donnel ( talk) 04:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)