![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The /w/ and /r/ are described as bilabial and alveolar approximants. If this is the case, please use the appropriate IPA symbols. Using a convenient transcription and calling it IPA only confuses people. It's not a problem in a grammar, but is in an encyclopedia, especially when it's covert. kwami 08:11, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
The allophony rules are given as, e.g.,
I would think that this should be
since it's simply describing the realization of the two phonemes, but I'm not sure enough of the original intent to make the change. Would someone correct the entry or explain why it should stay as it is (so no one else makes that mistake)? -- CRGreathouse 22:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This analysis of Ubykh phonology has bothered me ever since I first encountered it. 84 consonant phonemes and 2 vowels looks to me like an extreme misanalysis. I don't speak Ubykh, and so I don't know if there's internal evidence in the language that supports the conventional analysis, but based on what I do know, I would guess that it would be better to consider the various vowel sounds as phonemic (giving a 3- or 5-vowel system) and some of the consonant variations (e.g. labialization) as allophonic. I hesitate to put this in the article, at least with my current state of knowledge, but maybe someone who knows more can say more... -- Marnen Laibow-Koser ( talk) ( desk) 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not studied Ubykh myself, and this seemingly wasteful analysis bothered me at first, too. However, I have since seen a reason that it seems to be a more accurate analysis than 6 vowel phonemes. the combination of palatalization and the schwa, for example, makes [i], so it would make sense to just call it an /i/ and not worry with all the superscript j's. However, we must remember that the palatalization goes with the consonant, not the vowel, and therefore must be tagged with it. I have seen in my wiki-browsing that such caucasian languages will not shy from single consonant verb roots and such. And a root, if a vowel, will be a or schwa. However, a consonant itself may be palatalized or labialized. therefore, we should tag them as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.106.138 ( talk) 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted some recent edits to this page, and explained myself in here. The discussion concerns many articles, so I thought it would be a good idea to keep it central. I hereby invite everyone who is interested to join the discussion on Talk:Northwest Caucasian languages. Thank you
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The /w/ and /r/ are described as bilabial and alveolar approximants. If this is the case, please use the appropriate IPA symbols. Using a convenient transcription and calling it IPA only confuses people. It's not a problem in a grammar, but is in an encyclopedia, especially when it's covert. kwami 08:11, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
The allophony rules are given as, e.g.,
I would think that this should be
since it's simply describing the realization of the two phonemes, but I'm not sure enough of the original intent to make the change. Would someone correct the entry or explain why it should stay as it is (so no one else makes that mistake)? -- CRGreathouse 22:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This analysis of Ubykh phonology has bothered me ever since I first encountered it. 84 consonant phonemes and 2 vowels looks to me like an extreme misanalysis. I don't speak Ubykh, and so I don't know if there's internal evidence in the language that supports the conventional analysis, but based on what I do know, I would guess that it would be better to consider the various vowel sounds as phonemic (giving a 3- or 5-vowel system) and some of the consonant variations (e.g. labialization) as allophonic. I hesitate to put this in the article, at least with my current state of knowledge, but maybe someone who knows more can say more... -- Marnen Laibow-Koser ( talk) ( desk) 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not studied Ubykh myself, and this seemingly wasteful analysis bothered me at first, too. However, I have since seen a reason that it seems to be a more accurate analysis than 6 vowel phonemes. the combination of palatalization and the schwa, for example, makes [i], so it would make sense to just call it an /i/ and not worry with all the superscript j's. However, we must remember that the palatalization goes with the consonant, not the vowel, and therefore must be tagged with it. I have seen in my wiki-browsing that such caucasian languages will not shy from single consonant verb roots and such. And a root, if a vowel, will be a or schwa. However, a consonant itself may be palatalized or labialized. therefore, we should tag them as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.106.138 ( talk) 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted some recent edits to this page, and explained myself in here. The discussion concerns many articles, so I thought it would be a good idea to keep it central. I hereby invite everyone who is interested to join the discussion on Talk:Northwest Caucasian languages. Thank you