![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I posted this on palatal nasal. The same thing applies on palatal lateral approximant in my opinion. The European Portuguese is a lʲ, not an ʎ, or maybe a postalveolar lateral. Is it just me or the portuguese "nh" is not a palatal nasal but a palatalized alveolar nasal? By the way i'm changing the word anho, because i am a native european portuguese speaker and "anho" rarely used word. By the way, maybe portuguese language shouldnt even be here because i really think we have a palatalized alveolar nasal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raydred ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Serbocroatian/Slovenian lj/љ is palatalized ([lʲ]), not palatal ([ʎ]) -- a rather small but still audible and consistent difference. (Think of it as a "stronger fusion" of /l/ and /j/ than [ʎ] is.) I bet the same holds for Slovak ľ (it does for Russian ль). Does someone know how ly is pronounced in those Hungarian dialects that haven't made [j] out of it? David Marjanović 23:25 CET-summertime 2005/8/5
I'm a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese, and we do have this sound (as mentioned in the article). However the sound sample does not represent the sound we recognise as being a palatal lateral approximant. Why is it?
Stating that "in most dialects, including the standard, /ʎ/ is pronounced [lj], like English <lli> in "million"" is simply wrong! I've changed this. Adiel 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It can't be pronounced differently in different places, if it's pronounced differently then it's not the same sound. -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 03:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
How is the Spanish "ll" different from the Spanish "y"? I've been exposed my whole life to a Central American dialect; is that why I've never heard a difference? Further, listening to the site http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/consonants.html (if someone can point me to a better place to listen to pronunciations...), I still hear no difference. Nor can I differentiate "m" and "ɱ" there, but I know the difference of those; nor again "ʟ" against yod and "ʎ". -- ub3rm4th 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Does the palatal lateral approximant have a voiceless counterpart? Do we not make Voiced _ / Voiceless _ pairs of pages? I searched for "voiced palatal lateral approximant" and this was more than six down on the list. -- ub3rm4th 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there such thing as a palatal lateral fricative, anywhere in the world of languages? 24.21.83.173 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
An annonymous editor has made a substantial addition to the article, claiming that:
No sources were left in the article to support these assertions, and I am challenging them. I have heard that some Brazilian Portuguese speakers pronounce LH as /lj/, but I have no reason to believe in either of the above claims. FilipeS 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm confused by what you wrote "Just because olhos and óleos are pronounced the same, it does not mean that /ʎ/ has changed to /lj/; it may be that /lj/ was changed into /ʎ/." That's not logical. It's well known that the original sound in Portuguese was /ʎ/. The same as in Spanish, and Catalan, and Italian, among others. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the /lj/ pronunciation. However, it always seemed to me that most Brazilians used /ʎ/, not /lj/; that's why I disputed the claim. But I may be wrong, as I'm not Brazilian myself. It would be great to have some scholarly source to sort this out... Regards.
FilipeS
13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I understand what you mean, now. FilipeS 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm, i don't pronounce olhos and óleos the same way, they do sound similar, but not exactly the same (the difference is more noticeable when saying the words very slowly) --
TiagoTiago (
talk)
03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
i am a native italian speaker, and from hearing spanish, i KNOW for a fact that the spanish 'll' sounds very different from the italian 'GLI', yet the article says both are ʎ. why then are they listed as the same sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.203.201 ( talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
what evidence that the IPA symbol is in fact a "turned y" (as opposed to a mirrored λ -- after all it expresses an l sound)? The Unicode name doesn't count, since IPA predates Unicode, and the Unicode people made similar blunders before. This question has some importance for font design, since the intended application for "IPA palatal lataral approximant" should trump the Unicode character name. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Not according to Greek phonology. [ʎ] is an allophonic realization of /li/, whereas <λ> is typically pronounced [l]. FilipeS 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The Savoy dialect of Arpitan has this phoneme. Please add it.-- Sonjaaa ( talk) 11:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm commenting out the sound sample, after TheMexican2007 noticed it was wrong. It sounds like [j] to me. — kwami ( talk) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It may be very similar to [j], but I can hear a difference between the two sound samples. We should leave it in for now unless this sound sample is completely the wrong sound. It's difficult for anyone to distinguish between a sound they use and a sound they don't use, but that doesn't mean the sample is incorrect. Peridragon ( talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please correct Spanish example: it is incorrect or an outlier. As native speaker of Spanish, Russian and Italian, I know that (ru) любовь and (it) famiglia have no relation to either Castillian or South American pronunciation of 'millon'; A closer match would be 'familia'. [User 72.67.230.203, 10:16, 2008 May 22]
This sound is used by many English speakers (including myself) in words like "million" or "w" (by those who do not pronounce them "mill-yun" or "double u"). Kostaki mou ( talk) 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I know the older members of my family typically use at least what would be described as a "palatalized L" in the pronunciation of "lli" words, such as 'million' or 'William'. They are from rural Tennessee. I also have Ecuadorian roots, and the palatal lateral is also used there, but in a much, much stronger variant that almost sounds more like "zh." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webeau ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
First of all thanks for all the work you guys put in these IPA articles. I save a lifetime worth of worktime!
I'd like to contribute the following observation:
The greek lowercase lambda is an upside-down lowercase y (tried it on transparent paper). The IPA version of SAMPA [L] is NOT an upside-down lowercase y (if you turn it upside-down, the bow still points to the left, which is the wrong side), but much rather a upside-down mirror-inverted lowercase y. Doesn't make it easier, but saves time figuring out what is wrong with the definition... Hope I could help!
'Rui Sousa'
79.30.201.216 ( talk) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing european portuguese from the example list, as the digraph <LH> assumes another sound. JozePedro ( talk) 23:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we make more about the distinction between a truly palatal lateral and an alveolopalatal one? We kind of have that at palatal nasal (with Polish and Japanese, which are marked as having alveolopalatal nasals), I believe I can find a source that says the palatal laterals of Italian and Catalan (and possibly other Romance languages) are alveolopalatal. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 07:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am a native speaker of catalan and know what I am talking about. I might record a sound clip myself with the real palatal lateral approximant sound if somebody tells me how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.118.9 ( talk) 12:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't actually speak any language that has this sound not am I sure how it should sound, but I gave a shot at it anyway. Is it any good? TFighterPilot ( talk) 22:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the real sound
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.210.125.90 (
talk)
23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Just think when a speaker of a language which doesn't have the sound, tries to pronounce it after hearing it, they say a velar /l/, and moreover, they think they are pronouncing it right.It is because the sound ressembles more a velar /l/ than a /j/. On the other hand, anyone would think the sound on the article ressembles a lot to a /j/. In fact I think it IS a /j/. I suggest the sound clip on the article should be changed. The clip above is absolutely right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.141.249 ( talk) 19:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Created a separate article for this, and moved some of our examples there. I suspect that several others should be moved as well. — kwami ( talk) 22:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Some Greeks use a palatal lateral approximant only for a lambda plus an "ee" vowel or diphthong followed by another vowel (which would probably be regarded as standard nowadays); some regularly pronounce a lambda followed by any "ee" sound in this manner. Kostaki mou ( talk) 04:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Recasens (2013) round up (nearly?) all phonetic studies of palatals and has found that, "... the palatal lateral ... may be alveolar or alveolopalatal with possible dental contact. ... No palatal place of articulation is ever available [for [ʎ]] in [Arrernte, Catalan, Czech, French, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Occitan, Portuguese, Slovak, Spanish and Warlpiri]. ... The consonants [ç ʎ c ɲ j] are primarily or highly frequently alveolopalatal in the world’s languages subjected to analysis in this paper and thus, may involve the formation of a closure or constriction at the alveolar and palatal zones with the tongue blade and the tongue dorsum. Among those consonants, [ç c ɲ j], but not [ʎ], may exhibit purely palatal realizations occurring at the hard palate." In light of the fact that there don't seem to be any studies to have found a 'strictly' palatal lateral, I see no reason to keep these two articles separate. Splitting the article was rash. — Lfdder ( talk) 00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
We don't have a very good idea 'which languages typically use which specific sound'. The suggestion by Recasens is that this sound is prototypically alveolo-palatal. We know it's somewhat fronted in Greek (postalveolar), but that doesn't mean we ought to reclassify it somehow. Also, if memory serves me right, the Greek study only involved two speakers. — Lfdder ( talk) 19:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I know, but I still thought it might seem that way. I don't know, that sounds a little messy. Are you not happy with the way they're laid out in my sandbox? — Lfdder ( talk) 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Catalan | [[[Catalan orthography|ull]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈul̠ʲ] | 'eye' | Alveolo-palatal. See Catalan phonology | |
Enindhilyagwa | angalya | [aŋal̠ʲa] | 'place' | Laminal postalveolar | |
Greek | [[[Greek alphabet|λιακάδα]] liakáda] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎɐˈkɐðɐ] | 'sunshine' | Postalveolar. See Modern Greek phonology | |
Hungarian | Northern dialects | [[[Hungarian orthography|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎuk] | 'hole' | Alveolo-palatal. Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology |
Italian | [[[Italian alphabet|figlio]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈfiʎːo] | 'son' | Alveolo-palatal. See Italian phonology | |
Portuguese | European | ralho] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈʁal̠ʲu] | 'I scold' | Alveolo-palatal. See Portuguese phonology |
Scottish Gaelic | [[[Scottish Gaelic alphabet|till]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [tʲʰiːʎ] | 'return' | Alveolo-palatal. See Scottish Gaelic phonology |
Can we have a resolution? JorisvS? — Lfdder ( talk) 09:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Catalan | [[[Catalan orthography|ull]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈul̠ʲ] | 'eye' | Alveolo-palatal | See Catalan phonology | |
Enindhilyagwa | angalya | [aŋal̠ʲa] | 'place' | Laminal postalveolar | ||
Greek | [[[Greek alphabet|λιακάδα]] liakáda] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎɐˈkɐðɐ] | 'sunshine' | Postalveolar | See Modern Greek phonology | |
Hungarian | Northern dialects | [[[Hungarian orthography|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎuk] | 'hole' | Alveolo-palatal | Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish
yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology |
Italian | [[[Italian alphabet|figlio]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈfiʎːo] | 'son' | Alveolo-palatal | See Italian phonology | |
Portuguese | European | ralho] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈʁal̠ʲu] | 'I scold' | Alveolo-palatal | See Portuguese phonology |
Scottish Gaelic | [[[Scottish Gaelic alphabet|till]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [tʲʰiːʎ] | 'return' | Alveolo-palatal | See Scottish Gaelic phonology |
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hungarian | Northern dialects | [[[Hungarian orthography|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎuk] | 'hole' | Alveolo-palatal | Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish
yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology |
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hungarian | Northern dialects | [[[Hungarian orthography|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎuk] | 'hole' | Alveolo-palatal | Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology |
Neither of these go over the edge for me, but this did. You can play around with the table in my sandbox if you'd like. — Lfdder ( talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone oppose merging it as it is now here? We should discuss changes to the table format that have wider impact separately. — Lfdder ( talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm tired of being accused of failed verification when it is just people that have a failed interpretation of things. Especially since it made good-quality sources seem unreliable to some of our leading Anglophone editors more than once, causing deleting of factually accurate information. In some cases the dialectal particularity is done quite clearly various times and just more limited n00b sources doesn't make the more controversial recent case (and certain kind used it, knowing not everyone reads/speaks huehuehuese to get things right, to almost scream LIAR! LIAR!), in others it would be best to just avoid varietal labels such as 'European' when they actually apply to >50% of the scope of Portuguese-speaking territory or population instead of ~4%, but then it wouldn't take place because I almost never make a decent case here and people probably think it is me trying to win the game so I'm just ignored (not by everyone, before folks think I'm a bitch ungrateful).
Well, whatever the drama, the source says that when people are first learning to produce a Brazilian palatal lateral, their first strategy is [li ~ lɪ̯] (probably they meant [lj], semivowel is allophone of the vowel in Portuguese), that then becomes [lʲ] and the final outcome may be either the perfected [ʎ] or the alternative [j]. This perhaps would be observed for the palatal nasal too if Brazilian Portuguese didn't have, in a general term, its vocalization to a nasal palatal glide.
Obviously, with rural isolation, illiteracy, influence from foreign languages and more, Brazilian Portuguese would only be a lot less prescriptive-based than European Portuguese, and some of these communities eventually freeze their development of the phoneme production somewhere in the way, that indeed does become homophonous with the consonant + vowel cluster. A proof that what I am saying is true and known, is the widely reported process of simplification of /nj/ [ɲ] into /ɲ/ [j~] (a much bigger difference) in rural regions, especially the Northeast. Rapper Ouriço actually inserted this among his sources, that reported the very known pronunciation of Antônio as 'Antonho' (Tonho is actually nickname for Antônio in all of Brazil, instead of Tónio of Portugal).
Also, unlike the Portuguese, Brazilians may merge /ʎ/ not only with /li(V)/ but also with individual /l/ or /i/ to the exception of few words for each, so it doesn't make sense to assume that this merger is non-existant or unheard of. It wouldn't make sense, even because of assimilation, especially the close palatal vowel that makes about half of the consonant repertory of Portuguese come with a different flavor in Brazil, be it palatalization or velarization. Lguipontes ( talk) 07:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This sound is not used in any version of English that I am aware of. The sound in 'million' is completely different. Can you tell me exactly what the sources say on the subject please. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I was the one who suggested this topic be discussed on the talk page. I speak American English (not quite General American, though), and million for me is something like [ˈmɘɫjən] or [ˈmɘɫin̩], without the palatal lateral. However, I have heard some American speakers, I'm not sure where, but maybe in old movies or TV shows, who do fuse the [lj] together to [ʎ], [ʎː], or {IPA|[jj]}} as Wells says, and say million as [ˈmɪʎən] or [ˈmɪjən]. This pronunciation might only be used by old people today (I'm not sure), but it certainly has existed. Perhaps the note is unclear on how uncommon the pronunciation is. — Eru· tuon 17:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I looked for more sources, and all that came up in my research is the variety of English spoken in County Donegal, which features [ʎ] as an allophone of the sequence /lj/ (what a shocker, eh?). Maybe someone else will have more luck. Peter238 ( talk) 03:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
30 years is a moderate amount of time for the distribution of a feature to change, though if it was "frequent" in 1982, I see no reason to doubt that it is still common without additional sourcing casting doubt on this. Martin's critique of including it here and at Help:IPA for English seems to be based primarily on the difference between what we might call English [ʎ] and Italian [ʎ]. The two can be phonetically distinct while still both being patalal. In the case of Italian, as this article states, the sound is alveolo-palatal. If the English sound is simply palatal, I can imagine such a distinction being notable enough for those who have the ear for it (I do not). As such, I have restored million at IPA for Italian as this sound is the closest equivalent we have to Italian [ʎ], even for those who pronounce million with a [lj] sequence. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary: [1] (/ɲ/~/nj/) [2] (/ʎ/~/lj/) i.e. "canyon : ɲ = million : ʎ" :-| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.101.99.101 ( talk) 08:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be better to continue this discussion on the Help:IPA for Italian talk page as I have agreed to leave things as they were here. See you there. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.101.99.101 ( talk) 13:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how this is general American. If I'm interpreting it correctly, it's like how a mafioso says millions, which makes sense from Italian influence. Combined with Donegal influence, would centre it in NYC and maybe Boston. The l is definitely pronounced in general American.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 17:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
It's been said many times before, and all those who said it were right: the current sample file does not represent correctly the palatal lateral approximant, it sounds awfully pronounced by any native speaker of a language which actually has the sound, like Portuguese and Italian. So many people have pointed it out over the years, and nobody has uploaded a new file... I will try to do it myself then. 213.245.152.220 ( talk) 21:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
In fact I don't even need to register it, there is already a correct version saved in Wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d9/20060108134929%21Palatal_lateral_approximant.ogg I just don't know how to replace the current file with this correct one. Anyone? 213.245.152.220 ( talk) 21:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Whilst I (and many others) indeed agree that the audio sample should be changed, I would propose reverting to the second 2015 version instead ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d9/20170108165501%21Palatal_lateral_approximant.ogg, recorded in 2011), rather than the original 2005 version. Despite being slightly lower quality recording-wise, the 2015 version better demonstrates the pronunciation, once word-initially and once intervocalically, consistent with the samples on other IPA pages.
That said, either one would be still be better than the 2006 version currently in use, as User:EvenT pointed out way back in 2011. It seems User:Leonel_Sohns, when reverting the file in 2020, might’ve thought that OP was referring to the 2006 version (as I did too initially, based on the archive URL above for the 2005 one saying 2006, the date it was replaced). It’s also not clear why User:JMCF125 reverted to the 2011 version back in 2017. As far as I can tell, in neither case were those reversions the result of discussions on this talk page. In fact, both reversions were to recordings that had already be decided to be less than accurate by native users of the sound.
Can someone with file overwrite privileges please look into this again? As it is, the current audio is actually an impediment for students learning phonology, myself included. We should either get User:Peter_Isotalo to re-record this one, or consider replacing all the IPA sound samples with the ones from Glossika Phonics on YouTube, after appropriate licensing of course. Barring that, or in the meantime, we should at least revert to the second 2015 version. Rubixmann ( talk) 05:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The sound clip is just a regular Voiced palatal approximant. 88.241.80.192 ( talk) 16:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I posted this on palatal nasal. The same thing applies on palatal lateral approximant in my opinion. The European Portuguese is a lʲ, not an ʎ, or maybe a postalveolar lateral. Is it just me or the portuguese "nh" is not a palatal nasal but a palatalized alveolar nasal? By the way i'm changing the word anho, because i am a native european portuguese speaker and "anho" rarely used word. By the way, maybe portuguese language shouldnt even be here because i really think we have a palatalized alveolar nasal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raydred ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Serbocroatian/Slovenian lj/љ is palatalized ([lʲ]), not palatal ([ʎ]) -- a rather small but still audible and consistent difference. (Think of it as a "stronger fusion" of /l/ and /j/ than [ʎ] is.) I bet the same holds for Slovak ľ (it does for Russian ль). Does someone know how ly is pronounced in those Hungarian dialects that haven't made [j] out of it? David Marjanović 23:25 CET-summertime 2005/8/5
I'm a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese, and we do have this sound (as mentioned in the article). However the sound sample does not represent the sound we recognise as being a palatal lateral approximant. Why is it?
Stating that "in most dialects, including the standard, /ʎ/ is pronounced [lj], like English <lli> in "million"" is simply wrong! I've changed this. Adiel 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It can't be pronounced differently in different places, if it's pronounced differently then it's not the same sound. -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 03:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
How is the Spanish "ll" different from the Spanish "y"? I've been exposed my whole life to a Central American dialect; is that why I've never heard a difference? Further, listening to the site http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/consonants.html (if someone can point me to a better place to listen to pronunciations...), I still hear no difference. Nor can I differentiate "m" and "ɱ" there, but I know the difference of those; nor again "ʟ" against yod and "ʎ". -- ub3rm4th 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Does the palatal lateral approximant have a voiceless counterpart? Do we not make Voiced _ / Voiceless _ pairs of pages? I searched for "voiced palatal lateral approximant" and this was more than six down on the list. -- ub3rm4th 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there such thing as a palatal lateral fricative, anywhere in the world of languages? 24.21.83.173 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
An annonymous editor has made a substantial addition to the article, claiming that:
No sources were left in the article to support these assertions, and I am challenging them. I have heard that some Brazilian Portuguese speakers pronounce LH as /lj/, but I have no reason to believe in either of the above claims. FilipeS 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm confused by what you wrote "Just because olhos and óleos are pronounced the same, it does not mean that /ʎ/ has changed to /lj/; it may be that /lj/ was changed into /ʎ/." That's not logical. It's well known that the original sound in Portuguese was /ʎ/. The same as in Spanish, and Catalan, and Italian, among others. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the /lj/ pronunciation. However, it always seemed to me that most Brazilians used /ʎ/, not /lj/; that's why I disputed the claim. But I may be wrong, as I'm not Brazilian myself. It would be great to have some scholarly source to sort this out... Regards.
FilipeS
13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I understand what you mean, now. FilipeS 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hm, i don't pronounce olhos and óleos the same way, they do sound similar, but not exactly the same (the difference is more noticeable when saying the words very slowly) --
TiagoTiago (
talk)
03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
i am a native italian speaker, and from hearing spanish, i KNOW for a fact that the spanish 'll' sounds very different from the italian 'GLI', yet the article says both are ʎ. why then are they listed as the same sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.203.201 ( talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
what evidence that the IPA symbol is in fact a "turned y" (as opposed to a mirrored λ -- after all it expresses an l sound)? The Unicode name doesn't count, since IPA predates Unicode, and the Unicode people made similar blunders before. This question has some importance for font design, since the intended application for "IPA palatal lataral approximant" should trump the Unicode character name. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Not according to Greek phonology. [ʎ] is an allophonic realization of /li/, whereas <λ> is typically pronounced [l]. FilipeS 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The Savoy dialect of Arpitan has this phoneme. Please add it.-- Sonjaaa ( talk) 11:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm commenting out the sound sample, after TheMexican2007 noticed it was wrong. It sounds like [j] to me. — kwami ( talk) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It may be very similar to [j], but I can hear a difference between the two sound samples. We should leave it in for now unless this sound sample is completely the wrong sound. It's difficult for anyone to distinguish between a sound they use and a sound they don't use, but that doesn't mean the sample is incorrect. Peridragon ( talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please correct Spanish example: it is incorrect or an outlier. As native speaker of Spanish, Russian and Italian, I know that (ru) любовь and (it) famiglia have no relation to either Castillian or South American pronunciation of 'millon'; A closer match would be 'familia'. [User 72.67.230.203, 10:16, 2008 May 22]
This sound is used by many English speakers (including myself) in words like "million" or "w" (by those who do not pronounce them "mill-yun" or "double u"). Kostaki mou ( talk) 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I know the older members of my family typically use at least what would be described as a "palatalized L" in the pronunciation of "lli" words, such as 'million' or 'William'. They are from rural Tennessee. I also have Ecuadorian roots, and the palatal lateral is also used there, but in a much, much stronger variant that almost sounds more like "zh." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webeau ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
First of all thanks for all the work you guys put in these IPA articles. I save a lifetime worth of worktime!
I'd like to contribute the following observation:
The greek lowercase lambda is an upside-down lowercase y (tried it on transparent paper). The IPA version of SAMPA [L] is NOT an upside-down lowercase y (if you turn it upside-down, the bow still points to the left, which is the wrong side), but much rather a upside-down mirror-inverted lowercase y. Doesn't make it easier, but saves time figuring out what is wrong with the definition... Hope I could help!
'Rui Sousa'
79.30.201.216 ( talk) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing european portuguese from the example list, as the digraph <LH> assumes another sound. JozePedro ( talk) 23:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we make more about the distinction between a truly palatal lateral and an alveolopalatal one? We kind of have that at palatal nasal (with Polish and Japanese, which are marked as having alveolopalatal nasals), I believe I can find a source that says the palatal laterals of Italian and Catalan (and possibly other Romance languages) are alveolopalatal. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 07:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am a native speaker of catalan and know what I am talking about. I might record a sound clip myself with the real palatal lateral approximant sound if somebody tells me how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.118.9 ( talk) 12:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't actually speak any language that has this sound not am I sure how it should sound, but I gave a shot at it anyway. Is it any good? TFighterPilot ( talk) 22:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the real sound
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.210.125.90 (
talk)
23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Just think when a speaker of a language which doesn't have the sound, tries to pronounce it after hearing it, they say a velar /l/, and moreover, they think they are pronouncing it right.It is because the sound ressembles more a velar /l/ than a /j/. On the other hand, anyone would think the sound on the article ressembles a lot to a /j/. In fact I think it IS a /j/. I suggest the sound clip on the article should be changed. The clip above is absolutely right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.141.249 ( talk) 19:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Created a separate article for this, and moved some of our examples there. I suspect that several others should be moved as well. — kwami ( talk) 22:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Some Greeks use a palatal lateral approximant only for a lambda plus an "ee" vowel or diphthong followed by another vowel (which would probably be regarded as standard nowadays); some regularly pronounce a lambda followed by any "ee" sound in this manner. Kostaki mou ( talk) 04:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Recasens (2013) round up (nearly?) all phonetic studies of palatals and has found that, "... the palatal lateral ... may be alveolar or alveolopalatal with possible dental contact. ... No palatal place of articulation is ever available [for [ʎ]] in [Arrernte, Catalan, Czech, French, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Occitan, Portuguese, Slovak, Spanish and Warlpiri]. ... The consonants [ç ʎ c ɲ j] are primarily or highly frequently alveolopalatal in the world’s languages subjected to analysis in this paper and thus, may involve the formation of a closure or constriction at the alveolar and palatal zones with the tongue blade and the tongue dorsum. Among those consonants, [ç c ɲ j], but not [ʎ], may exhibit purely palatal realizations occurring at the hard palate." In light of the fact that there don't seem to be any studies to have found a 'strictly' palatal lateral, I see no reason to keep these two articles separate. Splitting the article was rash. — Lfdder ( talk) 00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
We don't have a very good idea 'which languages typically use which specific sound'. The suggestion by Recasens is that this sound is prototypically alveolo-palatal. We know it's somewhat fronted in Greek (postalveolar), but that doesn't mean we ought to reclassify it somehow. Also, if memory serves me right, the Greek study only involved two speakers. — Lfdder ( talk) 19:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I know, but I still thought it might seem that way. I don't know, that sounds a little messy. Are you not happy with the way they're laid out in my sandbox? — Lfdder ( talk) 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Catalan | [[[Catalan orthography|ull]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈul̠ʲ] | 'eye' | Alveolo-palatal. See Catalan phonology | |
Enindhilyagwa | angalya | [aŋal̠ʲa] | 'place' | Laminal postalveolar | |
Greek | [[[Greek alphabet|λιακάδα]] liakáda] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎɐˈkɐðɐ] | 'sunshine' | Postalveolar. See Modern Greek phonology | |
Hungarian | Northern dialects | [[[Hungarian orthography|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎuk] | 'hole' | Alveolo-palatal. Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology |
Italian | [[[Italian alphabet|figlio]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈfiʎːo] | 'son' | Alveolo-palatal. See Italian phonology | |
Portuguese | European | ralho] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈʁal̠ʲu] | 'I scold' | Alveolo-palatal. See Portuguese phonology |
Scottish Gaelic | [[[Scottish Gaelic alphabet|till]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [tʲʰiːʎ] | 'return' | Alveolo-palatal. See Scottish Gaelic phonology |
Can we have a resolution? JorisvS? — Lfdder ( talk) 09:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Catalan | [[[Catalan orthography|ull]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈul̠ʲ] | 'eye' | Alveolo-palatal | See Catalan phonology | |
Enindhilyagwa | angalya | [aŋal̠ʲa] | 'place' | Laminal postalveolar | ||
Greek | [[[Greek alphabet|λιακάδα]] liakáda] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎɐˈkɐðɐ] | 'sunshine' | Postalveolar | See Modern Greek phonology | |
Hungarian | Northern dialects | [[[Hungarian orthography|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎuk] | 'hole' | Alveolo-palatal | Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish
yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology |
Italian | [[[Italian alphabet|figlio]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈfiʎːo] | 'son' | Alveolo-palatal | See Italian phonology | |
Portuguese | European | ralho] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ˈʁal̠ʲu] | 'I scold' | Alveolo-palatal | See Portuguese phonology |
Scottish Gaelic | [[[Scottish Gaelic alphabet|till]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [tʲʰiːʎ] | 'return' | Alveolo-palatal | See Scottish Gaelic phonology |
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hungarian | Northern dialects | [[[Hungarian orthography|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎuk] | 'hole' | Alveolo-palatal | Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish
yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology |
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hungarian | Northern dialects | [[[Hungarian orthography|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) | [ʎuk] | 'hole' | Alveolo-palatal | Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology |
Neither of these go over the edge for me, but this did. You can play around with the table in my sandbox if you'd like. — Lfdder ( talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone oppose merging it as it is now here? We should discuss changes to the table format that have wider impact separately. — Lfdder ( talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm tired of being accused of failed verification when it is just people that have a failed interpretation of things. Especially since it made good-quality sources seem unreliable to some of our leading Anglophone editors more than once, causing deleting of factually accurate information. In some cases the dialectal particularity is done quite clearly various times and just more limited n00b sources doesn't make the more controversial recent case (and certain kind used it, knowing not everyone reads/speaks huehuehuese to get things right, to almost scream LIAR! LIAR!), in others it would be best to just avoid varietal labels such as 'European' when they actually apply to >50% of the scope of Portuguese-speaking territory or population instead of ~4%, but then it wouldn't take place because I almost never make a decent case here and people probably think it is me trying to win the game so I'm just ignored (not by everyone, before folks think I'm a bitch ungrateful).
Well, whatever the drama, the source says that when people are first learning to produce a Brazilian palatal lateral, their first strategy is [li ~ lɪ̯] (probably they meant [lj], semivowel is allophone of the vowel in Portuguese), that then becomes [lʲ] and the final outcome may be either the perfected [ʎ] or the alternative [j]. This perhaps would be observed for the palatal nasal too if Brazilian Portuguese didn't have, in a general term, its vocalization to a nasal palatal glide.
Obviously, with rural isolation, illiteracy, influence from foreign languages and more, Brazilian Portuguese would only be a lot less prescriptive-based than European Portuguese, and some of these communities eventually freeze their development of the phoneme production somewhere in the way, that indeed does become homophonous with the consonant + vowel cluster. A proof that what I am saying is true and known, is the widely reported process of simplification of /nj/ [ɲ] into /ɲ/ [j~] (a much bigger difference) in rural regions, especially the Northeast. Rapper Ouriço actually inserted this among his sources, that reported the very known pronunciation of Antônio as 'Antonho' (Tonho is actually nickname for Antônio in all of Brazil, instead of Tónio of Portugal).
Also, unlike the Portuguese, Brazilians may merge /ʎ/ not only with /li(V)/ but also with individual /l/ or /i/ to the exception of few words for each, so it doesn't make sense to assume that this merger is non-existant or unheard of. It wouldn't make sense, even because of assimilation, especially the close palatal vowel that makes about half of the consonant repertory of Portuguese come with a different flavor in Brazil, be it palatalization or velarization. Lguipontes ( talk) 07:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
This sound is not used in any version of English that I am aware of. The sound in 'million' is completely different. Can you tell me exactly what the sources say on the subject please. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I was the one who suggested this topic be discussed on the talk page. I speak American English (not quite General American, though), and million for me is something like [ˈmɘɫjən] or [ˈmɘɫin̩], without the palatal lateral. However, I have heard some American speakers, I'm not sure where, but maybe in old movies or TV shows, who do fuse the [lj] together to [ʎ], [ʎː], or {IPA|[jj]}} as Wells says, and say million as [ˈmɪʎən] or [ˈmɪjən]. This pronunciation might only be used by old people today (I'm not sure), but it certainly has existed. Perhaps the note is unclear on how uncommon the pronunciation is. — Eru· tuon 17:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I looked for more sources, and all that came up in my research is the variety of English spoken in County Donegal, which features [ʎ] as an allophone of the sequence /lj/ (what a shocker, eh?). Maybe someone else will have more luck. Peter238 ( talk) 03:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
30 years is a moderate amount of time for the distribution of a feature to change, though if it was "frequent" in 1982, I see no reason to doubt that it is still common without additional sourcing casting doubt on this. Martin's critique of including it here and at Help:IPA for English seems to be based primarily on the difference between what we might call English [ʎ] and Italian [ʎ]. The two can be phonetically distinct while still both being patalal. In the case of Italian, as this article states, the sound is alveolo-palatal. If the English sound is simply palatal, I can imagine such a distinction being notable enough for those who have the ear for it (I do not). As such, I have restored million at IPA for Italian as this sound is the closest equivalent we have to Italian [ʎ], even for those who pronounce million with a [lj] sequence. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary: [1] (/ɲ/~/nj/) [2] (/ʎ/~/lj/) i.e. "canyon : ɲ = million : ʎ" :-| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.101.99.101 ( talk) 08:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be better to continue this discussion on the Help:IPA for Italian talk page as I have agreed to leave things as they were here. See you there. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.101.99.101 ( talk) 13:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how this is general American. If I'm interpreting it correctly, it's like how a mafioso says millions, which makes sense from Italian influence. Combined with Donegal influence, would centre it in NYC and maybe Boston. The l is definitely pronounced in general American.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 17:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
It's been said many times before, and all those who said it were right: the current sample file does not represent correctly the palatal lateral approximant, it sounds awfully pronounced by any native speaker of a language which actually has the sound, like Portuguese and Italian. So many people have pointed it out over the years, and nobody has uploaded a new file... I will try to do it myself then. 213.245.152.220 ( talk) 21:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
In fact I don't even need to register it, there is already a correct version saved in Wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d9/20060108134929%21Palatal_lateral_approximant.ogg I just don't know how to replace the current file with this correct one. Anyone? 213.245.152.220 ( talk) 21:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Whilst I (and many others) indeed agree that the audio sample should be changed, I would propose reverting to the second 2015 version instead ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d9/20170108165501%21Palatal_lateral_approximant.ogg, recorded in 2011), rather than the original 2005 version. Despite being slightly lower quality recording-wise, the 2015 version better demonstrates the pronunciation, once word-initially and once intervocalically, consistent with the samples on other IPA pages.
That said, either one would be still be better than the 2006 version currently in use, as User:EvenT pointed out way back in 2011. It seems User:Leonel_Sohns, when reverting the file in 2020, might’ve thought that OP was referring to the 2006 version (as I did too initially, based on the archive URL above for the 2005 one saying 2006, the date it was replaced). It’s also not clear why User:JMCF125 reverted to the 2011 version back in 2017. As far as I can tell, in neither case were those reversions the result of discussions on this talk page. In fact, both reversions were to recordings that had already be decided to be less than accurate by native users of the sound.
Can someone with file overwrite privileges please look into this again? As it is, the current audio is actually an impediment for students learning phonology, myself included. We should either get User:Peter_Isotalo to re-record this one, or consider replacing all the IPA sound samples with the ones from Glossika Phonics on YouTube, after appropriate licensing of course. Barring that, or in the meantime, we should at least revert to the second 2015 version. Rubixmann ( talk) 05:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The sound clip is just a regular Voiced palatal approximant. 88.241.80.192 ( talk) 16:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)