Wikipedia Help NA‑class

This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles NA This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Linguistics: Phonetics NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This page is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

This article includes a lot of very problematic contents that seems to be based on Andrews, but which is only accurate if one accepts his weird analysis. Rather than basing the entire article on Andrews it should be based on the dozens of sources that are written by people who standard linguistic theory. Some of Andrews allophones are entirely made up such as the idea that that there is a voiced allophone of t͡ɬ - I dont know of any documentation to corroborate this guess of his, which seems merely to be based on a presumed analogy with the voiced lateral phoneme. As long as the article is based only on Andrews it will not be factually accurateUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict; I've written it simultaneously with you but any way I'll leave it as it was)

First of all, this page is not sourced to any works on Classical Nahuatl phonetics, so it could be considered entirely as an OR, and thus Andrews' book (I think, it's the best known work on Classical Nahuatl at all; at least it has the thorough chapter on Nahuatl phonetics) is the only reliable source here. All allophone section is from his book. I do not think that we can throw it out just because some user (namely Maunus, whose competence in Nahuatl is unknown and cannot be a "counter-source" anyway; I very doubt it's more "outstanding" than of Andrews) does not like it with no apparent reason. If we have a much better source then we could reconsider it and come to a consensus, but until that we must leave this information as is. And especially because Wikipedia does not create knowledge but collects it from reliable sources (and Andrews' obviously is for now).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem not to understand basic policy. I dont need a countersource to remove unsourced information. I also dont need a countersource to tag the article for factual accuracy. Also Andrews book is not the best known work on classical nahuatl by a long shot, in fact Nahuatl scholars (except for some American ethnohistorians) pretty much tend to avoid it (especially the second edition, because it is full of fanciful nonsense). A much better work t follow would be Launey, which is based on commonly accepted linguistic theory and not ad hoc theory invented by a non-linguist. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you say "unsourced"? It is sourced. Unsourced is your claim about mysterious and unknown scholars who dislike the work. Launey just gives a table but nothing explains. More like phonetics "for dummies". If nobody needs additional information, be it, I'll delete the allophone section altogether (I don't care about my lost time). I hope you are glad now.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And well, the fact that you wrote "that seems to be based on Andrews" and that you didn't try correct the article but simply deleted some parts not consciously and purposely but accidentally, these lead me to a conclusion you have not read the book and have little idea about it. Good example: you deleted all the allophones of /w/ but [ʍ] in spite of the fact that they all are listed in Andrews', not only [ʍ]. It looks obviously accidental and spontaneous. I agree that his [t͡l~t͡ɬ] analysis is quite dubious from the point of view of general phonetics, but I think it is the only strange part here. At least we could come to a consensus to drop [t͡l] out, but leave all other allophones as they do not contradict neither general phonetics nor common sense as well as they are thoroughly proved and explained in the book. And I'd like say once more: it is much better to have one good source than none at all. It might be one-sided but it's not a great problem till the source is reliable.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted the allophones that are not allophones but morphophonemes. Andrews list of allophones does nt represent how lingusts describe Nahuatl. It is common knowledge that w has an unvoiced word final allophone, and this is mentioned in all grammars. But nonsense such as having m and p as allophones of w is simply Andrews making some very weird analyses. In any case having all of those allophones listed is simply confusing to the reader since we give no information under which conditions these "allophones" appear. Most of the "allophones" appear in extremely limited circumstances (because most of them are not at all allpohones but morphophonemes that are simply historical vestiges in certain words or irregular forms). Do not remove the tag untill there is consensus to do so.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explain, please, why do you delete selectively? You delete one thing from Andrews' but leave other things. I cannot see any logic in your reverts. And your claims like "It is common knowledge" are above any critics. We do not work like that here. We need sources. Until now the article was badly sourced and messed up (phonemes were listed together with allophones like [ʍ], [lː], and were they sourced? - no!), but did you pay attention to it? Seems not at all, you didn't care. Why do you so care now? I spent a couple of hours to tidy up the page, compare and fix all issues accurately with sources, but seems nobody is grateful for others' work, but it's just bluntly and roughly reverted. How stupid I was to have done all these.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because I only delete those facts that I know to be wrong. I left in information I know to be right and sourceable. True that it would have been more helkpful if I had supplied a better source, but my priority at that moment was to remove misinformation. I agree with your recent edit that removes the allophones, they are not necessary. They might be helpful if they were accompanied by information about the conditions under which they occur, but that informaiton is better given in an article on Nahuatl phonology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'm glad that this small conflict is over. You were probably right, these are redundant for practical purposes. We are on the same side anyway. Maybe the accuracy template is not need then?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least a couple items in the table from the march 9 rev. are gone. In particular the voiceless alveolar lateral fricative is missing. I cannot comment to the accuracy of that change, but I have noticed that it is commonly used on other pages when denoting a Nahuatl pronunciations (e.g. Quetzalcoatl). If it was used incorrectly then those pages (probably quite a few) will also need updates; otherwise, it would be good to have a correct (or partially correct) description in the current table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.66.191 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously they are not phonemes but allophones. I've tried not to delete allophones but separate them from phonemes and add all other allophones, but it seemed to raise objections. Now it is better not to list allophones at all. Before the recent time the table was a little mess, now it's somewhat good and straightforward so we just have to correct other articles.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah unvoiced lateral is an allophone of /l/. There are some well established allophones in Nahuatl that could be included if there is a need to, but Andrews includes a lot of "allophones" that are really morphophonemes or vestiges of ancient historical relations between words. These are not that useful, and in some cases highly speculative and potentially misleading. I understand that including some allophones can be useful for producing accurate IPA transcriptions - but on the other hand having transciptions be strictly phonemic seems ok too. I would think that if we are to include allophones either we should find allophones listed in a work other than Andrews, preferably one that is a general introduction to Nahuatl based on standard linguistic theory, or one that is specialized in phonology. But I am fine with the article as it stands now, including only the phonemes. If phonemes are missing they are the phonemes found in modern varieties, but not in the classical one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid there are no such works. As of a dead language the exact CN sounds are difficult to define strictly in the terms of pure phonetics, but there is a possibility to find some allophones based on the ancient spelling. If, say, we'd find in some ms. -mp- in the place of normal -np- we can claim the [m] allophone of /n/, and so on. I think Andrews tried to do this in some instances. But other things like [ɬ], [ʍ], etc. are pure speculative, but I tried not to define whether something is speculative or not by myself but leave it on the responsibility of the author who has claimed them. But then I thought all those subtleties were redundant for a general reader. As for the modern varieties there are many and it is virtually impossible to list all their peculiarities here, not to mention that materials are quite scarce and contradictory. Contrastive phonemic transcription based on an idealised form of CN is much preferable in such cases.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course there is such works. And the article isn't necessarily about classical Nahuatl anyways. It is true that there are many varities with their different phonological peculiarities, but for example the devoicing of l and w in syllable coda is near universal, and it is well attested in classical Nahuatl as well. Olmos wrote devoiced w and l as uh and lh for example. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But you named none when I asked you before. You know, I'm asking not only for the article but also for my personal (and everybody's, I suppose) interest, but you keep everything like a secret, I couldn't get anything definite from you. If you know the subject well and know good sources (I hope), it'll be good to share your knowledge with others.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would start with two articles by Una Canger, one on the historical origins of orthographical hu for w in Nahuatl, and the other is her Chapter in Making Dictionaries by Frawley and Munro. Then there is also Whorf, Campbell and Karttunens article which goes into the phonetics of glottal stops and vowel length in classical and modern. Also very good is Thomas Smith-Starks chapter on "Phonological Description in New Spain" in the 2005 volume on "Missionary Linguistics". Also Lockharts Nahuatl as Written and Lockhart and KArttunens Nahuatl in the middle years mentione these allophones.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not speak Nahuatl but there was a comparison with the Welsh language which I speak fluently. The description of the voiceless lateral fricative as being like Welsh Lloyd was highly misleading as Lloyd is actually an anglicised name where the LL is said just like in English.I replaced it with the Welsh equivalent Llwyd from which the anglicised name derives and added a short explanation. Neilj (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Help talk:IPA which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]