Talk:Labio-velar approximant

Might be worth pointing out that the German "w" is labiodental and thus different from the English "w" - also, examples? (131.130.121.106 11:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC))

German is illustrated at Labiodental approximant.

Monkbel has restored Belarusian ŭ, but without providing support. It only seems to be used in diphthongs, such as aŭ, eŭ, oŭ, and thus might be better characterized as a semivowel [u̯] than as an approximant [w]. kwami 11:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion takes place at Talk:Short U. --Monkbel 14:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Two Questions

It says that the sound is the "voiced labiovelar (actually labialized velar) approximant". So shouldn't the article be moved to the "voiced labialized velar approximant" and have a redirect of this title ("Voiced labial-velar approximant") to it? I think having the correct term for the title is important.

Second, in the English pronunciation part of the graph I took the liberty to change the highighted (bolded) part to the "w" instead of the double "e"'s ("ee"). If this is incorrect please change it. Thank you. 98.27.171.83 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Consistent descriptions

The title of the article is "Voiced labial-velar approximant". What is the significance of "labial-velar" as opposed to "labio-velar"? For comparison, the article on /wh/ is entitled "Voiceless labio-velar approximant". IMHO, we should combine the adjectives consistently, whether as "labio-velar" or as "labialised velar" - oops!, "labialized velar". yoyo (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The official IPA chart says "labialized velar." Have we gone from this in order to be neutral as to whether the labial aspects is secondary or coarticulataive? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The IPA chart in the article shows "w" as one of three "Co-articulated approximants". We should describe it in the standard way, and of course, not try to be "neutral" about matters of fact! Is there truly an open question about whether this sound is a co-articulation, in which the lip-rounding and the velar approximation are equally important features? If we follow the IPA standards - and we should, else we would clearly be doing "original research", thus violating the NOR guideline - we should change each and every description of the "w" sound in this article - including in its title - to "labialized velar approximant". yoyo (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

this article has a bit about variations in the pronunciation of /w/. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)