Talk:Phonaesthetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Weasel terms. The sentence: "The French language is considered extremely euphonic by many, and has a plethora of contraction rules that allow one word to flow into the next." does not seem backed up and contains the terms: "considered extremely ... by many", seem like weasel terms to me.

Cacophony[edit]

Why is there no section on cacophony? There is a redirect here, but no information on the subject whatsoever. Can we fix this? 98.247.162.244 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

British Accent[edit]

The phrase cellar door has some notoriety as the reputedly most euphonic sound combination of the English language (specifically, when spoken with a British accent).

Which British accent? There are dozens, and many are quite different from one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.142.195 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Phonaesthetics vs euphony[edit]

Euphony and euphonic, by what I've read and heard are far more common terms than phonaesthetics. If this is just a quirk of my life experience than my comment here can be easily disregarded. I really believe this article would be much better under the name euphony. Euphony is far more used. Phonaesthetics is a stilted, artificial sounding, uneuphonic term that is probably seldom the term people initially enter to find this article.Tjc (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Major Changes Needed[edit]

This is entire article is in desperate need of a linguist. Everything is entirely subjective. This is part of the point of phonaesthetics, since phonaesthetic judgments ARE subjective, but what is presented here is presented as if it's objective truth, and it is not. I'd almost recommend deleting the entire article, because as it stands it's mostly disinformation. 67.58.142.175 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)