Talk:Velar consonant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics   
WikiProject icon This article 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Phonetics Task Force.

Spanish also has the velar nasal in words like mango, tango, an the like.

That's such a common allophone of /n/ that it isn't worth mentioning for individual languages. Just a note that /n/ is frequently velar before a velar stop, with some exceptions, like Korean. kwami 20:43, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)


Found an even better example of a freak language without velars than Xavante. Check it out: Vanimo :D

--Trɔpʏliʊmblah 18:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

The article about velarization needs some help, and I think the best way to help it would be to merge it with this article. Its contents are pretty technical, and the technical information seems as if it would have a better home here. --Roman à clef (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just expand on the velarization article? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 22:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Strongly agree that the two should be merged. After five years of existence, the total progress on the velarization article is a tiny amount of information and citations to the same authors. It would, however, make an excellent subsection of Velar consonant. Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Velarized (secondary articulation) is not velar (primary articulation). I agree the article doesn't include much (and indeed is unlikely to ever reach similar length as palatalization), but a better merge site might be secondary articulation, itself also a fairly short article. --Trɔpʏliʊmblah 20:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I struck my comments above. I think it should be merged with something, but I don't have enough background knowledge to have an informed opinion as to what should be merged with what. Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Making it a section in secondary articulation would work nicely. If it gets as expanded as palatalization, it can easily become an article again. We might also consider whether we want to do the same with pharyngealization. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)