Template talk:Consonants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Damned good idea to use a compact IPA-table as a template. Keep improving it!

Peter Isotalo 12:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Needs a link to palatal ejective, though. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he'd put it in, then took it out at my suggestion. It made the template cluttered, and there are several other rare consonants that aren't linked from the template, so it won't be complete regardless. kwami 00:57, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

Alveolo-palatal fricatives[edit]

Um, as far as I know, the alveolo-palatal fricatives ɕ, ʑ are not coarticulated. They have just one place of articulation, slightly behind the alveolar ridge, but farther forward than the postalveolar consonants. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

They are not doubly articulated, and according to Ladefoged they're postalveolar. According to him, he difference between alveolo-palatals, palato-alveolars, and retroflex consonants (of the Polish/Mandarin variety) is in their degree of palatalization.
They are sometimes described as further back than the postalveolars, and indeed that used to be their position in the official IPA chart, but I've never seen them described as further front. kwami 20:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Angr's concern has prompted me to consider merging all of the sections of this template into one table, highlighting which manners of articulation are non-pulmonic and which places are co-articulated.  Denelson83  00:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


The vowel chart template has the vowels de-underlined. Seeing as how the typical wikipedia convention is to not link IPA due to the underline, should we also force a de-underline for this consonant chart? AEuSoes1 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't everybody jump up at once. I got it taken care of. AEuSoes1 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fix the over-height row[edit]

The trills and co-articulated approximant row is too high and inconsistent with the other rows. I tried to fix it, but could not keep the changes done after the change that messed that row. Any can help? Tache 13:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is on your end. You'll want to either increase your screen resolution or decrease the text size in your browser. -- Denelson83 17:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dental stops[edit]

I'm assuming there was a reason denelson83 reverted my edits. Is there something wrong with linking to the dental stops or is there something wrong with the dental stop pages being on Wikipedia in the first place? Also, since I did the formatting on the left after I included the dental consonants is it safe to assume that I can reinclude that edit? Otherwise the table looks kind of funny (at least on computers with my resolution). Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Kwami, linking from this template to the dental stop articles is actually redundant. -- Denelson83 22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
huh? The dental stops are different articles. Is it redundant to have separate articles? Because if not then it's not redundant to link to them as well. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dental approximant[edit]

I am trying to put a link to dental approximants but having trouble with the coding. Can anyone help? Nlsanand 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it even appropriate to have that page? The dental approximant is noncontrastive with the dental fricative. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I knew the difference was because of the explanation of the dental approximant being present in Spanish. So I am assuming it is contrastive, but again I am not a linguist. Nlsanand 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It's an allophone in Spanish, so it's not contrastive. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand in Spanish it's an allophone of the voiced dental plosive. However, most linguists seem to distinguish it from voiced dental fricative, ie it still contrasts with the fricative even if it is not an independant phoneme in any language. Nlsanand 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and linguists also distinguish an apical /s/ from a laminal one, it doesn't mean it each needs a whole page to itself. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't that mean though they are contrastive, and therefore should be included, as opposed to not? Nlsanand 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No. Contrastiveness is in regards to language inventories, not in regards to linguistic discussions. We should probably move this discussion to Talk:Voiced dental fricative Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Dental approximant. Nlsanand 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Stop" vs "Plosive"[edit]

My understanding is that "stop" is a more inclusive term than "plosive", as some languages' stops have very little "plosiveness". Is there a reason "plosive" is preferred for this chart? --Krubo 00:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "Stop" is too inclusive: It also includes nasal consonants since the airflow in the mouth is completely blocked (or stopped) and instead goes through the nose. As far as /t/, /q/, /p/, etc, both terms apply equally well for all languages and the more "plosiveness" you refer to may be aspiration (as in English). Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Other affricates[edit]

I'm thinking it's not too unreasonable to include some more affricates onto the table. Namely the voiceless and voiced lateral affricates and the voiceless and voiced retroflex affricates. There are pages for them and they are sufficiently common to include. I lack the skills to do it myself, though. Anyone care to help? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also add ʨ and ʥ. But, I agree, the table code for that place is too cluttered to do it in a second.--Imz 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay I added ʨ and ʥ. Did I f*ck it up? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you did. You messed the cell borders up. You need to work with the table code. -- Denelson83 08:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Dammnit. What's this table code you speak of? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The code that defines cell border characteristics. -- Denelson83 08:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm so confused. Why can't you put the affricates in? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
How's that? kwami (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't add the voiced lateral 'cuz it's so rare. Can't verify any language which has it, actually. The few in the phone article contradict their language articles. kwami (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Actually, not that this is a big deal (in fact it's probably very very little deal), but I don't really agree with the syllabification of the table headers on the top. When I originally syllabified them, I didn't go by raw consonantvowel-consonantvowel-consonantvowel breaks, but I split them up by their original Greek and Latin roots and affixes. Hence bi-labi-al, labi-o-, dent-al, alve-ol-ar, post-, retr-o-flex, palat-al, vel-ar, uv-ul-ar, phar-yng-e-al, epi-, glott-al. This seems to make more sense to me, as they are compounds meaning things like two-lip-y, lip-and-, tooth-y, etc. If there is no consensus for this, I'll shut up. :3 - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that neither etymology nor morphology are normally factors in making syllabification breaks. We should make the same syllabification breaks that book publishers do. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, you're right... I'll consult dictionary.com. bi·la·bi·al, la·bi·o·den·tal, den·tal, al·ve·o·lar, ret·ro·flex, pal·a·tal, ve·lar, u·vu·lar, pha·ryn·ge·al, ep·i·glot·tal, glot·tal. Yeah, you're right. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I wasn't too far off for not being a lexicographer. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You know...this setup we have now, actually doesn't look bad. It's readable, no? It seems to suffice in not taking excessive horizontal space. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It works. It'd be nice if we could get the words moving vertically but I'd agree that we've got an improvement from what we had before. I thought we'd already established that... are you fishing for praise? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't work for me. There are no hyphens. Soft hyphens don't split at all, so I'm looking for something that does. Meanwhile, I'm correcting the break points: several are not at syllable boundaries ("pal-a-tal" for pa-la-tal, "ret-ro-flex" for re-tro-flex, "ep-i-glot-tal" for e-pi-glot-tal), it's okay to hyphenate morphemes when they're hyphenated anyway (prefixes, compounds), and if we do hyphenate, we shouldn't break off just one or two letters, when we could split the words more closely in half. kwami (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. You made some of the columns unnecessarily fat again. The columns are to efficiently accommodate the symbols, not their headers. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You disagree with what? You haven't restored any of the things I objected to. kwami (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not fishing for praise. I just decided I was satisfied with it. ^_^ - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Eff'n ugly"[edit]

Because Denelson83 was a bit vague in his justification for reverting Sardanaphalus, I went ahead and looked at the template in a different browser than the one I normally use. Apparantly, the pf column at the end is exceptionally wide in Firefox. Not sure how to fix this. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I use FF, and it looks fine to me.
[h] is either fricative or approximant, though, unlike the other voiceless "fricatives". kwami (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Glad to hear some reports that the current layout looks okay. When editing it, I had the possibility of smaller browser windows (e.g. not necessarily full-screen) in mind. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yes even in IE the pf column widens when I maximize the window (unless it's set on the largest font). Isn't there a way to make the width of the template the same no matter the window size? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think so, although I'm not sure how desirable that might be..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
PS Meant to add previously that the very last column ("pf") isn't and doesn't become excessively wide under Firefox v2(.0.0.16) here.

Template:CSS IPA consonant chart[edit]

I have moved the huuuuuuuge table for this template into Template:CSS IPA consonant chart. It has been wikified and I hope that it will be more easy to maintain than a messy table. -- Hello World! 06:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good for the most part, except that the links are now underlined, which interferes with legibility. kwami (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I reverted temporarily until that can be taken care of, since I don't know when you'll have the time to work on it. kwami (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I've made an error when using {{IPA}} template. It has been fixed. [1]-- Hello World! 07:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with some of the consonants in the template[edit]

K, so whilst browsing through it, I noticed that both [ħ] and [ʕ] were mixed up, as were [ç] and [ʈ], and [x] and [ɣ]. Could someone please change it? --Daniel Blanchette (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed five. Hopefully that's all of them. kwami (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


There are enough affricates that I think it's about time to create a separate row for them (this would, for the time being, relegate lateral affricates to "other laterals"). My preference is between Plosives and Fricatives, though I lack the sophisticated table-making abilities to do this with confidence. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 20:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone does something first, I'll try to put together a mock-up, hopefully sometime in the next few days. --Pi zero (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

See discussion Template talk:CSS IPA consonant chart#Merger proposal -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Table with audio[edit]

Won't it be a good idea to have such a table linked from here? (the original proposal, and a preliminary version of the table) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC).