Talk:Alveolar clicks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Phonetics Task Force.


There is a postalveolar click consonant in the Miqmaq or Mi'kmaw language that is also represented by the letter 'q.' 01:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no clicks in the Americas. The Míkmaq article states <q> is a velar fricative, [x]. kwami 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


<t.> is used for a retroflex stop, so this should be <t!> to be consistent with the proposal and the dental click a <t[!>. This should also be included on the Kirshenbaum page. Rhdunn (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Covered in the article for that click. Ref, though? — kwami (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This page lists both <c!> and <t.!> for the Kirshenbaum transcription. Kirshenbaum ( lists <c!> as either alveolar or palatal in Appendix D and E. The note associated with the Kirshenbaum entry in this page states "Using 〈c!〉 for 〈ǂ〉 and 〈t.!〉 for 〈ǃ〉 in more in keeping with the philosophy of the proposal, which was that the !-diacritic for clicks should accompany the homorganic stop." However, according to Appendix C of the Kirshenbaum proposal, <.> is used for retroflex and <[> for dental. Thus, you have <t[ t t.> for the dental, alveolar and retroflex voiceless plosives (also per Appendix D). Therefore, to be in keeping with the Kirshenbaum proposal which uses <!> to denote clicks of which <p!> <c!> (palatal) and <k!> are based on their equivalent stops. Therefore, the dental click should be <t![> or <t[!> and the alveolar click <t!>. Rhdunn (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Will delete the note. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. --regentspark (comment) 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Alveolar clickAlveolar clicksRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Recently, the click articles (Bilabial clicks, Dental clicks, Alveolar click, Lateral clicks, Palatal clicks) were moved to plural-titled articles. Then this one was moved back. They should be consistently pluralized, so move this one or the others, whichever the MOS prefers. (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support The reason given for the move was the MOS. However, this is the kind of case you have with Romance languages: it is not a single topic, there is no "alveolar click" except as a member of a category, and people get confused by singular usage. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Nor is there any plosive except as a member of a category, but that article title is singular too. Actually, I'm not even sure your claim is accurate, but it's irrelevant anyway. As for the claim people get confused, the current use of plural titles is far more confusing. Andrewa (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Motivation for plural is not within WP:MOS.
Earlier Talk on this was left by Kwami without conclusion (and, before talking!, Kwami already had reverted: Talk:11:32, Revert: 11:26. It appears that Kwami only goes with procedures --including Talk-- when it suits them. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A great example ...[edit]

is the wonderful song performed live on stage by the young Miriam Makeba in 1960, commonly called the Click Song: audio only Now I wonder if this would actually have a place in the article, or if you guys rather don't want to see these "examples" in a phonology-related (read: "linguistic", thus scientific) article. -andy (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a great example, even if the audio quality isn't the best. However, we need to consider copyright. Probably a clip would be okay. We'd also need a transcription so people can follow with which are the q's. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Prose Quality
Well-written Yes
Structure: The article is structured well, though the lead is rather long and incorporates a table which may be better integrated into a body section.
Understandable: The article is not bogged down with jargon and so should be easily understood. It has numerous links to other pages to assist in understanding.
  • Verifiability: Only three sources, though Tucker et al. (1977) seems comprehensive. Some areas may want to be more thoroughly sourced, particularly the claim at the end which I have tagged as citation needed.
  • Coverage of Topic: The article adequately covers the topic and contains all the relevant information on this particular phone.
Neutral Point of View: Yes
Supporting Material: Uses tables and infoboxes appropriately to organize content in an easy to use manner

Overall rating: B

Content-wise, the article is very good. I recommend some copy editing particularly with regards to the long lead section.

Wugapodes (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)