|WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
There is a postalveolar click consonant in the Miqmaq or Mi'kmaw language that is also represented by the letter 'q.' 220.127.116.11 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)
- This page lists both <c!> and <t.!> for the Kirshenbaum transcription. Kirshenbaum (http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/faq.html) 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)
A great example ...
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 18.104.22.168 (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.