Talk:Alveolar consonant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics  (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-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.
 

Resonant space ... gives consonants ... their characteristic timbre[edit]

The article now reads "The laminal alveolar articulation is often mistakenly called dental, because the tip of the tongue can be seen near to or touching the teeth. However, it is the rearmost point of contact that defines the place of articulation; this is where the oral cavity ends, and it is the resonant space of the oral cavity that gives consonants and vowels their characteristic timbre." I question the statement "... the resonant space of the oral cavity [is what] gives consonants and vowels their characteristic timbre." It is certainly true for vowels, however it is far from obvious that this is true (or entirely true) for consonants. Voiceless consonants, for example do not resonate at all. If what the article says is true, there would not be any distinction between the sound of an English [t] and a Russian [t]. However, this is definitely false. It could be that the term "dental consonant" is imprecise, but I challenge the assertion that it is only the resonant cavity that defines the timbre of consonants. I would like to know the qualifications of the person who is making this assertion. Thomas Hedden, Ph.D., Slavic Linguistics, Berkeley, (1988) Thomas.Hedden (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

French realization[edit]

French 's' is apical, as in English, according to other versions of this same article. I think further reference is needed. --Daniel bg (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Japanese speakers[edit]

The article now reads: Japanese speakers often mix alveolar lateral approximant sounds in other languages with alveolar approximant sounds due to a lack of alveolar lateral approximants in their own language.

"Mix" is unclear and misleading in this context. It sounds like such speakers might sometimes use one sound and sometimes use the other, incorrectly. I think it would be clearer to say: Japanese speakers often replace alveolar lateral approximant sounds in other languages with alveolar approximant sounds due to a lack of alveolar lateral approximants in their own language.

Omc (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know(I do not actually know Japanese), officially Japanese has neither alveolar approximant nor alveolar lateral approximant. Instead they have alveolar flap, but they do sometimes pronounce that as alveolar lateral approximant. However the article reads "replace ... with alveolar approximant sounds" but in fact they replace them with alveolar tap. Also "duo to a lack of alveolar lateral approximant in their own language" though not "official" I do sometimes hear this consonant in Japanese speech, so this is not a good reason for replacing the consonants. Busukxuan (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

  • Prose Quality
Well-written Yes
Structure: Sections are rather short and the lead is rather long
Understandable: Yes. Gives good amounts of depth while still being accessable and offers links where necessary.
  • Verifiability: poorly sourced. One inline source and one general reference which is unclear as to what information it supports. I assume from the title, it references the table of sounds, however sources for the rest of the information are required.
  • Coverage of Topic: Topic is adequately covered.
Neutral Point of View: Yes
Supporting Material: Uses supporting orthographic images and tables well

Overall rating: C

The sourcing problem is what kept me from rating it higher along with the rather long lead. Incorporating much of the lead into the body of the article as well as providing sources for the information would greatly improve the article.

Wugapodes (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)