Talk:Voiced palatal lateral approximant

	Linguistics portal 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

Palatal vs palatalized(In European Portuguese)

I posted this on palatal nasal. The same thing applies on palatal lateral approximant in my opinion. The European Portuguese is a lʲ, not an ʎ, or maybe a postalveolar lateral. Is it just me or the portuguese "nh" is not a palatal nasal but a palatalized alveolar nasal? By the way i'm changing the word anho, because i am a native european portuguese speaker and "anho" rarely used word. By the way, maybe portuguese language shouldnt even be here because i really think we have a palatalized alveolar nasal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raydred (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palatal vs palatalized

Serbocroatian/Slovenian lj/љ is palatalized ([lʲ]), not palatal ([ʎ]) -- a rather small but still audible and consistent difference. (Think of it as a "stronger fusion" of /l/ and /j/ than [ʎ] is.) I bet the same holds for Slovak ľ (it does for Russian ль). Does someone know how ly is pronounced in those Hungarian dialects that haven't made [j] out of it? David Marjanović 23:25 CET-summertime 2005/8/5

Serbian љ is very clearly a palatal lateral (as audibly exemplified in the recorded samples of words such as ljuljaska linked at the article on letter lje), distinct from the palatalized alveolar lateral of Russian ль. As for Hungarian, the nowadays minoritary and non-standard Northern dialects that still keep "ly" distinct from "j" of course pronounce "ly" as a palatal lateral, which was the original sound of that digraph and the very reason for it (a completely analogous spelling to "ny" for the palatal nasal), before Hungarian adopted the yeísta pronunciation of the Budapest region as its standard. 213.37.6.23 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the palatal sound [ʎ] the one with the fusion stronger than the palatalized [lʲ] and not vice versa as you mentioned? --2.245.209.202 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Sometimes [lʲ] is used to transcribe what is actually [ʎ] (be it palatal or alveolo-palatal), but AFAIK never the other way around. Peter238 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Portuguese

I'm a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese, and we do have this sound (as mentioned in the article). However the sound sample does not represent the sound we recognise as being a palatal lateral approximant. Why is it?

Hi. I contacted the author. Adiel 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that "in most dialects, including the standard, /ʎ/ is pronounced [lj], like English <lli> in "million"" is simply wrong! I've changed this. Adiel 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confused that Portuguese "lh" is analyzed as this sound, because it sounds darned close to a palatalized [l] to me. If you listen to the sound provided here and compare it with the file "battery.wav" in this zip-file, which is supposed to be a supplement to the section on European Portuguese in the The Handbook of the International Phonetic Association you might see my point. I'm quite used to Russian pronunciation with all its palatalized consonants and I hear much differnce between that and the Portuguese sound. Exactly what feature makes the Russian sounds palatalized and this palatal?

Peter ^Isotalo 02:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first site you mentioned (IPA Lab) keeps asking me a password, but I heard the "battery.wav" sound from the zip file: the "lh" in "pilha" sounds very good to me. Actually I don't speak Russian... but listening to the corresponding sound file (for ʎ) in this site, I can tell that that sound is indeed what I hear in "pilha". Listening to your sound file, it sounds to me much like "y" in Engish "yes" or like "i" in Portuguese "saia"; in fact, I can't see any resemblance between your "lh" and a regular "l" :P Thanks. Adiel 15:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That menas you're clicking the link that says you have to be registered. Try the link in the passage "...you may click here to access a limited version of the chart."

My recording is supposed to sound similar to a [j], but it's lateral and the tounge isn't really touching the palate. But it's still very relevant to know how the Portuguese sound is supposed to differ from a palatalized [l].

Peter ^Isotalo 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be pronounced differently in different places, if it's pronounced differently then it's not the same sound. --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the variation is small enough, there may not be a distinction in the IPA. The sound could be alveolo-palatal (as it is in Italian, for example), for example, or it may be a true palatal. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 07:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish

How is the Spanish "ll" different from the Spanish "y"? I've been exposed my whole life to a Central American dialect; is that why I've never heard a difference? Further, listening to the site http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/consonants.html (if someone can point me to a better place to listen to pronunciations...), I still hear no difference. Nor can I differentiate "m" and "ɱ" there, but I know the difference of those; nor again "ʟ" against yod and "ʎ". --ub3rm4th 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Spanish 'll' is only pronounced as a palatal lateral approximant in some dialects. FilipeS 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For instance the Argentinian dialect? There, the `ll' sounds considerably more like ʒ to me. --ub3rm4th 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in the Argentinian dialects. See yeísmo. FilipeS

In castilian dialect, "y" represents [j] and "ll" [ʎ], although this pronounciation is rapidly disappearing confused with [j] or [ʝ]KekoDActyluS 21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voicing

Does the palatal lateral approximant have a voiceless counterpart? Do we not make Voiced _ / Voiceless _ pairs of pages? I searched for "voiced palatal lateral approximant" and this was more than six down on the list. --ub3rm4th 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fricative

Is there such thing as a palatal lateral fricative, anywhere in the world of languages?24.21.83.173 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy dispute: Brazilian Portuguese

An annonymous editor has made a substantial addition to the article, claiming that:

The palatal lateral approximant is no longer the majority pronunciation of the digraph LH in Brazilian Portuguese.
This pronunciation is becoming disused in Brazilian Portuguese.

No sources were left in the article to support these assertions, and I am challenging them. I have heard that some Brazilian Portuguese speakers pronounce LH as /lj/, but I have no reason to believe in either of the above claims. FilipeS 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime ago this very same information was stated on this page, and I deleted it. I repeat what I said then: Stating that in most dialects, including the standard, /ʎ/ is pronounced [lj], like English <lli> in "million" is simply wrong!

Just because olhos and óleos are pronounced the same, it does not mean that /ʎ/ has changed to /lj/; it may be that /lj/ was changed into /ʎ/. In fact, that's my perception: the sound in óleos is /ʎ/, not /lj/. The same holds for "li" in família.

I don't think I'm mistaken, but I will try to find the book the article cites. Adiel 17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm confused by what you wrote "Just because olhos and óleos are pronounced the same, it does not mean that /ʎ/ has changed to /lj/; it may be that /lj/ was changed into /ʎ/." That's not logical. It's well known that the original sound in Portuguese was /ʎ/. The same as in Spanish, and Catalan, and Italian, among others. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the /lj/ pronunciation. However, it always seemed to me that most Brazilians used /ʎ/, not /lj/; that's why I disputed the claim. But I may be wrong, as I'm not Brazilian myself. It would be great to have some scholarly source to sort this out... Regards. FilipeS 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry. I understand what you mean, now. FilipeS 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, i don't pronounce olhos and óleos the same way, they do sound similar, but not exactly the same (the difference is more noticeable when saying the words very slowly) --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and "lh" does totally sound like "lli" in the english word "million" --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all English speakers pronounce "million" with that sound. Some say "mill-yun" (probably the older pronunciation) and some say "miyyun" (probably a further development). Kostaki mou (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard "mil-lee-on" and "mil-yun", but never "miyyun"... (I'm a native speaker)Gpcfox (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy dispute: italian vs spanish

i am a native italian speaker, and from hearing spanish, i KNOW for a fact that the spanish 'll' sounds very different from the italian 'GLI', yet the article says both are ʎ. why then are they listed as the same sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.203.201 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Spanish dialects have this sound. Some of them replace it with a sound that's similar to Italian gi. This is what the note is talking about with the merger with /ʝ/. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so, youre saying that in some dialects its ʎ and in some its something else? interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.203.201 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's a very well-known and extensively studied phonological phenomenon in modern Spanish, called yeísmo. Most current Spanish speakers are yeístas, i.e. they do not pronounce "ll" as a palatal lateral but as "something else" (what that something else is, varies from dialect to dialect: most commonly /ʝ/, but also /ʒ/ particularly in Rioplatense). However, there are still some areas and pockets of speakers that maintain the traditional distinction between Spanish "ll" and "y" (mainly Bolivians, Paraguayans, Filipinos, some mostly-older speakers from Northern Castile, some of the bilingual speakers of Spanish + Catalan/Basque, plus a few others here and there). Something like 99.9% of the Spanish heard nowadays on the media is yeísta (although there are a few notable media personalities that are not, such as Iñaki Gabilondo and Constantino Romero, but this is most likely to pass by unnoticed to the ears of yeístas), as well as the Spanish commonly heard in almost every major Spanish-speaking city (Madrid, Mexico DF, Buenos Aires, etc.; even in Spanish/Catalan-bilingual Barcelona yeísmo is already widespread when speaking Spanish, even when the same speaker will strictly keep "ll" as a palatal lateral when speaking Catalan because yeísmo is still strongly stigmatized in Catalan very unlike in Spanish). So no surprise the above Italian speaker was surprised to learn Spanish "ll" can be pronounced like Italian "gli" (and in fact this was the prescribed standard pronunciation until only a few decades ago, when the RAE finally lifted the academic stigma from yeísmo—not least because most or all RAE academics are nowadays yeístas themselves). 213.37.6.23 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"turned y"

what evidence that the IPA symbol is in fact a "turned y" (as opposed to a mirrored λ -- after all it expresses an l sound)? The Unicode name doesn't count, since IPA predates Unicode, and the Unicode people made similar blunders before. This question has some importance for font design, since the intended application for "IPA palatal lataral approximant" should trump the Unicode character name. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make a difference? It turns up the same! FilipeS 19:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked about it at the IPA talk page earlier, it was claimed it should be left out, due to lack of sources. (ʎ is similar both in appearance and sound value to λ, though.) 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Greek phonology. [ʎ] is an allophonic realization of /li/, whereas <λ> is typically pronounced [l]. FilipeS 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote "similar to", I didn't mean "the same as". 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the name is that, before the days of computer fonts, people took existing type faces and rotated them to create new symbols. They already had a y, so that was easy to use. However, creating a mirror image of a letter meant casting new type, and expensive and time-consuming process. — kwami (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arpitan

The Savoy dialect of Arpitan has this phoneme. Please add it.--Sonjaaa (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to include every language that has the sound. Just a few examples. FilipeS (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean there are too many examples at close front unrounded vowel? Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in my opinion, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.204.91 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing sound sample

I'm commenting out the sound sample, after TheMexican2007 noticed it was wrong. It sounds like [j] to me. — kwami (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be very similar to [j], but I can hear a difference between the two sound samples. We should leave it in for now unless this sound sample is completely the wrong sound. It's difficult for anyone to distinguish between a sound they use and a sound they don't use, but that doesn't mean the sample is incorrect. Peridragon (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. The lateralness of it must be extremely faint, though. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kwami, you are right. The sound sample is clearly [jj], with no detectable lateral component. It is at best extremely misleading given the existence of phenomena like yeísmo. Acasson (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

erroneous languages (moved from article)

Please correct Spanish example: it is incorrect or an outlier. As native speaker of Spanish, Russian and Italian, I know that (ru) любовь and (it) famiglia have no relation to either Castillian or South American pronunciation of 'millon'; A closer match would be 'familia'. [User 72.67.230.203, 10:16, 2008 May 22]

This is a sourced example. If Castillian millon is not a palatal lateral, what is it? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In both Spain and Latin America, the palatal lateral is increasingly replaced with "y" ("yeismo"). The older sound does persist in some areas. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, such as in Castillian Spanish. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English

This sound is used by many English speakers (including myself) in words like "million" or "w" (by those who do not pronounce them "mill-yun" or "double u"). Kostaki mou (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? I'm skeptical. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not off hand, though I know I have seen more than one. I won't put it in the article itself until I find one. (I'm only a native speaker and I know how I pronounce these words (and others like "William," "bilious" and "failure"). If you pay attention when you listen to others, I'm sure you'll hear the sound occasionally. Kostaki mou (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just the other day, I heard David Attenborough use it (in the word "million") in his narration of a film. Kostaki mou (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know the older members of my family typically use at least what would be described as a "palatalized L" in the pronunciation of "lli" words, such as 'million' or 'William'. They are from rural Tennessee. I also have Ecuadorian roots, and the palatal lateral is also used there, but in a much, much stronger variant that almost sounds more like "zh." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webeau (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the upside-down "y"

First of all thanks for all the work you guys put in these IPA articles. I save a lifetime worth of worktime!

I'd like to contribute the following observation:

The greek lowercase lambda is an upside-down lowercase y (tried it on transparent paper). The IPA version of SAMPA [L] is NOT an upside-down lowercase y (if you turn it upside-down, the bow still points to the left, which is the wrong side), but much rather a upside-down mirror-inverted lowercase y. Doesn't make it easier, but saves time figuring out what is wrong with the definition... Hope I could help!

'Rui Sousa'

79.30.201.216 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 180* rotation of 'y'. This is because it's easy to rotate metal type to produce new letters for a printing press. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing euro portuguese

I'm removing european portuguese from the example list, as the digraph <LH> assumes another sound. JozePedro (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sound does it represent? Do you have a source? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has probably listened to the voice clip, which is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.125.90 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place of articulation

Should we make more about the distinction between a truly palatal lateral and an alveolopalatal one? We kind of have that at palatal nasal (with Polish and Japanese, which are marked as having alveolopalatal nasals), I believe I can find a source that says the palatal laterals of Italian and Catalan (and possibly other Romance languages) are alveolopalatal. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 07:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume yes. What exactly is the difference, dorsal vs. coronal? Do your sources also distinguish alveolopalatal from palatalized (post)alveolar, or is that what they define as alveolopalatal? — kwami (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sound clip in no way corresponds to the actual sound.

I am a native speaker of catalan and know what I am talking about. I might record a sound clip myself with the real palatal lateral approximant sound if somebody tells me how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.118.9 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not very likely that the sound clip is wrong (particularly as there is some phonetic variety amongst different languages), it would be neat if you made recording of a Catalan word with the palatal lateral like parallamps and we can then put it in the article's example table. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he is right. I am a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker and the sound clip does not correspond, by no means, to the actual sound of [ʎ]. The sound clip resembles something closer to [j], a palatal central approximant, and not the intended palatal lateral approximant. The voice clip should be replaced by another one showcasing the correct sound. Krystoffer (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I send you the recording? Do I have to sign up on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.19.197 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to upload it using the "upload file" feature, though I don't know if you need to sign up to do it. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no native ear for the phoneme, but I have done quite a bit of transcription (in a speech pathology class), and the current sound sounds identical to [j], so I'd really like to hear an upload from speakers here. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for the Norwegian example. The sound clip is not correct for our palatal L. Actually the sample from 2005 is better than the "correction" from 2006. --EvenT (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must also agree with it sounding like [j]. --JorisvS (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, in fact the 2005 sample is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.100.224 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually speak any language that has this sound not am I sure how it should sound, but I gave a shot at it anyway. Is it any good? TFighterPilot (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is the same as the one in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.125.90 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the real sound — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.125.90 (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just think when a speaker of a language which doesn't have the sound, tries to pronounce it after hearing it, they say a velar /l/, and moreover, they think they are pronouncing it right.It is because the sound ressembles more a velar /l/ than a /j/. On the other hand, anyone would think the sound on the article ressembles a lot to a /j/. In fact I think it IS a /j/. I suggest the sound clip on the article should be changed. The clip above is absolutely right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.141.249 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it would be much simpler for everyone if you registered. Of course it's the same as in the article before I am the one who uploaded it. The previous one was pretty much a /j/, mine isn't, obviously. It doesn't sound like the Spanish ll because most Spanish speakers pronounce ll as a /j/. TFighterPilot (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alveolo-palatal lateral approximant

Created a separate article for this, and moved some of our examples there. I suspect that several others should be moved as well. — kwami (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek

Some Greeks use a palatal lateral approximant only for a lambda plus an "ee" vowel or diphthong followed by another vowel (which would probably be regarded as standard nowadays); some regularly pronounce a lambda followed by any "ee" sound in this manner. Kostaki mou (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arvaniti (2007a, p. 20) says it's postalveolar. See alveolo-palatal nasal#Bibliography. — Lfdder (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no appropriate article for it, I've moved Greek to a new table 'Other'. — Lfdder (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably more languages with 'palatal' laterals that are in fact postalveolar. I'd say your current solution is good. --JorisvS (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging from Alveolo-palatal lateral approximant

Recasens (2013) round up (nearly?) all phonetic studies of palatals and has found that, "... the palatal lateral ... may be alveolar or alveolopalatal with possible dental contact. ... No palatal place of articulation is ever available [for [ʎ]] in [Arrernte, Catalan, Czech, French, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Occitan, Portuguese, Slovak, Spanish and Warlpiri]. ... The consonants [ç ʎ c ɲ j] are primarily or highly frequently alveolopalatal in the world’s languages subjected to analysis in this paper and thus, may involve the formation of a closure or constriction at the alveolar and palatal zones with the tongue blade and the tongue dorsum. Among those consonants, [ç c ɲ j], but not [ʎ], may exhibit purely palatal realizations occurring at the hard palate." In light of the fact that there don't seem to be any studies to have found a 'strictly' palatal lateral, I see no reason to keep these two articles separate. Splitting the article was rash. — Lfdder (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Would we also want to do the same for the nasal? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with merging as long as we do keep separate tables for the variations. --JorisvS (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean for the lateral or the nasal, or both? — Lfdder (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both, I guess. --JorisvS (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that something like this would suffice. — Lfdder (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very much not so. It does not give any overview of the various varieties and the languages that have been found to use it. If that is the result I would oppose any merger. --JorisvS (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The varieties and the languages that have been found to use...what? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, varieties of a "palatal lateral", "palatal nasal" etc., i.e. palatalized apical/laminal (post)alveolar, alveolo-palatal, and dorso-palatal. And of course an 'unknown' for all those instances where it is not known which of them is used. --JorisvS (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like having one table, but am willing to compromise to have multiple tables in one article. But what exactly is lost if the same information is put in one table? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're proposing that we split the table up into these in place of the note? And this is an impasse for you? How awfully pedantic. :-) Anyway, I've split them up, though I'd still rather have them all in one table. — Lfdder (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is lost is a clear and easy overview of possible articulations that are usually subsumed under "palatal" and which languages typically use which specific sound. If the info is buried deep into notes (and absence thereof) in one big table, one will have to invest considerable effort to get an overview of not even half the quality. --JorisvS (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a very good idea 'which languages typically use which specific sound'. The suggestion by Recasens is that this sound is prototypically alveolo-palatal. We know it's somewhat fronted in Greek (postalveolar), but that doesn't mean we ought to reclassify it somehow. Also, if memory serves me right, the Greek study only involved two speakers. — Lfdder (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the state of our knowledge is quite limited. Having separate tables is also better expressing exactly that to our readers. --JorisvS (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Having separate tables is also better expressing exactly that to our readers" I don't understand. I'd say on the contrary. Splitting them up makes it seem more definitive or authoritative. — Lfdder (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a big table labeled "Unclear" and a few small ones quickly points out to the reader that the state of our knowledge is rather limited. Having only only one table with notes about the specific articulation whenever available does not point to such lack of knowledge. --JorisvS (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be under the assumption our table is fairly complete and accurate (which it probably isn't). I meant that it'd make that division btn alveolo-palatals, postalveolars, etc. seem authoritative/definitive. If the issue is to make our lack of knowledge obvious, I'd rather we just have an opening line, "Where place of articulation is not specified, it should not be assumed that it is palatal", or something like that. This is something that is better conveyed in writing, and not by some sort of presentation trick. — Lfdder (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean exactly when you say 'seem authoritative/definitive'? --JorisvS (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that it may give the impression that they're regularly categorised like that. — Lfdder (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to what? --JorisvS (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to not at all. We should not make it seem like these are contrastive sounds. — Lfdder (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These would be on the same page. What we would be indicating is that these are (articulatorily/acoustically) distinct, but not contrastive. We would be saying that the subclasses are not regularly distinguished (i.e. your 'not at all'). Maybe an alternative could be color-coding them? --JorisvS (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I still thought it might seem that way. I don't know, that sounds a little messy. Are you not happy with the way they're laid out in my sandbox? — Lfdder (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lfdder; phonetic studies that mark distinctions between these various sounds are so few and far between that making separate tables misleads the reader into thinking the distinctions are well-known, or that they're even all that important. Honestly, if someone really wanted to see a "clear and easy overview of possible articulations" splitting into multiple tables isn't even the best way to do that. It would be better to have a (sub)section that covered the possible articulations in prose. It would be like having an article listing U.S. states but breaking the list into three lists based on which states bordered Canada or Mexico. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version in Lfdder's sandbox is good, but I'm open to alternatives that also address my concerns. --JorisvS (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are your concerns? — Lfdder (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The things that are lost by simply merging everything into one simple table. --JorisvS (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've not addressed Aeusoes1's arguments in his reply above. — Lfdder (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we shouldn't decide for our readers what is or isn't "important" (i.e. what they would like to know), but instead should present the facts accurately and in an as accessible and as quick- and easy-to-use way as possible. By simply merging everything into one table, the info about what are the variations of the sound and which languages use which (as far as is known, of course) gets buried and makes that part of the article much less accessible. I would need to see Aeusoes1's suggestion before I can judge its merits.

The rightmost column would be a perfectly adequate place to place phonetic descriptions. This way, they're not buried deep into footnotes and there's no need for table splitting:

Language		Word	IPA	Meaning	Notes
Catalan		[[[Catalan orthography\|ull]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ˈul̠ʲ]	'eye'	Alveolo-palatal. See Catalan phonology
Enindhilyagwa		angalya	[aŋal̠ʲa]	'place'	Laminal postalveolar
Greek		[[[Greek alphabet\|λιακάδα]] liakáda] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ʎɐˈkɐðɐ]	'sunshine'	Postalveolar. See Modern Greek phonology
Hungarian	Northern dialects	[[[Hungarian orthography\|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ʎuk]	'hole'	Alveolo-palatal. Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology
Italian		[[[Italian alphabet\|figlio]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ˈfiʎːo]	'son'	Alveolo-palatal. See Italian phonology
Portuguese	European	[ralho] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ˈʁal̠ʲu]	'I scold'	Alveolo-palatal. See Portuguese phonology
Scottish Gaelic		[[[Scottish Gaelic alphabet\|till]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[tʲʰiːʎ]	'return'	Alveolo-palatal. See Scottish Gaelic phonology

I would even suggest that we require this phonetic description in the beginning so that the very rare individual who wants to focus on getting a list of alveolo-palatal laterals can copy the table into ~~word~~ excel and then alphabetize the list to their heart's content. Unfortunately, there is no way for us to avoid deciding what information is and is not important, though I should note that the paucity of phonetic parsing in the literature tells me that it's not all that important to scholars themselves. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a resolution? JorisvS? — Lfdder (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about like this?:

Language		Word	IPA	Meaning		Notes
Catalan		[[[Catalan orthography\|ull]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ˈul̠ʲ]	'eye'	Alveolo-palatal	See Catalan phonology
Enindhilyagwa		angalya	[aŋal̠ʲa]	'place'	Laminal postalveolar
Greek		[[[Greek alphabet\|λιακάδα]] liakáda] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ʎɐˈkɐðɐ]	'sunshine'	Postalveolar	See Modern Greek phonology
Hungarian	Northern dialects	[[[Hungarian orthography\|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ʎuk]	'hole'	Alveolo-palatal	Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology
Italian		[[[Italian alphabet\|figlio]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ˈfiʎːo]	'son'	Alveolo-palatal	See Italian phonology
Portuguese	European	[ralho] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ˈʁal̠ʲu]	'I scold'	Alveolo-palatal	See Portuguese phonology
Scottish Gaelic		[[[Scottish Gaelic alphabet\|till]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[tʲʰiːʎ]	'return'	Alveolo-palatal	See Scottish Gaelic phonology

What would be the best header for the new column? --JorisvS (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for both, colspan="2" on the header? — Lfdder (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new column would be reserved for information on the specific articulation, so I'd prefer something more specific than simply let the header "Notes" span both columns. --JorisvS (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it hardly deserves its own column, much less its own heading. — Lfdder (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate column creates more order, which is important for readers to get a better overview of various bits of information. We could also keep it without a header (as it is right now). It doesn't matter much to me even if we let the Notes header span two columns, although it does look a bit weird. --JorisvS (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the notes column is for things like phonetic characteristics. There would also be a lot of blank cells in that column, both in this article and in the other phone pages that we put it at. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another (minor) thing to consider is that the table then becomes too wide and goes over the right edge on small screens (like mine). — Lfdder (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanks should not be much of a problem, I'd say, because many cells under Notes currently are empty. It brings some order to the various types of information we've been presenting in the Notes. This way we'd have the order I was looking for and a way to do that in one table, like you were arguing for.

As for the display issue, can't we somehow force that it won't display any wider than a user's screen width, instead forcing text to distribute over multiple lines? For my information, does the following make a difference for you, Lfdder? --JorisvS (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language		Word	IPA	Meaning		Notes
Hungarian	Northern dialects	[[[Hungarian orthography\|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ʎuk]	'hole'	Alveolo-palatal	Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology

Language		Word	IPA	Meaning		Notes
Hungarian	Northern dialects	[[[Hungarian orthography\|lyuk]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)	[ʎuk]	'hole'	Alveolo-palatal	Modern standard Hungarian has undergone a phenomenon akin to Spanish yeísmo, merging /ʎ/ into /j/. See Hungarian ly and Hungarian phonology

Neither of these go over the edge for me, but this did. You can play around with the table in my sandbox if you'd like. — Lfdder (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's strange. Does the current version in your sandbox do that, too? --JorisvS (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not that strange; the table's wider with the extra column. ;P No, the current one doesn't. Anyway, that's not too important, but I'd still rather keep them in the notes box (for all the reasons above). — Lfdder (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I didn't notice that you removed it. :P. Does the version with the {{-}} in your sandbox also go over the edge? --JorisvS (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the tables in this discussion. Columns for specific information like orthographic representation and allophonic variants were rejected because that information can be contained in the notes column. I don't see why acoustic and/or articulatory nuances would be any different. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dumping all of that in one Notes column would make it rather chaotic. All I'm proposing is splitting off some of the info that is already in the Notes to bring some order into the chaos. --JorisvS (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I think it's only because you're giving these specifics of their articulation undue weight. Anyway, if you insist on it, then I think it's best to keep the same heading (Notes) for both. — Lfdder (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to doing that. I've reduced the width of the Notes column in your sandbox. Does that version go over the edge of your screen? --JorisvS (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't make it chaotic. The example table I showed is anything but. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various types of info, if available, cramped into one column is not chaotic according to you? --JorisvS (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic means that information is not presented in a clear enough way to be useful. That's not happening in the example I provided and I can't think of a situation where it would be outside of there being too much content in the notes column, which would go against the style guidelines for these tables anyway. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, does "less neatly ordered" convey it? --JorisvS (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going through your comments above, I can only assume that the measure of a problematic display of the relevant information is one in which a reader would have to "invest considerable effort" to get it. Having the phonetic information in the notes column doesn't seem to me to require an additional investment in any way that an extra column would remedy. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the info is neatly ordered underneath and when it is unknown, the field in empty, instead of some other text in the same position. This makes it easier to quickly get an overview of it. I do wonder, why would you like not to have the extra column so much? --JorisvS (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by any of your arguments that it would be an improvement to the table style. Every once in a while, someone wants the table guidelines to change to reflect their pet interest. At a certain point, though, I have to remind them that these phone articles are not totally contained in the table. It is, in fact, a problem that they are almost totally without prose. Whatever we decide to do with the table, I strongly recommend that we have a paragraph or two discussing the phonetic variation at issue here. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the intro in my sandbox to better reflect the situation. Feel free to make your own changes. — Lfdder (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, it still does. The browser knows to line wrap; those line breaks aren't needed. Anyway, it doesn't matter much. — Lfdder (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for me they are. Otherwise the browser will wrap the the short columns up, instead of only the already (too) wide Notes column more. --JorisvS (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. — Lfdder (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone oppose merging it as it is now here? We should discuss changes to the table format that have wider impact separately. — Lfdder (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me. If JorisvS still feels strongly about having a separate column, we should probably bring it up at WikiProject Linguistics to get more input. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what is your (main) reason for opposing a separate column? --JorisvS (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my main objection is that it's not really necessary, even given the concerns you've laid out. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the example above, it would not seem to add very much (it's bit more ordered, but it's not much), but when the information is sometimes missing (with, without), then it does significantly improve the readibility of this piece of information. Just try to quickly get an overview of this information in both table configurations. Quickly scanning over the table with the separate columns is sufficient, but you'll have to read the individual filled lines in the one without the separate columns. It may concern a relatively minor detail, but it is the kind of information that a phonetics article is about. --JorisvS (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that information outweighs whatever other information is in the Notes box. If we're gonna have a column for place, should we also have a column for duration? What about formants, then? This is a slippery slope. — Lfdder (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Joris, I'm still not convinced. If you feel strongly about it, try to get some more input at the Wikiproject Linguistics talk page. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What that source on BP meant

I'm tired of being accused of failed verification when it is just people that have a failed interpretation of things. Especially since it made good-quality sources seem unreliable to some of our leading Anglophone editors more than once, causing deleting of factually accurate information. In some cases the dialectal particularity is done quite clearly various times and just more limited n00b sources doesn't make the more controversial recent case (and certain kind used it, knowing not everyone reads/speaks huehuehuese to get things right, to almost scream LIAR! LIAR!), in others it would be best to just avoid varietal labels such as 'European' when they actually apply to >50% of the scope of Portuguese-speaking territory or population instead of ~4%, but then it wouldn't take place because I almost never make a decent case here and people probably think it is me trying to win the game so I'm just ignored (not by everyone, before folks think I'm ~~a bitch~~ ungrateful).

Well, whatever the drama, the source says that when people are first learning to produce a Brazilian palatal lateral, their first strategy is [li ~ lɪ̯] (probably they meant [lj], semivowel is allophone of the vowel in Portuguese), that then becomes [lʲ] and the final outcome may be either the perfected [ʎ] or the alternative [j]. This perhaps would be observed for the palatal nasal too if Brazilian Portuguese didn't have, in a general term, its vocalization to a nasal palatal glide.

Obviously, with rural isolation, illiteracy, influence from foreign languages and more, Brazilian Portuguese would only be a lot less prescriptive-based than European Portuguese, and some of these communities eventually freeze their development of the phoneme production somewhere in the way, that indeed does become homophonous with the consonant + vowel cluster. A proof that what I am saying is true and known, is the widely reported process of simplification of /nj/ [ɲ] into /ɲ/ [j~] (a much bigger difference) in rural regions, especially the Northeast. Rapper Ouriço actually inserted this among his sources, that reported the very known pronunciation of Antônio as 'Antonho' (Tonho is actually nickname for Antônio in all of Brazil, instead of Tónio of Portugal).

Also, unlike the Portuguese, Brazilians may merge /ʎ/ not only with /li(V)/ but also with individual /l/ or /i/ to the exception of few words for each, so it doesn't make sense to assume that this merger is non-existant or unheard of. It wouldn't make sense, even because of assimilation, especially the close palatal vowel that makes about half of the consonant repertory of Portuguese come with a different flavor in Brazil, be it palatalization or velarization. Lguipontes (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim it was a failed verification; it was an incomplete citation not in style with the rest. I didn't remove any of the things you added. Our source says it's alveolo-palatal in European Portuguese, no word on other varieties, hence my edit. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say, honestly. — Lfdder (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually thankful for your addition! I didn't saw you edited it immediately after me. I didn't mean that to you, and this is a long story. The removal of BP from the alveolo-palatal list, and subsequently its lack in this one, was prompted by a talk in the old alveolo-palatal talk from a Portuguese user that said that there indeed was /lj/ vs. /ʎ/ contrast in his variety of Portuguese, and then I took the subsequent comments thanking him as a subtle "another example of that behavior from him (I mean me), thanks for reporting"; this is poor argument now that we have a page dedicated for all those cases of postalveolar laterals, and certainly the Brazilian cluster may have one of these pronunciations. The argument that 'there should be only one example per language' doesn't make sense, as we have dialect/variant/register specifying in the tables exactly for that reason (different usage in different language variants) and contrary to the perception of the Portuguese user (again another Portuguese speaker making me look like a person misusing a source to deliberately insert OR when it is not the case! In this one, at least, it wasn't made in a deliberate manner by the part of the contestant), it is indeed properly sourced. Lguipontes (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I must've missed a few episodes. It does look like they deserve to be separate. — Lfdder (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick!

This sound is not used in any version of English that I am aware of. The sound in 'million' is completely different. Can you tell me exactly what the sources say on the subject please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source says exactly what we write. Peter238 (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me the quote please.

The page is a bit of a mess in that it seems that every language wants a slice of the action. The Enlish soound in million is very different from the Italian sound in 'gli'. The sound in the audio is like neither. The sound is not shown in English_phonology#Consonants. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The sequence /lj/, however, is frequently subjected to a kind of a coalescent assimilation in GenAm, being realized as [ʎ] or just a long [jj], as in failure, battalion, William [ˈwɪjjəm]." Peter238 (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase 'frequently subjected to' suggests to me that the author does not consider this pronunciation to the the normal but some form of aberration. Also note that two possible sounds are given. [jj] sounds more usual to me.

To give you a bit of background to my edit, my mother tongue is British english and I am learning Italian. In the Italian phonology and the Help:IPA for Italian articles the same symbol is used for the sound in Italiam words such as 'gli, glielo, and maglia'. The sounds are not the same though. One of the enries here needs to either go or be heavily qualified. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't. He's talking about General American, the prescriptive standard pronunciation of the United States. From what he says, this pronunciation is perfectly standard, and certainly not an aberration. Which doesn't mean that you or anyone you know uses it consistently, or at all. Therefore, neither of the entries needs to go. Peter238 (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that he is talking about GA but he still uses the words 'subjected to' rather than, say, 'spoken as'. That suggest some form of abuse of the language. I have spoken with many AmE speakers who are fluent in Italian and they agree that the sound in 'million' is differentt from that in the Italian 'gli' in AmE. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading into things that aren't there. The AmE speakers you've spoken to may or may not be right, and we don't even know how well they can pronounce Italian. In careful speech, 'million' is probably more prone to be pronounced [ˈmɪljən] rather than [ˈmɪʎən ~ ˈmɪjjən], and that may be the reason (or one of the reasons) they told you it's a different sound. Or maybe /lj/ used to be assimilated to [ʎ ~ jj] in the 1980s, but it's no longer the case - we'd need a source for that. Right now, the only source we have is Wells 1982, which is considered one of the best and most important works on English phonetics, and therefore certainly is a reliable source. Peter238 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who suggested this topic be discussed on the talk page. I speak American English (not quite General American, though), and million for me is something like [ˈmɘɫjən] or [ˈmɘɫin̩], without the palatal lateral. However, I have heard some American speakers, I'm not sure where, but maybe in old movies or TV shows, who do fuse the [lj] together to [ʎ], [ʎː], or {IPA|[jj]}} as Wells says, and say million as [ˈmɪʎən] or [ˈmɪjən]. This pronunciation might only be used by old people today (I'm not sure), but it certainly has existed. Perhaps the note is unclear on how uncommon the pronunciation is. — Eru·tuon 17:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source says that it is a common allophone, but we could use a comment about the fact that the source is from 1982. I'm not sure how to word it, so maybe you should try. Peter238 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that'll do I think. Thanks. Peter238 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the English (any dialect) sound in 'million' is not the same as that in the Italian 'gli'. See my comments at Help talk:IPA for Italian. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've already proven you wrong. Please, go read Wells 1982 and stop being annoying. Peter238 (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I would ask you to stick to discussing content rather making personal remarks about me. I am, like any editor here, entitled to improve an artcle.

You have not proven me wrong and I have read Wells because Peter238 kindly added the relevant quote above. Wells uses the words 'frequently subjected to a kind of a coalescent assimilation in GenAm', note 'subjected to', sugesting that it is regarded as some form of aberration of GenAm rather than being a standard part of GenAm. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring a source (that's what you essentially did in the message I responded to) and trying to push your POV (yes, I know it doesn't apply to talk pages, but it does apply to the article itself, and that's what we're talking about) that is entirely based on original research and not a single reliable source is not trying to improve the article, but a very annoying behaviour, which I just called by its name. Anyway, in your first message, you said that "This sound is not used in any version of English that I am aware of.", then in your second-to-last-message "But the English (any dialect) sound in 'million' is not the same as that in the Italian 'gli'." Now you are aware that [ʎ] is a possible allophone of /lj/ in General American (Wells (1982:490)), as well as in County Donegal in Ireland (Stenson (1991), cited in Hickey (2004:71)). That's two accents, so "any dialect" does not apply either. That means I have proven you wrong.

You chose to disregard Wells 1982 because you were reading into things that are not there. If speakers of General American use a certain allophone, then by definition that allophone is a part of General American - otherwise Wells would label them differently, or would at least note that realizing /lj/ as [ʎ] is frowned upon (he is not saying that). Got it? Peter238 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you can't say any dialect because you haven't heard every dialect of English and you don't have universal knowledge of the English-speaking universe. (Neither have I, and neither do I. I don't mean it as an insult.) I agree that most dialects and most speakers of English do not have the gli sound in million, but I have heard some speakers who do, and so has Wells, who is well schooled in phonetics and therefore a reliable source. — Eru·tuon 00:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went searching for an example. In this video the (in)famous Donald Trump says million a million times, with what sounds to me like [ʎ]. You could approximate his pronunciation in Italian spelling as miglian. Listen and see what you think. — Eru·tuon 02:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is a New Yorker, right? This /lj/ -> [ʎ] thing might be widespread there, at least in broader accents. I remember hearing it quite often in The Sopranos. Peter238 (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure since I don't pay much attention to him and his life, but it appears you're right from the article on him. I thought the palatal lateral was Southern, but I guess not. Still think it's old-fashioned. I'd be surprised to hear it out of the mouth of someone under 30. — Eru·tuon 03:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for more sources, and all that came up in my research is the variety of English spoken in County Donegal, which features [ʎ] as an allophone of the sequence /lj/ (what a shocker, eh?). Maybe someone else will have more luck. Peter238 (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept that I cannot speak for all dialects of English. There may be an obscure English dialect somewhere in the world which the sound in 'million' is the same as that in the Italian 'gli'. That the sound might be heard in The Sopranos is hardly surprising as it is a series about Italian Americans. I do not doubt that a first-generation Italian immigrant may say 'million' with an Italian accent. So, yes, there are dialects of English that do use the 'gli' sound if we are going to count people speaking with a foreign accent.

I go back to my original point of every language wanting to show that it uses a particular sound. Working this way is unhelpful to our readers. I am sure that, if we all did some research, we could find almost any sound in some dialect of English but it would not be helpful to our readers to add such sounds to this article. In an article on Italian American, for example, it might be justified

Trump, on the other hand, does not make the same sound as can be heard [here]. Adding English to this article is misleading as it only refers to obscure dialects or foreign accents in which the standard language has been 'subjected to' a variation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to the soundfile when you posted it earlier, and to me it sounds very much like the sound that Trump uses in million. If the sound he uses isn't a palatal lateral approximant, what is it? — Eru·tuon 11:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most actors in The Sopranos speak with the New York accent, which is not a foreign accent (just like Mexican American English, or Multicultural London English). This article is also not Help:IPA for Italian, we can include any variety of English we wish - that's how the consonant/vowel pages work. Peter238 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two sounds are not the same to me. There is no mention of this sound in English_phonology#Consonants which states that it concentrates on Received Pronunciation, General American, and General Australian. If the sound really is used in some more local dialect then that should be made clear.

This is indeed not Help:IPA for Italian but my changes there were also quickly reverted also. The sound in Italian 'gli' and most common English dialects of 'million' are not the same. Giving this equivalence on that page is misleading and unhelpful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English phonology can't possibly cover all allophones, otherwise it would be a very long and messy article. It is already clear that this sound is used in General American (or at least reported to be used in 1982) and County Donegal. What is unclear about that? Peter238 (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If English phonology can't possibly cover all allophones why would we want to do that here. If we cover all the allophones in every language in the world this article would become very messy and almost useless.

What is unclear is that the wording of the source, 'subjected to', does not necessarily mean, 'is generally spoken as'.

What about Help:IPA for Italian? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll worry about that once the article gets messy. As of now, there are two English dialects, rather than twenty or two hundred. If you want to remove all of the unsourced examples, by all means do so.

The source says 'frequently subjected to'.

I don't know. If you want to remove that example from Help:IPA for Italian, go ahead. After all, it may not be as helpful as I thought. It's certainly close in RP, where million is realized as [ˈmɪljən], with a non-velarized [l]. Peter238 (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Help:IPA for Italian is where I started I will make the change there and leave this page to you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 years is a moderate amount of time for the distribution of a feature to change, though if it was "frequent" in 1982, I see no reason to doubt that it is still common without additional sourcing casting doubt on this. Martin's critique of including it here and at Help:IPA for English seems to be based primarily on the difference between what we might call English [ʎ] and Italian [ʎ]. The two can be phonetically distinct while still both being patalal. In the case of Italian, as this article states, the sound is alveolo-palatal. If the English sound is simply palatal, I can imagine such a distinction being notable enough for those who have the ear for it (I do not). As such, I have restored million at IPA for Italian as this sound is the closest equivalent we have to Italian [ʎ], even for those who pronounce million with a [lj] sequence. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little hesitant about using million as an example. While it's similar for RP and this group of GA speakers that Wells refers to, it's not similar for those who, like me, have a [ɫj] sequence. Dark l plus palatal approximant is not much like palatal l. However, I don't know how common my pronunciation is in America (or Australia, which like America has velarized l in all positions in a word), and don't have a source. Oh well. — Eru·tuon 07:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Æµ§œš¹. the point is that using 'million' as an example is misleading and unhelpful, particularly to an English speaker learning Italian. There is no sound in any common English dialect like that found in the Italian 'gli', as can be seen from English_phonology#Consonants which states that it concentrates on Received Pronunciation, General American, and General Australian. . The sound in 'million' may be the closest that there is, but in my opinion, it is not close enough to be helpful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that million isn't perfect, even if we say "roughly like." But the alternative given in this and Martin's other edits is to simply leave that cell blank. IMHO, that is not more helpful. Even for people who use [lj] or [ɫj]. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. [lj] is pretty close, [ɫj] sounds ridiculous in Italian, but there's not really a better alternative. According to Luciano Canepari (Manuale di Pronuncia Italiana from 1992, page 90), /ʎ/ in northern accents is 'broken' into a sequence [l̠ʲj], which sounds very close to million in RP. That example word is not that bad. Peter238 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary: [1] (/ɲ/~/nj/) [2] (/ʎ/~/lj/) i.e. "canyon : ɲ = million : ʎ" :-| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.101.99.101 (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to continue this discussion on the Help:IPA for Italian talk page as I have agreed to leave things as they were here. See you there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.101.99.101 (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English2

I don't see how this is general American. If I'm interpreting it correctly, it's like how a mafioso says millions, which makes sense from Italian influence. Combined with Donegal influence, would centre it in NYC and maybe Boston. The l is definitely pronounced in general American.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Metallurgist: I've removed it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. Your claims are only your impressions and are not sourced, unlike the entry in the article. General American is not a monolith. The palatal lateral approximant is, as indicated, an allophone. Neither that nor the l is universal. Kostaki mou (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kostaki mou: Please stop the edit war. The source is nearly 40 years old, so can you present another one (or more) that is contemporary that would discuss the use of [ʎ] in GA? Saying that GA isn't a monolith doesn't answer that question. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbb2: Indeed I will not. You haven't demonstrated that the source is no longer valid. You have only given your personal observations as a reason for that assertion. You need to provide a source backing your claim. Kostaki mou (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kostaki mou: So do you know yourself whether this sound is still used in GA (and if so, by whom)? Because there's a difference between that and reverting just because the entry is sourced. We want to provide accurate information, not just blindly adhere to one source that is 37 years old. I think that we're on grounds that are shaky enough that we can just remove that entry until something more recent than AoE shows up.

In Kretzschmar (2004:267–268), which is a chapter of A Handbook of Varieties of English there's no mention of this allophone. Rather, he just mentions /l/-vocalization, a phenomenon which turns /l/ into an [ʊ]-like vowel. IPA (1989:79) don't mention this allophone either. Because of this, it's the best to remove the GA entry until we can explain how [ʎ] is used in that accent in a manner that is detailed enough. We don't want an outdated or rare pronunciation to be listed as a normal one.

[ˈmɪʎənz] does strike me as sounding mafioso. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have demonstrated that this sound does exist. A lot of people who were alive 37 years ago are still around (myself included). I don't believe it is either rare or outdated. Because your sources don't happen to mention it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I am no mafioso and I use it. I didn't get it out of thin air. It seems to me that, among other things, you are trying to stigmatize this sound because you don't like it. It certainly is an alternative - and should remain one. We don't all have to talk alike. Kostaki mou (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kostaki mou: @Kbb2: Wow I just discovered the notification for this and barely remember writing this. I am not denying that there is an American accent with this usage, but General American is not it. Isnt General American the standard accent used on news broadcasts? They arent going to use this consonant for l. Am I a source? No, but I know it is wrong. That entry should be amended to something more accurate and precise, such as New York City English. And to claim it needs a source to be done is ridiculous as most of these lists dont have sources for anything. Should it have one? Yea, but until we find one, or there is disagreement, I think its fine. Regarding the source cited, can anyone verify it even says what is claimed here? Metallurgist (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need to correct the sound example file

It's been said many times before, and all those who said it were right: the current sample file does not represent correctly the palatal lateral approximant, it sounds awfully pronounced by any native speaker of a language which actually has the sound, like Portuguese and Italian. So many people have pointed it out over the years, and nobody has uploaded a new file... I will try to do it myself then. 213.245.152.220 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I don't even need to register it, there is already a correct version saved in Wikipedia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d9/20060108134929%21Palatal_lateral_approximant.ogg I just don't know how to replace the current file with this correct one. Anyone? 213.245.152.220 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I (and many others) indeed agree that the audio sample should be changed, I would propose reverting to the second 2015 version instead (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d9/20170108165501%21Palatal_lateral_approximant.ogg, recorded in 2011), rather than the original 2005 version. Despite being slightly lower quality recording-wise, the 2015 version better demonstrates the pronunciation, once word-initially and once intervocalically, consistent with the samples on other IPA pages.

That said, either one would be still be better than the 2006 version currently in use, as User:EvenT pointed out way back in 2011. It seems User:Leonel_Sohns, when reverting the file in 2020, might’ve thought that OP was referring to the 2006 version (as I did too initially, based on the archive URL above for the 2005 one saying 2006, the date it was replaced). It’s also not clear why User:JMCF125 reverted to the 2011 version back in 2017. As far as I can tell, in neither case were those reversions the result of discussions on this talk page. In fact, both reversions were to recordings that had already be decided to be less than accurate by native users of the sound.

Can someone with file overwrite privileges please look into this again? As it is, the current audio is actually an impediment for students learning phonology, myself included. We should either get User:Peter_Isotalo to re-record this one, or consider replacing all the IPA sound samples with the ones from Glossika Phonics on YouTube, after appropriate licensing of course. Barring that, or in the meantime, we should at least revert to the second 2015 version. Rubixmann (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dan Palraz (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original file has been corrected if you want to use it.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sound sample sounds nothing like what it claims to be.

The sound clip is just a regular Voiced palatal approximant. 88.241.80.192 (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]