Talk:Palatalization (sound change)

CorenSearchBot

CorenSearchBot found a supposed plagiarism from [1]. In fact, this site copied the content from the article Palatalization, from which this article was copied; no plagiarism is involved. — Eru·tuon 20:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"lag"?

I've never heard the expression "lag palatalization". I've added "progressive" in that sense, but I haven't deleted "lag" because maybe it is used. --Thnidu (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Google scholar turns up one Google result for "lag palatalization" and 143 for "progressive palatalization." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhotic palatization

In "The Social Stratification of English in New York City," William Labov described the New York /ɝ/ to be "a palatalized form of a well contracted, mid-central r." Should this be in the article? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I am going to add this, anyway. However, naturally, I have no issue if this edit is reverted.LakeKayak (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"palatalization /ˈpælətəlaɪˌzeɪʃən/ is a sound change that either results in a palatal or palatalized consonant or a front vowel"

It seems like the term "front vowel" here may refer to "articulatory front vowels." To prevent any misinterpretations on my part, here are the exact words in the section "Articulatory front vowels" from the page Front vowels:

"In articulation, front vowels contrast with raised vowels and retracted vowels. In this conception, front vowels are a broader category than those listed in the IPA chart, including [ɪ ʏ], [ɨ ʉ], and, marginally, mid-central vowels."

As in one incident, Labov uses the term "palatalized" to refer to the raising of a mid-central vowel (See above "Rhotic palatalization"), I am left to assume that the front vowels mentioned on this page are front vowels of articulation. In which case, I think that that article should clarify that palatalization could result in a mid-central vowel. It could be done very subtly like either of the two ways listed:

palatalization /ˈpælətəlaɪˌzeɪʃən/ is a sound change that either results in a palatal or palatalized consonant or a front vowel (in respect to articulation).

palatalization /ˈpælətəlaɪˌzeɪʃən/ is a sound change that either results in a palatal or palatalized consonant or a front vowel or mid-central vowel..

We only would have to define "front vowel" to mean in respect to articulation once. However, if anyone objects, I wish to know now before I make any such edit. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I had not heard of this terminology "articulatory front vowel". It seems puzzling and ambiguous: how is a definition of "front vowel" that includes mid to close central vowels more articulatory than a definition that includes only fully front or near-front vowels? Perhaps I have to read the literature to find out... — Eru·tuon 05:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Erutuon: I think I would be able to explain this one. I don't think "articulatory front vowels" are "more articulatory." Here is what I took from reading the section on the page Front vowels. There are three articulatory dimensions of vowel space: "front," "raised," and "retracted." The term "articulatory front vowel" is used on the page Front vowel to describe a vowel in the "front" articulatory dimension." A less ambiguous terminology would be "front vowel in respect to articulatory dimension." I hope this answers your question.LakeKayak (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be good to have a source for this front vs. raised vs. retracted classification. The only source currently given (on all three of the pages in question) doesn't appear to say it, at least not explicitly. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, does anybody object to such an edit as I have described? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

After further thought I object. The concept of "articulatory front vowel" seems to be newly developed and probably best avoided in defining palatalization. I am not sure how to integrate Labov's example of palatalization into the definition in this article, though. Perhaps palatalization also sometimes includes raising? — Eru·tuon 22:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, sir.LakeKayak (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this palatalization?

In most dialects of English, the diphthong [ɪu] was shifted to [juː]. Is the shifted from [ɪ] to [j] an example of palatalization? Any help is appreciated. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm not sure what it is, though. Essentially it's a change from a falling diphthong to a rising one. Perhaps the change of [ɪ] to [j] could be considered fortition. — Eru·tuon 18:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

[ɪ] to [j] is fortition in a sense (perhaps better "de-vocalization"), but also [u̯] to [uː] is lenition in the same sense (better "vocalization"), so there is no "net" fortition or lenition taking place. I have seen changes of this kind called "stress shift"; other similar examples include the change of Old French /oi/ to modern French /wa/, and a phonological process in Northern Sami where the falling diphthongs [ie̯ ea̯ oa̯ uo̯] alternate with the rising diphthongs [i̯e e̯a o̯a u̯o]). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I am glad that I check before making an edit. Thank you, sir.LakeKayak (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Erutuon: and @Tropylium: I think I may have forgotten to note that [ɪu] is sometimes transcribed as [i̯u]. @Tropylium: In this case, would there be a net fortition? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, not really. If we are already talking about a rising diphthong, then the difference between the transcriptions [i̯u] and [juː] (and [ju]) is just a matter of convention.

You can find claims that [j] would be "ever so slightly" more constricted than [i̯] (including even our page for relative articulation), but I do not believe such a thing is officially mandated by the IPA. Often enough this is also simply a confusion between phonetics and phonology. (The phoneme /j/ can in many languages have more raised allophones such as [ʝ], but the phone [j] is normally defined as simply the non-syllabic counterpart of [i], or in other words, phonetically the same sound, but holding a different place within a syllable.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It was just a question. If I have pissed you off, then I apologize.LakeKayak (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

From what I took from this discussion, this instance is a very slight "de-vocalization" as you said earlier, Tropylium, if anything at all. However, there is no net fortition.LakeKayak (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yod-coalescence in intervocalic syllables

@Erutuon: I am a little confused. Doesn't yod-coalescence also occur in intervocalic syllables: like nature, pressure, and educate? I didn't say it only occurs in intervocalic syllables. I only provided intervocalic syllables as an example of when it could occur.LakeKayak (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: Well, the syllables aren't intervocalic, the yod-cluster is. And an intervocalic cluster doesn't yod-coalesce when it is in a stressed syllable: for instance, constitution is not constichooshun in American English, because the intervocalic t is in the syllable tu, which is stressed. And like I said, yod-clusters that are not intervocalic also undergo yod-coalescence: for instance, mention, where the cluster is surrounded by n and a vowel. So, yod-coalescence happens both intervocalically and non-intervocalically; why mention intervocality at all? — Eru·tuon 18:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Then I flat out made an error. However, shifting gears, is the third t in constitution intervocalic? As far as I'm aware, the t does not undergo any form of flapping, suggesting the word to be syllabified as /cʌn.stɪ.tu.ʃən/ rather than /cʌn.stɪt.u.ʃən/ or /cʌn.stɪṭu.ʃən/.LakeKayak (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@LakeKayak: The third t is in the -tion suffix. If you mean the second t, in the syllable tu, then yes, it's intervocalic, but it's in a stressed syllable (cònstitútion), so it is not a candidate for flapping. It has to be aspirated because it's at the beginning of a stressed syllable. — Eru·tuon 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems that you and I know two completely different rules for flapping. I thought that flapping could not occur when the "t" was in the onset of the syllable. I was involved a similar question on talk page for Phonological history of English low back vowels, and we concluded that flapping will not occur in a syllable onset.LakeKayak (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but the two rules are sort of in agreement. If the t is at the end of a syllable, it can't be at the beginning of a stressed syllable. — Eru·tuon 20:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry about changing the indentation of your post if you don't want me to, but your indentation confuses me because it seems to indicate you are replying to my post containing constichooshun rather than the one about flapping. — Eru·tuon 20:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

All forgiven.LakeKayak (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Article title

So, we have the article Palatalization (phonetics), whose main topic is what most linguists mean by the term "palatalization". Then we have this page, which itself oddly encompasses two contradictory topics: (#1) "Sound changes moving towards palatal articulations" and (#2) "Sound changes moving away from palatal articulations". First of all, is the latter process actually called "palatalization" though? There seem to be no sources in the lead -- a bit of a red flag -- and generally no sources on the page confirming that. Second of all, the logical next step to me (but tell me if I'm misguided) is that we merge all the #1 info back into Palatalization (phonetics) and leave the #2 info on this page while moving this page to a more appropriate and less ambiguous name. Thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe originally there was just one article on palatalization and it got split. We are the masters of fate, and if we think that it makes more sense to move content over #1 back to the phonetics article, that should be fine. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In true masters-of-fate form, I ended up going a different way. I just kept all #1 info here and deleted all #2 info, which I don't think has any notability/validity as a single umbrella topic. Wolfdog (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

For anyone wanting to pull the information from the history and put it somewhere else, the edit in question can be found here. The only bit I'd be concerned about is the information that's actually cited in the Yod-Coalescence section, but I haven't checked to see if the information is equally cited in that main article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)