From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics  (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

I believe that pharyngealization is a better name for the article than pharyngealisation. I am British and I do not believe this to be an Americanisation. There is an almost forgotten tradition that words with Greek etymologies use the -ize ending, and Latin roots use the -ise ending. As Standard US English and this tradition agree, I believe that this article should be moved. Any objections? Gareth Hughes 23:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what the basis of that tradition is. My dictionary (of Australian English, granted, but English nonetheless) lists the two forms as equal in acceptability. thefamouseccles 03:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Commonwealth English has a general preferrence for -ise. Thus, the fact that the Australian dictionary in question lists both spellings as of equal validity suggests that -ize has a real basis in linguistic tradition. Gareth Hughes 10:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, in American English. :) Going back to my Greek grammar, though, it seems that -izô with zeta, rather than sigma, is more often correct for words like this in terms of Greek. That being said, English isn't Greek... I'd argue that in modern English the two suffixes have combined to make a generic case. We do have a redirect to the page from pharyngealization; if you want to move it, go ahead, but IMHO both variations are common enough in English usage that the decision which one should be the main article is probably moot. thefamouseccles 22:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Danish stød[edit]

I am not a linguist, but I wonder what the relation is between pharyngealization and the Danish stød, which is said to be "laryngealization". I believe those things should be the same; at least there ought to be a link between them pointing out the difference. Apus 07:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some definite differences. Firstly, stød is a prosodic feature, not a consonantal one. Secondly, and more importantly, the pharynx and the larynx are two different points of articulation in linguistics. Compare pharyngeal consonant with laryngeal consonant (the latter being a common synonym for glottal consonant). Stød is articulated with the glottal folds only (manifesting as creaky voice or as full-blown glottal stop), not with any part of the pharynx, so "pharyngealisation" has no relevance to any discussion of stød, nor vice versa. Thefamouseccles 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


I think it would be great if examples of the speech phenomena in question could be added to these various linguistics articles. I've come to these pages several times while wandering through Wikipedia, and I never really understand what the article's talking about. Just some food for thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

epiglottic constriction ??[edit] which the pharynx or epiglottis is constricted.. This term needs different wording. The epiglottis is no muscular or hollow organ, and cannot be constricted. --Dr. Friendly (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dark l is velarized, isn't it?[edit]

Outside of this wiki page, I've never seen dark l described as pharyngealized, nor have I seen the tilde used to symbolized pharyngealization. Isn't [ɫ] usually used to represent a velarized [l]? (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Jeff Moore

'Dark l' is either velarized or pharyngealized. I think if it's apical alveolar then it's velarized, if it's laminal alveolar or laminal denti-alveolar then it's pharyngealized. Russian hard 'l' is for sure pharyngealized, the co-articulation sounds considerably different to what one can hear in American English. Scottish 'l' is most likely pharyngealized as well, since it and Russian hard 'l' sound (almost) the same. -- (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Laminal /l/ can be also velarised, but I think you're partially right - the only instances of pharyngealised /l/ that I've seen are laminal. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Note 1[edit]

This note mentions that the character (presumably U+02E4 Modifier Letter Small Reversed Glottal Stop, as used on the International_Phonetic_Alphabet page) is easily confused with another character (presumably U+02C1 Modifier Letter Reversed Glottal Stop), but only shows what the characters look like. Therefore, Note 1 falls into its own trap. It should specify the Unicode codepoints so that it is clear which character is which. Rhdunn (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

request for sound[edit]

This article could be greatly improved if there were sound examples. I have found the IPA sounds very informative and I am not too clear if I am imitating this right. --Squidonius (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)