Talk:Voiced velar lateral fricative
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Romanian
[edit]The sound is present in Romanian as a regional variant of “v” in Moldavia. I don't know the exact area, but I've personally heard between Galați and Vaslui.
For example in “vin” (Romanian for “wine”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.143.19 (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Which is just patent nonsense. --JorisvS (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for not deleting my nonsense again, JorisvS. I'm sure you must have spoken with plenty of people from the area and therefore know better, but bear with us mere mortals. Being wrong (as you've abundantly proven me) does not constitute reason for having a comment removed from a talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.218.138 (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Talk pages are not fora, but places to discuss improvements to articles. How could your statement contribute? --JorisvS (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I contributed a path of research. Kinda like someone who reports a bug contributes to software development. Someone who is more knowledgeable and/or has more resources than I do could investigate the claim, look for sources, and if it all adds up add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.218.138 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- If someone were to do solid research into this and were to find that this were really the case, and if this somebody manages to publish this research in a journal (no original research is allowed on Wikipedia), then this might be eligible to go into this article. But I must also point out why this claim is preposterous: the voiced labiodental fricative and the voiced velar lateral fricative are very, very different in terms of their articulation, which makes a sound change from the former to the latter extremely unlikely. Sound changes aside, the voiced velar lateral fricative is an extremely uncommon sound cross-linguistically, which makes it even more uncredible that this sound were to appear in just a few dialects of one language in a linguistic environment that does not contain any sounds that vaguely resemble it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --JorisvS (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Except, you see, if I had any evidence (I only have an anecdote, I'm not even at original research level) I would have put it in the article itself, not in the talk page. I only threw it here hoping it would pique somebody's interest. Never imagined I'd get this much shit for posting a comment in a talk page.
- Which would have been removed as being original research anyway. Wikipedia is not for publishing new ideas, but for documenting existing knowledge. And although talk pages are not there to pique someone's interest, it is here now and can do just that. --JorisvS (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- When I said "if I had any evidence" I was thinking of sources. I know original research is not allowed, you don't have to keep repeating that. Like I said, I don't think what I'm bringing to the table even qualifies as original research. It's just anecdote. I personally heard the sound. I'm not a professional or anything either. I never demanded that my statement be copied verbatim in the article just on the value of my word. You admitted before that if this turns out to be true and if the research already exists and it's published (and we don't know that isn't the case) then potential for improving the article does exist. As such, I see my original comment as legitimate and I really, really, really don't understand your overbearing concern for the "purity" of this previously empty talk page. That being said, I'm going to be the adult and I'm leaving and taking my toys with me. If it makes you feel any better you have my blessing: go ahead and delete all this nonsense. I really ran out of f*cks to give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.218.138 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Which would have been removed as being original research anyway. Wikipedia is not for publishing new ideas, but for documenting existing knowledge. And although talk pages are not there to pique someone's interest, it is here now and can do just that. --JorisvS (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Before I leave I wanted to "contribute" my profane opinion about the assesement that the two sounds are so different the change would be extremely unlikely. While it is true that the point of articulation is different, that's pretty much the only thing that's different about them. To go from V to this sound you'd only have to tense your lower lip to move it away from the upper teeth and you'd have to move your tongue a bit to the back of the mouth. Stranger things have happened. Like the fact that we had this discussion. 62.163.218.138 (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Except, you see, if I had any evidence (I only have an anecdote, I'm not even at original research level) I would have put it in the article itself, not in the talk page. I only threw it here hoping it would pique somebody's interest. Never imagined I'd get this much shit for posting a comment in a talk page.
- If someone were to do solid research into this and were to find that this were really the case, and if this somebody manages to publish this research in a journal (no original research is allowed on Wikipedia), then this might be eligible to go into this article. But I must also point out why this claim is preposterous: the voiced labiodental fricative and the voiced velar lateral fricative are very, very different in terms of their articulation, which makes a sound change from the former to the latter extremely unlikely. Sound changes aside, the voiced velar lateral fricative is an extremely uncommon sound cross-linguistically, which makes it even more uncredible that this sound were to appear in just a few dialects of one language in a linguistic environment that does not contain any sounds that vaguely resemble it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --JorisvS (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I contributed a path of research. Kinda like someone who reports a bug contributes to software development. Someone who is more knowledgeable and/or has more resources than I do could investigate the claim, look for sources, and if it all adds up add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.218.138 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Talk pages are not fora, but places to discuss improvements to articles. How could your statement contribute? --JorisvS (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for not deleting my nonsense again, JorisvS. I'm sure you must have spoken with plenty of people from the area and therefore know better, but bear with us mere mortals. Being wrong (as you've abundantly proven me) does not constitute reason for having a comment removed from a talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.218.138 (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)