Talk:Voiced dental and alveolar plosives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

Using default font entity code considered potentially ugly[edit]

Please see Talk:Voiced bilabial plosive --James S. 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with dental stops[edit]

I think it's redundant to have pages for both dental and alveolar stops. I understand that there may be languages that contrast dental and alveolar sounds, but considering they use the same symbol, we ought to just combined them. Thoughts? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that they can be phonemically contrastive is a good enough reason to keep the articles separate. These are articles about the sounds, not the IPA symbols. —Angr 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Angr. Distinctly separate articulations. Separate articles. - Gilgamesh 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree. They can be different even if there are no minimal pairs. Nlsanand 01:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll remove the merge tags then. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is another unpractical split of phonetics articles that is more useful to linguists than any lay readers. You could at least curb your nerdiness until there's a reliable way to display Unicode, because those modifiers are showing up as nothing but white boxes on a lot of computers. If the argument about phoneme status was expanded, we'd also have a separate article for every imaginable modifier of a sound, like palatalization or creaky voice. I also don't see why we need to separate articles that are so meager in content to begin with.
Peter Isotalo 01:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly could go either way with the separateness or merging of the articles. I don't see either article as particularly more meager than, say, the labiodental nasal or labiodental approximant. What would you say to these arguments?
  • Palatalization is a secondary articulation so not as relevant a distinction
  • Laryngeal settings other than voiced/voiceless can be considered secondary or tertiary articulations as well and so the distinctions can be dealt with in articles about those specific laryngeal settings.
The dental diacritic shows up just fine on my computer and I use IE. Public computers that I've used display them correctly as well so I'm not sure why you say they wouldn't show up right on "most computers." Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They can be distinct phonemes (as in Australian languages), so they should not be merged. Al-Bargit 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if we had a separate section as is done with close-mid front unrounded vowel to include the mid front unrounded vowel? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original argument here was that these are contrastive, but for the only language that there's claim that they are, Dinka, what's cited is the consonant phoneme table from its IoIPA article. That's not grounds to wave the phonemic contrast flag. What's more is that they're all laminal denti-alveolar, i.e. the primary place of articulation still is the alveolar ridge. In the absence of a phonetic study, I suggest we merge these articles. — Lfdder (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually a more recent merge discussion at here back in September. As with that discussion, this thread may not get enough attention for a vibrant discussion. I recommend that we move it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics‎‎ (and not just point here, I actually did that back in September). — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greek[edit]

Greek's ντ is a dental plosive, so its place is here: Voiced_dental_plosive



Actually this can be seen quite well in the link to Modern Greek phonology Voiced_alveolar_plosive#Occurrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnugh (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's technically no source listed either way. I don't see a problem with moving it from Alveolar to dental. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could not care less myself, but where is the 'evidence' it's dental as opposed to alveolar anyway?

French[edit]

In French the D, as the T is, it's clearly dental, also showed on the french article of the D sound, and on the French phonology article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.72.57 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak[edit]

I think that Slovaks are using dental d. If you compare "normal" d in Czech, it sounds much different and is placed on alveolar ridge, same as in German for example. Slovaks definitely touch the teeth with the blade of the tongue. It is clearly heard when they speak English. I have no idea whether I can change it, but this table needs improving in my opinion. 89.176.169.153 (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peter238 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Postalveolar IPA notation[edit]

It mentioned in the introductory paragraph that a voiced dental stop is distinguished through the dental diacritic, but that the voiced postalveolar stop is distinguished through the "postalveolar" diacritic. But that diacritic is actually the apical diacritic. Should this be changed in the article? --Joseph Yanchar (User page/Talk page) 04:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 'retracted' diacritic, not the 'apical' diacritic. You might have problems with your browser. Peter238 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article called 'alveolar stop'?[edit]

This article is called 'voiced alveolar stop' but the contents of the article concern dental and denti-alveolar stops. Shouldn't the title of the article be 'voiced alveolar and dental stops'? Monibeva (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially because ⟨d⟩ does not represent an alveolar stop in the IPA, but rather a voiced coronal stop that can be dental, denti-alveolar, alveolar or postalveolar, depending on the language. Peter238 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So... should someone rename the article 'Voiced coronal stop'? That seems to be most logical, though there is another existing article called Coronal consonants. Monibeva (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the voiced retroflex stop is also coronal. We'd have to merge those articles before renaming this one. Peter238 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but for now the article could still be renamed to something like "Voiced alveolar and dental stop" or "Voiced alveolar/dental stop" because that is what the article is actually about which is everything that is represented by <d> in IPA, I believe retroflex uses a different symbol <ɖ>. Unfortunately "voiced alveolar and dental" sounds somewhat awkward as an article title. I suppose the other alternative is to split dental and alveolar into two articles but that would be messy (especially for denti-alveolar). Monibeva (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved per WP:BOLD. Peter238 (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persian[edit]

I noticed that Persian does not seem to be on the list of languages that use one of these sounds. Should it be added? Also, the article for Persian language claims that the /t/, /d/ stops are alveolar, but I found a source that says they are dental (pdf page 34, page 24 by numbers in upper-right corner), though the source also lists a bunch of allophones for the /d/ and /t/ phonemes. I can't quite make sense of the symbols though, it seems to be some sort of pseudo-IPA. Also I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia so I'm not sure how to know whether a source is considered 'reliable' or not (besides in obvious cases; but since this is an academic paper it isn't as obvious). Monibeva (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Monibeva: e-mail me the article and I'll see what I can do. Peter238 (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the link was in my post (the word 'source' should be a hyperlink) - unless you also want me to e-mail it as well? Monibeva (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Monibeva: I can see the link, the thing is that I can't access that article. Peter238 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ah, just realized I can see it because of my university login... I will email it to you. What is your email, I can't seem to find it. Monibeva (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wait, also is it legal to send papers like that? because technically it's 'restricted' or whatever?Monibeva (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Monibeva: If you want to e-mail it to me, go to my user page (User:Peter238) and find the "Tools" section (it's on the left) and click "Email this user". About it being legal... I've always thought it was legal, but I'm not a lawyer. Peter238 (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well silly me, turns out I don't have to worry about that article and I should've looked at the sources already used on the Persian language article. One of them is [1] which on pdf page 20 (page 9), the consonant chart shows t,d under 'dental'. Also the wikipedia article says that /t/ /d/ varies between alveolar and denti-alveolar. well I'm not sure what to make of all that - perhaps Persian should be added to this article under the Variable section? Monibeva (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need a source that explicitly states they're variable. The handbook of the IPA calls all of the front coronals "dental", whereas Hosseini says that only /t, d/ are dental, whereas the rest is alveolar. Also, bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a reliable source - the fact that Persian phonology says something that's not even sourced is a bad reason to base anything on such a statement. Peter238 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found the source where the article gets it from. Luckily (very very luckily) google books preview just so happens to have the page with that information: [2] it is on page 287-288. Relevant quote is as follows: "There is some variation in the description, and presumably the pronunciation, of voiceless /t/, being either an apico-alveolar or apico-dental stop. It is aspirated word-initially .... Voiced /d/, like /t/, is either apico-alvelar or apico-dental" (Mahootian 287,288). I'm guessing the spelling "apico-alvelar" is a spelling error and is meant to be "apico-alveolar." Also, is apico dental considered the same as laminal denti alveolar? (the wikipedia article says laminal denti-alveolar isntead of apico dental) Monibeva (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the source. "Apico-dental" may be (and in this case is - see page 289) a rather bad description of a laminal denti-alveolar consonant, yes. Peter238 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion[edit]

What is the difference between the voiced alveolar stop and the voice dental stop? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Voiced dental and alveolar stops. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alveolar Stop Voice Sample?[edit]

I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks this, but the audio sample for the alveolar stop/plosive in the top of this article (and even the alveolar sample in Voiceless dental and alveolar plosives) sounds too similar to the dental stop in my opinion (I haven't heard any English speaker pronounce the alveolar stop like that). I feel this because if you compare that with the voice sample further below in the alveolar table in the English "dash", they sound quite different to one another, with the audio sample for "dash" sounding closer to an alveolar stop to my ears and the one at the top sounding very much like a dental stop. Does anyone else feel that way? Broman178 (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little hard for me to compare them as the consonant in the recording of dash sounds voiceless to me ([tæʃ] is what I hear in the audio). Stockhausenfan (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voiced_dental_and_alveolar_plosives&oldid=1220931154"