Talk:Glottalization

message: To the anon who's been editing lately, and User:Florian G. if you're the same person: Thanks for your great additions, but it would be good if you could please use standard IPA characters. If you look in the Insert box that appears below the row of buttons marked "Save page / Show preview / Show changes" you will find the IPA characters. (Note that ə is grouped together with "Characters" rather than "IPA", and Greek letters are in "Greek".) Also, please enclose IPA transcriptions with the IPA template thus: type  to get . Finally, please do not use the first person in an article (don't say things like "as far as I know" or the like) and please do not sign your user name to the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, meaning every article has several authors, as listed in the page history. Thanks! User:Angr 12:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The term glottalization is also used for the phenomenon in a wide variety of languages of how vowels can have different final articulations. Glottalization of a vowel is ending the vowel with a glottal stricture or even stop, in contrast to length, breathy or fading articulation, etc. The same process can apply to consonants producing over time a series of ejectives. This article doesn't address these at all, but instead talks mostly about how glottalization exists in English. The entire article would be better titled "Glottalization in English". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.158.71  (talk • contribs) 
::Yanesha' language has short, long, and "laryngeal" or glottalized vowels.  I think we can include that information in here.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a major rewrite to address the anglocentrism.  Most of the examples in English were sort of redundant anyway, but if anyone feels like the data I've taken out is important, it can always go into Cockney and Estuary English.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Anglocentrism 

message: I stumbled upon Glottalic consonant, an article which has some useful info (such as distribution in world languages), but is quite unfocused and often self-contradictory, for example:
:However, when a sound is said to be glottalized, this is not normally what is meant. [???] [...]When glottalic consonants of different types are present in a language, they tend to form a single phonological class.
I cannot make heads and tails out of that, so someone with more knowledge than me should jump in and judge whether the merge is justified. If "glottalic" covers just ejective consonants and implosive consonants, that should be stated much more clearly. If that's the case, do we really need the whole article about "glottalic". If that is something else... Anyway, it seems that we don't really need an article about "glottalic" consonants, as the reader would be better served by moving whatever useful material is there somewhere else. No such user (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against a merge but agree that Glottalic consonant and maybe Glottalization need to be cleaned up to clarify the distinction. A glottalic consonant is articulated with a glottalic airstream mechanism, i.e. the air pressure needed for articulation is created by moving the glottis, which changes the size of the cavity the air is in, either compressing or rarefying it. Glottalization is the addition of a closed-glottis gesture to another sound, which more often than not is produced with a pulmonic airstream mechanism. There may be some overlap or bleedover between the two (the difference between  and  isn't huge, but they are different), but they're really quite different things. The article Glottalic consonant desperately needs cleanup for encyclopedic tone anyway, and at the same time it needs to make the distinction between the two phenomena clearer. If Glottalic consonant is to be merged anywhere, Airstream mechanism#Glottalic initiation might be a better destination for it. —Angr (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, glottalic consonant covers both glottalic-airstream consonants and glottalized consonants. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the term correctly does, or do you mean the article in fact does (but shouldn't)? —Angr (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Both. Or at least I see the term used for both meanings in the lit. In Athabaskan descriptions, for example, a "glottalic" consonant may mean glottal stop plus glottalized sonorants/nasals. But Catford and Greenburg discuss two types of glottalic consonants, ejectives and implosives. So it would seem to be, if not a cover term for glottalization + glottalic airstream, then at least ambiguous without clarification. — kwami (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Ah, here: Current trends in linguistics, Volume 8, pp 65–66. Ejectives, implosives, and glottalized sonorants are counted as "glottalic consonants" when calculating the frequency of such sounds in various languages (Hausa ɓ kʼ jˀ, Klamath kʼ lˀ mˀ, Maidu ɓ kʼ). — kwami (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Definitely. — kwami (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Glottalic consonant

message: Is the "broken tone" of Latvian also a form of glottalization? CodeCat (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Stød#Similar_phenomena_in_other_languages --Error (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latvian broken tone 

message: --Error (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples