Talk:Allophone

message: What is the difference between allophony and sandhi rules? 89.243.249.181 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allophony/Sandhi 

message: I removed the comment about English speakers being able to hear the difference between t and its allophone ght as it is patently absurd.  An English speaker can hear the difference between 'night rate' and 'ni-trate' because they are pronounced differently.
:Isn't that precisely what it said before you removed it?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that removal didn't make sense.  But to avoid confusion we might put some IPA.  Nitrate is  and night rate is .  I think... Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pharyngealisation? -Iopq 09:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glottalization.   denotes pharyngealization. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be clearer for the example if we transcribe nitrate as , which is also a valid pronunciation, and perhaps more common in well-enunciated speech.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would remove the aspiration marker and make the r voiceless like this: .  It's just simple spreading of voicelessness. Maybe that would be confusing.  Is there another good example set?  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "nitrate" sounds totally wrong without either aspiration or a . Possibly both.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The voiceless r is due to the aspiration. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which dialect is supposed to aspirate the /t/ in nitrate? because as far as I know (and as this very same article says just a few lines above) in English stops are aspirated only at the beginnign of the word or at the beginning of stressed syllables, neither of which is the case for nitrate (stress is on the i ).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:718:1E03:AED1:CD68:D9DC:4466:8C80 (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Night Rate' vs. Nitrate 

message: This article is still a bit of a stub ... Well, let's compare the words coffee (en) and café (fr). The French pronunciation sounds fairly like "guff-fay" because the c is NEVER aspirated in French. That's a 100% rule, and will distinguish a good foreign French speaker from a bad one. One less common language where you find this is Finnish: kaappi means cupboard, and the k is always very smooth in sound, because it's never aspirated either. Also listen how F1 pilots' names like Räikkönen are pronounced in Kimi's home country. The k never sounds hard. -andy 80.129.87.32 16:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not allophony, that's phonetic realization.  So English and French both have /k/ but in English it is  (in that position) while in French it is .Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good example for allophones is comparing English to French! 

message: I heard that some phonemes in Hawaiian have highly unusual allophones. Maybe it would be worth mentioning (as well as examples from many other languages).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.83.161 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawaiian phonology talks about the variations in the pronunciation of consonants, although most of the weird ones are sounds in free variation.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allophones in Hawaiian 

message: Allophony would appear to be an operative concept in phonetics--the variation of realized sounds, across speakers, dialects, languages, even just across instantiations. It is also a key concept in largely outmoded phonemic accounts of phonology. Much of the rest of this article could just be covered in phonetics and phonology then. Since so much of Wiki is shite, really, less is much much more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.105.150 (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not cut to a short dictionary-like article 

message: I took out this paragraph as I feel it belongs in phoneme, and only confuses the issue here:
:Speakers of a particular language perceive a phoneme as a distinctive sound in that language. This could support the theory that a language's phonology is comprised of an identifiable, stable set of phonemes. However, it might also indicate languages simply schematize and limit redundancy in how phonetics are used in a given spoken languages, thereby making spoken communication more informationally efficient. One theory is that phonemes are determinative of speech perception; however, that is not the only possible interpretation. Rather, phonemes may themselves be the result of successful speech perception (in other words, a phoneme can be identified because successful lexical recognition has already taken place). Usually, allophones falling under a specified phoneme are not considered distinctive, but rather a variant of that phoneme. In theory, changing the allophone won't change the meaning of a word, but the actual result may sound non-native, or be unintelligible to normal speech perception processes.   
kwami (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted paragraph 

message: I think some word examples of the different allophonic processes would greatly help readers to better understand what is happening in their vocal tract by practicing with actual words.
Ex:  
Lack of plosion – In English a plosive (p, t, k, b, d, g) has no plosion when it is followed by another plosive or an affricate inside words or across word boundary.  example: ditch /dɪtʃ/; judge /dʒʌdʒ/ 
(It might also be helpful to indicate the lack of plosion as a quasi glottal stop, but without creating a separate syllable.)
Nasal plosion – In English a plosive (p, t, k, b, d, g) has nasal plosion when it’s followed by nasal, inside a word or across word boundary.  
example: big noise /bɪgⁿ nɔɪz/   
etc...  Finitoultero (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of the different allophonic processes. 

message: Hi. In the section Allophone#Examples_in_English_vs._other_languages, concerning the the Hindi-Uru example part that says "write the two phones differently and treat them as completely distinct phonemes: [p] is written as 'प' (or 'پ'), while [pʰ] is written 'फ' (or 'پھ').[5]"  , shouldn't it be added that these (phones) map to distinct graphemes too?  - Scriber (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me the sentence already says that twice. —Tamfang (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  phones map to graphemes not only phonemes in example 

message: Are the sounds phonetically similar? — Seems awfully subjective. —Tamfang (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's meant to cover cases such as English [h] and [ŋ] (as mentioned on the image description page).  I didn't know of any way to state it more clearly that would have fit in the image at the chosen font size. AnonMoos (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the flowchart 

message: Does English really have nasal vowel allophones, as stated in the last section? This is not mentioned in English phonology. I think Spanish might make a better example in that section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokajanje (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: May be more obvious in closed syllables ("meant" instead of "many"), and somewhat dependent on dialect. AnonMoos (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nasal Vowels 

message: The aspiration rule as currently written is mistaken.  It states that
 
In English a voiceless plosive (that is p, t or k) is aspirated whenever it stands as the only consonant at the beginning of the stressed syllable or of the first, stressed or unstressed, syllable in a word.
The part that says "the only consonant" is incorrect.  It does not have to be the only consonant, it just has to be the first consonant.  E.g. the word play has aspirated p.  I will make the correction accordingly.
Safulop (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also not true that word-initial position necessarily implies aspiration: the /t/ of Call me tomorrow! can be either aspirated or "flapped" in some varieties of English. Perhaps the author meant utterance-initial (or post-pausal) position, not word-initial? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  English aspiration rule 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Allophone. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110212012436/http://www.elloandfriends.uni-osnabrueck.de/wikis/1/show?n=PhoneticsandPhonology.PhonemesAndAllophones to http://www.elloandfriends.uni-osnabrueck.de/wikis/1/show?n=PhoneticsandPhonology.PhonemesAndAllophones
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I interested Jaya chandra sng (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joyo star 

message: Descriptions such as In English, a plosive (/p, t, k, b, d, ɡ/) has nasal plosion if it is followed by a nasal, whether within a word or across a word boundary are likely to be incomprehensible to a general readership. Each point in the list needs at least one clear example. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples list needs actual examples 

message: I believe this is a wiki-user-invented calque, not a true lingustic term. If the section remains without citations for a few more months, I will remove it. 121.45.174.241 (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A cursory search and I found several references to allotones on google, and google scholar. Seems to be used by linguists, therefore it can stay. And like many, many statements in this article, it could do with a citation.--Megaman en m (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Allotone" 

message: The citation around footnote 5 doesn't make sense. The text mentions Trager & Boch 1941, but footnote 5 cites Trager 1959. I checked Trager 1959. That article doesn't mention the term allophone, nor is it related to the topic, nor does Trager 1959 contain any reference to Bloch & Trager 1941. Tanturi (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the correct article and edited the footnote accordingly. Tanturi (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  False citations in History of concept