Talk:Voiceless labiodental affricate

message: :There is no voiceless labiodental fricative [f]
yet
:compare [ɱfutsu] "tortoise"
?? õ_o
--Tropylium (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-contradicting example

message: Is there a voiced equivalent? If so, please at least name it here (will complete the chart). -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a "voiced labiodental affricate" but I don't know if it ever occurs anywhere. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 14:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voiced one exists? 

message: When I just split the table, this was based on the understanding that the voiceless labiodental affricate and the voiceless bilabial-labiodental affricate are two different sounds that are simply combined in one article here for convenience. Only later did I realize that they are treated here as "variants" of the same sound. Is "variant of a sound" a valid linguistic term? If so, where is it covered? ◄ Sebastian 11:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In reality, there is no such thing as a "single sound" because every sound is different from another, from language to language, from speaker to speaker, and from utterance to utterance. So whether a sound is a variant of another or not is completely and invariably arbitrary (e.g., when phonology is taken into account, it might refer to a co-allophone of the same phoneme). The reason the bilabial-labiodental affricate is discussed here alongside the pure labiodental one is an editorial one, inasmuch as the two are so similar (and rare) that to give each a separate article is kind of silly. Simple as that. Nardog (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this split (whether to separate articles or even separate sections) is premature. Are we sure about the exact place of articulation of all of the affricates that we list? I don't think so. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nardog, the editorial(But what a seasonally appropriate link!) reason is not a bad one. I completely agree with you on the arbitrariness of such borders, but we need to maintain some distinctions or else we couldn't write any separate articles for most topics under the sun. So, Mr KEBAB, using your uncertainty as an argument that a distinction is "premature" is putting the cart before the horse: This article actually lags behind its relevant context here. The difference in place of articulation is the same as that between the voiceless bilabial stop  and the labiodental stop . If we are sure enough of the distinction to have two articles on those, then we can, with the same certainty, build on that distinction here. But first, we should clarify a more fundamental question. ◄ Sebastian 18:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not exactly what I was talking about. To me, the relevant question is: are we sure about the exact place of articulation of each and every voiceless labiodental affricate we list in this article? If we aren't, then the split must be reverted as it's misleading. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only thing we must do is go by the sources. And the sources clearly call it either one or the other. And, btw, merging two tables can be just as misleading as splitting one. ◄ Sebastian 18:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, they do not - that's what I'm talking about! The XiNkuna dialect entry and the Bavarian one are unsourced and the Luxembourgish one is vague (the source doesn't state the exact place of articulation). I'm reverting the split. It's inappropriate. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're insisting that the article needs be structured to accommodate something that is not sourced, because you call anything misleading that doesn't support your interpretation?  *Sigh* - one more win for WP:OR. See the next section. ◄ Sebastian 19:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I better remove myself from this conversation. The suspicion of being baited is just too strong. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants 

message: From the article:
:Phonotactically, this sound does not occur after long vowels, diphthongs or /l/.
I don't know how relevant German dialects are in this context, but in at least one German dialect, Bavarian, /pf/ can follow long vowels, like in Kopf (pronounced with /o:/ in West Middle Bavarian). -Pingvin1970 (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  /pf/ after long vowels in German