Talk:Assimilation (phonology)

message: Practically rewrote the whole thing (haven't finished yet and I'm sure it needs more proofreading and rechecking for clarity). The original definitions and discussions, while well-meaning, seemed awfully thin (there are brief definitions etc. under "sound change") and inaccurate in detail, and the examples struck me as not presented in an illuminating way. Especially the Russian ones,  thoroughly opaque unless you already understand the principles. Alsihler 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This article isn't very clear, even for someone who has heard of assimilation before. I would suggest less long-winded sentences, more sub-sections, and possibly adding the examples to the theoretical explanations, to back them up. Zigzig20s 14:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: I know of three types of assimilations, which would make it easy to read (three sections). This is probably restrictive, there are possibly more types of assimilations, and hopefully someone can expand my notes. I will, however, type what I know here - hopefully this can be used as a basis for a clean-up.
1 - regressive assimilation : a phoneme is influenced by another phoneme that comes before it
:: JohndanR sez: You're saying the same thing as (2), putting it in the passive voice. Why not just say "A phoneme influences a preceding phoneme."?
:: I recall "retrogressive assimilation" is the more common term. JohndanR (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  regressive assimilation, progressive assimilation, and coalescence in English 

message: The word bank, pronounced [bæŋk], is given as an example illustrating anticipatory assimilation of a nasal consonant to a stop consonant. This would mean that there is a phonological process realizing /bænk/ as [bæŋk]. But do we have a good reason to assume a phonemic /bænk/ giving rise to an uttered [bæŋk]? For whatever reason, the orthography is bank, but orthographical rules can be somewhat arbitrary and be guided by non-phonological considerations. The orthography of the word might as well have been bangk. In the financial meaning, the word comes from French banque /bɑ̃k/, and in the meaning "incline" from proto-Germanic *bangkon. A better example is unkind [ʌŋˈkaɪnd] – or it would be if that word is actually pronounced that way, but I'm not sure it is.  --Lambiam 16:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Bank'' a good example of assimilation? 

message: There's a section where the article reads that 'Some authorities distinguish between partial and complete assimilation'. If there are linguists out there who don't, then this is news to me. Is everyone cool with this sentence being made more passive? Something like 'Assimilation can be complete or partial...'. 63.224.17.43 (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete or Partial? 

message: While cupboard could be a good example of assimilation and degemination absorbed historically (diachronic restructuring), it makes no sense synchronically, and will surely confuse/puzzle readers not steeped in phonology. Does anyone object to it being removed? 47.32.20.133 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would object. This article covers both synchronic and diachronic assimilation, right in the lead section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on what "covered" means. They're both there, but presented with no explanation of the distinction, and in the third paragraph the opportunity to illustrate is totally missed. Read the text as though you know nothing of phonology and phonetics, you're not consciously aware of structure vs. surface phonetics, etc. Aside from misuse of phonemic / / where phonetic [ ] are called for ([ˈhæmbæɡ] is a pronunciation; /ˈhæmbæɡ/ would be a structure), there's no explanation in the lead section of the distinction between synchronic phonetic assimilation and diachronic restructuring, leaving the uninformed reader to figure out for him/herself the chasm in status between the handbag and cupboard examples -- or not figure it out. (Somewhat less urgently, handbag is a complex example /ndb/ → [mb] involving not only assimilation -- same for handkerchief further on -- whereas examples such as in California, incomprehensible illustrate assimilation simply and clearly.) There's also the opportunity to pull up an example from below to illustrate: historical Latin /kt/ > Italian /tt/ → [tt] (e.g. otto) and synchronic /kt/ → [tt] (ictus).47.32.20.133 (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think your points is wrong at all. However, the solution to inclarity and insufficient information isn't deletion of more information and of examples.   As for which examples are clearer and simpler, a potential solution is moving them.  If both the lead examples are technically more complex than we'd like, use them as complex examples (with explanations of the complexity) in the body, and recycle some of the simplest ones in the lead (or add some new, similar ones).  We don't need to actually lose anything. And it will actually be helpful to retain (with more material) the complex ones, as an illustration of how assimilation can interface with other linguistic processes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We may be saying the same thing to some extent, although very differently. My point is that a principle should be introduced as clearly as possible, illustrated with examples that are as transparent as possible. Neither is the case with handbag or cupboard in the intro. 47.32.20.133 (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I'm just urging a shuffling of examples and addition of some if necessary, without removals, as to the total content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  cupboard doesn't belong here as is 

message: In the example of Regressive Assimilation, we see this:
* : yom (/jo̞m/) + da (/da̠/) → yonda(/jo̞nda̠/)
But gramamtically it is 
* : yom (/jo̞m/) + ta (/ta̠/) → yonda(/jo̞nda̠/)
So, why is this an example of Regressive Assimilation, as in my understanding this better characterises Reciprocal Assimilation.
Is there something that I'm missing here? Because I'm confused.
CJLippert (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this an example of Reciprocal Assimilation instead of Regressive Assimilation 

message: — Assignment last updated by Holymohly (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! I am the student editing this article - I'm going to be adding a new section titled "How Assimilation Has Altered English Pronunciation", with a subsection that specifically focuses on the affrication of /tr/ and /dr/, which is a more recent development in English. I will be adding this section tonight - feel free to give criticism/make edits! Holymohly (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made the update - I decided to change the section title to "Influence on Language". Any edits/suggestions welcome! Holymohly (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Independent Reading course LING3020

message: — Assignment last updated by PraiseGod.A (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Graduate Phonology