Talk:Voiceless labial–velar fricative

message: Should we move this to voiceless labiovelar approximant to match its content? Or maybe a more precice voiceless labialized velar approximant? kwami 19:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Voortle 18:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Concurred. Absolutely worthless. wtf IS a Voiceless labial approximant ? Like the guy below is asking, Is it the Cool Whip OR NOT? Speak English that people who came here can understand FFS. 69.255.22.118 (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Try following a few of the links and you may learn something about the subject. If you're not interested in it, fine – there are millions of other articles for you to read. FWIW, I came to this article not to congratulate myself on my expertise but because I wanted to find out more about it. Vilĉjo (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Irish English features <hw> <wh>.  Could you mention this as well as Southern English?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechindi (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish English

message: Please don't start an edit war over the Cornish use of <wh>/<hw>, Kernoweger.  You originally explained in the Note the circumstances under which <wh> and <hw> were used.  This was tidied up,  made more succinct, and the meaning of 'hwath' was clarified, quite reasonably in my opinion.  You reverted that, without giving any justification, and removed the Note altogether.  I undid that revision and explained that I was doing so because the previous version was clearer and more accurate.  I stand by that assertion.
You have now undone that revision with no explanation other than 'Don't be so transparent'.  I don't understand that comment and I doubt whether other editors will.  If it is intended as a justification for the removal of factual information about the use of <wh> and <hw> in Cornish, then I'd ask you to clarify it here.
I'm going to undo your revert because the previous version was clearer and more accurate.
Please come here and explain your rationale before you revert it again, Kernoweger.
Please don't start an edit war over the Cornish use of <wh>/<hw>.Treylyer (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You just want hw to be described instead of wh. I'm not going to pretend to assume good faith. You came on here and changed it because you want hw. It's as simple as that. Any other claim of being "tidied up", "more succinct" or "clarified" is just disingenuous and transparent. You know as well as I do what your agenda is. I'm not going to bother with it. There was no reason to change the original version apart from your petty factionalism. Well done for bringing the Cornish orthography disputes to yet another Internet page. I'm sure every Cornish speaker will congratulate you for it. --Kernoweger (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Time for a compromise then, as we both know you won't initiate one. Your disingenuous concerns about the lack of clarification in the "notes" column does not explain the need for you to change "whath" to "hwath" in the "words" column, an action whose only possible purpose was to remove a form of Cornish you personally dislike. --Kernoweger (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I've made the compromise clearer. Will you now be arguing about which word goes first? --Kernoweger (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Terrorists"? Haha, how dramatic. You wouldn't have to work with us at all if you had just left the article alone in the first place. But no, you saw wh and had to pounce. So yet another blemish on the image of the language might have been avoided had you just been able to restrain yourself. You could argue (and I'm sure you would) that you had a duty to add hw in order to fully describe the range of orthographic options, but we both know that duty had nothing to do with your decision to hit the edit button on this minor, seldom-read page barely relevant to Cornish. I think that says more about you than it does about me. Nadelik lowen! --Kernoweger (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need to have the word listed with both spellings if one is much more common amongst standard Cornish orthographies.  The note tells me that this is correct. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 17:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I would agree, but a ridiculously large can of worms surrounds this minor orthographic difference. --Kernoweger (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's quite ridiculous, Kernoweger.  IMHO, your behavior here has been in quite poor form, unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor.  I hope this isn't your usual MO.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 21:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornish

message: As far as I can see from this article, the voiceless labio-velar approximant is voiceless, and is articulated with a stricture that is not close enough to produce turbulent noise. Logically, that means that this segment is completely silent. Of course, it isn't silent, because IPA  is a fricative. RoachPeter (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right for English, though take a look at Approximant consonant#Approximants versus fricatives.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to continue discussing this here, but there is more going on on the Talk page for the IPA Chart itself, so I'll carry on there. RoachPeter (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of voiceless approximant 

message: Someone has deleted the optional symbolization of this sound with a non-syllabic and devoiced [u] symbol. Strictly speaking this deletion is incorrect and should be reverted. Approximants such as [w] and [j] are traditionally classed as non-syllabic vocoids. The lead to this article is wrong to describe the sound in question simply as consonantal - it usually functions phonologically as a consonant, but is phonetically vowel-like. However, if this article should be amended to make the point clear, the same should be done for voiceless [j], which at present does not seem to be given the option of the symbolization with non-syllabic devoiced [i].  RoachPeter (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of vowel symbol 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Voiced labialized-velar approximant which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: This phoneme exists in Spanish, a lot of people pronounce words such as juego, juez, juan, enjuagar, etc with this phoneme.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.164.32.58 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They do not. In Spanish, they're clearly two segments with a clear voicing of , so . I'm not convinced any dialect uses , but all possible pronunciations consist of two distinct, separate sounds. Sol505000 (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish 

message: Can't it just be represented as /hw/? Ultradestroya48 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the "wh" combo can be pronounced with the /h/ preceding the /w/, but that isn't what this symbol represents. As the article notes, the articulation is simultaneous, with the back of the mouth and the lips concurrently approaching a [k͡p] articulation. Largoplazo (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: [w] is already a co-articulation at the lips and the dorsum/velum. Nardog (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by, it "already" is? It is, and so is [ʍ]. One is voiced, the other voiceless. Largoplazo (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What point were you trying to make by saying [ʍ] is co-articulated, then? The difference between [hw] and [ʍ] lies in the timing of voice, at least nominally (in actuality the notation  is usually an attempt to reduce the number of symbols or phonemes), not in place of articulation, so what do the places of articulation of [ʍ] have to do with the OP's question? Nardog (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The only point I was making, in response to the original question, is that [ʍ] can't "just be represented" by [hw] because the latter implies a sequence of sounds whereas the former is a single sound involving co-articulation. Largoplazo (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've been saying [w] is also co-articulated so co-articulation is not where the difference between [hw] and [ʍ] does, or can, lie. I just see no reason to bring it up in an answer to the question. Nardog (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous co-articulated consonants, including [w], [ʍ], the pronuncation of Danish final "d", West African sounds commonly spelled "gb" in English, and Arabic "emphatic" consonants, exist. Their existence doesn't contradict the observation that [ʍ] is appropriately represented by a single glyph because it's co-articulated, rather than, as Ultradestroya48 was asking, by a pair of adjacent glyphs, which would imply sequential articulation, which would be false. The only thing I can think of that you might be stuck on is that the second glyph proposed by Ultra is [w], but I wasn't even paying attention to that, I was addressing what I figured was the larger question which is why not use a pair of simpler symbols instead of one specialized one. Largoplazo (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see. That reading would only make sense if they had written  instead of  though. Nardog (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hwat? 

message: Why on earth would a labiovelar approximant be labiodental? There's a 99% chance this is false. I don't have the source so I can't confirm, but there's just absolutely no way that's true. Dylanvt (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a mistake. Fixed. Largoplazo (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  labiodental??????