Talk:Voiced palatal nasal

message: A combination of noon(נ) and yud(י) makes the same sound, isn't it? like the words- מניין, מעוניין , בניין...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.156.12 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew 

message: Polish <ń> is alveopalatal, the same as <ć>, <dź>, <ś> and <ź>. It differs from both Spanish palatal nasal and Russian palatalized dental nasal.
For unknown reason, IPA lacks the appropriate symbol for alveopalatal nasal, however it is present in Unicode 4.0. (U+0235). It looks like "n" with curled leg: ȵ (you will not be able to see anything here unless you have a good unicode font - Arial Unicode MS has not the proper glyph unfortunately but Code2000 or TITUS Cyberbit Basic are OK).
I suggest to make a page for the alveopalatal nasal.
Grzegorj 08:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But an alveolopalatal is simply a palatalized postalveolar; there's no more call for a special article than there is for any other palatalized consonant. kwami 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe the term in English is "place of assimilation."  Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildas (~~~~).  The link you provide does not go to your user page or talk page.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It wouldn't be a bad idea to mention Polish here too though. I'm not sure how to mention it, but since there is confusion, I think it's called for.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.46.251 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish 

message: Link 12 is broken. I wish to go there but, it just takes me to the same page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.15.120 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not broken.  It's supposed to take you down to the reference.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: Should we make more about the distinction between a truly palatal nasal and an alveolopalatal one? We already mention that Polish and Japanese have the latter, I believe I can find a source that says the same of Italian and Catalan (and possibly other Romance languages).  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Place of articulation

message: Kwamikagami claims that: The palatal nasal is ... in the International Phonetic Alphabet ... is ⟨ ɲ⟩ 
I don't believe this. I believe what the Unicode document says  HTML2011 (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Kwami is correct.  [ɲ] is the IPA symbol for a palatal nasal.  Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet (Cambridge, 1999), page ix.  Also at the official site for the IPA.  Unicode is not the official source for the IPA, the International Phonetic Association is.  And I just looked at the Unicode chart you linked to and there at 0272 is [ɲ], the IPA symbol for a palatal nasal.  --Taivo (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remove dispute tags, before the dispute is resolved. I cannot read Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet (Cambridge, 1999), page ix. So I will try to locate your claim in the IPA site. The link you gave doesn't support your claim. HTML2011 (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You will see [ɲ] clearly labeled as "Palatal nasal" in the IPA chart.  It absolutely supports the fact that [ɲ] is the IPA symbol for a palatal nasal.  Are you actually a linguist?  I am and your assertions are simply false.  This is not in dispute--[ɲ] is a palatal nasal.  If you don't have a copy of the official IPA Handbook, then I doubt your qualifications to claim that there is a dispute here.  There simply is none and the web link I've provided to the official site of the IPA is unequivocal.  I simply don't understand how you can even think there is a dispute here.  --Taivo (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not dispute that "[ɲ] is a palatal nasal"! HTML2011 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the "dispute" tag is improperly placed and your comments are misleading.  Right above this, you say "Kwamikagami claims that: The palatal nasal is ... in the International Phonetic Alphabet ... is ⟨ ɲ⟩  I don't believe this."  How else is that to be interpreted?  If that is not your dispute, then you need to clearly state your dispute so that your issue can be discussed and addressed.  Until you actually have a dispute and actually state it in unambiguous terms that every editor can understand, then leave the dispute tag off.  --Taivo (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A removed one "is" and some dots for you. Can you understand the sentence "The palatal nasal in the International Phonetic Alphabet is ⟨ ɲ⟩."? HTML2011 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood what you wrote even with the extra "is".  But that is a true statement, "The palatal nasal in the IPA is [ɲ]".  What is your dispute with that?  I've provided references to prove it.  --Taivo (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. The IPA link does only give a chart, it doesn't make the stated claim. So I still dispute that it is true. Would you say "The bilabial plosive in the IPA is [b]" is a true statement? HTML2011 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: HTML, the chart is the official IPA document.  It is indisputable.  If you want, I'll provide you with a hundred references to it.  Since you don't seem to understand the IPA, then I'll assume that you are not a trained linguist.  And if you are getting hyperactive about the, then you have a serious problem with editing Wikipedia and understanding the meaning of English "the".  No, [b] is not the "bilabial plosive", it is the "voiced bilabial plosive" since there is a separate symbol for the "voiceless bilabial plosive".  But the IPA does not have separate symbols for voiced and unvoiced nasals--one symbol is used for both.  Unvoicing (since voicing is the default for nasals) is marked with a diacritic.  So "the" palatal nasal symbol is [ɲ].  There is only one symbol for each point of articulation for nasals.  --Taivo (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Cnilep, you are certainly correct that the Unicode annotations are not a proper source for phonetic descriptions.  This type of comment, "voiced X nasal" also occurs in a couple of other sources, but the primary body for phonetic symbols is the IPA.  We can also see [ɲ] described as simply "palatal nasal" in multiple linguistic descriptions of individual languages without specifying "voiced" before it.  --Taivo (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palatal nasal - 118 

message: Because we've had repeated confusion of [n̠ʲ] and [ɲ], which is exacerbated by the broad transcription of both with ⟨ɲ⟩, I've created a separate article for alveolo-palatal nasal and moved some of our examples there. I suspect that several of the remaining examples are not true palatals and should be moved as well. Perhaps if we confirm that they are true palatals, we could mention that in the notes, so the reader knows which ones are certain, and which merely assumed?
(We might want to create a similar article for Lateral alveolo-palatal approximant, which is also often confused.) — kwami (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The two sounds are often confused and descriptions don't necessarily distinguish them such that the distinction is not necessarily verifiable for some of the languages given.  I'm not sure what about that would call for two separate articles. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 23:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If a "palatal" sound is coronal, it shouldn't be listed under palatal. But people will insist on adding it. By having a separate article, we can deflect that problem. Or perhaps we can merge it here? — kwami (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that coronal ≠ palatal prohibition found in something like SOWL? Palatal consonant seems to defy it. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Contradict it how? Palatals are dorsal per the SOWL, and AFAIK our articles all assume that. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't specify that palatals have to be dorsal and says in the lede that "Consonants with the tip of the tongue curled back against the palate are called retroflex."  That implies that other coronal sounds made at the hard palate could be called palatal.  If that's not true, it ought to be fixed.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Palatal" is short for dorso-palatal: a dorsal consonant made at the palate. A coronal consonant made at the palate is "retroflex". I think that's explained in the place of articulation article. — kwami (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: One thing we should check up on, is that AFAICT there is no distinction between alveolo-palatal and palato-alveolar when it comes to non-fricatives. But I don't have a RS for that. — kwami (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alveolo-palatal nasal]] 

message: The palatal nasal doesn't exist in any Armenian dialect or literary register. That's just one of the mistakes in the source. --Mahtrqerin (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly to have pre-stop allophones anyway. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that silly?  Isn't that what happens in English? — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and in nearly every other language which has [ndʒ]. Anyway, it wouldn't actually be palatal, unless [dʒ] is palatal, so it's also a bad example. — kwami (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

text: But believe me, there's no such an allophone of [n] in any of the forms of Armenian, literary or dialectal. The only possible way to utter that sound in Armenian is to be a native Russian speaker trying to speak Armenian, or a kind of a copycat thinking this is the prestige accent - until recently this was considered by many ignorant Armenian-born Russian-speaking Armenians to be very prestigious - to sound as Russian as possible, who, by the way, used to use many Russian features (heavy consonant palatalisation, only velar or palatal [l]'s, no difference between the rhotics, no ejectives and creakies). All the languages of the former Axis of Evil had been undergoing huge Russian linguistic influence till the collapse of the USSR.. --Mahtrqerin (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what the entry was saying. Simple assimilation like that almost certainly occurs in Armenian. — kwami (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, similar processes are present, let us presume, in all languages, but to various degrees. E.g., velar-fronting may be moderate and hardly detectable as in English, or very heavy, as in Russian. I was talking about foreign-accent speech. Anyway Armenian has no palatal nasal.--Mahtrqerin (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian 

message: There should be a distinguishment between the voiceless bilabial plosive and the bilabial plosive. Wikipedia shouldn't merge the articles together.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCTekkit (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bilabial plosive? This is the article for the palatal nasal.  The merge discussion is above. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 02:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't  Merge 

message: I'm wondering why English is not included, given that we have names like "Tanya," and also loan-words from languages like Italian and Spanish such as "lasagna" and "canyon." -2003:CA:8734:94E:C0F:5823:D09F:43B8 (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In English it's /nj/, like /ˈkænjən/ (canyon). Not strictly the same sound. Equinox ◑ 16:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  English?