Talk:Ubykh phonology

message: The /w/ and /r/ are described as bilabial and alveolar approximants. If this is the case, please use the appropriate IPA symbols. Using a convenient transcription and calling it IPA only confuses people. It's not a problem in a grammar, but is in an encyclopedia, especially when it's covert. kwami 08:11, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
:I don't know who did this table originally, but strictly, the /r/ is trilled, and the /w/ is a labiovelar approximant; thus, the symbols were both correct, although their positions in the chart aren't. I've now changed the hyperlinks appropriately, but I'm afraid I don't know how to edit the table to give an extra row for the alveolar trill. thefamouseccles 01:36, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kwami, please note that I said the labial approximant of Ubykh is labiovelar (like the English w), not labiodental (as found in Dutch). The transcription  is therefore inappropriate. Also, opinions are divided on the status of the Ubykh postalveolars, which is why I had preserved the more traditional IPA symbols for the postalveolars and not used J. C. Catford's sibilant-plus-caret symbols for this series, which transcription is entirely unused outside of Catford's publications. thefamouseccles 12:15, 18 Jan 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I must've just misread the note on the /w/. I'll also restore the frics with a comment in the note that the s^ notation is not widespread. kwami 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem; with a language as phonetically complex as this, there's bound to be some miscommunication eventually. :) thefamouseccles 13:44, 21 Jan 2006 (UTC)

text: I've also altered the hyperlinks from the alveolar stop and fricative series, which for some weird reason were pointing to the dental consonants rather than the alveolar ones. User:thefamouseccles 01:45, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've relabeled the laterals as specifically fricative or approximant. Please correct me if I got it wrong. kwami 20:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries - you have it right, from a purely phonetic point of view at least. Interestingly, despite its clear approximated phonetic nature, [] is probably phonologically a voiced lateral fricative rather than an approximant, since (a) it participates in voicing assimilation in consonant clusters, where other approximants do not - compare  seven,  red and  four, and (b) it seems to be at least partially cognate with Adyghe and Kabardian [], the only voiced lateral in those languages (which also participates in cluster assimilation). Nevertheless, that is mostly conjecture and partly original research, so doesn't belong on Wikipedia... thefamouseccles 13:52, 21 Jan 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notation for /w/ and /r/

message: The allophony rules are given as, e.g.,
:
I would think that this should be
:
since it's simply describing the realization of the two phonemes, but I'm not sure enough of the original intent to make the change.  Would someone correct the entry or explain why it should stay as it is (so no one else makes that mistake)? --CRGreathouse 22:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phonetic or Phonemic?

message: I've reverted some recent edits to this page, and explained myself in here. The discussion concerns many articles, so I thought it would be a good idea to keep it central. I hereby invite everyone who is interested to join the discussion on Talk:Northwest Caucasian languages. Thank you
Vito Genovese 13:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to a discussion that is relevant to this page