Talk:Belarusian phonology

message: This IPA table is crap!
Acc to Padluzhny, 1979, belarusan has NO glottal fricatives. When yer put any competentive source for opposite, you'll return that table.
:Your personal opinion is not a reason to do what you've done. Unomano 20:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seconded. It would be much better to just blank out the questionable entries. This table wasn't all "crap". I wasn't able to find any academic source for the IPA equivalence, but initially there were some fairly reasonable, "no-alternative" guesses in this table. Later it got "developed" from the Omniglot, which is completely no reliable source in that matter. Yury Tarasievich 06:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mostly to Unomano: it would be better to have not only the IPA form of the articulation table, but also the old form of the table, which quoted the translated Belarusian phonological definitions of the phonemes. That was there for a good reason. Yury Tarasievich 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO glottal fricatives 

message: Why do /l/ and /w/ are put into  and  cells (see IPA table) ? Unomano 20:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: /l/ and /w/ are approximants.  /l/ is a lateral approximant, meaning air flows on the side of the tongue and /w/ has simultaneous lip rounding.  In either case this is non-contrastive so extra rows or columns aren't necessary.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong cells 

message: There's a similar issue at Ukrainian phonology.  I don't know if the postalveolar consonants are retroflex, as in Russian, or if they're palato-alveolar.  Before we change it to the former, we should find a clear source on the matter.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, [ʂ] sound will suit better for the Belarusian [ш] sound, as [ʃ] sounds unacceptably soft for the Belarusian language. —zedlik (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source? — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 03:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just basing on the pronunciation examples in Voiceless postalveolar fricative and Voiceless retroflex fricative. [ш] sound is always hard in Belarusian, it can't sound as in Voiceless postalveolar fricative--it's too soft there. Maybe  an example in Voiceless retroflex fricative sounds a little bit harder and expressive than needed, but this pronunciation is much closer to what Belarusians say. The same is with [ч]--[tʂ] fits Belarusian pronunciation better than [tʃ]. —zedlik (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Retroflex and postalveolar

message: The article says:
:Usually, the number of 39 is quoted, excluding the 9 geminated versions of consonants as "mere variations".
I marked it as "vague". It may be true, but examples for the "usually" part would make the article better. Thank you. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Slanted i.e. biased? Towards what? Peter238 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mere variations

message: 'Unlike in Russian, there is no emphasized separation after the /j/ in the pronunciation of the iotified /ja/, /jo/, /je/ and /ji/. This means palatalized consonants are always palatalized and iotification is not separable as in Russian.'
I think I will add a need clarification note, because I do not understand what it means and I think it is unnecessarily difficult to read at least or could do with some rewording at best, if it actually makes any sense. For example, what if someone without any knowledge in Russian read that? I have some background in Russian and I still cannot figure out what that text says. Am I alone in this? Thank you Heikocvijic (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further digging I was able to find the source and nowhere in it did I find that this is true: 'Unlike in Russian, there is no emphasized separation after the /j/ in the pronunciation of the iotified /ja/, /jo/, /je/ and /ji/. This means palatalized consonants are always palatalized and iotification is not separable as in Russian.' Not only did I search for that info in the page of the book (which apparently is 335, and that is just the index or something. Somewhere it says page 53 I think, info was not there either) in which that info allegedly is, but I also searched throughout the entirety of the book. I can read in Cyrilic and also used translations (noted, some phonetic symbols are universal anyway) and I still could not find anything supporting that claim. I suppose it is not true then. Worth noting, that info is in the Belarusian (tarashkevitsa) and Ukrainian versions of this article, same source, and the source leads to a page in the book which is literally the index or smn. Nowhere else in the internet have I found it. I think it is best to remove that info, but I do not want to remove it out of fear it might be true, I just cannot find any source for it. Opinions? Also, I find it odd that /ju/ is not included in the text I quoted Heikocvijic (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  /j/