Talk:Nuxalk language

message: Bagemihl also lists a series of sonorants, m n l, with an under-dot, as phonemes. Are these glottalized, or just syllabic? kwami 08:02, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
:Nater says they're syllabic. Mo-Al (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Under-dotted sonorants

message: This article makes no mention of written Nuxálk.  Does it have a written form?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.33 (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written form 

message: This page was moved from Nuxalk to Bella Coola based on a reference to the English-first practice of the First Peoples' Cultural Council, but on their very own website, First Voices, the FPCC (joining the practice of many other First Nations sources, including the Nuxalk Nation themselves) refer to the language in English only as Nuxalk. While historically linguists have used the name Bella Coola, in English and Nuxalk usage today, the term Nuxalk is now paramount and the continuation of Bella Coola on Wikipedia is out of date, analogous to insisting on referring to the Khoekhoe language as Hottentot. The page should be moved back. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move

message: Why does the phonetic transcription of the name have stress on the first syllable? Isn't it on the second syllable?
"In certain environments there is, however, little variation concerning the place of stress: (a) it usually falls on the last V in the position -T#" (Nater 1979 "Bella Coola phonology" Lingua 49:169-187)
"Typically, stress falls on the last vowel (= syllabic sonorant) of a word, provided it is followed by at least one obstruent" (Bagemihl (1991) "Syllable Structure in Bella Coola" LI 22(4):589-646)
There is a citation to Bauer (2007) The Linguistic Student's Handbook, but this book does not provide any pronunciation for the name "Nuxalk"; it does provide a pronunciation for the name "Bella Coola", namely /ˈbelə ˈkuːlə/, which differs from the current pronunciation in the article: /ˈbɛlə ˈkuːlə/. Why is this work being cited for a pronunciation it doesn't have? I'm adding a citation needed. 24.87.208.217 (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who lives here, Nuxalk definitely has the stress on the first syllable these days. At times when speaking Nuxalk, I do stress it on the second syllable, but since the word is primarily used in English by most people, the accent tends to shift as well. Either way there is quite a bit of variation regarding stress, in most cases it's not in stone. Muskwatch (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pronunciation /ˈnuːhɒlk/

message: nuyamł-tus ti-ʔimlk-tx ti-ʔimmllkī-tx 'the man made/let the boy sing'/'the man sang for the boy' appears to provide two opposite meanings. Who is singing? The man or the boy? Would this correctly be:  
nuyamł-tus/ti-ʔimlk-tx/ti-ʔimmllkī-tx 'the man made the boy sing'/'the man let the boy sing'/'the man sang for the boy'
Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous example of Passive Causative paradigm 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nuxalk language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://citizenshift.org/tags/bella-coola
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article contradicted itself. First it said that Nater proposed that /m̩, n̩, l̩/ are separate phonemes from non-syllabic /m, n, l/. Observing that /i, u/ could similarly be considered the syllabic counterparts of the non-syllabic /j, w/, it then suddenly turned around and claimed Nater's analysis leaves Nuxalk with a single phonemic vowel because /i, u/ turn out to be /j, w/. But if syllabic and non-syllabic sonorants are separate phonemes, then /i, u/ are separate phonemes from /j, w/, too! You could transcribe /i, u/ as /j̩, w̩/ to emphasize this pairing of phonemes, but that wouldn't change the fact that they're vowels.
It's common for languages to have phonemes that can be arranged in pairs (or triplets or quadruplets): long and short vowels, long and short consonants, voiced and voiceless obstruents, you name it. That doesn't mean such pairs are a single phoneme! The distinguishing feature is phonemic.
Because a phonemic contrast between syllabic and non-syllabic consonants (which my kinds of German both have) is a much less surprising claim than the only language with a single phonemic vowel would be, I've gone ahead and changed the article.
David Marjanović (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three phonemic vowels, not one 

message: I was wondering, if the unlabialized velar obstruents are [k, k' & x^ʲ] as given in the orthography, or [c, c' & ç], as given in the phonology section. I could not find firsthand sources online, but would it not disqualify discombobulation by readers over which phonemes they were, if one version were to be upheld in both sections? If they are allophones or in free variation, could this be noted? Thanks.ARCHEologe (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  unlabialized velar obstruents 

message: From the very strong prevalence of consonants in Nuxalk, it seems to me as if it might be physically difficult to shout or sing in this language (or severely limit one's choice of words while doing so). Is there any truth in this, or is it just a matter of familiarity and practice?
(Perhaps this article overemphasizes the consonant-heavy words because they're a very distinctive feature.) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouting? Singing?