Talk:Semivowel

message: In this article it says "Using the transcription [aʊ̯] for the diphthong rather than [æu̯] as one might expect is a minor phonetic point. See diphthong for details.", but I can't find anything really explaining this in the diphthong article. Could someone write an explanation in that article. I would myself, but I don't actually know why diphthongs are transcribed that way. Thanks.
--Redtitan 01:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that little disclaimer is arbitrary and potentially a little confusing. There have to exist loads of possible ways to pronounce (and transcribe) /au/, and it's silly to single out the specific pronunciations [aʊ̯] and [æu̯]. Also note that the two cited phonetic forms do not even have the same semivowel in them! 24.159.255.29 00:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diphthong transcription 

message: Should Non-syllabic vowel be merged into this article? They seem to be equivalent concepts. FilipeS 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how I edited both articles in the past without merging them. I can't think why we'd want to keep them separate. kwami (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Merged. See what you think. Some of this, such as transcription, might actually be better under diphthong. kwami (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Non-syllabic vowel into this article? 

message: The introduction says '...also known as glides, though that term has fallen out of favor'. I'm too amateur to have a say on the matter, but I still do encounter 'glide' quite often (in recent literature). Though, my focus is on semitic languages.-- hɑkeem¡ʇuɐɹɯǝǝʞɐɥ 07:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I think that's too POV to stand as a general statement, though there are certainly phonologists who disprefer the term. kwami (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Glides, out of favor?

message: Currently offglide redirects here. That doesn't seem right; consider e.g. the example (from Palatalization (phonetics)): "[I]n Russian, when  undergoes palatalization, a palatalized sibilant offglide appears, as in тема ", where it refers to , which has nothing to do with semivowels, and which is of course not covered here. In which article are such offglides discussed? — Sebastian 08:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A better example of an offglide would come from Russian as well (also mentioned at Russian phonology) where  can have a j-like offglide. I'm not sure why the affrication of Russian soft  is considered an offglide (that does indeed sound wrong), though I do recall the cited source at Russian phonology for the offglide with  does imply that they are both part of the same process. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:    Thanks, I see that Affricate consonant#Notation lists the superscript  as just a spelling variation. I will change the wording in Palatalization (phonetics); please have a look if that expresses it better. — Sebastian 03:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see the source of the confusion. I've changed the example, since the point that text is trying to illustrate isn't even exemplified by Russian soft t. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does offglide belong here? 

message: The back unrounded vowels are, in order from most close to most open:  .  So if non-syllabic  is equivalent to  (a velar approximant), and non-syllabic  is equivalent to  (a pharyngeal approximant), then are non-syllabic versions of either  or  equivalent to  (a uvular approximant, where uvular is post-velar and pre-pharyngeal)?  This is something I've wondered for a while. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Catford equates  to . Nardog (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uvular semivowel? 

message: The article mentions that some disagree on whether a given approximant is a semivowel, and mentions several times Martínez Celdrán (2004) considering the labiodental approximant a semivowel (where other authors would disagree), yet Martínez Celdrán's article does not classify the labiodental approximant as a semivowel, but as a spirant approximant consonant, very clearly separating it from the 4 commonly agreed upon semivowels.
I haven't been able to find any other author considering the labiodental approximant a semivowel to replace that source, either. Should the entire reference to the labiodental approximant as a semivowel removed? NguyenMDV (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  labiodental approximant as semivowel