Talk:Implosive consonant

message: What does "modal-voiced" mean? O'RyanW (☺  ₪) 04:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normal voice, at a pinch. See Phonation. --Tropylium (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  modal=-voiced 

message: Article needs to mention recent phonetical and phonological studies according to which the defining caracteristic of implosivs isn't the glottalization, but the non-explosion; which, phonologically, makes them basically non-obstruent stops... --Tropylium (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They can be both phonologically. But, phonetically, they are only nonobstruents. And it's not all that recent. I added some note to this effect. – ishwar  (speak) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any published source supporting the claim that "implosives are phonetically sonorants"? I'd like to know where to find that. Also it would be nice to include this reference in the text. Landroving Linguist (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: To do

message: Anyone know why these were withdrawn from the IPA? -- Evertype·✆ 07:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, these sounds were judged too rare to be worth keeping, since they could be easily replaced by a diacritic (even though the voiceless diacritic does not capture them accurately). How they continue to justify  is beyond me. kwami (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation? It seems odd to get rid of symbols just because they are rare. -- Evertype·✆ 11:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the "AFAIK". It's what I remember having read, but I don't remember where. kwami (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might be able to find some discussion of this in the IPA journal around 1989. They mentioned a number of opinions on different things, but I cant remember if they mentioned this. They were added (by, I assume, phoneticians), but apparently the decisions can be overruled by an IPA council (or whatever the group of folks who did this is called). – ishwar  (speak) 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voiceless implosives 

message: The article on ejectives concludes with a short set of sound files. This article would benefit from such a thing.  — Solo Owl (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, we could add them. They exist: individual articles have one, eg . Could be something like the chart in this one. But for me, not today ;-) -DePiep (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sound files, please

message: I can clearly see a pattern: ejectives are only voiceless, implosives are only voiced. But there are frics and affrics ejectives and there'ren't any Fs&Afs implosives. Impossible to pronounce? Don't appear in any natlang? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.185.56.194 (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are voiceless implosives, they're just rare (and they're only partially voiceless, granted). As the name implies with "plosive" in it, there can't be implosive fricatives because the air has to be blocked above the larynx somewhere. Affricates may be possible (which would be just a sequence of an implosive and a normal fricative at the same place of articulation), but I doubt they exist contrastively. Nardog (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implosive fricatives (and affricates)? 

message: I'm assuming this is only referring to phonemicity? Ingrian for instance shows  as a dialectal realisation of  between voiced sounds (the usual realisation being ; per Kuznecova 2009). I'm assuming this is not unique? Then maybe it's a good idea to review the current wording of that section. Thadh (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Occurrence refers to the phonetic presence of the sound, although we should always clarify about phonemicity too. We mention e.g. British English in ejective consonants. It will be great if you can add the Ingrian example here. –Austronesier (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implosives in Europe 

message: In all the implosive articles, we used the outdated symbols for voiceless implosives. Shouldn't we fix that? PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implosive symbols