Talk:Basis of articulation

Articulatory setting
As far as I know, 'Basis of Articulation' and 'Articulatory Setting' are used almost interchangeably in the phonetics literature. I have therefore requested a redirect so that anyone searching for 'Articulatory setting' will end up at 'Basis of articulation'. Unfortunately nothing seems to have happened on this request. RoachPeter (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Done Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that RoachPeter (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
My Lords and gentlemen! Peter Roach having written in English Phonetics and Phonology that it is difficult to confirm these settings scientifically and etc, I do not understand why there is no information about lack of scientific proofs. I am a reader of EnWiki, and, to tell you the exact truth, I think it to be very important to describe all points of view on that. I believe you to think this conception to be doubtful, therefore there is a controversy. That's why it is evident that the afore-said article is not completely correct. The article being incomplete, I cannot transcribe it. What is a conventional point?

In a word, I pray you to lay down the conventional point of view in the following article. The phrase ''Non-native speakers typically find the basis of articulation one of the greatest challenges in acquiring a foreign language's pronunciation. Speaking with the basis of articulation of their own native language results in a foreign accent, even if the individual sounds of the target language are produced correctly.'' seems not to be conventional.

It is really important for because I am studying English Phonetics, and, as it thinks to me, EnWiki can help me in that matter.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This contribution is not a serious discussion, or is framed in a way that makes it impossible to discuss. I propose to remove the tag saying that the neutrality of the piece is disputed. RoachPeter (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't at all understand where the problem is, it's simply a neutral sourced statement. If you can find sources to the contrary, you're free to do so but until then, I'll remove the neutrality template.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the neutrality template. I'm not clear if your reply is directed to me or to Роман Сидоров. If it's to me, I will need to explain my position to you. RoachPeter (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was addressing Роман Сидоров.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)