Talk:Ch (digraph)

Always a digraph?
Are there any languages which have the letter sequence "ch" where it is not a digraph? --88.76.242.228 14:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be a ligature: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ligatuur_ch.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.151.48 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think s/he means one where it's just a simple juxtaposition of "c" and "h". I seem to recall an Amerind language - Algonquian, if memory serves — which does just this, as /ts/ + /h/. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Spanish
This article currently says "Since 1994 it is no longer a letter (but a digraph) in the Spanish alphabet.", however the sources it cites list ch as a letter but say that it is now to go between cg and ci when sorting alphabetically. AFAICT, it is still considered a letter. Aij (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is both

"ch. Dígrafo que, por representar un solo sonido consonántico de articulación africada, palatal y sorda, como en mucho o noche, es considerado desde 1803 cuarta letra del abecedario español."

- Real Academia Española


 * 167.107.191.217 (talk)
 * I was jumping in to say just that. As far as I know, only Spain considers it two letters, and the article does not convey that.  I'd like to see a full mention of which countries there are, if there are more than one.--74.194.168.214 (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ordering by languages
Ordering by sounds is really complicated. I think the article is much more understandable if it is ordered by languages. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not particularly complicated if you understand some basic phonetics (which you'll need anyway to understand what each pronunciation is). By-language ordering is probably slightly more understandable, but I don't think that's a good idea in this case: with ch being a very common digraph, the amount of subsections is going to get out of hand, and most of them are not going to say much more than "language X uses ch for /$/". So I would prefer ordering by sound. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I liked ordering by sound for its systematicity. But for languages about which there's more to say than "ch spells /$/" (like English, or Breton where we do want to compare c'h), ordering by language is superior for seeing what's going on, yes.
 * Perhaps the thing to do is to make a table, with columns for sounds and rows for languages, and then have sections for only the languages about which there's something substantive to say. 4pq1injbok (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the big plan now? Currently it's a mess of by-language and a bit by-sound classification, but no sign of ordering. --Zahnradzacken (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Spanish ch and ll are not part of the alphabet anymore (new Spanish orthography)
Can you update this article?178.109.8.229 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Welsh
mentioned (appropriately) at very beginning then no separate section!! VERY important omission. A letter in the Welsh alphabet representing a very distinctive (guttural) sound in the Welsh language. Please add. As a Welsh person also find this omission offensive especially given what has been deemed important enough to include above, including languages where 'ch' may have a special sound but is not a letter in the alphabet etc.! Also seems odd that Breton, sister language of Welsh, is given its own section, but not Welsh! Diolch - thank you.