Talk:Syllable rime

final & rime
I dont think that final is as commonly used in general phonological terminology as the term rime or rhyme. It may be very common in Chinese linguistics. Other areas, however, are not necessarily familiar with Chinese practice.

A good thing to do would be to survey some general phonological textbooks and reference works to see what is the popular usage.

So, I dont know if a merger of this article into a primary Final (linguistics) article is the best thing. My reason is that if I wanted to search for this in wikipedia I would choose the term rime or rhyme. The term final probably wouldnt occur to me. I would probably try to look under syllable instead. Even though I have read that traditional Chinese linguistics uses a term final, I doubt that this would come to mind. I wonder how many other non-Chinese specalists would know this term.

Peace. - Ish ishwar 16:51, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC) - Ish ishwar 16:51, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)


 * It is claimed that "rime" is particularly common in Chinese linguistics. Chamaeleon 17:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In my experience, rime is more common in historical Chinese phonology, but final is more common when describing the sounds of modern Chinese languages, mostly to make it more accessible to language learners. Rime/rhyme is the more accurate linguistic term in my opinion though.  -- Umofomia 20:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that both articles should be merged since they basically say the same thing. However, I think that Final (linguistics) should be merged into Syllable rime instead of the other way around since the latter term is much more prevalent and accurate in linguistics.  On a similar note, Initial (linguistics) should be merged into Syllable onset.  This would make everything more coherent as well since there's also Syllable nucleus and Syllable coda.  -- Umofomia 19:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, to give one data point, I have one linguistics book, Contemporary Linguistics by O'Grady, Dobrovolsky, and Aronoff, which uses the term Rhyme. It appears in the glossary and index as well.  Final is not found anywhere in the book.  --Umofomia 19:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coming from Hong Kong, I have never seen any publication in English translating the Chinese shengmu and yunmu into onset and rime before I read Wikipedia. They are always initial and final. Please respect their prominent usage in linguistic publications about Chinese languages. Here, I also want to clarify the definitions of onset, nucleus, and coda, especially when there is a dipthong or tripthong. Does the nucleus includes only the most prominent vowel or the whole vowel group? If the nucleus is only the central vowel, then the analysis of initial-final and onset-rime will be different. For example piao will be p-iao under initial-final analysis and could be pi-ao under onset-rime analysis. -- Felix Wan 03:49, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)


 * No, the onset only includes the initial consonants and never contains vowels, so under onset-rime analysis, it is also p-iao. Initial is the same as onset and final is the same as rime; initial-final = onset-rime.  BTW, the nucleus only includes the first vowel, which would be -i-, and the coda would be -ao.
 * While I agree initial and final are more frequently used when referring to Chinese, we're looking at this in a general linguistics context, where onset and rime are more often used. Here is what I propose: merge Final into Syllable rime, but within Syllable rime, have a subsection that talks about finals in Chinese; likewise for Initial and Syllable onset. -- Umofomia 04:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If they are exactly the same, I agree with your proposal. I will go ahead to add information from Initial (linguistics) and Final (linguistics) to Syllable onset and Syllable rime, and post a note of merging on all the articles so that other people interested may join the discussion.
 * Are you sure that the nucleus includes only the first vowel? I forgot which article, probably in Wikipedia, gave me the impression that the nucleus will be the central vowel, but the current article on syllable suggests that the nucleus will be the whole vowel group for dipthongs and tripthongs.
 * -- Felix Wan 19:19, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)


 * I just looked up in my linguistics book... actually you're right that the nucleus consists of the entire vowel cluster, including dipthongs/tripthongs. Onsets and codas however, cannot contain any vowels. -- Umofomia 19:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I found out more information about why we've been having this confusion with final vs. rime. I've added an explanation on the page. -- Umofomia 00:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is even more complicated than that. ^_^ Let me explain... -- Felix Wan 02:06, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)


 * Just saw your explanation. BTW, &#38907;&#33145; and &#38907;&#23614; aren't always defined the way you described in Chinese.  For instance, take a look at the following link: .  In the scheme described there, the syllable analysis for liu would be l-i-ou instead of l-i-o-u.
 * &#38907;&#33145;&#65306;&#26222;&#36890;&#35441;&#30340;&#38907;&#33145;&#21487;&#20197;&#30001;&#20841;&#31278;&#25104;&#20998;&#25812;&#30070;&#65306;
 * &#21934;&#20803;&#38899;
 * &#35079;&#21512;&#20803;&#38899;
 * &#38907;&#23614;&#65306;&#26222;&#36890;&#35441;&#30340;&#36628;&#38899;&#38907;&#23614;&#21482;&#26377;&#40763;&#38899;&#38907;&#23614;&#65306;&#65339;&#65358;&#65341;&#21644;&#65339;&#331;&#65341;
 * In this case, the definition of &#38907;&#23614; would match syllable coda. -- Umofomia 04:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting. There is always new things to learn.  That scheme I described was the one I learned before, which was also used in the article Pinyin.  Let me extend the passage and the table to include both... -- Felix Wan 04:58, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)


 * Actually the same site says this :
 * &#35079;&#21512;&#20803;&#38899;&#21253;&#25324;&#65306;[ai]&#12289;[ei]&#12289;[au]&#12289;[ou]
 * &#35079;&#21512;&#20803;&#38899;&#19968;&#33324;&#26371;&#35352;&#37636;&#25104;&#20841;&#20491;&#20803;&#38899;&#38899;&#32032;&#65292;&#31532;&#19968;&#20491;&#38899;&#32032;&#26159;&#20027;&#35201;&#20803;&#38899;&#65292;&#30332;&#38899;&#36611;&#38911;&#20142;&#65292;&#31532;&#20108;&#20491;&#38899;&#32032;&#37117;&#26159;&#30001;&#39640;&#20803;&#38899;&#12308;-i&#12309;&#12289;&#12308;-u&#12309;&#20986;&#20219;&#12290;
 * &#22823;&#37096;&#20998;&#28450;&#35486;&#25945;&#26448;&#37117;&#25226;&#35079;&#21512;&#20803;&#38899;&#30340;&#31532;&#20108;&#20491;&#38899;&#32032;&#12308;-i&#12309;&#12289;&#12308;-u&#12309;&#34389;&#29702;&#28858;&#38907;&#23614;&#12290;
 * -- Felix Wan 05:03, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)


 * Ah, I did not notice that last sentence. Do you think we should still add something about the alternative interpretation though since it is featured on that link?  -- Umofomia 05:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Great working with you.  -- Felix Wan 05:17, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

As I have written in Talk:Rhyme, initial-final is different from onset-rime, which is clear from Chinese poems.

In addition, the table at the bottom of this article should be rewritten because several syllables are analyzed differently phonemically. For example, ting is considered to be. Please see the finals charts in Standard Mandarin and Pinyin, which I copied from Mantaro Hashimoto's works. THey show the important contrast of the nuclei and. - TAKASUGI Shinji 02:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Right... I think the current revision explains the difference between initial-final and onset-rime adequately. I was actually thinking of replacing the table entries with IPA as well, but hadn't had the chance to do that yet.  I can do that soon. -- Umofomia 03:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Takasugi san, I believe the curernt merger is optimal for English speakers, because the concept of final is identical to that of rime among English linguists, although the word "rime" may mean something different in Chinese language studies. That is well explained in the article, and it can expand. About ting, I also pronounce it as, but the problem is that most learning materials on Modern Chinese does not recognize that fact. I do not want to create too much distractions for the readers. We could be better off exchanging the examples with the ones having less controversy. -- Felix Wan 08:35, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * I have just replaced the table entries with IPA consistent with that in the articles Pinyin and Standard Mandarin. I have also changed two examples:
 * The syllable o only appears in interjections. I have changed it to the more common e.
 * The syllable ting has been changed to pin.
 * The situation of ting is complicated. Although most speakers pronounce it as rather than, the  is usually so weak that it is not considered as the nucleus, unlike  in  (weng) and  in  (yong), which are nuclei. That becomes obvious when those syllables are sung in Mandarin songs. Since the purpose of the table was to illustrate how different phonologists uses the terms for different things, I believe including a syllable with controversy will only distract the user from the main point. -- Felix Wan 01:00, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)


 * I have found the following thesis written by a Chinese linguist: Two Theories of Onset Clusters. In this paper, he analyzes &#38754; and &#26262; as  and, in which  is the common rime, and  and  are onsets.  In other words, he treats medials as consonants in onsets.  This differs from the rightmost table of this article, but matches traditional Chinese phonology. - TAKASUGI Shinji 04:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notes on the merge
The original article was created by anon (129.100.152.211) under the title Yunmu, followed by minor edits of Olivier, Wapcaplet and Jiang into this version. Felix Wan moved it to Final (linguistics) and did major rewrite into this version. Chamaeleon then tried to merge this article into that one before the merge was disputed.

I did not copy this piece of information:
 * It is also used in the study of some other Asian languages of these families: Hmong-Mien, Mon-Khmer, Tai-Kadai, Tibeto-Burman, etc.

It should be no longer relevant to mention specific language families in an article about a universal linguistic concept. -- Felix Wan 21:06, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

color coded the table
I color-coded the western vs. chinese phonology table based on a HLS color space scheme in order to show corresponding elements. Parts which correspond to each other in each scheme have the same color. Parts which have slight differences correspond to shifts in hue. The hue for each header entry is calculated by using the following algorithm. Each of the schemes have parts that incorporate the following 5 elements, listed with their corresponding hue (on a 0-239 scale):
 * 1) Initial consonant, hue = 160
 * 2) Prenuclear glide, hue = 120
 * 3) Main vowel, hue = 80
 * 4) Postnuclear glide, hue = 40
 * 5) Final consonant, hue = 0

In order to determine the hue of a heading, take the average of the hues of each element that heading incorporates. For instance, the rime in the first Chinese phonology scheme incorporates the main vowel, the postnuclear glide, and the final consonant, so its hue is (80 + 40 + 0) / 3 = 40.

The saturation of each heading (on a 0-240 scale) is determined by how many elements each header is composed of:
 * 1) 1 element, saturation = 240
 * 2) 2 elements, saturation = 160
 * 3) 3 elements, saturation = 80
 * 4) 4 elements, saturation = 40
 * 5) 5 elements, saturation = 0

Thus, taking the previous example of the rime in the first Chinese phonology scheme, since it has 3 elements, it has a saturation of 80.

For the Pinyin and IPA headings, I just used hue of 120 and 40, respectively, and a saturation of 80.

All headings then have a luminance of 180 (on a 0-240 scale). The entries below each heading have a luminance of 210.

Once the HLS value is caculated, I convert it to the RGB values to use in the table.

So, we end up with a table with the corresponding (H,L,S) numbers:

--Umofomia 11:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Medial or Yùntóu
I am afriad there is not such thing in Cantonese. In Cantonese the only medial, the /w/ sound is considered part of the initial, or the sh&#275;ngm&#468;. So is it appropriate to call it "Chinese phonology"? &mdash; Instantnood 06:23 Mar 10 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything conflicting about that. /w/ sound in Cantonese can be considered the initial instead of the medial.  So what?  It just means that Cantonese has lost the medials while Mandarin has kept them.  The "Chinese phonology" system still represents Cantonese correctly, just that the medial is always considered to be null.
 * Also, see the passage in semivowel, which talks about English, but applies in this case too:
 * For example, the word wow is written in IPA.  Even though the first  and the last  are similar phones, the former is considered a consonant phoneme while the latter is considered a part of the diphthong, because English speakers think wow rhymes with how, which means these words share the same syllable rime  and the remaining  in wow and the  in how are both onsets, initial consonants.
 * --Umofomia 08:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Also see this passage in Standard Cantonese:
 * Some linguists prefer to analyze and  as part of finals to make them analogous to the  and  medials in Standard Mandarin, especially in comparative phonological studies. However, since final-heads only appear with null initial,  or, analyzing them as part of the initials greatly reduces the count of finals at the cost of only adding four initials.
 * Essentially it just boils down to convention. --Umofomia 08:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scope of the article
I'm wondering, why is this article all about Mandarin? It should probably be about syllable rhymes in general, and I think there's already enough material about Mandarin rhymes that they probably deserve their own article. Zocky | picture popups 21:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Concept not defined
The concept of a syllable rime is not described in this article. The best we get is "the rime or rhyme of a syllable consists of a nucleus and an optional coda." The article also does not even hint at how rimes are used outside of Chinese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.21.168.14 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

What's it all about?
I echo HagermanBot. This is one of those Wikipedia articles which is informative only for those who already know quite a lot about the subject, and is written by such people. They seemingly do not realise, or have forgotten, that non-specialists will not have a clue. I am a language teacher and studied linguistics as part of my degree, and yet I am pretty baffled here. The opening of the article must tell us clearly what this rime business is all about and why it is of importance. APW (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Article must be language-neutral
There's no reason for the article on Syllable rime to focus solely on English and Chinese phonology. The article should be about syllable rime in general, maybe with a couple of examples from Chinese; as it is, it's mostly just a comparison/discussion of english and chinese phonology. The stuff we have here should be in its own article (appropriately titled "chinese syllable structure" or something), or just removed (since this page links to the Chinese version anyway). There is some serious editing that needs to be done here; I will start making some changes soon but hopefully someone who is a phonologist will come forward to do more accurate work than what I can do (and, most importantly, non-language-specific work). This applies to the Syllable onset article as well. --Politizer (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am now deleting the Chinese-specific stuff from this article. Sometime in the future I may start to add some information that is language-neutral; in the meantime, however, it would be great if a phonology expert could work on the article a little. --Politizer (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have started adding some things--mostly a language-neutral description of why the rhyme level is of hierarchy is posited. --Politizer (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 2 -- 2 phonemes?
I think the following sentence in the second footnote should be revised:


 * In English, the onset, nucleus, and coda may all have two phonemes, as in the word flouts: [fl] in the onset, the diphthong [aʊ] in the nucleus, and [ts] in the coda.

Problem #1: Shouldn't this state that English onsets, nuclei, and codas can have up to *3* phonemes each? Examples: strength has onset [str] and coda [ngþ] (or [ŋgþ], although some may deem the latter to have [ŋþ] as the coda). text and arts definitely have 3 phonemes in the coda ([kst], [rts]). And the nucleus [jæʊ], a tripthong, occurs as the common exclamation yeow and in meow. (No, I am not being silly -- while these might not be found in a given dictionary, they're both commonly used by native speakers.)

Problem #2: The nucleus of flouts is pronounced [æʊ] and not [aʊ]; examples using the latter would be saw and jaw.

Jonstephens (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What about just changing it to say "may all have multiple phonemes", or "two or more phonemes"? I don't entirely remember what I had in mind when I was writing that, but I imagine my intention was to demonstrate that they may all have more than one phoneme, rather than specifically two. r ʨ anaɢ (talk)


 * "two or more" -- Fair enough. Come to think of it, there's at least one instance in English of 4 phonemes occurring in a coda: [ksts] as in texts (but no others come to mind), and I can't think of any onset or nucleus having 4 (I think any other sequence of 4+ phonemes occurring in succession would be regarded as belonging to 2 or more separate syllables in English). Jonstephens (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Syllable article
Neither onset, nor nucleus nor coda still have articles of their own. Should we merge this article with the relevant sections (#Rime or #Rhyme and #Final) in the main syllable article, too? The article seems to have been tagged with that suggestion for one and a half years already. — Christoph Päper 12:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What the heck – I just went ahead and did it, one paragraph was the same already anyhow. — Christoph Päper 12:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)