Talk:Voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants

Turkish?
I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but in Turkish, the r is pronounced as an alveolar or postalveolar approximant when it comes before a plosive, for example in the word artık.

So maybe let’s add it to this page as an allophone in Turkish? TheNewLetters (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Two symbols; only one explained
Why does this article not explain why two phonetic signs are used - ɹ and ð̠˕ - and what the difference is between them!? It only talks about ɹ, but also gives examples with ð̠˕. It is very obvious that the two versions sound very different! The article about the voiceless counterpart doesn't distinguish between the two symbols given either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.196.224 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Following this Wikipedia article, no matter how hard I try I can only articulate a sound similar the Danish soft d without velarization or an Icelandic soft d. The English alveolar r acoustically similar to a postalveolar labialized r never comes out unless I adjust my tongue with sulcalization (more specifically sulcalize toward postalveolar, not velar, but unfortunately the symbol ꟹ has been problematically reserved for open-labialization in ExtIPA, leaving one no symbols to use but the sulcalize toward velar symbol ᵓ, see Tillamook language).
 * The English so-called "alveolar approximant" could be described as a coarticulation with:
 * primary lateral border to postalveolar articulation (sulcalization, which has nothing to do with a lateral consonant)
 * secondary apex to alveolar articulation.
 * Whether your tongue tip touch your alveolar doesn't acoustically affect that consonant too much, so it's not primary.
 * No idea how other language make a dental or alveolar approximant rhotic, but apparently they could be anything but a simple alveolar approximant. Since most English speakers consider the Danish or Icelandic soft d closer to an l or th sound, it is important to separate them. 146.96.25.46 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you should put your opinion here. I am not exactly sure what phonetic articulation makes a non-English rhotic ɹ distinct from a plain alveolar approximant ð̠˕, but at least in English it's strongly sulcalized. Temporarily naming the acoustical rhotic effect "rhotic alveolar" but feel free to use a better name. The Mandarin apical vowel has been well described as a neither fricative nor r-colored vowel. --146.96.147.57 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No two languages, or two speakers, have exactly the same sound. That doesn't mean each minutely different sound needs its own infobox or table. Nardog (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But they are distinct enough to be phonemically distinct in at least Huashan dialect, where an ɹ can effectively prevent ð̠˕ from occuring, though the exact nature is not clear. I think before reverting you should at least read what has changed. --146.96.147.57 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And it's also semi-phonemically distinct in English, as stated above. English do not have ð̠˕ but speakers would understand a ð̠˕ into either voiced-TH or dark-L-sound. 146.96.147.57 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I got to say you have really be a bit disruptive, still, read, before reverting. "If you read and then revert I wouldn't even undo" your second revert. Being bold doesn't mean you can revert without even knowing what has changed. I hope next time I'm here you have gone through everything. 146.96.147.57 (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not cited a single source to support your claims in these comments. Your edit added one citation but didn't reference it inline so it's not even clear what it's supposed to demonstrate. And you reinstated your edit even after I specifically disputed splitting off "rhotic". That is not how you make your edits last in this encyclopedia. Nardog (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is a large database. If you go to the Huashan dialect entry it's the transcription and recording for Huashan dialect. There is no page number. Each of the example corresponds to a distinct entry in the database. Since Wikipedia do not have a template that allow me to point them to different entries, it is impractical to apply the inline style in a useful manner.
 * It seems you still haven't read it because apart from the example from the database there is another example distinctively inline cited, which is understood by English speaker as an N-sound (I have tried to prolong it and an English speaker instead reported it to be an L-sound), or even as M-sound.
 * How do you explain the well-known fact that English speakers understand a Danish ð̠˕ as a TH-sound but not as R, thus partially contrast them phonemically (putting [ð̠˕] in the phonemic class of /ð/)? Do you think we should list phonemically distinct sounds in major languages together? When a sound is understood by English speakers as TH, as L, as N, as M, but never as R, shouldn't it be classified differently? (Of course, I don't really mean [ð̠˕] is in the English phonemic class of /ð/ - if it "is", it remotely is.) --146.96.29.29 (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only did you not reference an entry, you didn't reference the database in the body at all. (And just writing the name of the entry, even if you can't link to it, is not at all impractical nor useless.)
 * You mean the Mandarin one? Sure, I stand corrected in that you had one inline citation, but it definitely doesn't belong in this article. Nasal alveolar approximant if anywhere, given we list in separate articles from.
 * What "well-known fact"? If anything, Danish /ð/ is commonly heard as /l/, not /ð/, by English speakers. Danish /ð/ and English /r/ are classified separately because they have different places of articulation (alveolar and postalveolar, respectively, latter among other allophones). Perception by English speakers is a highly subjective and unscientific measure and should have no bearing on phone classification whatsoever. Nardog (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you read it. Now we are on the same page. You did explicitly disputed splitting off "rhotic", but the reason you gave was unclear since you claimed "rhotic" was a "phonological" distinction even though I had already made it clear that the distinction was phonemic a week ago. You did not make it clear that what you questioned was the level of distinction between the two sounds. So I had nothing to do but undo your edit and bring you to the talk page.
 * It is very problematic to claim "Danish /ð/ and English /r/ are classified separately because they have different places of articulation (alveolar and postalveolar, respectively, latter among other allophones)", if you consider recording File:Alveolar approximant.ogg by Erutuon and you to be "alveolar". The "alveolar" articulation in the way of that recording is (if properly labialized/sulcalized) apparently one of the possible allophone of English r, as established by lots of existing phonological descriptions. Yet if you consider such "alveolar" articulation is not alveolar at all, then all alveolar rhotic "ɹ" among different languages may be removed from "alveolar" after future careful inspection, and I do not think academic would love to endorse such an idea.
 * The plain/rhotic distinction is in fact more distinct than the alveolar/postalveolar distinction. No languages have been reported to have a phonemic distinction between rhotic alveolar (as that recording) and postalveolar ones, yet Sinologist, Danish Studies scholars and American linguists studying Dahalo have all avoided using ɹ to denote plain alveolar approximants without previous consultation. Danish /ð/ is more commonly heard as /l/ than as /ð/, by English speakers, most probably because the Danish one is velarized like the English dark l, otherwise it would be more likely heard as th: for instance, when American linguists first studied Dahalo they have the Dahalo (slightly-post-)alveolar non-rhotic approximant between two vowels to be d or ð (although to me the Dahalo one sounds a bit more like a tap). Suppose such "perception by English speakers is a highly subjective", it would be heard by some as th, by some as l, by some as r, and sometimes as th/l/r. However, many native English-speaking scholars and folks have independently reporting such sound as anything but r - this alone may indicate that the acoustic distance between rhotic and plain alveolar approximant are at least as distant as that between rhotic r and th/l. Chinese also has the same experience that the above rhotic "alveolar" recording is nothing like their flat apical vowel /ɿ/ but sounds more like retroflex apical vowel /ʅ/. For Huashan Chinese, the phonemic distinction between plain and rhotic alveolar approximant are so strong that based on its consonant-vowel harmony system the rhotic alveolar approximant consonant cannot cooccur with a rhotic alveolar approximant vowel in one syllable.
 * Writing an article like Nasal alveolar approximant requires independent notability, yet the sound is only unstably reported in Sinitic languages. So the best current place is this article per Wikipedia guidance. You may further split it if you believe it may form an independent article. The issue is not only impractical to link to it but that I can hardly find a slot to type the entry name in existing Wikipedia template. I will tentatively write them in a  bracket instead. 146.96.27.251 (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To further understand the difference, I suggest you to do the following test: make your tongue to be as flat as possible to make sure the only point that you tongue tip/blade goes toward is the alveolar ridge. The resulting sound would be very different from the Erutuon's/your slightly sulcalized recording. The English r, when pronounced "alveolarly", is strongly sulcalized if not labialized (but it's not ultra-sulcalized: if you bend your tongue into a ပ-shape the air may flows laterally and results into an L-like sound). It is even possible, if you sulcalize your tongue into a ပ-shape toward your teeth and simultaneously protrude your mouth to block any potential lateral airflow (with both your cheek and mouth), to articulate a rhotic dental approximant that sounds somewhat similar to the English r. So theoretically, plain articulation may range from dental to slighly postalveolars (in the case of Dahalo) while rhotic articulation may range from dental to retroflex, but I don't think in any natural language would one articulate a rhotic dental approximant and the Dahalo "postalveolar" one is not really that "post", thus it makes sense only to list alveolar approximant separately.
 * Again, I am not saying sulcaliation is the only way to make an alveolar approximant acoustically "rhotic" or "R-colored". If one slide one's tongue from a alveolar approximant toward a postalveolar approximant the resulting sound may also sound "rhotic". The exact nature of rhotic alveolar approximant doesn't seem to be well-studied, but I have never heard any languages differentiate two rhotic alveolar approximants phonemically, so I believe all these "acoustically rhotic" alveolar approximant realization, however much potentially differently articulated, should be grouped together as opposed to a plain one for now. 146.96.27.251 (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading rhotic vowel, I have realized that by making my tongue bunched I can also pronounce an acoustically rhotic apical alveolar approximant. There really could be many way one can make an alveolar approximant sounds rhotic, especially when one's tongue gets a bit relax when pronouncing this approximant (that's why I can totally imagine why a native speaker of a language without plain nonrhotic alveolar approximant can hardly accept it). It seems that almost every trick when articulating a rhotic vowel (except for making it retroflex postalveolar) can be used in articulating a rhotic alveolar approximant. I would get more details about otherways to rhotacize a alveolar approximant before listing sources, as it doesn't seem tk be well-studied in phonetics. 146.96.28.222 (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * may be interested in the talk as well. 146.96.29.29 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Danish sound is laminal, whereas the English one is apical. An apical also sounds different from the laminal. I don't think we want WP:OR labels such as "rhotic approximant" or "non-rhotic approximant" in the article. These names make sense only when discussing the phonology of particular language(s)/dialect(s), not when discussing the sounds (phones) themselves. A "rhotic" is not a type of sound as it can be almost anything. Also, you cannot make a judgement on the sound based on whether it's spelled with $⟨r⟩$ or not. The distinction between sulcalized (your "rhotic") and non-sulcalized variants must be backed up by sources, and even if it can be backed up by sources that's not a reason to split the tables. Sol505000 (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I would appreciate if you also read the entire thread as well, as it had been pointed out weeks ago that "rhotic" is a convenient term for phonemics and phonetics (such as rhotic vowel) although the term originally came from phonology. The laminal/apical difference has some effect to differentiate a rhotic approximant from a plain one, but not deterministic (and even if it does, the list still should be split into two based on active articulation). The Chinese apical vowel ɿ is denti-alveolar, of which one possible realization is tongue tip toward teeth meanwhile tongue blade toward alveolar. Plus, the Dahalo one is required to be apical and acoustically not rhotic at all.
 * An encyclopedia is a summarization of sources, when all reliable sources clearly indicate the two sounds are wildly different and the difference cannot be described as apical/laminal or dental/alveolar/postalveolar differences, it is appropriate to separate them into two lists. If you consider the ad hoc umbrella term "rhotic" is WP:OR you can name them to be "ð̠˕-type alveolar approximant" and "ɹ-type alveolar approximant", as said three weeks ago, "feel free to use a better name" (the sources of article rhotic vowel also seemed to use the term "rhotic" in phonology sense so we probably should deal with the OR problem with that article together). Either way what you said doesn't support a merge of the two lists. And your ad-hoc labeling of "edit warring" was also not helpful because I was adding inline citation per talk page request (Nardog didn't have problem with adding Sinitic examples as long as it's well-sourced). 146.96.27.251 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When all reliable sources clearly indicate the two sounds are wildly different and the difference cannot be described as apical/laminal or dental/alveolar/postalveolar differences Please list those sources, preferably with brief quotes.
 * Either way what you said doesn't support a merge of the two lists. The lack of split is the status quo that you are supposed to convince us to change per WP:BRD. There's no "merger" we can talk about here. Sol505000 (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should probably use the word "grouping" instead of the word "merging" to make it more accurate, but lets not talk about irrelevants for now.
 * Sure, but I want to know which of the following three Kinds of sources would you consider a strongest indication:
 * A number of Chinese dialectial (or Asiatic languages) phonology descriptions explicitly state that the /z/ is an approximant but reject using the inverted r (essentially considers the sound represented by that r inappropriate, as not a single Sinologist use it, though linguists outside the circle may misuse it), as opposed to the retroflex approximant r symbol that is frequently used without hesitation.
 * An academic primary source showing that Huashan Mandarin has both a rhotic approximant consonant and a plain approximant vowel, and the two cannot coexist in one syllable due to inharmonious, together with sources showing the well known fact that in Huashan and adjacent dialects whenever an apical vowel exist in a Mandarin system, it will first pair with consonants with same kind of articulation.
 * Some academic primary sources showing an American team researching Dahalo had initial heard all their apical alveolar approximant as /d/ regardless where it occurs, showing the acoustic non-rhotic feature shown above cannot be prevented even in an apical articulation (though a laminal articulation may or may not have some effect in preventing the sound to be articulated in a rhotic way).
 * Concerning the article apical vowel rhotic vowel, I did not put words in your mouth. You raised two questions: whether the two sounds are phonemically different and if they are whether it's OK or it's OR to apply an ad hoc phonology term (rhotic) for phonetic purpose for convenience. The first question affects with this article only but the second one affects both (since the topic of that article is purely phonetic yet the full article is filled with phonology terms and discussion). My answers is "OK" while your answer is "OR". Once a questiones is asked it has to be discussed, and the asker doesn't own the question once it's in public discussion. So it's has nothing to do with "put words in my mouth" or something and I didn't mention you at all when tagging that article, but feel free to give opinions like "I don't think the second question affects that article" and elaborate your reasoning here. --146.96.28.123 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For rhotic vowel I believe if using phonology term on phonetics is OR then it should be moved to retroflex vowel or vowel coarticulated with retroflex approximant. 146.96.28.123 (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Point 1 is speculation, point 3 has to do with the fact that English is postalveolar/retroflex (not alveolar) and often labialized/pharyngealized. It's not apical alveolar as the Dahalo sound. I can't comment on point 2. And you still haven't cited any sources anyway.
 * This is not a discussion concerning rhotic vowels which is a redirect anyway.
 * This discussion should be deleted as it's counter-productive. I'm out, bye. Sol505000 (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For "rhotic vowel" since you have already started a separate thread in Talk:R-colored vowel (without notifying anybody here or edit the discuss parameter of Original research to properly directing people), let's keep it there and not letting that topic (whether the word "rhotic" can be used on vowel for phonetic purpose) to mess up here.
 * You cannot WP:GAME the rule by arbitrarily call a discussion "forum" when you cannot comment on it, as the entire discussion was about whether they form a separate separate phonemic class to be included separately here in this article.
 * I didn't cite anything because to prove point 1 I have to list a great lot of sources (which would take me a lot of time) to establish the fact that Sinologists are overwhelmingly rejecting using "ɹ" for a acoustically non-rhotic sound. Otherwise it is just speculation. However, I expected the possibility that you may considered it speculation no matter how many I list, I did't list any for the sake of saving my own time. This is not called counterproductive, because it was just to pave the way for later discussion, deleting it in the name of forum is gaming the rule and unconstructive because the discussion was clearly oriented on the writing of the article. Now (or maybe in the next few days) I'll list those for point 2 and 3 instead. Note that your point about point 3 does not stand as stated in 02:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC), or because existing sources doesn't support your claim that English /ɹ/ could never be "alveolar" in the way that File:Alveolar approximant.ogg was articulated (There are two primary articulations of the approximant : apical (with the tip of the tongue approaching the alveolar ridge or even curled back slightly) and domal (with a centralized bunching of the tongue known as molar r or sometimes bunched r or  braced r)). 146.96.28.222 (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: In Talk:R-colored vowel Sol505000 has made it clear that by ... A "rhotic" is not a type of sound as it can be almost anything in the above comment he meant to say In the case of vowels, rhotic or rhotacized seems to be a well-defined term describing a range of retroflex-like coarticulations. This is in contrast to the term rhotic consonant, which is purely phonological and phonetically meaningless. It seems he only questioned the combination "rhotic alveolar consonant" which I used in the article and didn't have a problem of using the word "rhotic" in the phonetic way in general. So I hope everyone leaving a comment here instead of focusing on the wording rhotic do focus more one the phonemic status. I will keep using the word "acoustically rhotic" or simply "rhotic" in the phonetic way in this discussion for convenience (in the sense ofba similar acoustic effect of a rhotic vowel) but please don't blame me on that because I am not here to pushing that and am open to other terminology. Two people blamed me for this wording problem after I said it's ad hoc like rhotic vowel.
 * As I said in 02:28, 8 November 2023, I never supported a distinction between sulcalized (your "rhotic") and non-sulcalized variants but a distinction between "sulcalized or bunched or sliding or articulated in a way similar to the rhotic vowel" vs "plain". A non-sulcalized variant can be acoustically rhotic in other ways and thus may not be distinct from a sulcalized one. 146.96.28.222 (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Minor comment to a slight misperception that comes across from the above discussion: Danish /ð/ is commonly heard as /l/, not /ð/, by English speakers; Danish /ð/ is more commonly heard as /l/ than as /ð/, by English speakers, most probably because the Danish one is velarized like the English dark l. Our sources Haberland and Grønnum do not talk about English speakers, but non-Danish speakers in general. Danish soft D does not in the least sound like a dark L, but is also perceived as an L by native speakers of languages with a plain non-velarized L-sound (German, French speaker etc.). The L-like sound does not comes from the velar region, but from the very narrow gap between the tongue and the alveolar ridge (or maybe slightly a bit further back) that produces F3+ formants similar to the ones heard with a lateral sound. Austronesier (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for mentioning this fact. I am sorry I didn't look into the case of Danish. I am quite surprised that the authors reported that French people would hear the Danish soft d as an L, nevertheless I doubt the scope of "non-Danish speakers in general" indicated by the author, because as a native speaker of northern Mandarin, which has an English-like R, a clear L and no th-sound, my very first impression of Danish was a sound resembled a th-sound, a velar approximant or an English dark vowel L (undergoing partial L-vocalization) that doesn't exist in Mandarin, rarely does it sound like a clear L.
 * It's a good point to mention F3+ formants. As I mentioned for many times I didn't have a clue about the way of articulation to make a rhoticized sound (just like the fact that there's no unified well-defined articulation for rhotic vowel), but what I can say is that Sol505000's claim that English /ɹ/ could never be "alveolar" in the way that File:Alveolar approximant.ogg was articulated (and thus the difference between English R and Dahalo D is merely the difference on place of articulation), is original research. I would like someone professional here to classify the plain and rhotic alveolar approximant acoustically, or by F3+. English speakers sometimes perceive the Chinese final-N as an L when the N is pronounced in a prolonged way as a vowel, like the Tian'anmen (tʰjɛ́͢ð̠̃˕.á͢ð̠̃˕.mə̌͢ð̠̃˕) example here. Since Chinese speakers rarely pronounce it in such an exaggerated way, this phenomenon is rarely noticed. 146.96.24.211 (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You've accused me and Sol505000 of claiming that "the English /ɹ/ could never be 'alveolar' in the way that File:Alveolar approximant.ogg was articulated". I don't recall saying that, as that would require proving a negative, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if some variety of English somewhere happened to have an alveolar [ɹ] for /r/. But I'm familiar with none of "most English phonology descriptions (most reliable sources)" "[s]uch claim is in contrary with". What are they? Nardog (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I think there was some miscommunication between us. In that sentence I was not talking about the phonology some strange regional variant of English (I never thought that you would deny that), but that your claims were based on the concept that "alveolar" sound in the way that File:Alveolar approximant.ogg was articulated is not a free variant of r in mainstream English (I meant to say you denied this). We don't even have to specifically look for sources to prove "most English phonology descriptions (most reliable sources)" "[s]uch claim is in contrary with", etc. because the very Wikipedia article already reads: Peter Ladefoged wrote: "Many BBC English speakers have the tip of the tongue raised towards the roof of the mouth in the general location of the alveolar ridge, but many American English speakers simply bunch the body of the tongue up so that it is hard to say where the articulation is". Any addition source you added to prove that it's postalveolar doesn't negate such a fact we saw from well-established existing sources unless it explicitly says that in mainstream English it's never or rarely articulated as a alveolar sound, or explicitly says the previous description are incorrect, but AFAIK that's not the case. If in some strange English variety r is alveolar but most English speakers perceive Danish/Dahalo d as anything but r, it's completely normal and nobody can/should claim anything from it. However, if mainstream BBC English pronounces it as alveolar (as the standard phone of the phoneme), but most English speakers who have more or less listened and undrrstood BBC boardcasting at least once in their life, perceives the Danish/Dahalo soft d (alveolar approximant) as anything but the familiar BBC English /r/ (alveolar approximant), there must be some phonemic difference between the two, otherwise it would be a joke against our common sense.
 * I feel sorry if there were to be some misinterpretation of your idea ( though I am still not aware of that as for now I see I should say Sol5050000 not both him and you. I didn't recall correctly in my memory). What I intented to point out was:
 * Nardog: Danish /ð/ and English /r/ are classified separately because they have different places of articulation (alveolar and postalveolar, respectively, latter among other allophones)
 * and after I pointed out that The "alveolar" articulation in the way of that recording is (if properly labialized/sulcalized) apparently one of the possible allophone of English r, as established by lots of existing phonological descriptions,
 * Sol505000: The Danish sound is laminal, whereas the English one is apical.
 * and after I gave the Dahalo example and pointed out laminal/apical difference has some effect to differentiate a rhotic approximant from a plain one, but not deterministic,
 * Sol505000: point 3 has to do with the fact that English /r/ is postalveolar/retroflex (not alveolar) and often labialized/pharyngealized. (Note: this is not equivalent to "English /r/ is often postalveolar/retroflex (not always alveolar)")
 * I really don't think this kind of back-and-forth way of discussion claiming English r is not alveolar without proper citation is appropriate or constructive in the discussion, because I didn't understand why Sol5050000 kept claiming that OR even after I explicitly pointed out alveolar was one of the possible allophone of English r.
 * 146.96.28.10 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There was a discussion in 2006 where a Canadian Wikipedian, presumably from UBC, called the "alveolar" approximant in the English way of articulation (called acoustically rhotic alveolar in this thread) to be: requires a complex tongue posture - it's articulatory description cannot be simply reduced to place (alveolar) and manner (approximant), Acoustically, /ɹ/ is unique because of its extrememly compressed f1-f3, particularily because of its low f3 value, and tongue grooving and side-bracing against the teeth. That is, people were well aware that the "alveolar" approximant in the English way of articulation was by no means a plain prototypical alveolar approximant and that the Chinese alveolar approximant vowel defined in apical vowel and the Dahalo soft d was by no means similar to the English alveolar r. In 2012, et al engaged into discussion concerning the similarity of the acoustic effect of an "alveolar" approximant in the English way of articulation and a retroflex approximant. Despite all these discussions, evaluated this article (apparently without a globalized analysis on the sound nature of Dahalo soft d/Mandarin apical vowel) as "covers the topic and contains all the relevant information on this particular phone" and "Neutral Point of View: Yes". I am open to all solutions that may address this issue, regardless separating the two phones with F3 or grouping them together, but if it is completely unaddressed in the article like the current version, I would suggest tag this article with some content template. --146.96.29.146 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, please check that the only part of the previous disscussion that related to WP:ONUS was Nardog's but it definitely doesn't belong in this article. Nasal alveolar approximant if anywhere, given we list in separate articles from. That concerns only one of the examples, and Nardog didn't prove the WP:NOTABILITY of Nasal alveolar approximant (so if that article is created, it would be merged here). Other that that, the entire discussion had few to do with ONUS. --146.96.36.47 (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 146.96.36.47, I meant WP:BURDEN. That was a mistake on my part. — Remsense  诉  02:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For BURDEN please note that I have given inline citation by "  — Remsense  诉  02:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Great that someone is taking the job. The current status of the article quite awkward to Chinese/Dahalo-speaking readers who use English as a second language. 146.96.36.47 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * May I ask that does DNI (in your edit summary) mean in Wikipedia? 146.96.36.47 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I rechecked San (2000), and it simply doesn't support the claim it's attached to.Wait, are the "YB" comments meant to be citations to the ? That wasn't clear to me. I'm trying to register an account to verify these references. — Remsense  诉  02:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's 语保 (not 语宝): the citation in the article. San (2000) claimed way more aggressive than here. He directly claimed that it's a nasalized vowel coda instead of a nasalized approximant coda - concerning different traditions transcribing Chinese into IPA (some use [ai̯] some use [aj]), it is absolutely normal to [að̠̃˕] instead of [aɿ̯◌̃]. 146.96.36.47 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my typo. I meant some use [ni̯a] while some use [nja]. I don't think a lot of people would use [aj] because even [ai̯] isn't very accurate. 146.96.27.236 (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Before checking 语保, you make discuss with any Sinitic linguistic group in China about their convention of using ɿ ʅ ʮ and ʯ. The exact articulation place one meant when using these symbols is very loose and usually corresponds to the corresponding consonant initial system. That is why I asked a Sinitic linguist to help and join the talk. For example, when a writer use ʅ with ʃ in his system, he usually indicates a domed laminal articulation of [ʅ]. 146.96.36.47 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this symbol have an uppercase version?
If it does, please make a “Turned R” page. EmeraldEnd84 (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no uppercase equivalent of ɹ, at least not in Unicode. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Difference between postalveolar and retroflex approximants?
There are separate articles, and it's claimed here that most English realises /r/ as a 'voiced postalveolar approximant', whereas only some dialects have the 'voiced retroflex approximant' instead. But, as explained in the article on retroflex approximant, a retroflex can be postalevolar; it doesn't have to be subapical, it can also be apical or laminal, just as the English voiced postalveolar approximant is apical (and so are most of the alveolar ones mentioned here, too). So what's the difference, then? 62.73.69.121 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I had the exact same question and wrote my findings in Talk:Pronunciation of English /r/. A TL;DR version of it is that [ɹ̺] and [ɻ] are different but near the same end of a continuum.
 * No laminal approximant is called "retroflex" though, so I've fixed that in Retroflex. Nardog (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So what is the continuum between - a more front vs more back part of the postalveolar region? From your Laver quote, though, it seems that his claim is that there is a categorical difference, in that the retroflex allophone of English /r/ is (front) palatal (palato-alveolar) as opposed to the usual allophone, which is just postalveolar. It's also, according to the quote, sometimes subapical, but only sometimes, so the active organ can't be the primary difference. Laver also points out that it's often apical, but so is the other allophone, so that can't be the difference either. Others, like Wells, seem to be talking about some kind of dorsal and velar (?!) realisation, which would be something entirely different from a retroflex. Whatever the difference is, it should be stated explicitly in the articles. As it stands, by classifying English /r/s into postalveolar and retroflex ones, the text is contrasting embalmed animals with animals that belong to the Emperor.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the velar realization, see velar bunched approximant. What connects all of those allophones is how similar they sound to one another. They can't necessarily be easily classified on the front-back continuum. Sol505000 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Denti-alveolar
argued that dentialveolar approximant would be my original research, well I am not sure but I have seen some Chinese linguistic graduate student using "prealveolar approximant" [ɹ̟̍] in their blog to describe the Chinese flat-tongued apical vowel because the stereotypical rhotic alveolar approximant is acoustically too different from that apical vowel but sounds closer to retroflex apical vowel. Of course saying a dentialveolar approximant to have a passive place of articulation sharply at the edge between your teeth and your alveolar ridge is not possible, but I don't think use the term "dentialveolar approximant" to emphasize the sound to be neither close to interdental/front dental nor close to the Dahalo-like "alveolar tending toward post-alveolar" may cause any problems. I have no idea why Sol505000 considers the distinction between apical postalvelar and apical retroflex to be founded while dentialveolar to be unfounded, and I would promote the ExtIPA [ð͇˕] for Dahalo language apical-alveolar series instead of [ð̠˕] because the current usage of [t̠] and [d̠] in Dahalo language is not quite accurate. --146.96.36.47 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You have never explain your concern about "dentialveolar approximant" but reverted a lot of well-sourced examples without any explanation in your edit about dentialveolar. I have recovered those examples yet for now I do not use the term dentialveolar in the article, but please express your concern about dentialveolar. --146.96.36.47 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)