Talk:Kipeá language

Chart appearances

@Yacàwotçã why do you care so much about the chart appearances? These are incredibly sloppy. The way I had them before is the right way. The vowels need the articulation column, and the affricate, etc. sounds are post-alveolar, *not* alveolo-palatal. Please stop reverting this. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Fdom5997, who decided what "the right way" is, you? Cite the Manual of Style. Why do the vowels *have* to be as you claim they must? Cite the Manual of Style. Why do you insist on claiming that *your* table is the correct one, ignoring Aryon Rodrigues's (did you even check the source? Go ahead, it's in English and there's a link). Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Why does the chart HAVE to be the exact same as how the author puts it? Is that really necessary? It looks much better the way it is before you kept changing it. It is much more organized and the articulation column for the vowels is pretty necessary. Try to be open-minded at least. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 October 2025

1. Change "Post-alveolar" to "Alveo-palatal" as per source (already used on article): [1] and Zwartjes p. 184. They're not synonyms and this can be checked on the respective article.
2. Remove "Close", "Mid", and "Open" from the vowel table as per WP:OR. This is not supported by sources and is factually incorrect. For instance, /e/ isn't mid, but rather close-mid; /æ/ isn't open, but rather near-open. Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC) Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This guy just can’t take an L. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Protection has expired. Which does not bode well, since the discussion above is giving me the impression that the edit war will just resume. So make this edit at your own risk. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

1. 'alveo-palatal' (not to be confused with 'alveolo-palatal') is indeed often considered a synonym for postalveolar. However, both terms, 'alveo-palatal' and 'postalveolar', are rather ambigious - the terminology of 'palato-alveolar' versus 'alveolo-palatal' is much more clear in defining a distinction. That being said, the phonology table is somewhat inaccurate in placing /tʃ/ /dʒ/ in the same column as /ɲ/ /j/; authors often combine these columns for visual conciseness, when in reality the articulatory placement of these sounds are not at all equivalent (the former are traditionally considered 'palato-alveolar' in the IPA, while the latter are considered plain 'palatal'; if the affricates really were 'alveolo-palatal' and not 'palato-alveolar', then the author likely would have used /tɕ/ /dʑ/, but we cannot say for certain). Given this, if the columns must stay combined, and as they obviously are in the source, then there is essentially no difference between calling it 'alveo-palatal' and 'postalveolar', as they are functionally equivalent in their ambiguity. The latter may be slightly preferred, as it is the more 'modern' term, and is less likely to be confused with the more specific 'alveolo-palatal', but there is really nothing wrong with using the source's description of 'alveo-palatal'.

2. While the IPA trapezium defines specific locations for vowels, it is common practice to negate the usage of diacritics when illustrating a language on a vowel chart - as you can see with the example image for California English on the vowel chart page, /ʌ/ is written as strongly central, when on the IPA trapezium it is considered back. Moreover, the three way distinction of close-mid-open instead of the IPA's greater levels of height distinction is simply as a frame of reference - it clearly indicates the bounds of the language, and that is what matters for the illustration; vowel chart descriptions do not need to perfectly match up with the IPA trapezium placement.

All being said, there is no reason to be WP:UNCIVIL. While I lean towards agreeing with Fdom5997, 'This guy just can’t take an L' is harshly uncalled for - you are in a dispute about the phonology of a language no one speaks anymore. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Pppery and Oklopfer, thank you for the feedback. I base myself primarily on Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue, and I follow strictly what the sources state. In fact, if I may could you give your opinion at Talk:Dzubukuá language, where the user broke the three-revert rule within 15 minutes in order to add a phone as if it were a phoneme? (And refuses to discuss it.)

Regarding the incivility of that account, I would also add that they stated I "need to seek help" [2]. I'd say the account is not actually disputing the phonology of the language, but rather how the tables should look – trying to impose their personal vision at all costs ("does not matter. This format is right", "I said keep the format"). And this is not limited to languages of this family (see ANI thread). I even asked, though without a reply, so if you know, please point me if the Manual of Style shows clear and objective guidelines on what these tables should look like, and I will gladly follow them. What I don't want is for the content from reliable sources which are not wrong to be changed based on a standardization without community consensus. Yacàwotçã (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Oklopfer @Anachronist @Yacàwotçã ok, I agree that you all make fair points about the "alveo-palatal" column, in that you're correct that I confused it for *alveolo-palatal*. If this is the case, then I say we leave that label.

That being said, I still think it is pretty silly to leave out the articulation column in the vowel chart. No other vowel charts have this, so why is this format so necessary, just because "that's the way the author writes it"? Fdom5997 (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)