Jump to content

Talk:Sonority hierarchy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jim Henry (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 19 January 2010 (→How about sonorous voices?: nontechnical sense of "sonorous" belongs in dictionary, not encyclopedia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconLinguistics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

(copied from Everything2 and posted here by the original author, Ryan Gabbard (elwethingol of Everything2))

What about semivowels? Where do they fall on the scale? neatnate 09:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Semivowels are basically just short vowels (more precisely, non-syllabic vowels). High semivowels = high vowels, low semivowels = low vowels. Peace. - ishwar (SPEAK) 06:11, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
Semivowels are officially classed as approximant consonants, unless you're talking about within diphthongs, which would be an element of the nucleus rather than part of an onset or coda. What are low semivowels? Coyne025 14:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about sonorous voices?

Hi peoples, why is there no article about sonorous? i have no idea what this page has to do with it. Thnx

Yes, I found this trying to look up what a "sonorous voice" would be. This article has nothing to do with that, yet I am redirected here. I don't know enough about the topic to even start the article I am actually looking for. Tenbergen (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the everyday, nontechnical sense of the words "sonorous" and "sonority" are more suitable to a dictionary than to an encyclopedia. I don't know what we would say about them here. Maybe we should have a disambiguating interwiki link to Wiktionary? --Jim Henry (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions to the sonority sequencing principle

In english as well as other germanic languages there are a lot of words beginning with sp, st etc., which obviously violate the sonority hierarchy. Are there any "explanations" for this, or at least some attempts to make it fit into the theory? --Schuetzm 18:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The best explanation I know of is simply to say that sibilants are best treated as an exception. 84.70.37.244 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In phonology we studied the idea of a phonotactic "index," which would be a segment or natural class of segments that can be added to word boundaries, such as sonorants in French (no good examples come to mind) or /s/ in English. In essence this is saying the same thing as /s/ is best treated as an exception, but it at least gives a little more info behind the idea. Coyne025 14:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound change

Can a sound change violate the sonority hierarchy? --84.61.62.55 12:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

I added some categories here, but I'm sure there's at least one more set of categories that I missed. If anyone knows what they are, feel free to put them in

-- TimNelson 13:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what about approximants??? Where exactly do they fit in?201.37.64.244 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approximants are covered by liquids and (nonsyllabic) high vowels in the chart. —Angr 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This age is linked to from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanlab, refering to the Trance group named 'Sonorous'. I'm a tad confused why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.145.97 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hello. Congratulations for the article. I have some questions about it: It is written:

"In English, the sonority scale, from lowest to the highest, is the following: [[p t k] [b d g] [f θ] [v ð z] [s] [m n] [l] [r] [i u] [e o] [a]]"

  • Shouldn't it be: [f θ s] [v ð z] [m n ŋ] [l] [r] [j w] [i u], or maybe [f θ] [v ð] [s z] [m n ŋ] [l] [r] [j w] [i u]?
  • How about: [tʃ dʒ], [ʃ ʒ], and [h]?

Thanks for reading this message. Best wishes!--Alpinu (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of concept

Can someone track down the origin of the concept and term in modern linguistics? LokiClock (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonority_hierarchy&oldid=338773139"