Talk:Velar ejective stop

Merging this article

This article could possibly be merged with the article Ejective. Do we need a separate article for each point of articulation? I am not declaring policy, just raising a question on how best to organize these articles. There is much good material here, but I wonder if this is the best place toput it. Pete unseth (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you click on any consonant symbol in the table at the bottom of the article, you will notice that there is a page for almost all sounds. That's why this page makes sense, in addition to the ejective page. Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. There aren't pages for palatalized, labialized, or aspirated sounds, nor for individual diphthongs or triphthongs. "ejective" is a type of laryngeal property applied to sounds that have place and manner of articulation features that correspond to other non-ejective consonants. [p], [t], [k], [q], and [s] are by far not the only plausibilities for consonants with ejective realizations and their selection is somewhat arbitrary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For non-specialists

Much of this description is describing a plain ol' /k/.

For everyone's benefit, could there be a "How this differs from English" section? That would cut to the chase, by detailing the nature of the difference between the rare sound and the familiar sound?

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Name?

How do you say that? K-apostrophe? K-prime? K-ejective?
Varlaam (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pronounced [k`]. Using the Unicode system of naming, the glyph would be called "Latin small letter K with apostrophe," though it should be noted that there is no actual glyph with that name (Unicode uses two glyphs to indicate ejectives). As a practical matter, if I couldn't make the sound I would just say, "velar ejective." —WikiMarshall (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

better reference for scottish english

could someone please add this, much better reference for Scottish English:

Journal of the International Phonetic Association, Volume 43, Issue 3 (Non-pulmonic sounds in European languages), December 2013 , pp. 273-298 "Ejectives in Scottish English: A social perspective" by Owen McCarthy and Jane Stuart-Smith DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100313000212 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.157.80 (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Post-palatal ejective

@PharyngealImplosive7

• Doesn't Wikipedia's articles usually cover pre-velar consonants?
• That was a move, not an addition
• It only occurs palatalized in these languages

BodhiHarp 00:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

A move from where? Your section also cited no sources. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The table was moved from the occurence section. BodhiHarp 04:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

That still doesn't change the fact that no sources were in that table. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What about WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT though? similar to what @Respublik said on the nomination of Template:Incomplete sentence. What about tagging it with templates like {{unreferenced section}} or {{cn}}. BodhiHarp 17:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that these sounds exist in these languages. If no sources support your claims, we should not have misleading information in the article. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Pre-velar ejective

@Kwamikagami why do other users keep reverting the section for the pre-velar ejective saying it's unsourced, yet they move the examples back to the other occurrence table? BodhiHarp 21:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

i see palatalized, not pre-velar. we haven't been providing separate sections for palatalized, labialized, palatovelarized, velarized, pharyngealized, glottalized etc., and the slight fronting could be incidental to palatalization. without a ref, we can't tell.

there are languages with clear pre-velar and post-velar stops, but these two don't appear to establish that. if you illustrated a language with such a contrast, without secondary articulation interfering, that might be more convincing. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there a difference between palatalized velar consonants, pre-velar consonants, and post-palatal consonants? BodhiHarp 01:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

'pre-velar' does not imply palatalization, though what happens phonetically will depend on the language and perhaps the speaker. otherwise, 'pre-x' and 'post-y' are ambiguous, and depend on the author. if it's closer to x or y, that term might be used, but otherwise it's pretty much arbitrary — kwami (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we could give it a section when we can find citations. BodhiHarp 04:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I found this. Can we add this to Module:IPA symbol/data and can you tell if it's a mirror of Wikipedia. BodhiHarp 20:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is a mirror of Besleney (which I'm sure you could have found yourself). Both there and Shapsug dialect mention the transcription you are referring to, [kʲʼ], as a palatalized velar ejective, not a 'pre-velar' or 'post-palatal'; and if you check their sources, that is indeed what they are called, simply palatalized velars. oklopfer (💬) 23:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Aren't post-palatals/pre-velars pretty close or similar to palatalized velars according to Kwamikagami? BodhiHarp 00:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

How do you take that from "'pre-velar' does not imply palatalization"? oklopfer (💬) 00:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

What about the fact that they also mention though what happens phonetically will depend on the language and perhaps the speaker. otherwise, 'pre-x' and 'post-y' are ambiguous, and depend on the author. if it's closer to x or y, that term might be used, but otherwise it's pretty much arbitrary BodhiHarp 00:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

That is about the distinction (or lack thereof) between 'pre-velar' and 'post-palatal'. You initially asked:

"Is there a difference between palatalized velar consonants, pre-velar consonants, and post-palatal consonants?"

Which is about 3 different terms. For the first term, 'palatalized velar', kwami's comment is stating that it is not describing the same thing as 'pre-velar'; as for the other two, 'pre-velar' and 'post-palatal', there is ambiguity about their "true" articulation, and those two may mean the same thing. oklopfer (💬) 00:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, here is a list of variants of a velar ejective that I know are attested:

• Palatalized
• Labialized pre-velar
• Labialized
• Prenasalized
• Labialized and prenasalized

Would this still be too much clutter? Note that this excludes the lengthened plain ejective. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 03:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is too much clutter. We don't include every variant of a sound (labialized, palatalized, pharyngealized, etc) in other articles so why should we do that here? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Because of how much variants of a sound is attested that would make it worth including. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Why not just have a table like Voiceless velar plosive#Varieties, then? It is very evidently clutter otherwise. WP:NOTDB as usual. I also would like to see your examples of attestation for each of those variants, as I have doubts that all of them exist or are notable. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we could make a table of variants, and for occurrences, list them ALL in a single occurrence section. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, I got the labialized pre-velar from Saanich dialect, but I realize it was removed by you and is pretty much the nonsense [k̠ʼ]. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)