Talk:Chungli Ao language

Bruhn as a source

Bruhn 2009 is a student paper contradicted by Bruhn 2010 and so should not be used. But even Bruhn 2010, another student paper, is based on a single non-native (or at least late) speaker, and Bruhn points out places where his consultant's native language apparently interfered with his production of Chungli, and so should not be relied upon as a definitive statement of Chungli Ao phonetics. We certainly shouldn't be splicing sources together. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami are you incredibly sure that the sources that you used go by the Chungli Ao dialect? That is what needs to be displayed here. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

That's what he says at the btm of page 1. He says on page ix that he had 2 principle consultants during two separate trips to the area, and a 3rd helped with the final draft of his grammar. He also goes into some detail on the pronunciation of the allophones in his phonology, though I cite his grammar because he removed allophony from the consonant and vowel tables, which would confuse people if they didn't read the accompanying text. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Now as for the “palatal” sounds, I am pretty sure that they aren’t necessarily literal palatal sounds. Possibly palato-alveolar. As I have just got my hands on the source. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

He says palatal and he describes palatal. Yes, there's a good [chance] he meant something like [tɕ] (certainly not [tʃ]), but we can't make such assumption [and] present them as fact. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami I actually think it’s much more likely alveolo-palatal (tɕ, dʑ) for the affricates. But I’m still pretty sure that the fricative allophone of /s/ palato-alveolar [ʃ]. We really should probably just transcribe them as such. Very unlikely that they are purely palatal. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree they're probably alveolo-palatal, even though according to Gowda the blade of the tongue is not involved, but why in the world would you think that /si/ is different? They're described identically.

I'm leery of modifying phonetic descriptions based on what we think a language 'should' be. The language doesn't care what we think. But even if we go there, I certainly would oppose inventing phonetic distinctions in a language that do not appear in the source just because we think there should be. — kwami (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Well then maybe we should use [ɕ] for /si/ then. Definitely not purely palatal though. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami did you also check Gowda (1972)? Fdom5997 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was using. It has the phonetic descriptions. He's very clear about them being palatal. If they're [ɕ], that's a misanalysis on the part of the author, not a lack of precision in the description. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Gowda (1972) uses the Americanist notation of palato-alveolar for the palatal affricates and fricative (⟨č ǰ š⟩), but not only calls them palatals, he describes their articulation as such, too:

[č]
To produce this sound the air stream is completely stopped at the hard palate by raising the front of the tongue towards the hard palate. The soft palate is raised to close the nasal passage. The air is compressed by pressure from the lungs. When released the tongue is slowly withdrawn from the palate unlike the stops and we have explosion followed by friction.

— p. 26

[ǰ]
This sound is produced in the same way as [č] except that the vocal cords vibrate to produce voice.

— p. 27

[š]
To produce this sound the front of the tongue is raised towards the hard palate but is not allowed to touch it. There is a narrow space between the front of the tongue and hard palate. Lips are slightly spread. The soft palate is in its raised position and the vocal cords do not vibrate.

— p. 28

He also includes description of a voiceless alveolar affricate ⟨c⟩:

To produce this sound the air passage is blocked by raising the blade of the tongue to touch teeth ridge. The soft palate is raised to close the nasal passage. When the air compressed by pressure from the lungs is released by slowly withdrawing the tongue from the teeth ridge; the explosion caused by the escaping air is followed by friction. Vocal cords do not vibrate.

— p. 27

So Gowda is very clear in his distinctions. The palatals are made through (near) contact of the front of the tongue with the hard palate, and the alveolar through contact with the teeth ridge - literally just the definitions of what those articulations are. ~ oklopfer (💬) 14:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 ^ this is not 'vaguely alveolo-palatal' ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Well then how is it purely palatal then? And as I read this, it seems like it could very well be a post-alveolar sound. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How are you coming to that conclusion? As it says on the postalveolar consonant page: Articulation is farther back in the mouth than the alveolar consonants, which are at the ridge itself, but not as far back as the hard palate, the place of articulation for palatal consonants. It isn't ambiguous at all. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@oklopfer I would think when it says “raising the front of the tongue towards the hard palate” that implies that they are an alveolo-palatal sound. When making a palatal sound, there is more of a space between the blade of the tongue and the hard palate. However, the front of the tongue is what comes in contact with the hard palate. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It really doesn't imply that, nor are alveolo-palatals and palatals distinguished from each other in the ways you just claimed. One could argue Gowda is talking about (palatal) retroflex affricates, but certainly not postalveolars, considering in the very same passage he clearly shows he knows what both the hard palate and the alveolar ridge are.

Willful ignorance has no place in an encyclopedia. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The 'narrow space between the front of the tongue and hard palate' of [š] here would also imply it might be an approximant [ȷ̊] rather than a fricative, but again, very clearly palatal. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

So then, by your standard, we could transcribe them as alveolo-palatal [tɕ, ɕ]. It makes a lot more sense to transcribe them as that than purely palatal. There is no way that they are noted as that. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

By what standard? there is no mention of the alveolar/teeth ridge at all in the palatals Gowda describes, so yes, they are noted exactly as that - purely palatal. All of the articulation occurs at the hard palate. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There doesn’t have to be a mention of the alveolar ridge. And when articulating those sounds, there is still a narrow space between the front of the tongue and the hard palate. They are not “purely palatal”. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You are evidently not reading Gowda's passage I provided above. Stop arguing with the source and move on. You clearly have a very poor understanding of articulation. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am reading it. Based on the description of the sounds, it is still very possible that they can be articulated as alveolo-palatal. Even @Kwamikagami can agree that it can still be as such. Making it palatal makes zero sense, and virtually all of the other newer sources do not list the sounds as purely palatal. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Kwami states directly above: He says palatal and he describes palatal. Yes, there's a good chan[c]e he meant something like [tɕ] (certainly not [tʃ]), but we can't make such assumption[s] a[nd] present them as fact. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Well then why are we making assumptions about them being purely palatal then? I have just listened to speakers of the language and looked at newer sources like Bruhn (2010), and within that source they are clearly not listed as purely palatal. It’s much more likely that they are AP than purely palatal as you keep insisting. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

We aren't making assumptions, we are following Gowda's exact wording - he calls them palatal, places them in a palatal column on his chart, and describes the articulation as occurring at the hard palate. There is no room for interpretation there. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes there is. And we should not be following his exact wording because based on most newer sources, they suggest otherwise. However they list that they are more palato-alveolar, but if we follow Gowda’s wording, it is much more likely that they are alveolo-palatal. But definitely not pure palatal Fdom5997 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If they were alveolo-palatal, then the primary articulation would not be at the hard palate as he explicitly states. Again, either you are just being willfully ignorant, or simply do not understand the concepts. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You seem to just be way too verbatim and not willing to accept any other sources that don’t state what you keep insisting. Maybe you’re the one being ignorant here. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This thread starts with exactly why Bruhn (2010) is not a reliable source for this. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Still, does not imply that the “palatal” sounds are purely palatal. And it is also pretty ridiculous that we are forced to cite a source that was likely poorly written when describing the sounds. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree it is frustrating that we are stuck with Gowda's descriptions as the only reliable sourcing, but that is the fault of the field. It would be great if someone else with the credentials would do a modern phonological study with as much detail to either corroborate or disprove his claims. But Bruhn is not an example of that. ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I continue to emphasize that we stick to the alveolo-palatal transcription, even if that’s the case. It’s still just ignorant to also assume that Gowda implies a pure-palatal sound coming from the “palatal” consonants. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

We follow sources. You know that. The only reliable source says unambiguously that they're palatal, so we say they're palatal. I imagine the description may be inaccurate too (for example, it would be typologically unusual for /si/ to be pronounced [çi]), but imagination is not evidence. If you can come up with another RS that contradicts Gowda, great, but until then we have this. — kwami (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oklopfer @Kwamikagami No, BS. I have just listened to many speakers of the language, and I do not hear them pronounce the palatal sounds as "purely-palatal". They sound like they are at least pronounced as post-alveolar (be it, AP or PA). And furthermore, virtually every other source that is written by Temsunungsang (2009, 2014, 2021) has them all listed as a palato-alveolar [tʃ]. I will not concede on this nonsense. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we're done here. What you 'concede' to is irrelevant.

If you considered Temsunungsang a RS, why didn't you follow his consonant inventory rather than one explicitly rejected by him, Gowda, and Bruhn, and need me to correct you? Do you not understand the difference between a phoneme and an allophone, or are you just completely ignorant of the literature on a language you claim to have an interest in?

If you actually have access to 'many' speakers of Chungli Ao, then you should publish a RS description of its phonetics. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I DO consider his sources are reliable, and am 100% open to use his source! And I truly think all of us should concede and use the phonological info from Temsunungsang. He has explicitly stated that his sources are updated from Gowda and a has done much more research on the language than Bruhn has done.

But aside from that, what’s with the claim that I am “ignorant” and “don’t know a difference between a phoneme and an allophone”. Pretty silly and untrue, but to answer your last question, yes I did find a source, and it’s Temsunungsang. We should use it. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Your edits show that you were ignorant of the analyses of all three authors. The fact that you don't recognize your own ignorance is immaterial.

The Temsunungsang that I have access to, 2009, is a phonological analysis, not a phonetic description, and an unimpressive one at that (e.g. he posits non-existent long vowels just so he can avoid contour tones, an example of fudging the data to match theory -- though granted this kind of pseudoscience is depressingly common in phonology). Is there another pub of his that is phonetic, and that demonstrates that the author may be competent? — kwami (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Temsunungsang's inventory listings in 2009 + 2014 contradict each other and do not give any precise detail on the pronunciation of these sounds, as far as I can tell; the chart groupings are somewhat incoherent. We can't go off of just symbols, we need descriptions. Can you provide an example of him describing them distinctly? A link to the source would be great. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Well of course you guys are way too stubborn and pedantic, and are going to immediately criticize whatever new source exists (let alone written by an actual linguist themselves) that does not match the old one you keep insisting on. You have to literally dissect every single source that I come across and immediately state how bad they are. And you have to stress that you find the exact source that identifies the phonology-description. Sure, a well-written and updated phonological description would the most reliable, but in the meantime, we need to work with what we have. As of right now, we sure should use Temsunungsang's sources (and perhaps along with Gowda's sources), regardless of their status. If you want to stick to Gowda's source for the most part, that is fine, but we need to at least note that Temsunungsang does provide better detail on the palatal sounds. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer using a newer source, too; I think we all would. I am just asking for some description in one, because symbols alone are not typically enough. ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If it’s what we have, it’s what we have. And we should at least take their descriptions little-by-little, and used the old with the new. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

this paper was published by Temsunungsang and another author just a month ago. It is about a different dialect of Ao, but provides more of the descriptions I am referring to. He seems to be the primary modern contributor to the study of Ao, and is an assistant professor of linguistics at EFL University in Shillong. Where Gowda referred to palatal affricates (+ an alveolar allophone) for Jungli, Temsunungsang refers to them as palato-alveolar + dental affricates, respectively, in Changki. I would still like to see some confirmation that this is their place of articulation in Jungli, but this is pretty close. Perhaps we should just reach out to him directly. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok definitely go ahead, and if you’re going to do that, then I would also highly recommend that you contact them regarding the true sound of the supposed “retroflex fricative” as well, especially since most sources refer to it as an alveolar tap /ɾ/ or an approximant /ɹ/. But until then, why do we need to stick to a source that likely did not list them with proper description? And why should we have to assume that the palatal sounds are purely palatal, when a vast majority of all of the other sources out there say that they aren’t? I say until then, we compromise and transcribe the articulation for these sounds as [tɕ, dʑ, ɕ]. Maybe not exactly palato-alveolar [tʃ, dʒ, ʃ](like most of the other sources) or as purely palatal [cç, ɟʝ, ç], but transcribing them like alveolo-palatal seems like an in-between, and is still possible that Growda’s description could refer to that as such. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

IMO alveolo-palatal is the only one of the three articulations we can assuredly say it is not. Palatal and palato-alveolar both have (at least some degree of) attestation, alveolo-palatal does not. We should not WP:SYNTH and 'meet in the middle'. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

So then it should be palato-alveolar then. After all, literally the majority of all the other sources attest it as such.

But then what about the supposed “retroflex fricative”? Fdom5997 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the retroflex lateral fricative as well - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even Gowda used the symbol /r/ to describe the sound sometimes (though maintained his terminology distinct from the symbol). Perhaps he meant liquid instead of lateral, which would make much more sense, but will also have to get further verification of this. As kwami said, imagination is not evidence. I can try reaching out to Temsunungsang later this week for comments on verification, but we would have to take it somewhat with a grain of salt without published works alongside; I can ask for resources as well. Will likely not have time tomorrow, though. Hopefully the day after. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but I would believe that the “imagination” of the palatal sounds is also assuming that they are purely palatal. So for that, I suggest that it is much less “imagining” to make the transcription palato-alveolar. Especially since most of the other sources write them as such. I say we just concede on it as of now. Because most pure-palatal consonants (especially the affricates which are quite rare) typically don’t exist unless they are explicitly stated that they are purely palatal. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, as we have been going over all day, Gowda does explicitly describe them as 'purely palatal'. He uses the words 'voiceless/voiced palatal affricate/fricative', and puts the place of articulation at the hard palate. It is unambiguous. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

But that is not what most other sources list them as. And if we have to, (I think we should) we should very much base the phonology on Temsunungsang’s sources. It’s pretty ridiculous to continue to insist that they are purely-palatal, when most newer sources list them as a post-alveolar sound. Let’s just use his source and be done here. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason to default to less precise descriptions until we get confirmation from Temsunungsang in one direction or the other, as his 2009+2014 publishings do not adequately describe the placement. His recent publishing does, but for Changki, not Jungli. So we know he is capable of producing adequate descriptions. He notably omits using diacritics for a dental affricate [t̪s̪], so we know for certain that his symbolic usage is not enough, we need descriptions, too. ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, I got Draft:Changki Ao language undeleted, and would appreciate help bringing it up to standard with the new source :) ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I wonder why T doesn´t establish /ts/ and /tsh/ as phonemes. That suggests they're in complementary distribution as they are reported to be in Chungli. — kwami (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is not a less precise description if his other sources DO adequately describe the placement as palato-alveolar. If anyone does not adequately describe the placement, it is Growda. Let’s just concede already, use Temsunungsang’s source, and use the palato-alveolar symbols and put this all to bed. This is getting tiring. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Again seems like you didn't read what I said. Stop trying to force a concession, it's not going to happen. Descriptions are precise, not symbols. Gowda provides precise descriptions (please spell authors' names correctly), even if questionable. Temsunungsang does not, at least for Jungli. His earlier (Jungli) sources use symbols without descriptions, and his later (Changki) descriptions are not one-to-one with his symbols. That's why we need to get further verification. It is indeed getting tiring explaining to you the same things over again. ~ oklopfer (💬) 04:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Because you are just being incredibly pedantic, and not conceding to picking a more current source that there is. Sure symbols with descriptions are better, but for the moment, let's just stick to whatever we have and be more open-minded. I would much rather choose a source with just proper symbols, than a source that is quite dated and it's phonological-description being poorly written. Stop being so stubborn.

Also, please try to reach Temsunungsang as soon as possible on this subject matter. Get it done quickly if you can. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

oklopfer, there's no point in arguing with willful idiots. Let's just follow best sources, and if fdom renews disruption of the article, take them to AN. — kwami (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami @Oklopfer Oh right. I am the “willful idiot”. Meanwhile, you two simps have to purity-test every single article and source, and choose to not be open-minded and feel the need to obsessively obey and thump each rule and control every single bit of the cited content! I’m sorry, but you two have been just insufferable with this article section, and for that, maybe I’ll have to take *you* to the AN. Nobody can enjoy a moment of peace and simply read a language article, without you feeling the need to police the information and forcibly go by a poorly-written source that doesn’t even give a good phonological-description to begin with! Fdom5997 (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oklopfer wait so Dr. Temsunungsang reached out? What’s the info that he clarified? Fdom5997 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

He hasn't replied yet. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I assume that Gowda used the symbol /r/ because that's the orthography. It's very common to use orthography as phonemic or broad-phonetic symbols, especially when choosing a precise symbol is difficult. The symbol 'r' therefore doesn't mean that the sound is a trill or a tap, or anything indicated by an 'r' in a European language, especially if the Ao /r/ is viewed as a rhotic, which after all is a behavioral rather than phonetic class. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Source for consonant transcription

So it's been quite a few edits since we had discussed the back-and-forth regarding using Temsunungsang or Gowda as the source for the consonant chart transcription. I am still very much opposed to using Gowda as the primary source for the consonant transcription, but I also give credit to Mellohi! for the idea of combining all the sources and listing the phonological info from each one, including listing how Gowda describes the palatal sounds and the supposed "retroflex lateral fricative". I do agree that these are pretty necessary to list. But with all that doing so, I see nothing wrong with keeping all of that info, and then transcribing the consonants in the chart as Temsunungsang as seen here. I feel that it is probably the best move here, since we are displaying the consonant transcription of the Temsunungsang's newer sources, while still keeping the info from Gowda, listed below in other sub-sections. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Oklopfer have you heard from Dr. Temsunungsang yet? @Mellohi! could we use the phonology section within this revision of the page? I can't see why not, and I'm pretty sure a consensus could even agree. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

According to Temsu, his <tʃ> is "palatal". He didn't explain what that was supposed to mean even after I asked a few times. My guess is that he didn't consider the exact articulation to be relevant and so never determined it. The <r> however is evidently something like [ɹ̠]. But we don't have a source to cite for that. — kwami (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

We do in Bruhn (2010) but somehow we still can’t use that source? @Kwamikagami did you hear from Dr. Temsunungsang? Fdom5997 (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I did.

Neither of these printed sources are much good. To describe a sound, we need a source that describes the sound. The only one we have in print is Gowda. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

We don't "need" a source that describes the sounds. Yes, it's better, but if it's not what we have, it should still be somewhat acceptable at the current moment. Gowda's source is descriptive, however; it is again not a reliably written source. So for that I could easily make the argument that neither of them are better than each other. I say use Bruhn's transcription in the chart, but keep everything else, including the sections regarding the info distinction. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Given how contentious things here are proving to be, I would like to remind everyone to keep WP:NPOV in mind. Overall, I believe the best approach here is "Gowda said X, TT and/or Bruhn said Y", e.g. my edits in the vein of "Gowda described as X, but TT transcribed with Y". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 22:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, and honestly I approve of your edits and ideas here. I am in agreement that we should be displaying the information-distinction in the following sources. Although I still firmly believe that the consonant and vowel charts should match the newer sources and not be solely based on only Gowda’s source which is not properly written. But we should still list the different vowel charts according to Gowda, like we have now. The sections that you added are pretty necessary if we are going to still cite the other sources. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

So we should say that Temsu and Bruhn contradict themselves, because that's what makes a reliable source.

No, we don't state that the world is flat in a geology article for NPOV. If we have RS's, we should use them. So far we have only one. It's unfortunate, but that's the state of the field. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I could easily argue that Gowda is only barely more reliable than Temsu or Bruhn. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

You could easily argue that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the article. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

They all do to an extent. But I just think it’s ridiculous to base the consonant or vowel chart on one source, while the other sources are newer and have better transcription. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

How do we know they're better? They don't even understand the terminology for places of articulation. That speaks to gross incompetence. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Says you. But transcription also matters. Maybe the places of articulation are not described as *exactly* accurate, but that’s beside the point.

Not to mention that the same argument could be made about Gowda’s source, how the description and transcription of the “palatal” sounds are a bit vague and not reliably written, especially when they are most-likely post-alveolar. And most of the info has been updated since its publication. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

You are not a RS. Get yourself published and peer-reviewed, and we can report your opinions. Meanwhile you don't seem to understand the concept of an encyclopedia.

Gowda is not vague in the least. He even has diagrams of how the sounds are pronounced, far better than what we have for most languages. Meanwhile we know Temsu to be wrong. Saying that it's "beside the point" that a description is wrong is just stupid.

By your logic, we need to claim that the rhotic is a trill because it's transcribed with the letter 'r'. For that matter, we must insist that RP and GA English have a trill, even if that's not *exactly* accurate, because every dictionary uses the letter 'r'. That utterly idiotic. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep flaunting your pure ignorance. Basing the consonant chart of one source is incredibly idiotic. That is everything against the concept of an encyclopedia. No Gowda is not perfect nor the best either, so stop this pathetic worship of this one source as you keep implying that every other source is inferior. Not to mention I’m only trying to be fair here, and go with Mellohi!’s idea of incorporating all of the sources and listing the differences in their info on the sounds.

And FYI, I actually believe that we should transcribe ‘r’ as a glide /ɹ/ (as you claim Temsu himself told you it was), but yet the one source that displays it (Bruhn 2010), you keep stubbornly rejecting it! So say what you will about Bruhn, but he at least displayed the consonant chart the most accurate in that source of his. No, the source does not have to be perfect, but by that, we really should try to make the section as accurate as possible, by following other sources. Possibly the best layout for the vowel and consonant info can be seen in this revision here. Stop being such a pedantic purist and learn to be open-minded here. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

You are being just as much of a closed-minded pedantic purist by insisting that the chart must be displayed in your particular way. I do quite appreciate Mellohi!'s edits - importantly, they are avoiding WP:SYNTH. However, I also agree with Kwami's point about the weight of the sources; Gowda is the only one of the three to actually make an attempt to describe the articulation and publish about it.

For both Bruhn and Temsu, making detailed descriptions of the phonetic values was not their purview, they were focusing on other aspects of the language. When emailed, Temsu's responses indeed provided extremely little clarification for the affricate; he stated he considers the affricate 'palatal', and uses the transcription ⟨tʃ⟩, just as it appears in his papers on Jungli (though he stated he has also used ⟨c⟩). Again, in the 2025 Changki Ao paper, he does actually call it palato-alveolar; one would think if he considers it as such for Jungli, too, then he would've stated so when probed about it.

On the other hand, his response about ⟨r⟩ was clearer and far more confident, that it is a postalveolar approximant ⟨ɹ⟩. But he does not write that in his papers, in fact he puts ⟨r⟩ under dental. So he has contradicted himself in a variety of ways. Using Bruhn to affirm the most recent personal statement from Temsu would be improper synthesis. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I am not praising Bruhn’s source 100%, but it kinda doesn’t seem like much of a coincidence that he actually transcribed the chart based on the info that Temsu had told you it was. I say we truly should display it as Bruhn (2010) does, but that is as long as we keep the notes below regarding the distinction in the source descriptions, as it would look in this revision here. And if Temsu actually did list the affricate as palato-alveolar, and the rhotic as an alveolar glide both in his Changki Ao source for the record, then that is surely most likely the case with Chungli Ao, especially considering that the two languages are actually dialects of each other. Sure Gowda may be the only source describing the articulations, but is it really that reliable when identifying the actual sounds? Not really. Specifically with the “palatal” and “retroflex” sounds according to him. And we have also come quite a long way in phonetics since it was first published in the 1970s.

But furthermore, the way I believe the chart should be displayed is truly not “my” way. I am analyzing based on the other sources how they display the charts and symbols, and using that to determine how the charts should best be displayed. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

How can you judge which chart is the most accurate when you have no data to work from? You're substituting your expectations for RS's, as you have repeatedly done in the past. I will state the obvious again, since you seem oblivious to it: YOU ARE NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. — kwami (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I never even said I was! Like I just told you, we should analyze *all* of the sources first, like how they display and describe the charts and symbols, then we determine how to display the charts most accurately. That is not a “me” thing, quite the opposite. In fact, it is likely how an encyclopedia should be written. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

And per Temsu, retracted [ɹ̠] is a 'dental flap'. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Then why not list that info too? Fdom5997 (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)