Talk:V (letter): Difference between revisions
imported>Ro Thorpe (yes) |
imported>Ro Thorpe m (signing) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
==Phoneme articles== | ==Phoneme articles== | ||
Actually, after a night's sleep I'm starting to think that [[/v/ (phoneme)]] would be a bad idea; there would be little to distinguish it from [[/f/ (phoneme)]], which we would also logically have to create. It also fails to capture the relationship to other labiodentals and fricatives. I think it would be sufficient to have an article called [[labiodental fricative]] or [[labiodental fricatives]]. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 23:46, 1 April 2008 (CDT) | Actually, after a night's sleep I'm starting to think that [[/v/ (phoneme)]] would be a bad idea; there would be little to distinguish it from [[/f/ (phoneme)]], which we would also logically have to create. It also fails to capture the relationship to other labiodentals and fricatives. I think it would be sufficient to have an article called [[labiodental fricative]] or [[labiodental fricatives]]. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 23:46, 1 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
:Yes, I agree: they are the proper names. A problem is that most people have never heard of them, but that can be solved by putting links on the [[International Phonetic Alphabet]], [[English phonemes]] and [[phoneme]] pages. | :Yes, I agree: they are the proper names. A problem is that most people have never heard of them, but that can be solved by putting links on the [[International Phonetic Alphabet]], [[English phonemes]] and [[phoneme]] pages. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 10:31, 2 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 09:31, 2 April 2008
Roman numerals
Should we disambiguate pages like this given they could also be Roman numerals? C, D, I, M and I would also need these. John Stephenson 03:08, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
The Roman numerals would go fine in the intro. However, I think we really need two articles here, as what you have added is about the sound. A separate article on /v/ (sound) with a link from the letter article? (I tried putting the phonetic square brackets in there but it didn't work, so I substituted the phonemic //). Ro Thorpe 08:54, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
- OK, maybe /v/ (phoneme) would be better. John Stephenson 09:03, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
Yes, fine. Ro Thorpe 09:28, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
- See V (disambiguation). --Robert W King 09:35, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
So are we going to have articles on the Roman numerals or just mention them in the introductions to the ones I started? Ro Thorpe 10:59, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
- I think we should have just one article on Roman numerals. It doesn't make any sense to create seperate articles for "M", "C", "X", "V", "I", "L", "Q". --Robert W King 11:06, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
Right, I'll make adjustments accordingly. Ro Thorpe 11:08, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
What's the best way to name phoneme articles so that they are easy to find for non-linguists? Ro Thorpe 11:24, 1 April 2008 (CDT) - I suppose links from the letter pages for the phonemes as with /v/ (phoneme) above. Ro Thorpe 11:56, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
Phoneme articles
Actually, after a night's sleep I'm starting to think that /v/ (phoneme) would be a bad idea; there would be little to distinguish it from /f/ (phoneme), which we would also logically have to create. It also fails to capture the relationship to other labiodentals and fricatives. I think it would be sufficient to have an article called labiodental fricative or labiodental fricatives. John Stephenson 23:46, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
- Yes, I agree: they are the proper names. A problem is that most people have never heard of them, but that can be solved by putting links on the International Phonetic Alphabet, English phonemes and phoneme pages. Ro Thorpe 10:31, 2 April 2008 (CDT)