Talk:Ts–ch merger
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move 4 December 2016
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS. (non-admin closure) KSFTC 20:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Ts–ch merger → Fronting (sound change) – Too general to be about specifics (ends up being a list of indiscriminate information), but current scope is too specific to be about the general topic of consonant fronting. We, however, do not have yet an article about fronting that would parallel e.g. Palatalization (sound change); the closest is the very high-level Relative articulation. Hence I propose a move, to be followed with extension by further material. Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- You could expand the article and move it to the title you propose. But then it's worth noting that a ts–tʃ merger is an instance of fronting only if it proceeds in one direction and not in the other. I think it would be best to leave this article as it is and start Fronting (sound change) from scratch. – Uanfala (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Under that scenario, there's really no reason to keep around also an article specifically about a merger; the ts > tʃ information should be symmetrically rather put on Backing (sound change) (perhaps even under Palatalization (sound change)). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 01:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't fully understand the relationship between the two, but in general I don't think it's a good idea to refer to sound shifts by their technical names, per WP:RECOGNIZABLE.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like I am not making myself clear: Wikipedia should not have an article on a topic as specific as "Ts–ch merger", and my proposal amounts to trying to salvage the current article by extending it to justifiable scope. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't fully understand the relationship between the two, but in general I don't think it's a good idea to refer to sound shifts by their technical names, per WP:RECOGNIZABLE.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Under that scenario, there's really no reason to keep around also an article specifically about a merger; the ts > tʃ information should be symmetrically rather put on Backing (sound change) (perhaps even under Palatalization (sound change)). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 01:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Let's keep it
[edit]It's a prominent dialectal feature of several Slavic languages. It probably should have its own article, but with a different title. Perhaps a "dental-postalveolar merger" is a better name? Because it doesn't just affect the voiceless affricates but the whole sibilant series (at least in Polish, in other languages it may differ). If seseo has its own article, I don't see why this phenomenon can't. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
We have an article about it - see mazurzenie. We should think about merging the two. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)