Talk:Airstream mechanism

	Linguistics portal This 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

Disability

Airstream mechanism is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

disputed

"No known languages use pulmonic ingressive sounds,"

What about gasping, sniffing, snorting, whiffing, snoring, and snickering? lysdexia 12:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Much as English-speakers use certain clicks, such as the dental click to show disapproval, and the lateral click to call a horse, we don't assert that clicks are a part of English phonology because we don't use them to produce words. Much as clicks are what we call "extra-linguistic" sounds in English, gasps, sniffs, etc., are extra-linguistic sounds in all languages because they don't form a part of any languge's phonology. Nohat 21:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

North-West dialects of English use ejectives (glottalically initiated) word finaly.

Finnish demonstrates use of pulmonic ingressive sounds as an interactional device to show that they are coming to the end of their turn: marking a TRP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.197.70 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ingressive "yeah" in Newfoundland, Canada

I've often heard people from Newfoundland (and other parts of the maritimes) give an affirmative "yeah" with an inhalation.

I originally misunderstood this as a gasp, and took it for an indication of alarm. It was the first "inhaled" word I ever heard, and had to do quite a bit of digging to find the term "pulmonic ingressive."

So, I disagree with the comment that the only known use of ingressives is Damin.

That should be understood to mean in "normal" (non-interjective) vocab. Lots of langs have ingressive interjections, including Ewe and Swedish. But then lots of languages have interjective clicks, such as English, but these aren't considered to be click languages. Interjections frequently violate the norms of a lang's phonology. Consider Eng. "shhh", when it cannot otherwise have fricative-only words. kwami 17:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

intro

I wasn't happy when 'airstream mechanism' was merged into this article, and the result seemed a bit inaccessible, so I moved Nohat's original explanation into the introduction, and addressed the concerns about interjections. Also redefined 'velaric' somewhat so as to be consistant with recent work on Khoisan, which has found that for some languages at least this initiation isn't velaric at all. kwami 08:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move?

Should this be moved to 'airstream mechanism', where Nohat made his contributions? That's the term I'm familiar with from SOWL and other texts, whereas 'initiation' doesn't even make it into the index. kwami (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, moved. kwami (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics Assessment

I gave this article a start class assessment. My suggestions for improvement are below:

A good amount of information regarding this topic is missing. There is no discussion of the aerodynamic constrains that arise from the airstream mechanism such as frication and voicing. This is an important topic to cover when talking about the airstream mechanism as it has implications for in voiced fricatives, as well as how implosives come about in languages in the first place. Further it really only talks about the initiation rather than the airstream mechanism as a whole making this article in need of a lot more work to adequately cover the topic.
References are lacking. There are few if any inline citations, and as the banner at the top says, it relies largely on a single source.
The article can be brought into better compliance with the Manual of Style as there are some minor things that could be copy edited out (I'm not a great copy editor though so someone else should give it a once over). What struck me most were the use of bold for emphasis of new topics and I'm unsure if a bulleted list is necessary. A once over on the prose may help. Wugapodes (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Percussives

I've added a ref to Pike for percussives. Just after this bit of his book, he also refers to scrapives. Is it worth mentioning these? I think percussive noises may play a role in speech communication (e.g. the sound of lips coming together could signal an emphatic end to a turn in conversation, and I have heard speakers clash their teeth together as a signal for sympathy for someone's pain), but I'd struggle to think of any speech-related function for scrapives. RoachPeter (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

diaphragm

The section on "pulmonic" perpetuates the myth that the diaphragm is used to expel air from the lungs. The diaphragm is used to inhale, but it cannot force air out of the lungs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B01D:36DF:AD48:A85:CE2C:88ED (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]