text:
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene)/Archive 2

 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4
 * Archive 5

Slovene vs. Slovenians
Who decided that "slovenes" is obsolete and "slovenians" is new term? "Slovenes" gives 30,000 google hits, while "slovenians" 18,00 "slovene" gives 288,000 hits; hardly obsolete. IMO "slovenians" is the inhabitants, citizeds of "Slovenia", which is the country named after "slovenes". Some Slovenes in America, some Slovenians travel to America. :-) Mikkalai 22:28, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * 'Slovenian' = 2 million google hits
 * 'Slovene' = 250 thousand google hits
 * See also the points above. The fact there are currently more hits for 'Slovenes' than 'Slovenians' is because of the historical name "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes".
 * See also the points above. The fact there are currently more hits for 'Slovenes' than 'Slovenians' is because of the historical name "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes".

 * I don't buy that. Google results can be indicative, but are definitely not definitive. It's pretty much expected that "Slovenian" would have more hits because it is a more generic term than "Slovene" (it isn't obviously limited to a single ethnicity). --Joy [shallot]   17:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I realize Im coming here pretty late, but Id just like to point out that these results prove absolutely nothing since Slovenian is the standard English adjective for anything having to do with the country, and doesnt necessarily say anthing about the people.

How is 'Slovenian' a more generic term? You clearly do not know the history of 'Slovene' and 'Slovenian'.

 * It's linguistically more generic, because it refers to the toponym. As explained elsewhere already, people can be from Slovenia ("Slovenian") without being native to it (also "Slovenian"). --Joy [shallot]

The same is true with 'Slovene', so your logic fails. -BT

 * The Merriam-Webster and WordNet dictionaries don't say that Slovene applies to non-native inhabitants of Slovenia, while the American Heritage dictionary allows for that possibility. It seems that the dictionary writers aren't quite decided on it. --Joy [shallot]

And Rand McNally's World "Factbook" several years ago said eastern Slovenia was being contested between Serbia and Croatia. This wasn't even a typo as it was under the entry of facts on Slovenia. (Of course, I reported this to Rand McNally's editors and they promised to send me their next edition of the Factbook free; it never came.) --BT

 * What relevance does this blunder have on the matter at hand? Sounds like aa red herring. --Joy [shallot]   14:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * You will notice that 'Croatian' is today also heavily favoured over 'Croat'. Some Croatians in North America claim 'Croat' is today a derogatory term and are insulted if you use it. --BT

 * Whatever, never heard of that. Croatian is neither "heavily" favoured nor is "Croat" a derogatory term, heaven forbid! Where do you get this stuff?! --Joy [shallot]   17:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow, big surprise. It's always a misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or cluelessness. Not that a native English speaker needs to do this, but lets see... ah yes, 270,000 google hits for 'Croat', almost 8 MILLION for 'Croatian'. No, that doesn't mean anything either. --BT

 * That means what I have been trying to tell you all along. The term involving the toponym is more used than the term involving the ethnicity. --Joy [shallot]

Neither term is toponym related.

 * Uh, of course it is. At least "Croatia" is a place name and not just a political entity name, and I would have thought "Slovenia" is too. --Joy [shallot]   15:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * And this has what to do with Croat vs Croatian and Slovene vs Slovenian, or Slovak vs Slovakian? Once again, Slovenian and Slovene are equivalent in terms of applicable use (i.e. as a noun or an adjective, with regards to nationals or expatriates. --BT

 * It has everything to do because it means that the people of Slovenia who do not identify with the Slovenian nation are also called "Slovenians". You are again claiming that these are universally equivalent — this is an assertion. One that is likely to be universally accepted one day, but today it's still just an assertion. --Joy [shallot]   14:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous user from 24.42.180.29 recently re-did all this saying that Slovenians is "internationally preferred". They also changed all those instances in the List of Slavs. We desperately need some sort of a rationale, either way... --Joy [shallot]   12:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. See also User talk:24.100.118.97 (also an IP belonging to the same service provider) and Talk:Slovene language. --Joy [shallot]
 * OK, let me intervene in this silly revert war. Joy has listed the name of an anon's ISP. That's publically accessable information. BT2 objects to it being listed and has even threatened Joy (see history) to look up his public information. Since Joy has provided that information to the public himself, I don't see how that threat is meaningful. So there's nothing illegitimate about what Joy has done. If BT2 thinks that it's not appropriate, he should just explain his reasons and ask Joy to remove it. Zocky 11:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * In that sense, Joy can start posting phone numbers of Slovenian athletes (and some other celebs) and their personal home addresses. After all, these can be found on the web as well. --BT
 * BT2, please stop editing Joy's comment and provide justification for asking him to remove it. He hasn't given out anybody's personal information. He just listed the ISP that controls the IP number. That's less information than, for instance, writing that Jolanda Ceplak lives in Celje, which we bluntly do in that article. Zocky 14:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, this is completely non sequitur. --Joy [shallot]   15:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It's really silly. I object vehemently, on principle, that someone censors what I have already said (and what is, indeed, already available in page history and elsewhere even after the said censoring) just because they don't understand how things work. Reminds me of a recent edit where someone claimed that all webmails are inherently "untraceable"... *giggle* --Joy [shallot]

I vehemently object to Joy posting my Service Provider. Let's be clear, just because you can find certain information on the web does NOT mean it is not private. The Slovenian phonebook is on the web and you can find home addresses and phonenumbers of some Slovenian celebs on it. Heck, the website will even show you a map image with the individual's house circled! Joy's careless exposure of my service provider to the general public serves no purpose other than infringing my privacy. --BT

 * Sorry, didn't see this part before. I didn't know this was your IP. Following that link, one can find that out, yes, because you acknowledged that IP as yours.
 * Hmm, it's a toughy. Publishing the ISP of a registered editor is definitely not nice, but it's not like he revealed your IP, you did. Saying that IP X is controlled by ISP Y is perfectly OK in itself. I suggest you ask him to remove it. Joy is a reasonable guy, I'm sure he'll consider it :) Zocky 14:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Bleh, they were not a registered editor at the time I posted this! I mean, come on, I merely posted a link to a talk page that seemed to have involved the same person claiming the same thing, and noted that it was from a related IP block to explain why. I did not reveal any personal information, nor did I in fact reveal any information whatsoever, I merely repeated already "revealed" information. It's ludicrous that I am accused of a wrongdoing and threatened with some kind of retaliation, and it only shows how the accuser hasn't even bothered to look around and see that this information isn't what they think it is (private). --Joy [shallot]

 * Oh, BTW, I think that "Slovenian" is so much more used that it's probably better, although I do like the extra information of Slovenes vs Slovenians. Zocky 11:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although this is not the same as the language name... in this case, there's a clear point in separating the residents of the country from the members of the ethnic group. To clarify that a bit better on an example: the people who speak Slovene/Slovenian but originate in the bordering areas of e.g. Austria, Italy or Croatia cannot be Slovenians, but they can be Slovenes. --Joy [shallot]   12:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here lies your misunderstanding, because Slovenians are Slovenians no matter where they live. Similarly, Italians living in Slovenia are called Italians. Slovenians living outside of Slovenia can be differentiated from those living in Slovenia by saying 'Slovenian expatriates' or 'Slovenian nationals'. --BT

 * That's one choice of terminology. On the other hand, when ethnicity is not considered inherent to the term Slovenian (only location), this is not so straightforward. The case of Italians is slightly different because they don't have e.g. "Itals" or anything like that can be used to denote ethnicity. --Joy [shallot]   15:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * In old British English (I say old, because 'Slovenian' is a term increasingly used in the British media), 'Slovene' is the adjective and noun. In common contemporary English (used by the majority of the English-speaking world today), 'Slovenian' is both the adjective and noun. In slipshod English (listed in some American English dictionaries and the CIA World Fact book page), 'Slovenian' is the adjective and 'Slovene' is the noun. --BT

 * Can you provide an authoritative reference for that? There phrases are rather loaded and there's still no backing... --Joy [shallot]   16:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

24.42.180.29 wrote: ''Supporting the clearly less popular and dying term 'Slovene' negatively affects Slovenians. Do a google or world news search on the terms if you aren't convinced. 'Slovenian' 10x as used as 'Slovene'.''

 * I don't see this negative effect. Also, the searches are pretty indeterminate because one simply can't tell without context do they mean residents of the country or the ethnicity. Granted, the two are almost the same, but not quite. Please don't just keep repeating assertions and provide some actual reasoning. --Joy [shallot]   12:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are making something out of nothing. There is little indeterminate about the search results. Take a closer look. Further, the claim that the difference between 'Slovene' and 'Slovenian' has anything to do with ethnicity is ludicrous. Indeed, that was a notion created by some native Slovenians trying to explain what they did not understand. They did not see that Slovenians in English speaking countries outside of the UK use 'Slovenian' exclusively, while in the UK they use 'Slovene' exclusively (until recently, that is. Now Eurosport, UEFA, the Euroleague, and other European media sources use 'Slovenian' exclusively).

 * You yourself admit that both terms are used, but because of your apparent local preference want everyone else to switch to that one that you use. I can't believe I'm actually discussing this... --Joy [shallot]

What apparent local preference? The term is clearly internationally preferred. British newspapers today again used the term 'Slovenian.' --BT

 * Well, like I explicated above, I don't quite see that "clear international preference" in the modern dictionaries. --Joy [shallot]

 * The negative effect is confusion. Search the web, Slovenia's own government website, the Slovenia page in the world fact book, etc. You will often see 'Slovenian' AND 'Slovene' used interchangeably (as adjectives and nouns)--on the same page! However, in regular usage by Slovenians living in Australia, Canada, and the United States (and European organisations such as UEFA and British media such as Eurosport), 'Slovenian' is used exclusively as adjective and noun. --BT

 * Why do you not see the confusion caused the sudden switch to using the more toponymic variant? --Joy [shallot]   16:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No sudden switch. Basically nobody was talking about Slovenia 15 years ago. Everywhere outside of the UK (and Slovenia--whose main exposure to English was the UK), most people always used only 'Slovenian'. It's just that it was only recently that some influential Slovenians (take for example leaders in the Chamber of Commerce and Slovenian companies doing business on the international stage, and the Slovenian universities) have noticed it's in Slovenia's best interest to pick one (in this case the already vastly more common term around the world) form and stick to it. Does it honestly not bother you to see both 'Slovenian' AND 'Slovene' used interchangeably in the same article? As a quick example, take the CIA World Fact book page on Slovenia; it has 'Slovenian' listed as an adjective and 'Slovene' as a noun, but it uses both interchageably on the very same page! (E.g. "Slovene lands," "Slovenian army," "Slovenian" being the language, "Slovene" being the ethnic group, "Slovenian seal", "Slovene dynastic house", etc.) The Slovenian government page and many international newspapers do this regularly as well. Fortunately, UEFA, Euroleague (basketball), the Olympics organisation, Eurosport, and other notables all have been using 'Slovenian' exclusively for a long time from what I can tell.

 * So, because the nation finally has a state, everyone should now equate it with the state... I can certainly see why such an idea would be appealing, and it's an already fairly common nationalist concept. I was merely hoping that we'd be above that, but hey... --Joy [shallot]

No content?
Is anyone going to fill out those empty sections? The table of contents is huge, which only exacerbates the disappointment when you eventually go past it... :) --Shallot 21:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you. IMHO only the top-level sections should remain, if any. Or, at very least, subsections could be converted to text, eg. from this table of contents under "Slovenians between 1918 and 1941" ...
 * Slovenians in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia
 * Slovenes in the Dravska Banovina
 * Slovenians in the Austria
 * Slovenians in the Italy
 * Slovenians in the Spanish Civil War
 * Slovenians in the 2nd Abyssinian War

... we could produce something like:
 * Slovenians in Kingdom of Yugoslavia mostly lived in Dravska banovina - the territory that occupies most of today's Slovenia. Besides their native Yugoslavia, Slovenians also lived in Austria where they choose for their territory to remain in Austria when offered a choice, and in Italy. During the Spanish Civil War many (number would be prefered!) Slovenes fought for the losing socialist side, but gained war experience that helped them during the WW2. And yes, there was such thing as the 2nd Abyssinian War and sure enough, Slovenians were there too.

IMHO this is far by better than just the sections that obviously everyone is afraid to expand, so (s)he won't look foolish when filling only the small part. Any opinions? --Romanm 16:16, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I patched something up after seeing a small anonymous edit just now. Please feel free to improve. --Shallot 19:39, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A Call For All Slovenians (and others) To Take Notice ***draft***
Slovenian is the dominant term internationally and only increasing in popularity.

The University of Ljubljana (http://www.uni-lj.si/UoL/About/) and University of Maribor (http://www.uni-mb.si/dokument.aspx?id=8175) both favour 'Slovenian' on their websites. The Slovenian Philharmonic (http://www.filharmonija.si/), the Slovenian Tourist Board (http://www.slovenia-tourism.si/), and the Slovenian Intellectual Property Office (http://www.uil-sipo.si/) are all official names of prominent Slovenian organisations.

The major Slovenian associations in all English speaking countries outside of UK have been using Slovenian exclusively for many years. For example:

http://www.slokongres.ca/ (Canadian Slovenian Congress) http://www.cdnslocc.ca/ (Canadian Slovenian Chamber of Commerce) http://www.sloaus-inst.com/ (Slovenian Australian Institute) http://www.glasslovenije.com.au/sns-victoria.htm (Australian Slovenian network) [Can't find links for the Slovenian-American major organisations, but I know they use 'Slovenian' exclusively]

The Slovenian Chamber of Commerce (http://www.gzs.si/eng/) and most Slovenian companies (at least those that do international business) employ the term 'Slovenian' exclusively. So do the Olympics organisation (www.athens2004.com), UEFA, and most other international organisations.

In the UK, 'Slovenian' is just now catching on. But today, even the British embassy in Slovenia is using 'Slovenian' regularly on their website. The BBC regularly uses the term 'Slovenian', and Eurosport almost always uses it. http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1050510813607 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1412177.stm

New template
New template has been created (copied from Commons):. It appears like this:. It also works by using:

Cheers! --Eleassar777 17:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * template:Slovene
 * template:Slovenian
 * template:Slovene flag.

By the way, I find these arguments about Slovene/Slovenian ridiculous. Both forms should be accepted as equal, as both have been used in the past and Wikipedia has no preference over one or another form of English. --Eleassar777 17:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but in the early days of Wikipedia, let us say three years before, only a few users wrote about Slovenes and Slovene/Slovenian related subjects. And then came others, some of them think they are really polymaths and playing smart and not being clever and so on, and so on. In the begining there was Slovene... --xJaM 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * As we have not reached a consensus yet, I think it's best to leave both terms as suggested by original contributors or add both forms in the text, just for the reasonings above. -- Eleassar777 [[Image:Slovenia flag 300.png|20px]] my talk 07:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slovene/Slovenian reloaded
Combined from talk pages of Eleassar777, BT2 and Slovenian language. I hope someone can make some sense out of this. -- Eleassar777 my talk 21:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Posted at talk page of Slovenian language: It is best not to make changes from Slovene to Slovenian or vice versa without prior discussion, which can be held for example at Slovenian language. There will be enough time to do so if this is the agreement reached after it. I have suggested building a list of pro and contra arguments for Slovenian there. Although after reading Nohat's posts, I even came to the conclusion that I will use Slovenian language and Slovenian (adjective) but Slovenes, as these are the preferred terms according to Google, the largest and most contemporary database of these terms available to me. --Eleassar777 my talk 16:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * There has been ample discussion on the subject, but trying to reason with XJam is fruitless. I am a native-English speaking Slovenian, having been born and raised in Canada. XJam has been taught from his Slovenian-English teachers at school, using the few British-English that even mention Slovenia, that the term is Slovene. He uses Slovene for everything, yet he sees Slovene losing favour even in England (Eurosport, UEFA.com, Euroleague.net, etc) and at home in Slovenia (see www.sazu.si, www.gzs.si, www.nzs.si, etc) and is so desperate to see Slovene's usage survive he is attempting to make up new definitions for Slovene--such as Slovene having to do with ethnicity (leaving Slovenian as having to do with merely anything remotely related to the country of Slovenia).

 * As for the Oxford English dictionary, it is true that it mentions Slovene first, and Slovenian second. But British English is not international English. In fact, in Oxford's Canadian English dictionary Slovenian is written first and Slovene second. I am sure this is the case also for Oxford's American English and Australian English dictionaries.

 * I have a problem with Slovene for several reasons, namely:

although Slovenian is already much more heavily used internationally, people still often confuse Slovenia for Slovakia and even Slavonia. Having people see Slovenian AND Slovene used every (even on the same pages often) can't be helping the situation.
 * Slovenian is MUCH more appealing in sound than Slovene to native English speakers
 * Slovene is rarely used at all outside of England
 * Slovene does not naturally follow out of Slovenia. (e.g. Austria -> Austrian, Australia -> Australian, Latvia -> Latvian, Lithuania -> Lithuanian, etc)

 * As for Google, please note that searches for 'Slovenes' will return many FRENCH articles since Slovenes is indeed the French word for Slovenians. Even is you search specifically for English articles, you will retrieve these cases for bilingual pages. Further, please note that you will very, very seldom find a page employing the term Slovenes AND Croatians. (In fact, you will find more cases of Slovenians AND Croats). This is because of reference to the former state known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. But again, certainly Croatians is the internationally preferred term these days, rather than Croats. BT2 17:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I searched Google for Slovenians and Slovenes by limiting the search to English pages and have found out that Slovenes is still much more preferred than Slovenians. Slovenians and Slovenes. Otherwise, thanks for reminding me that French use Slovènes. In fact, this means that using Slovenes as compared to Slovenians is even better. --Eleassar777 my talk 17:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that French use Slovènes. In fact, this means that using Slovenes as compared to Slovenians is even better.

 * How do you figure that? The French words for Slovenia and Germany are Slovénie and Allemagne, respectively. Should we drop the English language completely? BT2 17:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, we shall use English words. Slovenes is a completely legal English word (as long as it is written without è), but is closer to French than Slovenians and this is good.

Ok, so I found out Google offers 31,000 French pages with the word "Slovènes". Of course, the majority of them are not bilingual. This means that Slovenes are still generally preferred to Slovenians in English pages. --Eleassar777 my talk 17:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also did a reseach of books using COBISS system:

Slovenes: 203 hits Slovenians: 40 hits

COBISS is a database of books, newspapers, articles and other items held by libraries of former Yugoslav republics. At first I searched in Slovenian libraries. I used this link for checking to get the results written above.

Write Slovenes or Slovenians in the line named Title and choose English language below. I hope this is clear, otherwise just experiment a little, it's not very difficult. I wonder what number would one get for these two terms searching in British or American libraries. --Eleassar777 my talk 18:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slovenes 8 of the first 20 hits are French and 1 is in Greek or something! So much for the pro-Slovene Google evident. ;) BT2 18:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know, searching for images using Google unfortunately does not allow one to filter hits by language, in contrast to general searching for text, where it is evident that Slovenes are preferred to Slovenians on English web pages. --Eleassar777 my talk 18:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The same result searching in Serbian and Macedonian libraries using COBISS COBISS.net. The same result searching in the Library of Congress Online Catalog. Also forBritish Library Integrated Catalogue. All searches were limited to English results only. Slovenes prevail, according to the references. -- Eleassar777 my talk 21:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I was most curious about your British Library source, which I obviously expected to highly favour Slovenes over Slovenians. You said the searches are limited to English only? Not even close! Of the 206 hits for Slovenes, many (maybe somebody else will bother to count them) are in either French, German, Dutch or Slovenian. 7 of the first 10 alone. Further, most are really old (at least pre-1991, sometimes pre-1900). Slovenian really only came to dominance in the international media after 1991 (i.e. when Slovenia started to make the news regularly and native-English speaking Slovenians couldn't tolerate the pain in hearing the archaic and awkward-sounding Slovene term used). BT2 03:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Already yesterday, I chose English language sources and limited searhing to words from titles. This can be done in advanced mode. I got 19 results for Slovenes and 4 results for Slovenians. -- Eleassar777 my talk 08:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slovenia, Slovenian, Slovenians

 * Another thing I want to point out is that actually it does not matter how incredibly odd the word Slovene is.

Oh, really? I think it matters quite a lot, actually. Perhaps you and XJam don't see this because you are NOT native-English speaking Slovenians. -BT

 * The only important thing is that Slovene is one form of English and is still used by some.

And it will continue to be used, alongside Slovenian, often on the same page, in the same article, even by the same author if we let this nonsense continue. The idea that Slovene is a noun and Slovenian is an adjective may seem like a clever idea to subscribe to. However, the reality is that, in practice, in English speaking countries (even England) very few use the term Slovene. I submit that this is precisely the reason why the vast majority of major widely read English language sites who OFTEN publish new articles about Slovenia and Slovenians stick EXCLUSIVELY to employing the term Slovenian as both noun and adjective. Slovenian sounds better, it follows naturally from Slovenian, and it is used by the vast majority of native-English speaking Slovenians and already by the majority of the world. Sources (and there are many, several of which I have posted earlier) will be provided when time permits.

I, a native-English speaking Slovenian, would never imagine myself or another native-English speaker telling Slovenians what is ideal in Slovenian. No matter what I might have learned from my Slovenian teachers. If I'm contributing to the Slovenian language wikipedia and find in a dictionary two supposedly equal acceptable terms (i.e. same definition), and a native-Slovenian speaker tells me one term sounds unnatural and is seldom used (basically archaic)... do I not choose the other term??? BT2 02:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't agree with this. More people whose mother tongue is English should confirm what you say. Also, as you know, there are different variants of English spoken in different parts of the world and Wikipedia does not prefer one over the other. What sounds awful for example in Canadian English, could be a very popular word in American, British or Indian English. Perhaps what you claim regarding the nouns Slovenes and Slovenians is true, but regarding how many editors use the noun Slovenes as a normal English word and regarding the references I found yesterday, you cannot reasonably expect me to believe you just because you said otherwise without providing more independent confirmations. If you did provide them, you could persuade me by citing them, if they were relevant enough. No personal thing, I am just trying to determine what's true (either could be) and this is how the world works. -- Eleassar777 my talk 08:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * What you found is extremely weak evidence. Please re-read what I posted earlier:

However, the reality is that, in practice, in English speaking countries (even England) very few use the term Slovene. I submit that this is precisely the reason why the vast majority of major widely read English language sites who OFTEN publish new articles about Slovenia and Slovenians stick EXCLUSIVELY to employing the term Slovenian as both noun and adjective. Slovenian sounds better, it follows naturally from Slovenian, and it is used by the vast majority of native-English speaking Slovenians and already by the majority of the world. Sources (and there are many, several of which I have posted earlier) will be provided when time permits.

 * Heavy evidence in the form of widely read English-language sites frequently publishing articles about Slovenia and Slovenians such UEFA, FIFA, Euroleague (basketball), NBA, FIS (skiing), IAAF (athletics), etc. The Slovenian Chamber of Commerce and Slovenia's football (soccer) associations publish regularly English articles and stick to Slovenian for both the noun and verb. Eurosport (British-based!) sticks mostly to Slovenian, and so on and so on. Why do they do this? Why are you still arguing with me? ;) BT2 16:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked this. You know, you should not see this as an argument, even if it looked so in the beginning. Actually I just came by and saw people yelling at each other and decided to mediate and determine the truth, so that we can finally form a solid policy on this and stop any possible future arguments. In fact, I don't know much about when Slovenian and Slovene should be used, however I can research. It's nice that you are here objecting to me, as this enables me to test my assumptions and discover the truth.

Otherwise, as to this last post, I don't claim Slovene as an adjective is used more than Slovenian. As for the noun, I don't really understand why what I found is extremely weak evidence. Can you explain this? Thanks. -- Eleassar777 my talk 17:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nohat, I guess that you do not understand me. It is not that I do not like the term 'Slovenian' but it merely goes for that "Slovene" is still a valid term in English (should I write Englishian (as you write Slovenian)?). What is interesting is that 'Slovenian' came into English distionaries in 1844 and "Slovene" in 1883. I hope that we may rely upon your statements, Nohat. Are there no other (older) sources on this subject, because it is a little bit strange that terms Slovene/Slovenian came into English as late as in the first half of 19th century? And what bothers me is that nobody here respected older contributions which were related to Slovenes and Slovenia and which go back for 3 years. This is what bothers me. Since "Slovene" is a regular term, and first contributors used it, no other naming conventions are needed here. What goes in favour for "Slovene" is also that a founder of this great project - Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales uses "Slovene". And as I see he is an American native, born in Alabama. And BTW BT2, yes I have been taught from my Slovene-English teachers at school, but I can asure you that the deceased Mr. Košuta, who taught me first English words was one of the best teachers I have ever seen or met. And I am not alone. You can ask every Slovene youngster what word did they learn in school, and you'll see that the majority of them have learned "Slovene". So according to you, they are all wrong, because 'Slovenian' should be used. And both terms are still taught at the Faculty of arts (Filozofska fakulteta) in Ljubljana. Igor said that now he has to look for two words, because terms are now used inconsistently. But using just 'Slovenian' here IMHO is not a consistency at all. Best regards to all the friends of Slovene culture and the nation. --xJaM 14:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Slovene is still a valid term. However, in my opinion the question is not whether they are both still valid, as saying otherwise without strong and verifiable arguments would be only a point of view that I hope shall not decide Wikipedia's policies. So I think what is important is whether one form or the other is currently preferred. Hereby, I think we should be a little less emotional in our discussion and a little more careful about citing our sources if we are to be taken serious and what we find out to have some value.

Therefore (nothing personal), I have doubts about the following arguments:
 * What Mr Wales and Mr Košuta use(-d) doesn't matter much yet, as for now these are only their personal preferences and I even don't know where they can be verified. If these claims are to be taken seriously, they should be backed up by other primary sources that will show how they decided to use Slovene.
 * What FIFA, UEFA, NBA, FIS etc. use also doesn't matter much... unless if you BT2 provide primary sources where one can easily verify not only that these organisations use Slovenian, but that they use Slovenian only or preferentially. Even then, this still remains a matter of much controversy and as such not a strong argument, as their reasons for doing so are not clear and many organizations can be found online that prefer the opposite.
 * Historical sources that you provided till now also don't help much because many words that were used in the past are obsolete now and you would have to undisputedly demonstrate the whole history of development of use of these two forms till now. XJaM and Nohat, you know that if you used the same words that Prešeren did in his letters or even which people used in 1930s, you would sound excentric and funny. English language is not a dead corpse, it's a living body and contemporary sources matter the most. By the way, Slovenian and Englishian should not be compared as Slovenian and English surely have different etymologies.

So, as far as I can tell, the only things reliable that we can use to decide for now are large statistical analyses and samples. Two are available to us, as I have shown above: Google and libraries. According to them, as anyone can check, as an adjective, Slovenian is the currently preferred, while for the noun, Slovene(s) is more often used. Nevertheless, Slovene as an adjective and Slovenian as a noun are still often used and should be part of Wikipedia in certain circumstances, as much as I understand the policy of neutral point of view. We have to accept this or find inconsistencies in my argument. On the other hand, there are surely etymologists on Wikipedia and we can ask them too.

We should also be prepared to make compromises otherwise we'll never rich a consensus. The naming conventions policy should include what we determine in our discussion if we want to prevent such arguments in the future. I hope you took some time to think about what I wrote. If I'm mistaken, I would appreciate if you explained yourself politely as a man to man. -- Eleassar777 my talk 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*What FIFA, UEFA, NBA, FIS etc. use also doesn't matter much... unless if you BT2 provide primary sources where one can easily verify not only that these organisations use Slovenian, but that they use Slovenian'' only or preferentially. Even then, this still remains a matter of much controversy and as such not a strong argument, as their reasons for doing so are not clear and many organizations can be found online that prefer the opposite.''

What are you talking about, Eleassar? What these widely read English-language sites that frequently publish articles about Slovenia and Slovenians use is extremely significant. And so is what wikipedia uses. Their primary sources are simple enough: www.fifa.com, www.uefa.com, www.nba.com, www.fis-ski.com (watch articles during winter season), www.euroleague.net, www.eurobasket.com, etc. Can you provide such sources supporting Slovene? No. What a handful of (primarily old) books use is quite insignificant. In the English-speaking world, in practice, very very few use Slovene today for anything. Especially not native-English speaking Slovenians... BT2 02:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Palatalization (phonetics)

Palatalization mechanisms
"Several mechanisms of palatalization" doesn't look well. The "esh" sound [ʃ] is not a palatalization of [s]; it's postalveolar. There are several palatal sibilants one could mention. The difference should be made clear between the physiological/phonetic mechanism of palatalization, and the phonological function. In English, some instances of [ʃ] can be considered a palatalization of [s] from the diachronical POV, but /ʃ/ is not really a palatal(ized) consonant and it's a phoneme in its own right. --Pablo D. Flores 11:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's true, but more often than not, hacek sibilants are called "palatalized". Now, hacek sibilants are contrasted with palatalized sibilants in some languages. Either the haceks are mislabeled, or then there are several mechanisms. --Vuo 12:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we need to distinguish palatalization as a phonetic process, and loose usage of the term "palatalized". A core definition with examples (synchronic and diachronic), and then examples of how this term has been extended to superficially similar phonemes. The "hacek" sibilants are examples of the latter, although for all I know, they resulted historically from an earlier round of palatalization, before the current palatalized fricatives developed. In English, you might argue that cute is palatalized. Church is not, but the ch did arise through palatalization of /k/ a millennium ago. kwami 19:20, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * "Cute" isn't independently palatalized as far as I know; there is only a palatal approximant in it ("kjuut"), which colors the surrounding sounds. Independent palatalization is found in Uralic languages. In there, consonants are palatalized and are different sounds, and palatalization is not a result of any nearby phoneme. (Quite the opposite in Erzya, or Erz'ä, where the palatalized consonants turn surrounding A's into fronted Ä's.) For example, Savo and Karelian ves, kot, etc. Palatalization is feature of a phoneme, not a historical sound change. --Vuo 14:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is indeed both things, and that's precisely the problem I was mentioning above. The definition of "palatalization" is loose and it needs to be clarified. The /k/ in "cute" is palatalized, but not phonemically; the average English speaker doesn't find a difference between that and the /k/ in "cook". --Pablo D. Flores 15:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A better example might be key versus coo. Phonetic palatalization of the /k/ in key due to assimilation with the vowel. kwami 18:48, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
 * To the original question, I must note that we should return the removed text. Palatalization may also be a phonemic, lexical feature; I think that Savo Finnish kunj "like" (standard kuin) is distinct from kun "when". Estonian certainly differentiates palatals and non-palatals. --Vuo 22:03, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Palatal? Palatalized?
I think there's some big confusion here, with "palatalization" meaning at least two completely different things that should be differentiated very clearly. In Russian, for example, ш is palatal (IPA: ʂ), while сь is palatalized (IPA: sʲ).

Some letters with a háček are palatal (š, ž, č: ʂ, ʐ, tʂ-ligature), while others are palatalized (ď, ť, ň, ľ: dʲ, tʲ, nʲ, lʲ).

David Marjanović (... that's tʃʲ-ligature for you!) 23:52 CET-summertime 2005/8/2

 * This usage of 'palatal' is specific to Slavic and some other linguistics tradition, perhaps due to historical development through palatalization. They are not synchronically palatal consonants by the IPA standards for the use of that term. Part of the difference between them and the English postalveolars is that they aren't palatalized in Russian, while they are (at least somewhat) in English! (The also aren't labialized as in English, I believe.) kwami 01:22, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

 * Sorry. I wrote the above before I had reasonably understood the IPA and the associated terminology. Retroflexes could be called palatal (being "corono-palatal"), but they almost never are, instead "palatal" normally refers to dorso-palatal consonants only. – The confusion has long ago been cleared up, thanks, everyone! – I agree the Russian retroflexes aren't labialized, at least not as much as the palato-alveolars of English, French, or German. David Marjanović 23:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

problem with diacritic
I'm cleaning up the article, and removed the following:

 * The digraphs with j are problematic, because /j/ is a separate phoneme: The Savo Finnish word ärjäsj /ärjäś/ uses both meanings.

I removed this because it does not show the digraph  being used for contrastive [sj] vs [sʲ]. Does the person who wrote this have an example of a true contrast, so we can put the illustration back in? kwami 02:46, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

 * Now, it is hard to find such minimal pairs from Savo, because typically palatalization is final. Maybe parjaa mua [parjaammua] vs. parj aamua [parʲ aammua]. (But, here prosody comes to help.) But, we have inconsistencies such as karja [karja] vs. kaarj [kaarʲ]. This is indeed less problematic than the other method, which prefixing 'j' instead. ([vesʲ] as vejs.) For example, standard vesissä "in the waters" would be [veisʲ] in Karelian dialect (example from ), while [vesʲ] would be the singular of the same. Now, write the latter (singular) as vejs, the standard pronounciation becomes [veis], which is a plural as it contains the plural marker -i-. --Vuo 14:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole last section about local traditions needs to be reworked by someone who knows the literature. I've merely tried sorting out what was already in the article, along with some comments on this page. kwami

Russian /akʲa/
I speak Russian and i don't understand what /akʲa/ is. There's now such word as "акя" and i can't even think of a word which includes that sounds in that order. There should be an example from the actual language. I would think of an example myself, but i don't know jack about phonology.--Amir E. Aharoni 19:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Palatalization to mark past tense
The article says: "Sometimes palatalization is part of a synchronic grammatical process, such as palatalizing the first consonant of a verb root to signal the past tense".

Is there an example for this?--Amir E. Aharoni 19:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ll
I don't know what happened to the template and I don't know what was in there, but the article needs to be fixed now it was deleted. --Mkill 10:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What's so bad about /anʲa/?

 * 1) There's no кя (/kʲa/) in any Russian words and from what i learned about linguistics (i'm doing my fourth year) examples from real life are much better. Why do English, Estonian and Votic deserve a real word as an example and Russian does not?
 * 2) If k is supposed to represent a generic konsonant, then why use IPA at all?
 * 3) I focused much more on syntax than on phonetics in my studies, but /anja/ would be анья or even анъя and i'm quite sure that аня is anʲa.--Amir E. Aharoni 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, after this grand rewrite i've got no more complaints about Russian. Thanks.--Amir E. Aharoni 13:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Unpalatalizable Consonants
Are there any consonants which cannot be palatalized? --84.61.41.214 08:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some languages palatalize all consonants they "can", such as Nenets language and Võro language, but the glottal stop and the velar nasal are not palatalized. The obvious is also /j/ itself. --Vuo 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I would say that palatalizing a consonant with a palatal point of articulation would be tricky. In a contrastive system it might be feasible if, say, the effect of "palatalization" as a contrastive feature were redundantly signaled by adjacent syllabics, say, /a/ has allophones [æ] preceding palatalized consonants but [a] elsewhere, one might think of a contast between [æɲ] (with phonemically palatalized /ɲj/ vs [aɲ] (with plain /ɲ/). But I would imagine that such a setup would be extremely unstable. I would think that it would be a dicey matter to palatalize a uvular r, [ʀ], but according to rumor in 18th and 19th century Russia, some high-hat types transplanted uvular pronunciation of r from French into Russian. Presumably they managed the contrast somehow. I'd have to hear it to believe it, though. Alsihler 15:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Irish has . A dialect of Hausa has . There are IIRC languages in the Caucasus with aspirated and/or ejective versions of, and at least one manages . As a native speaker of two of the many variants of German with , I find much more difficult than the Russian , which in turn I find much easier than ordinary [r], but that's another story… I agree that palatalized dorso-palatals are probably impossible. David Marjanović 23:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Phonetically, it would be more accurate to say that it's not possible to unpalatalize palatal consonants. If you want something which cannot be palatalized primarily nor secondarily, retroflexes - proper subapicals, at least - are commonly considered that; everything else should be possible. (Well, theoretically dorsal linguolabials are also unpalatizable, as well as unvelarizable, but those aren't used in speech anywhere. :b) I've redd a dissertation on this which might be suitable for quoting... --Tropylium 09:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Jerzy Rubach, who wrote a whole dissertation on retroflex consonants, retroflexes typically resist palatalization (in the phonetic sense). — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  15:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Palatised or palatalised?
When a sound is formed on the palate it is palatal. When the sound migrates to be formed on the palate it is palatised. This is the same as: digit - digital - digitised. It is NOT 'digitalised' is it? Then why is it 'palatalised'? Bill, 2009 April.

 * The reasoning for "palatalization" is that "palatization" is confusing: are we talking about changing something into a palate? No, we mean "change into consonant produced by tongue touching hard palate" (or one roughly similar).

 * "Digitization" isn't confusing if understood correctly. "Digit" means both "finger" and "number counted on a finger" (= digital). Therefore, the word-formation sequence is digit → digitization: "change into digits". — Erutuon (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In English please
In English please. So everyone can understand it.--Standforder (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed! This is an unintelligible, jargon-filled mess.  76.21.1.194 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a linguistics article, it will use linguistics terms. While it'd be nice for it to be accessible for people who don't know the jargon used in this field, that is not a requirement for an encyclopaedia. I mean, the article on Nucleotides is full of jargon and I can't understand much of it, but if I learnt more about biology it would be less daunting, and I'm not going to insist that it be made easier to understand, since it'd probably make the page less useful for those in the know. Stickinsect2 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean there's no room for improovment, however. Here's a checklist of a few terms to see if anything is the problem in particular:
 * front vowel
 * palatal articulation
 * phonetic(al(ly))
 * hard palate
 * synchronic
 * diachronic

Still, these are all link'd in the article, as should! There's no room to explain all of them in full detail here… -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Jargon in this article really should be cleaned up.Anhydrobiosis 01:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhydrobiosis (talk • contribs)

Difference between palatalization and yod-coalescence?
What is the difference between palatalization and yod-coalescence? Are [ʃ] and [ʒ] palatal consonants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.207.252 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yod-coalescence is an example of palatalization. Palatalization doesn't always result in palatal consonants, and [ʃ] and [ʒ] are not palatal. Sometimes it just makes consonants that are closer to palatal, as here. [ʃ] and [ʒ] are closer to the palatal place of articulation than the alveolar consonants [s] and [z]: more back, or postalveolar, or alveolopalatal. — Eru·tuon 02:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said, Erutuon. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  03:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Erutuon, [z] and [s] have their panlatal variants. They do not need to convert to [ʃ] and [ʒ] to become palatal.--Anuclanus (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This means that the consonant is pronounced as if followed very closely by the sound [j]
Hi! I wonder what does it mean. In Russian there are many examples when sounds are followed with [j] and are not palatalized. For example, подъём[подйом], въезд[вйэзд], съезд[cйэзд], вражья[вражйа].--Anuclanus (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

тема
The articla says Russian тема is pronounced [ˈtˢʲɛmə] but this pronounciation is definitely non-Russian. There is no [s] or [ts] there.--Anuclanus (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Russian palatized T and D sound like fricatives ts and dz by many speakers.--2.245.120.223 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There is a stub article called Mouillé that contains (currently unsourced) information about the development of palatal laterals and nasals in Romance. I propose that any usable information be sourced and merged into the "Diachronic palatalization" section of this article, and for Mouillé to be redirected to Palatal consonant (since mouillé is just French for "palatal(ized)", and I don't think it means anything more than that when used in English, if it is actually used in English with any significant frequency). CapnPrep (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Mouillé can have a separate section here. It might need to have a fuller treatment to indicate why it's something separate, though. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  01:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not object to merging "mouillé" (to an appropriate destination) itself, but the "palatalization" article already devotes too little attention to palatalized consonants, and too many to various ditch–dike, shirt–skirt and other phonological processes resulted in sounds which are not itself palatalized. The phonetic palatalization should not be eclipsed by numerous examples of historical assimilation of [ʲ] to palatalized consonants themselves and succeeding sounds. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

-ize or -ise
The article currently uses -ize in the title, but the body of the article uses -ise. This is strange; shouldn't the two be consistent? Would I be breaking MOS:RETAIN or following it if I changed -ise forms throughout the article to -ize? — Eru·tuon 08:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, technically, MOS:RETAIN was violated in this edit by an anon user. So we can pretty easily justify restoring it to its earlier form. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 09:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Move material on sound change to Palatalization (sound change)
I suggest we split this article into two. This article, Palatalization, should continue to describe the secondary articulation of consonants, but material on the sound change should be moved to Palatalization (sound change).

It wouldn't work to disambiguate them as Palatalization (phonetics) and Palatalization (phonology), since the articulatory feature is both phonetic and phonological, and the titles Palatalization (historical linguistics) or Palatalization (diachronic linguistics) would be less readable for non-linguists. There isn't an appropriate parenthetical disambiguator for the articulatory feature, because it involves both phonetics and phonology. Therefore, it should remain as the un-disambiguated article name. (Not sure what the technical term for this is.)

As an amateur historical linguist, it is clear to me that the palatalization sound change is much more varied than described in this article. Some of its incarnations include change to a palatal place of articulation, addition of a palatalized secondary articulation, fronting, retraction, raising, diphthongization, monophthongization, alveolarization, alveolo-palatalization, palatal-alveolarization, retroflexion, assibilation, affrication, and frication. (This list assumes the broader definition of palatalization that includes vowel as well as consonant changes.)

At the moment, the article does not describe all of these. Because of the need to constantly disambiguate between the phonetic or phonological feature and the sound change, it is very difficult to add them. If the sound change were given its own article, it would be easy to describe the these variations: just create sections.

In addition, the article should, ideally, list examples of the secondary articulation and of the sound change, as Elision and Debuccalization do. This is impossible in the current article form. Since the secondary articulation and the sound change both occur in the same languages, but in different cases, the same language would have to be mentioned twice.

Splitting the articles would be an option based on common practice. Phonetic and phonological features are frequently described in separate articles from sound changes. This is the case for Sibilant versus Assibilation, Voice (phonetics) and Voicelessness versus Consonant voicing and devoicing, Glottal consonant versus Debuccalization. Velarization does not have separate phonetic–phonological and sound change articles, but velarization as a sound change has fewer examples that I can think of than palatalization.

For these varied reasons, I propose splitting the article into two, and titling them Palatalization and Palatalization (sound change). What do others think? (If there are any problems in the way I'm proposing this move or split, let me know or correct them, since I'm new to this.)

I think this move is fairly commonsense and uncontroversial, so I'll go ahead with it if there are no objections. — Eru·tuon 23:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a case to be made for Palatalization (phonetics) (with Palatalization (phonology) as a redirect). Namely, the term is prototypically a phonetic one. Languages that feature what we might call phonological palatalization (e.g. Russian and Irish) have acquired the term from in their linguistic descriptions from the phonetic features. Phonology tends to borrow from phonetics in terms and notation.
 * I happen to like palatalization (historical linguistics), but I'm not enough of a lay person to tell if that's just the linguistics egghead in me. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I took a look at pages in Category:Phonology and Category:Historical linguistics to see if there was precedent in this area. I didn't see any articles using (sound change) as a disambiguator, but neither did I see any using (historical linguistics). It seems that no article titles have needed to disambiguate between synchronic phonetics and phonology and historical phonology before.

 * My only reason for liking (sound change) is that it's shorter. There seems to be more precedent for using an area-of-study disambiguator as opposed to a "what this is" disambiguator. It could therefore be argued that (historical linguistics) follows precedent more than (sound change). However, brevity is important, and as far as shortness is concerned, disyllabic is better than hexasyllabic, and a 12-character disambiguator is better than a 22-character one. Therefore, I would argue that breaking precedent in this case is desirable.

 * Perhaps if we have more articles on language change in other areas, such as syntactic change, and these also require disambiguation, then perhaps using (historical linguistics) would make more sense as a way to unite different historical-linguistical subject areas, but the area of syntactic change seems not to be very thoroughly covered at the moment. — Eru·tuon 04:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever we pick between "sound change" and "historical linguistics" we can have the other be a redirect. The closest thing to what you're looking for (as far as precedent) is the disambiguation for Ruki, I think. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Splitting off Palatalization (sound change) sounds like a good idea. I'd support making this page one of disambiguation, though. Palatalization (articulation) might be another possibility for the non-historical sense, but the precedent seems to be to just use (phonetics) for these kind of topics (e.g. Voice (phonetics)). -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 10:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have two votes for splitting to Palatalization (phonetics). I also think this is a good idea, since it would be good to have a disambiguation page. — Eru·tuon 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

has registered his support for Palatalization (historical linguistics), and I have noted mine for Palatalization (sound change). Does anyone else have an opinion either way, like you, ? — Eru·tuon 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't implicitly clear enough, I'm in favor of (sound change). Just (historical linguistics) e.g. does not make it very clear that the topic is a process, and also does not apply to synchronic phonological processes of palatalization that involve something other than phonetic palatalization (say, soft g in Spanish, which involves turning to ). -- Trɔpʏliʊm  • blah 21:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. I can get behind (sound change) too. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All right. I'll wait a day or two to see if there are other comments, and then make the moves. — Eru·tuon 23:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

One of typically clueless Wikipedian “change for a change”, not for improvement. The splitting created appearance of two different (albeit related) phenomena, bu failed miserably on explaining the difference. After deliberation, they decided that [tʲ]—[t] (and similar) opposition of Slavic languages pertains to palatalization (phonetics), whereas [ɲ]—[n] opposition of Romance languages (mouillé) pertains to palatalization (sound change). IMHO the basis of this “classification” is that IPA has a distinct character for, hence it’s a distinct sound, whereas [tʲ] is represented with a modifier, hence it’s only a modified [t] sound. A cute “science”.

Also, examples in “(phonetics)” are chosen arbitrarily. They include Slavic and Gaelic (where it’s phonemic, not just allophonic), but exclude Chinese (where it’s phonemic as well). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting interpretation, but ultimately flawed. Palatalization in this article is about the phonetic feature (that is, isochronic) while the other article covers the body of sound changes (diachronic) that could lead to a phonetically palatalized or palatal consonant. There's probably some wiggle room as far as what examples would be more appropriate for which article but there are some, such as the change of palatovelars to alveolars/dentals in satem languages, that clearly belong in palatalization (sound change).
 * I suggest you check your snide tone. You won't convince anyone by being rude. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How the Standard Chinese phonology thing, linked twice from the “sound change”, is a diachronic sound change? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because at some point in the history of Mandarin Chinese (presumably after the Middle Chinese period), sounds that were not palatal or palatalized (the alveolars and velars) became so in certain contexts. This shift from one pronunciation to another over time would be a diachronic sound change. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Were they really? Where did you learn that, for instance, the modern [sʲ]/[ɕ] phoneme wasn’t palatalized in Middle Chinese? If understand correctly, there always was palatalization from coarticulation with high front vowels and glides (similarly to Proto-Slavic with its “ь” after consonants), but some times later palatalized consonants became palatal (in some accents) whereas /i/ dropped (also, like in Slavic). There was palatalized→palatal change, and not in all accents. The palatalization predated the change. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not well-versed in the history of Chinese phonology, so I'm only guessing as to when this occurred. However, because the different Chinese varieties are understood to have all derived from a single mother language, the comparative method leads us to see the dialects that do not merge the alveolar and velar series as more conservative. That's the understanding behind viewing the Chinese example as one of a diachronic change.
 * It would be interesting to parse from the literature if or how scholars treat cases where a phonetically palatalized consonant becomes, in a sense, more palatal and whether that is considered palatalization in the diachronic sense. My guess is that the diachronic sense is a bit more loose and more generally covers many different sound changes that occur in the context of front vowels. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You could address your comments directly to us. We're here, and listening. That might make you sound a little less rude.

 * But I'm not sure what you're saying: that there's no difference between the sound change and the phonetic feature, or that the difference isn't explained well? If you're saying there's no difference, please explain. And I agree that the Romance languages thing might not belong in either article. It's (metaphorically speaking) an orphan that has been looking for a home, but nobody really wants it. Maybe it should be moved to palatal consonant. — Eru·tuon 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mouillé
I moved the section on mouillé (palatal consonants) to, because technically it's about palatal , not palatalized, although these palatal consonants arose by palatalization. It should originally have been moved there, rather than here. — Eru·tuon 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it might be appropriate to put it in the sound change article that you'll be creating soon. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so, although some cases are a little puzzling, like annus > año and caballum > caballo, and would be harder to integrate into the overall picture of palatalization as assimilation. — Eru·tuon 05:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be inaccurate to characterize palatalization as assimilation, even if that is the most common form. We already have a number of examples that go against that generalization. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 06:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, quite right, now that I think of it. I see why my change to the intro was wrong. However, noting that palatalization is frequently assimilatory would be helpful. I think palatalization is either triggered by a palatal or front vowel, or results in a palatal or palatalized consonant or front vowel. Sometimes the sound change is triggered by a palatal but doesn't result in a palatal or palatalized consonant, and can be considered theoretically assimilatory or at least conditioned. In other cases, as above, the result is palatal, but there's no palatal conditioning environment. Noting this fact would help explain to readers why the sound change is called palatalization in both cases: in some cases it refers to the result, in others to the environment. You may be able to verify whether this generalization regarding the name is right; I'm just working from memory here. — Eru·tuon 07:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note on suprasegmental palatalization
See vertical vowel system for some discussion and sources on suprasegmental palatalization in Central Chadic. I've yet to add coverage of this into the main article of the language group. -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Another question though is whether a case where underlying representation such as is realized as  (or perhaps ) — with possibly no phonetic palatalization — belongs in this article or under Palatalization (sound change). -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional examples. Good question; also curious how suprasegmental palatalization relates to advanced and retracted tongue root. Both involve changes in vowel height or frontness, but perhaps the difference is the part of the tongue that is moved. — Eru·tuon 19:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sibilant offglide
'' The below message was originally posted underneath.

Well, I have to disagree on sibilant offglide in Russian palatalized t. Indeed, such a phenomenon is possible and quite frequent, but nevertheless it's a typical feature of some dialects that should be avoided in standard normative speech. --95.26.43.198 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 * This seems strange to me, too: Superscript stands for palatalization, so it doesn't make sense to use it as an example for not being phonetically palatalized. Maybe what was meant was it changes to  ? This originates from this edit by User:Vuo. — Sebastian 04:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Following our conversation at Talk:Semivowel, Aeusoes1 just changed it, which removed what was unclear from the text, but there's one thing remaining that's confusing me: I don't see any affrication in the text anymore, while the edit summary still talk about it. — Sebastian 04:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the point. Affrication is kind of a side issue and irrelevant to the point being made. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I get that. (I was confused because I thought your summary was about what you added, but it was about what you removed.) You write "when Russian "soft" consonants appear before front vowels (particularly [i]), they are unpalatalized", which was news to me, and which may be only a recent suggestion of one linguistRussian_phonology. Is that indeed the commonly held view nowadays? — Sebastian 19:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Google scholar finds 126 sources citing Padgett 2003a, 66 citing Padgett 2003b, and 110 citing the 2001 article in which they first examined and laid out these phonetic particularities of Russian. I'm not sure how many of these are critical (and therefore don't know how representative this view is among modern scholars), but I don't think it's particularly recent or even a mere suggestion. It is, according to this scholar, consistent with cross-linguistic tendencies when phonemic contrasts of palatalized and non-palatalized consonants are maintained before  (Irish phonology may mention a similar dynamic with "broad" and "slender" consonants). In other words, it would be kind of weird if Russian weren't this way. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  07:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough research! Funny you should mention Irish; that's actually why I got here: I wanted to compare that with something that was a little more familiar to me. — Sebastian 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Russian: [C,"soft"] → [-palatalized] / _[V,+front]
Unfortunately, I'm still confused by the text in. It seems to me that it contradicts the examples at Russian phonology. All the examples show pal. there, even the only one actually written with [i], rather than [ɪ]:. — Sebastian 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. More examples from other sections of Russian phonology: расчертить, жасми́н , пить , готовить . Either the IPA is wrong, or the text in this article is wrong. (My phonetic ear isn't good enough to figure out if the soundfiles have palatalized consonants before or not...) — Eru·tuon 09:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's two things to consider. The first is that it might be too confusing to consistently transcribe Russian soft consonants without the palataliation marker before ; we already eschew transcribing the velarization marker in phonetic transcription for Russian, even though it's already there.

Padgett (2001) even points out that palatalization may come along with "other phonetic properties such as frication or burst" that help contribute to a distinction.
 * The second thing is that the claim Padgett makes about palatalization may not hold (or may not be as simple) for all consonants. The initial study, Padgett (2001) looked only at - contrasts. With a palatalized, the primary articulator (the lips) is not affected by the palatalization; there is instead a sort of coarticulation that, Padgett finds in their informants, is missing before . However, this coarticulation is trickier when the main articulator and the secondary articulator are both the tongue. As can be seen at Russian phonology, paired coronal consonants differ in more than just palatalization, which may partially be a result of that trickiness. In that sense, although we are using brackets to indicate phonetic transcription of Russian, the transcription is actually somewhat broad in that we don't indicate all the phonetic details for each consonant.
 * I'm not sure what to recommend here other than to alter the wording in this article to focus more on the actual phonetic scope of Padgett (2001)'s research. Would that make it less of a contradiction with what's found in the Russian phonology article? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  17:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that's a great explanation. I see your first "thing to consider" and the information you give from "In that sense, although we are using brackets" as one block of related information. IMHO such information is sorely needed in the Russian phonology article. I, for one, was so gullible to think that Russian didn't actually have velarization because it's missing in our transcriptions. Nevertheless, I feel it's good to have a broader transcription; I would assume that that would be most helpful for the majority of our readers, many of whom probably visit that article to learn how to pronounce Russian themselves.
 * I don't know what Padgett (20010 writes, but I feel like the above already would be a nice addition for Wikipedia. It's fascinating stuff, but it feels a bit like focusing on the motion of individual molecules in an article on statistical mechanics. The question is where it should go: In this article or in Russian phonology? One argument for this article may be that something like this may happen in other languages, such as Irish. It even would be nice for its own article, but I'm afraid that would lead to much of the same information being replicated in three articles.  — Sebastian 07:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Better presentation of examples
I think this article can be dramatically improved if we write the examples a bit differently: (I still not exactly sure what Palatization is, I'll probably get it soon after reading the article a few times...)

1. IMHO the examples should have the palatalized and unpalatalized consonants side by side so that we see and hear the difference.

2. Examples should be given first and formost in the English language which is spoken by the readers of this WP article, even though palatalization in English does not distinguish the sound as a different consonant.

3. Several quick examples from SEVERAL languages, first of all European ones but not just, should be shown in sub sections.

4. Each consonant that can be palatalized should be under a section of its own. L - palatalized sounds so. unplalatalized so. T palatelized sounds so unpalatalized sounds so. These consonants are the ones that can be palatalized, all the other's cannot be palatalized.

I'm willing to assist if someone puts up sets of words in their language. I know how to articulate foreign accents, in many languages which I speak. I'll put it up for your native testing and then publish it in this article.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 * And from reading here and in other places I'm still not convinced I fully understand what palatalization is in the case of English and Hebrew (or Russian).פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your request for examples because there are several audio examples in the phonology section (for instance Russian нос, нёс). Did you not notice them, or are they not enough? — Eru·tuon 21:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Examples in English
The article provides a very technical description of palatization, with examples from languages that many English-speaking readers are not familiar with. After going through this article, I have no idea what palatization sounds like.

It would be very helpful if examples of (allophonic) palatization in English were provided.

I found some examples:

 * pleaSe - pleaSure
 * resiDue - resiDual
 * analoG - analoGy

Source: https://englishphonetics.net/blog/vowel-length-palatalization.html

I'm not familiar enough with the matter to judge whether these are good examples. I'm not familiar enough with the matter to judge whether these are good examples.

A picture of the tongue position would also help to clarify "the body of the tongue is raised toward the hard palate and the alveolar ridge during the articulation of the consonant." Han-Kwang (t) 08:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Those are examples of Palatalization (sound change), but not of Palatalization (phonetics). Nardog (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Palatalization (phonetics)


text:
Talk:George Blakley

Untitled
The second two paragraphs are a cut and paste from Secret sharing. --Big_Iron

What is the R. in G. R. Blakley? FWIW, I was once a student of Blakley at Texas A&M University.

The R stands for Robert. Dr. Blakley goes by Bob as does his son, a principal analyst for The Burton group and former security architect at IBM.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Blakley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723164746/http://www.science.tamu.edu/faculty/awards to http://www.science.tamu.edu/faculty/awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:George Blakley


text:
Robert Kerr, 1st Marquess of Lothian

Robert Kerr, 1st Marquess of Lothian (8 March 1636 – 15 February 1703), known as the 4th Earl of Lothian from 1675 to 1701, was a Scottish nobleman. He was styled Lord Kerr until 1661 and Lord Newbattle from 1661 to 1675.

The eldest son of William Kerr, 3rd Earl of Lothian and Anne Kerr, he was born at Newbattle Abbey, Midlothian. He left Scotland and was educated at Leyden, Saumur, and Angers from 1651 to 1657. He unsuccessfully claimed the earldom of Roxburghe in 1658. In 1661, his father lost an additional dispute with the new Earl of Roxburghe over the use of the courtesy title of Lord Kerr; it was reserved for Roxburghe's heir, and Kerr was thereafter styled Lord Newbattle.

Lord Newbattle was a volunteer in the Dutch War of 1673. He succeeded his father in the earldom in 1675. Sworn a Privy Counsellor in January 1686, he was removed by James II in September. Lothian supported the Glorious Revolution and sat in the Convention of Estates of Scotland. He was appointed Lord Justice General of Scotland in 1689, holding the office until his death, and was re-appointed a privy counsellor by William III in 1690. In the same year, he succeeded his uncle Charles as Earl of Ancram.

He was Lord High Commissioner to the Parliament of Scotland in 1692, and addressed the assembly with a speech advocating tolerance and liberality towards episcopal ministers wishing to be received into the Kirk, in harmony with the King's recommendations. However, the Assembly proved hostile, and the proposal was not taken up. He was created Marquess of Lothian on 23 June 1701, and was appointed Justice-General and a commissioner to treat for the union of Scotland and England in 1702. He did not see the project out, as he died in the following year.

Personal life
Lothian married Lady Jean Campbell (d. 1700), daughter of Archibald Campbell, 1st Marquess of Argyll, in January 1660–1, by whom he had ten children:
 * William Kerr, 2nd Marquess of Lothian (1661–1722)
 * Lord Charles Kerr (d. 1735), appointed Director of Chancery in 1703, married Janet Murray, daughter of Sir David Murray, 2nd Baronet, and had issue
 * Hon. Margaret Kerr (bap. 1670), died young
 * Hon. Jean Kerr (bap. 1671), died young
 * Lord John Kerr (bap. 1673 – 8 September 1735), British Army officer
 * Lady Mary Kerr (bap. 1674 – 22 January 1736), married James Douglas, 2nd Marquess of Douglas
 * Lord Mark Kerr (bap. 1676–1752), British general
 * Lady Margaret Kerr (bap. 1678), died young
 * Hon. James Kerr (bap. 1679), died unmarried
 * Lady Annabella Kerr (bap. 1682), died young

Lothian also had a natural son, Captain John Kerr, who was slain at Douglas Castle by the Duke of Douglas.

He is buried in the family vault of Newbattle Church, Scotland.

title: Robert Kerr, 1st Marquess of Lothian


text:
Pawnee language

The Pawnee language is a Caddoan language traditionally spoken by Pawnee Native Americans, currently inhabiting north-central Oklahoma. Historically, the Pawnee lived along the Platte River in what is now Nebraska.

Dialects
Two important dialect divisions are evident in Pawnee: South Band and Skiri. The distinction between the two dialects rests on differences in their respective phonetic inventory and lexicon. The Skiri dialect became extinct in 2001 with the death of Lula Nora Pratt.

Status
As of 2007, there are fewer than 10 native speakers, all elderly. The Pawnee Nation is developing teaching materials for the local high school and for adult language classes. There are also extensive documentary materials in the language archived at the American Indian Studies Research Institute. The Pawnee language can be heard spoken in the 2015 movie The Revenant. In 2019 and 2020, the Pawnee Nation posted online videos teaching the Pawnee language.

Phonology
The following describes the South Band dialect.

Consonants
Pawnee has eight consonant phonemes, and according to one analysis of medial- and final-position glottal stops, one may posit a ninth consonant phoneme.

 * is predictable when it occurs in the middle of words. However, since is not completely predictable at the end of words, it may also need to be considered a phoneme.

Vowels
Pawnee has four short vowel phonemes and four long counterparts (also phonemic).

Morphology
Pawnee is an ergative-absolutive polysynthetic language.

Alphabet
The Pawnee alphabet has 9 consonants and 8 vowels. The letters are relatively similar in pronunciation to their English counterparts.

Other alphabets
Here are other alphabets that are used sometimes in Pawnee texts.

title: Pawnee language


text:
User:Oscar 6

Oscar_6, Russian Wikipedian since september 2004.

Not contributing much to English Wiki, sorry.

ru:user:Oscar_6

title: User:Oscar 6


text:
Talk:Huang Sheng-shyan

Untitled
Hi Duk,

the article I wrote about Huang Sheng Shyan got blocked for a possible copyright infringement from the source http://www.taijiquan.co.nz/journey.htm

Now, the site http://www.taijiquan.co.nz/ is maintained by Dean Cudmore (dean@taijiquan.co.nz) of the TAIJIQUAN SCHOOL OF CENTRAL EQUILIBRIUM, Auckland, New Zealand. I am a member of this taiji club and copied the above text from this site with full consent by the TAIJIQUAN SCHOOL OF CENTRAL EQUILIBRIUM.

So could you please put the page about Huang Sheng Shyan back online or tell me how to "proof" our rights in this copyright issue.

Cheers, Herbert Langsteiner

copyright permission
Hi Herbert, can you get a contact email address placed somewhere on http://www.taijiquan.co.nz/ that we can verify permission through. Alternatively, can you get the web site to license itself by the GNU Free Documentation License (see the link at the bottom of every Wikipedia page).

Word of mouth permission through a third party isn't good enough, and the permission needs to be explicitly GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License). -- Duk 15:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Duk, please find the above mentioned e-mail address on the page http://www.taijiquan.co.nz/classes.htm in line 5 from the top. --Herbert Langsteiner 03:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * GFDL permisson verified from http://www.taijiquan.co.nz/ via email. --Duk 07:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Huang Sheng-shyan


text:
Gettin' Jiggy wit It

"Gettin' Jiggy wit It" is a song by American rapper and actor Will Smith, released as the third single from his debut solo album, Big Willie Style (1997). The verse is based around a sample of "He's the Greatest Dancer" by Sister Sledge, and the chorus is sampled from "Sang and Dance" by the Bar-Kays. Released in early 1998, the song was Smith's second hit produced by Poke & Tone and L.E.S., who replaced his long-time partner Jazzy Jeff, though the record-scratching techniques of Jazzy Jeff can be heard in the song.

The song spent three weeks at the top of the Billboard Hot 100 chart from March 14, 1998. It also won the Grammy Award in 1999 for the Best Rap Solo Performance. It was ranked the 68th greatest song of the 1990s by VH1. However, it was ranked at number 19 on the list of AOL Radio's 100 Worst Songs Ever in 2010. The song was included in Pitchfork Media's 2010 list of "The Seven Worst U.S. No. 1 Singles of the 90s".

Composition
The song samples the 1979 Sister Sledge song "He's the Greatest Dancer". The "mama-uh, mama-uh, mama come closer" line is a reference to the song "Soul Makossa" by Manu Dibango, specifically the version adapted by Michael Jackson in "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'"'s final bridge. The connotations associated with the expression getting jiggy were heavily influenced by this single. The term was originally a description of sexy fashion or style, but expanded to include dancing skill.

Smith has attested in an interview that his inspiration to alter the meaning for the purpose of the song came from his association of the term "jiggy" with "jigaboo", a derogatory term for African-Americans, which made the literal meaning of the title "getting African-American with it" and which was meant to reference the popular folk-myth of an innate sense of rhythm in black folks. The co-opting of a once offensive word also was racially empowering.

Nas ghost-writing "Gettin' Jiggy wit It" was a popular rumor in the 90s, as the song's producers The Trackmasters had recently signed Nas to their label Trackmasters Entertainment. Nas later confirmed he was in the studio with Smith during the track's development and even suggested lines for the song, however insists that Smith wrote the entirety of the finished lyrics on his own. The Trackmasters corroborated Nas on Smith ultimately writing the lyrics on his own. Despite this confirmation, other music executives, including Steve Stoute, have maintained that Nas did indeed write the entirety of the lyrics.

Critical reception
Larry Flick from Billboard wrote, "This intriguingly titled single is a sweet cross between rap and dance styles—perhaps even outrageous R&B? Despite his success in Hollywood, Smith keeps music close to his heart. He delivers a happy rap song—very upbeat, indeed. A background mixture of children's voices gives this single an interesting twist, which provides pleasant interference. The vivacious bass sound makes "Gettin' Jiggy Wit It" stand up on its feet. Even though it is repetitive, it's really a great one for those rap lovers out there. Get listening!" Pan-European magazine Music & Media said, "Musician-cum-actor Smith seems to have an infallible knack for simply irresistible poppy R&B. This time around, Sister Sledge's much-loved 1979 disco smash 'He's The Greatest Dancer' serves as the foundation for his third surefire hit in a row." Alan Jones from Music Week felt that "after the disappointing chart foray of his current single, Will Smith returns in double Quicktime with Gettin' Jiggy Wit It, a more lively rap laced with samples from three prior hits (...) which provides the melody, rhythm and class for a fine effort that will instantly restore Smith to the Top 20."

Music video
The accompanying music video for the song was directed by American director Hype Williams  and was filmed at various hotels on the Las Vegas Strip, including the New York-New York Hotel and Casino, The Mirage, and the foyer of the Luxor Las Vegas.

The video features a series of tableaux including a Deee-Lite-inspired sequence, a glitzy Puffa jacket-style choreographed studio dance routine, a sequence set in Ancient Egypt and a volcano-backed Hawaiian/ Māori segment. Other music styles, including Bollywood, are referenced. The video closes with Smith dancing beneath the Statue of Liberty replica at the New York-New York Hotel and Casino.

"Gettin' Jiggy wit It" won the 1998 MTV Video Music Award for Best Rap Video. The song was also nominated for four additional awards, including Best Choreography, Viewer's Choice, Best Dance Video, and Video of the Year, but these further nominations were lost to Madonna for her song "Ray of Light".

Track listing

 * US CD and cassette single
 * 1) "Gettin' Jiggy wit It" – 3:50
 * 2) "Men in Black" (DJ Scratch remix) – 3:45

 * US 7-inch single
 * 1) "Gettin' Jiggy wit It" – 3:50
 * 2) "Men in Black" – 3:48

 * UK CD1
 * 1) "Gettin' Jiggy wit It" (album version) – 3:46
 * 2) "Men in Black" (new video mix) – 3:41
 * 3) Big Willie Style snippets – 2:56

 * UK CD2
 * 1) "Gettin' Jiggy wit It" (album version) – 3:46
 * 2) "Gettin' Jiggy wit It" (Jay Scratch mix) – 3:41
 * 3) "Big Willie Style" (album version) – 3:35

 * UK cassette single
 * 1) "Gettin' Jiggy wit It" (album version) – 3:46
 * 2) "Men in Black" (new video mix) – 3:41

 * European CD single
 * 1) "Gettin' Jiggy wit It" (album version)
 * 2) "Gettin' Jiggy wit It" (DJ Scratch remix)

 * Australian CD single
 * 1) "Gettin' Jiggy wit It"
 * 2) "Just Cruisin'" (radio edit)
 * 3) "Just Cruisin'" (instrumental)
 * 4) Snippets from Big Willie Style
 * 5) "Men in Black" (MIB altenrate mix)

title: Gettin' Jiggy wit It


text:
Talk:Noa Briqualon

This page is a redirect to List of minor Star Wars characters after consensus at this VFD debate was to merge. 11:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Noa Briqualon