This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Linguistics:Phonetics This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflinguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byPhonetics Task Force.

Are there any languages that lack labials?—Precedingunsigned comment added by187.158.68.138 (talk)18:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example theNa-Dené languagesTlingit andEyak typically lack labials (though /m/ may now occasionally occur due to the influence of English). These aren't the only examples, but I'd have to search for others. When I have time, I'll add a reference in the article. --JorisvS (talk)13:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the current (last mod: 11:31, 22 January 2010) revision:

Very few languages, however, make a distinction purely between bilabials and labiodentals, making "labial" usually a sufficient specification of a language's phonemes. One language that does make such a distinction is Ewe, having both kinds of fricatives, though the labiodentals are produced with greater articulatory force.

I feel like there are countless distinctions between bilabials and labiodentals - English /v/ and /b/ for starters. Considering only fricatives, as the second sentence does, perhaps few or no languages need a distinction, but I think this is misleading otherwise.catParade04:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between English /b/ and /v/ is not primarily one between a bilabial and a labiodental, but between a plosive and a fricative: If I were to pronounce English /v/ as/β/ you would have no trouble understanding me, meaning it's sufficient to classify both as "labial". This is exactly what is said in that sentence: "few languages make a distinctionpurely between bilabials and labiodentals", which excludes bilabial vs. labiodental as a secondary feature like in English, but does not focus exclusively on fricatives [Though the only phonemic bilabial vs. labiodental distinction I know of is one between fricatives]. It specifically focuses on all of the following distinctions:/p/ vs./p̪/,/b/ vs./b̪/,/p͡ɸ/ vs./p̪͡f/,/b͡β/ vs./b̪͡v/,/m/ vs./ɱ/,/ɸ/ vs./f/,/β/ vs./v/,/β̞/ vs./ʋ/,/ѵ̟/ vs./ѵ/, and/ʙ/ vs./ʙ̪/. --JorisvS (talk)11:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding a table of contents would help readers better understand what consonants are related to this article. A table as such would especially help those who are more familiar with the diffrent consonants represented by the IPA symboles.

The article contains a table as such in other languages in wikipedia.EsB (talk)21:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class Linguistics articles
• Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
• C-Class phonetics articles
• Unknown-importance phonetics articles
• Phonetics Task Force articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles