What do you think about transcription here? We have a laminal denti-alveolar vs. an apical-to-subapical post-alveolar distinction, much like Hindustani. Is it reasonable to transcribe them {{angbr IPA|n̪ t̪}} vs {{angbr IPA|ɳ ʈ }}, as we do with other languagesHindustani, rather than current {{angbr IPA|n̪ t̪}} vs {{angbr IPA|n̠ t̠}}? I'm afraid that becomes difficult to read, and for phonemic transcription the IPA encourages the use of distinct letters rather than relying on diacritics. An editor insists we use {{angbr IPA|n̠ t̠}} per our sources, but neither source transcribes the postalveolar/retroflex sounds that way: Henderson (1995) uses {{angbr IPA|n̪ t̪}} vs {{angbr IPA|n t}}, and Levinson (2022) {{angbr IPA|n t}} vs {{angbr IPA|ṇ ṭ}}, with a sub-dot per Ladefoged & Maddieson.. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 08:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
