Talk:Tillamook language

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Shouldn't this be titled Nehalem language?

As I understand it Tillamook is the Chinookan name for these people, who in their own language were the Nehalem (tribe) (already on the Nehalem dismabiguation page). Wouldn't it be "ethnologically correct" to call them by their own name, rather than by somebody else's name for them?Skookum1 16:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

The "SUS" consonants, including /w/, are not labialized—the effect is created entirely inside the mouth by cupping the tongue.

This sentence is completely meaningless, what is it supposed to mean? Are they really that SUS?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tillamook language. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

erroneous ᵓ diacritic usage

@Kwamikagami a decade ago, you made the following edit to this page, to distinguish the non-labial "rounded" sounds as sulcalized: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tillamook_language&diff=prev&oldid=688138317; however, this ad hoc diacritic has no historical precedence, nor any attestations at all as far as I can find; the result of this is that the idea that [ᵓ] represents sulcalization was erroneously passed up from this article to sulcalization, and has been perpetuated elsewhere in wiki mirrors.

Is there better symbology that can be used on this page to represent sulcalization, or better wording to clarify the inventiveness of using [ᵓ], as not to continue perpetuating this idea? Oklopfer (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do we have a ref that sulcalization is involved? i'm not aware of a convention for sulcalization, which involves the tongue, but ɔ-coloring involving the lips would be indicated with a superscript ɔ. voqs provides ꟹ for open rounding, but that may not be best with back consonants. it also suggests compression, which may not be right — kwami (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1264085 page 316 states:

Earlier interpretations have left the impression that rounded velars were lacking from the system as distinctive elements. However, Boas, Edel and Jacobs all recorded rounded velars sporadically; the notations, as a matter of fact, are often contradictory. It is now clear why this problem arose. There are postvelars which are best described as having a kind of [ɔ] timbre, apparently created by cupping of the tongue, not by any rounding of the lips. Similarly, there are front velars with [ï] coloring, and again the effect is created entirely inside the mouth. These oppose and contrast with otherwise very similar segments which have [ᴇ] or [ɪ] coloring.

Tillamook /w/ also involves this sort of internal rounding, so that it is inaccurate to characterize it as a labial element at all. The same feature reappears in the vowel system, where we find that the elements earlier written [u u˙ o o˙] actually involve diphthongs characterized by increasing internal rounding, and certainly best interpreted as /əw/.

(Compare Tillamook language#Internal rounding) Oklopfer (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is 'cupping' the same as sulcalization? just from the wording, they might be perpendicular to each other — kwami (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the source doesn't elaborate on the 'cupping' of the tongue other than suggesting it is this 'internal rounding', while also concluding the section with the point that "Tillamook is meaningfully characterized as a language totally devoid of labial elements."

I don't think we have the authority to determine if it is the same as sulcalization, since making that distinction would likely require palatograms that do not exist for a language which has not had a single native speaker in over 50 years. So perhaps the link to sulcalization can be removed altogether.

Then I think that would allow the page to more freely be able to use [ᵓ] as an ad hoc diacritic, so long as it is clearly noted it is used to describe the '[ɔ]-like timbre'. I do recognize trying to brainstorm anything different to represent this extremely unique description would be somewhat pointless, as to potentially introduce even more erroneous claims passed down in another 10 years; and because that starts leaning too far into WP:ORIGINALITY. oklopfer (💬) 05:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, it doesn't seem like [ꟹ] for open rounding would imply compression; "open-rounding" has been used to describe the labialization of French and English /ʃ/ and /ʒ/, which seems to be how those examples ended up in Labialization#Transcription and Relative articulation#More and less rounded with this diacritic. Although the descriptions of "open" and "close" rounded are few and far between, the similar terminology and iconography to open [œ] and close [w] (semi)vowels has me inclined to believe the distinction is more about the height of roundness (and therefore "tightness"), rather than the type of curling of the lips; [ꟹ] still seems to clearly indicate at least partial protrusion. oklopfer (💬) 03:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]