From lenition:

I recognize [pf] and [ts] from German. I can't find any info on when these affricates were lost in English. Or were they not in Proto-Germanic? Anyone know?JordeeBec 03:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consonant mutation, Consonant gradation, Spirantization, Lenition, Fortition and Fortis and lenis all seem to be about the same kind of phenomenon. Perhaps they should be merged. FilipeS 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, and as thoroughly discussed on some of these articles' talk pages, these are different things which merit their own articles. This is very well covered in other discussions, but for the record mutation is context specific, gradation is a type of mutation. Fortis and lenis describe present sounds; lenition (and spirantization, which is a type of lenition, and which was a requested article) and fortition are processes (specifically types of phonetic changes). It looks like the consensus on most of these articles is that they should not be merged. That's my vote as well. JordeeBec 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I'd still like to see the following questions answered (the articles, in their current versions, do not answer them):

1. Mutation is context specific -- and lenition and fortition aren't?
2. You say that spirantization was a requested article. Where can I find the discussion of that request? FilipeS 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenition and fortition specifically refer to historical processes of phonetic change, though they can refer to context-specific changes as well. Lenition and fortition encompass context-specific change (eg Finnish stem-medial pp > p) as well as historical phonetic shifts (eg all p in a language > b). Thus consonant mutation and gradation are narrower topics that each merits and have its own full length article.

To my knowledge, there is no discussion of the article request. I saw the request on Wikipedia:Requested articles.

While you are correct that all of these concepts are related, I think that combining them into a single article would be unwieldy and extremely broad, especially the concepts that are opposites of one another. It seems like the consensus from the discussion pages is that these articles should remain separate. (I sincerely ask:) What do you hope to gain from further discussion? JordeeBec 22:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in saying that my proposal has met with unanimous opposition, and I shall not make a formal request for a merger. Another reason why I won't do that is because some of the present articles are already moderately long. I hope, however, that this discussion has served to convince others of the need to relate and distinguish the three (or four) concepts in the main pages (assuming they indeed refer to different concepts, and not just to different naming traditions). Regards. FilipeS 22:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish "soft" b, d, g are approximants, not fricatives. FilipeS 16:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the only thing in this article that wasn't repeated in lenition was one of the links, which I merged over. kwami (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]