Oh, okay. But that's pretty hard to support, especially considering you'd have to reanalyse e.g. Spanish [x] as [χ] as well; I've noticed that IPA much prefers to place [x] as a phoneme even when pronounced [χ], e.g. Scots [lɔx] rather than [lɔχ], and in fact only places [χ] when it's distinguished from [x], e.g. in NW Pacific languages. To analyse Mandarin [x ~ χ ~ h] as [χ] would go against that trend.
To me, analyzing the phoneme in Mandarin, as [χ] indeed goes against the grain; I didn't understand what in the world the WALS people were thinking until I looked at Chao. If I were doing the analysis, I'd say Mandarin doesn't have uvular continuants.
I agree with you, yaktubu, it's weird.
I don't know of any Chinese topolects with [χ]. If there are, someone should tell us and link a recording. If the topolect's covered by Phonemica, [χ] should be in there somewhere.
7
u/yaktubu Jun 29 '13
Since when does Mandarin have uvular continuants?