This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section on Tones needs example tone contour recordings. E.g., in the minimal pair example:
fitheach ('raven') vs. fiach ('debt')
it's hard for a non-Gaelic reader to know whether the examples have one or two (spoken) syllables. This makes it a poor example, and it's an even worse one, because I've no idea what either of them sounds like. (Despite years of using the IPA to make necessary distinctions in other linguistic pursuits, I've never consciously heard Scottish Gaelic spoken.) Would it be possible for one of our excellent editors to record a brief sound file showing the difference between fitheach and fiach? And another showing the difference between typical tonal contours for one- and two-syllable words?
Also, could we please "eschew obfuscation" and not conclude the section with the pretentious-seeming:
... in the Scottish Gàidhealtachd.
? - I simply don't understand it, and should not be left guessing, e.g., that it might mean "Gaelicdom" (sic) or "Gaellaw" (sic). Thanks! yoyo ( talk) 18:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I am somewhat interested in Gaelic and what I can hear when I'm listening to it is voiceless alveolar retracted sibilant as the allophone of broad "s" after "r", voiced alveolar approximant as the allophone of "r" before all dentals & alveolars, and (very pronounced in Karen Matheson's speech) all velar fricatives going back in, the broad 1s sounding almost uvular and the slender 1s almost velar. Could anyone elaborate on this? 46.186.37.98 ( talk) 01:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a page about phonology. The phonemes and phones of the language should come first, followed by spelling information. As it is, the page starts with spellings, and then provides pronunciations. This is not how linguistics work is done. 112.169.28.146 ( talk) 23:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
While vowel quadrangles are nice, I think the recent addition is not very good. The template/format used is really best for illustrating the cardinal vowel points, not the language-specific ones. Using it it this way misleadingly implies that the vowels are at or close to their cardinal values. I would rather we use an image of a trapezium that more precisely shows the values. In the meantime, the type of table that this recent addition is meant to replace is nice in its simplicity and would be good to augment a trapezium image, as is done at Received Pronunciation#Vowels. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have your original data but looking at this study [1] the F1 you used seems to be odd when compared with the values for southern ɑ (page 9), you're bang on 800, the others cluster around 650 ish. Akerbeltz ( talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
with your kind permission, i would like to completely redo the current short nasalisation para which is devolid of citations. i am beyond unhsppy eith it. sorrry :-) i see that people have put in a serious amount of fine wirh in the article as a while and fir this kuch respect indeeed.
i would like ti doma new start based on a fully split, bruef dialectal verdion based kn the tabke un the aolendjx kf o maolalaigh and mac aonghais 1996 ScG in 300 Years. which accords extremely well with my exoerience and with rhe oerceotions of nstive soeakers regards dialect groupngs.
would that be ok?
it will takr me a while to finish this off, as my health is currently extremely poor im afraid. CecilWard ( talk)
they seem pretty out of date, or at least, no reference to new instrumental phonetic work - and why not cite http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40732061?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104711563543 ref the pre-aspiration map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.104.165 ( talk) 14:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Akerbeltz: You're mistaking phonemic classification for narrow phonetic description. I'm not saying that /ɪ/ is a fully front vowel, I'm saying that it's a front vowel phonologically. There isn't such a thing as a phonological near-front vowel as no language contrasts front, near-front and central vowels. Phonetically, it probably varies from centralized front to central.
I'm reverting.
Is /ɪ/ even a phoneme? Or is it just a short counterpart of /iː/? If it's the latter, we shouldn't even list it in the table. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hah, the vibe you're getting is that I don't really care that much about the English Wiki any more. As for WP:OWNERSHIP, don't make me laugh. Check the page history, I have had virtually no input to this page apart from somy tiny tweaks to the IPA as Wikipedia uses a closer transcription that Celticist publications often use. As for the reference to my book, that was written as a practical textbook and not a linguistic treatise. For purely practical didatic reasons, I do not distinguish phonemes and allophones in the same rigid way a linguist would in a scientific publication. That's presumably the reason why /i:/ /i/ and /ɪ/ ended up in the vowel table (again, check the history, not my doing). Akerbeltz ( talk) 19:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This article states é and ó are still used for /e:/ and /o:/, and è and ò are for the open-mid versions. However, as per here on Wiktionary's Tea Room, it would seem the acute accent has been done away with. MGorrone ( talk) 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I feel that much of this article is promoting the work of a particular author from the Akerbeltz website, for example "a near-exhaustive list". I have checked this website and it is very detailed but, 'near-exhaustive' seems like self-promotion, especially given that the website has very little information about variations in phonology, is there any chance that we could add some other links and references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.240.51 ( talk) 10:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section on Tones needs example tone contour recordings. E.g., in the minimal pair example:
fitheach ('raven') vs. fiach ('debt')
it's hard for a non-Gaelic reader to know whether the examples have one or two (spoken) syllables. This makes it a poor example, and it's an even worse one, because I've no idea what either of them sounds like. (Despite years of using the IPA to make necessary distinctions in other linguistic pursuits, I've never consciously heard Scottish Gaelic spoken.) Would it be possible for one of our excellent editors to record a brief sound file showing the difference between fitheach and fiach? And another showing the difference between typical tonal contours for one- and two-syllable words?
Also, could we please "eschew obfuscation" and not conclude the section with the pretentious-seeming:
... in the Scottish Gàidhealtachd.
? - I simply don't understand it, and should not be left guessing, e.g., that it might mean "Gaelicdom" (sic) or "Gaellaw" (sic). Thanks! yoyo ( talk) 18:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I am somewhat interested in Gaelic and what I can hear when I'm listening to it is voiceless alveolar retracted sibilant as the allophone of broad "s" after "r", voiced alveolar approximant as the allophone of "r" before all dentals & alveolars, and (very pronounced in Karen Matheson's speech) all velar fricatives going back in, the broad 1s sounding almost uvular and the slender 1s almost velar. Could anyone elaborate on this? 46.186.37.98 ( talk) 01:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a page about phonology. The phonemes and phones of the language should come first, followed by spelling information. As it is, the page starts with spellings, and then provides pronunciations. This is not how linguistics work is done. 112.169.28.146 ( talk) 23:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
While vowel quadrangles are nice, I think the recent addition is not very good. The template/format used is really best for illustrating the cardinal vowel points, not the language-specific ones. Using it it this way misleadingly implies that the vowels are at or close to their cardinal values. I would rather we use an image of a trapezium that more precisely shows the values. In the meantime, the type of table that this recent addition is meant to replace is nice in its simplicity and would be good to augment a trapezium image, as is done at Received Pronunciation#Vowels. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have your original data but looking at this study [1] the F1 you used seems to be odd when compared with the values for southern ɑ (page 9), you're bang on 800, the others cluster around 650 ish. Akerbeltz ( talk) 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
with your kind permission, i would like to completely redo the current short nasalisation para which is devolid of citations. i am beyond unhsppy eith it. sorrry :-) i see that people have put in a serious amount of fine wirh in the article as a while and fir this kuch respect indeeed.
i would like ti doma new start based on a fully split, bruef dialectal verdion based kn the tabke un the aolendjx kf o maolalaigh and mac aonghais 1996 ScG in 300 Years. which accords extremely well with my exoerience and with rhe oerceotions of nstive soeakers regards dialect groupngs.
would that be ok?
it will takr me a while to finish this off, as my health is currently extremely poor im afraid. CecilWard ( talk)
they seem pretty out of date, or at least, no reference to new instrumental phonetic work - and why not cite http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40732061?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104711563543 ref the pre-aspiration map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.104.165 ( talk) 14:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Akerbeltz: You're mistaking phonemic classification for narrow phonetic description. I'm not saying that /ɪ/ is a fully front vowel, I'm saying that it's a front vowel phonologically. There isn't such a thing as a phonological near-front vowel as no language contrasts front, near-front and central vowels. Phonetically, it probably varies from centralized front to central.
I'm reverting.
Is /ɪ/ even a phoneme? Or is it just a short counterpart of /iː/? If it's the latter, we shouldn't even list it in the table. Mr KEBAB ( talk) 13:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hah, the vibe you're getting is that I don't really care that much about the English Wiki any more. As for WP:OWNERSHIP, don't make me laugh. Check the page history, I have had virtually no input to this page apart from somy tiny tweaks to the IPA as Wikipedia uses a closer transcription that Celticist publications often use. As for the reference to my book, that was written as a practical textbook and not a linguistic treatise. For purely practical didatic reasons, I do not distinguish phonemes and allophones in the same rigid way a linguist would in a scientific publication. That's presumably the reason why /i:/ /i/ and /ɪ/ ended up in the vowel table (again, check the history, not my doing). Akerbeltz ( talk) 19:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This article states é and ó are still used for /e:/ and /o:/, and è and ò are for the open-mid versions. However, as per here on Wiktionary's Tea Room, it would seem the acute accent has been done away with. MGorrone ( talk) 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I feel that much of this article is promoting the work of a particular author from the Akerbeltz website, for example "a near-exhaustive list". I have checked this website and it is very detailed but, 'near-exhaustive' seems like self-promotion, especially given that the website has very little information about variations in phonology, is there any chance that we could add some other links and references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.240.51 ( talk) 10:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)