You might want to check the history of this user, who seems to have continued to edit IPA transcriptions despite your warning. Nardog ( talk) 03:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, some of your changes in Persian pronunciation in IPA is wrong. The page Help:IPA/Persian is incomplete and does not cover aspiration and palatalization in Persian. Z 20:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't appreciate you going around changing the transcriptions of North American English when your proposal at Talk:General American#Vowels (again) has not been implemented and so far garnered no support. As you said yourself, the proposal was too long and many of us probably haven't mustered the energy to address your points. I suggest you make a summary of the specific changes you want to make and succinctly describe the reasons behind them, and refrain from changing transcriptions in other articles until the changes you propose are reflected at the article about the reference accent itself. Nardog ( talk) 18:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mr Kebab,
Were you ever able to check your sources per Talk:Colognian dialect? While I doubt any IPA transcription will be able to cover all varieties, if we transcribed tone according to a fairly representative accent we could direct readers to the details from the key. — kwami ( talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Want to be clear before I mess things up! @ LiliCharlie:
At Help:IPA/Colognian, T1 (marked tone) is indicated by full length or no length, while T2 (unmarked tone) is indicated by a half-length mark. In the actual articles these may be indicated instead by superscript 1 and 2.
If I remove the half-length sign from T2, then all long vowels are T1, and T1/T2 distinction only occurs in short vowels and diphthongs. Is that correct?
If they should be long, then all short vowels take the marked tone, T1. That doesn't sound right either. Or is it that the T2 short vowels are all reduced?
Or should the T1 circumflex only be added to long vowels and to diphthongs, and T2 vowels all be marked long, leaving all short vowels unmarked?
I'm changing the key to reflect the first of these. — kwami ( talk) 21:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
'Opa' is given as an ex. of T1 on /a/ even though it isn't stressed. Similarly 'Kannapee' on /ee/. 'Poe-a-poe'. 'Idee' on unstressed /i/.
Should any of the monosyllables not be marked for stress? Currently some are and some aren't.
Plus we have /ɧ/ which, while not actually impossible, is so implausible it's not thought to actually exist in any language. (Certainly not in Swedish, which is what it's for.)
And it seems that an inordinate number of the consonant examples have T1, given that T1 is the marked tone, because of all the short vowels. Leaving short vowels unmarked would take care of this. Is this due to a misanalysis by someone who thought T2 was the marked tone? — kwami ( talk) 21:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Much clearer. I think we should remove the duplicate vowels, then, and have tone and stress together. Examples for the vowels could be either T1 or T2, perhaps best to have one of each. — kwami ( talk) 05:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Our phonology article claims ʃ and ɧ are distinct phonemes. Perhaps you could review?
/aːʊ/ only occurs with Stoßton? — kwami ( talk)
I'm confused by the 'long' vowels in accent 2. Some are transcribed with the T2 mark after the following sonorant, some before. Does that mean anything? E.g. äänz, Nähl (though those are written long in orthography), but also ömjonn, with no T2 mark at all, and Bunn /bʊnˑ/, where /ʊ/ does not occur long. And do zaubere, Kakau go with the long diphthong of Strauß or the short one of Zauß? — kwami ( talk)
Hi Kbb2, I've also been wondering what you consider the difference between "R-colored vowels" and "vowels followed by R". Have you written more about this anywhere? Genuinely interested. Thanks! Wolfdog ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Ha, you're following me, huh? Wolfdog ( talk) 13:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this change at B.T.. I know nothing about IPA phonetic alphabets, but I do speak Danish. After looking at Help:IPA/Danish, I refuse to believe ˈpeːˀ is the correct consonant sound for the first letter of "B.T." Since I have no authoritative reason to change it back to beːˀ I am only here to ask you to reevaluate your change. Your link for the reason was about vowels, so it was not much help. Thanks, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 14:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed a similar change at Berlingske. In my layman's experience a Danish B is very similar to an English B and nowhere near a P. If these changes are indeed correct, I think Help:IPA/Danish needs to be updated because the the examples make no sense to me. Cheers, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 14:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, is this correct? Thanks! Dr. Vogel ( talk) 15:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kbb2! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
The notification wasn't sent the first time round because
Wolfdog used the wrong template.
A notification is sent only when a user page is linked preceding a signature in an edit that adds new lines. So simply replacing it with the right template or updating the signature after the comment has already been made doesn't get them notified (linking to a user's page in the edit summary, however, notifies them, regardless of the content of the edit). It's not about {{
u}} vs. {{
ping}}; in fact just [[User:...]]
does the job (rather the templates are shorthand for this), as I'm doing right now.
Tangentially, can you stop inserting empty lines between indented paragraphs, which is discouraged by WP:LISTGAP?
Compare
:A :B
which produces
<dl>
<dd>A</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>B</dd>
</dl>
and
:A :B
which produces
<dl>
<dd>A</dd>
<dd>B</dd>
</dl>
Nardog ( talk) 21:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, Kbb2, if you're not getting my pings/replies/proddings at Talk:English in New Mexico, please take a peek there. Thanks! Wolfdog ( talk) 01:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Based on your belief that it's better to analyze /ɒr/ as a really the two distinct phonemes /ɒ/ + /r/ or that /ɔːr/ is really /ɔː/ + /r/ (I'm here using WP's diaphonemic system, which I sense you have issues with anyway), I'm interested in knowing if you prefer to represent a word like moral as {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɒ|r|ə|l}} or as {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɒr|ə|l}}, the latter I believe being what the WP community has agreed upon. Again, I'm just interested in your thoughts here. 67.85.168.233 ( talk) 21:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Womtelo ( talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I read your revert of my edit where I stated that the neutralization of /ʎ–l/ is towards /ʎ/.
[0] I saw the reference of authors Hanulíková and Hamann you pointed at, and I agree that the referenced text seems to support your revert of my edit.
[1] My edit was done on the basis of e.g. Jozef Mistrík, Basic Slovak, Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladeľstvo, Bratislava, 1985, p 16, where he writes: In writing i, í or e following after d, l, n, t usually mark the soft form of the consonants. This would imply that (in or around 1985) a soft l would be pronounced before i, í or e.
[2] This seems to be supported by what I read on https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlov%C3%A1k_kiejt%C3%A9s, where they state: Az i/y és í/ý betűpárok kiejtése egyforma, rendre [i̞] és [i̞ː], azonban az i, í betűk meglágyítják az előttük álló d, l, n, t betűket, így kiejtésük [ɟ], [ʎ], [ɲ], [c] lesz, addig az y, ý nem., i.e. The i / y and í / ý pairs have the same pronunciation, [i̞] and [i̞ː] respectively, but the letters i, í soften the letters d, l, n, t in front of them, so their pronunciation is [ɟ], [ʎ], [ɲ], [c], while y, ý do not. The same Hungarian article even gives the pronunciation of zelené stromy as [ˈzɛʎɛnɛː ˈstrɔmi̞], clearly indicating that l in front of e has a soft (and palatal) pronunciation.
[3] My edit also seems to be supported by what I read in T. Alan Hall, The Phonology of Coronals, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1997, p 55 [refer to https://books.google.nl/books?id=KTg6pKMobSYC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=palatalization+slovak+%22front+vowels%22&source=bl&ots=XaAil7cdQt&sig=ACfU3U0IHhJXxEJnIGBmX8WC4b1prP8wrw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5uP7t5bLkAhUFb1AKHZdICmUQ6AEwDnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=palatalization%20slovak%20%22front%20vowels%22&f=false], notably: In Slovak /t, d, n, l/ become /c, ɟ, ɲ, ʎ/ respectively by a rule of coronal palatalization before front vowels (Rubach 1993, 37, 111-117).
[4, 5, 6] More support for my edit can be found in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowakische_Sprache#Aussprache, in https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA (for Central Slovak) and in https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaque#Consonnes.
But ... could it be the case that not so much the softening is disputed (by you) but rather the palatal nature of l before i, í or e? The meaning of the word soft(ened) might be conceived as different from the meaning of the word palatal(ized).
In other words: can we find agreement that before i, í or e we have /lʲ/ or some other softened / palatalized form of /l/ most of the time; my sources [1] and [2] indicate that in (certain) loans, like telefon, l before e is still pronounced /l/.
I am wondering how we may understand what Hanulíková and Hamann write in [0]: The contrast between these two laterals is neutralized towards the velarized alveolar before front vowels; in Western Slovak dialects this neutralization occurs before all vowels (Rendár 2006). One, maybe far-fetched, cause might be that with neutralized towards the velarized alveolar they actually intended to say that the neutralization is directed towards, and hence affects, the velarized alveolar, making it disappear. Redav ( talk) 20:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
After listening to several (YouTube) recordings of language spoken by people (claiming, as well as convincing me, to be) speaking Slovak, I have to admit that I can hear various realizations of ‹l› in front of ‹i›, ‹í› or ‹e›, not all of them sounding softened, palatalized or palatal at all to me.
I cannot make out whether this concerns a diachronic change or synchronic variation among geographic regions, among registers, or among individuals. Or a combination of all of the above. Can you, Kbb2, or anyone else, shed more light on this? Thanks! Redav ( talk) 00:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Can I ask what you meant in this and this? We are not currently positing such a thing as "schwi" in our IPA for English. Wouldn't both mil-AY and mih-LAY be construed as /məˈleɪ/ for those with the weak vowel merger and as /mɪˈleɪ/ for those without it? Nardog ( talk) 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
On a different note, I think you've been overapplying ih for syllable-final /ɪ/. What Help:Pronunciation respelling key#cite_note-5 is instructing is to use it when i can be interpreted as /aɪ/, as in hi and bi. I don't find ih superior in other contexts because it is susceptible to being interpreted as FLEECE/happY. Nardog ( talk) 19:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious about why you reverted my edit on Pho. I'm aware that Canadian English has the caught-cot merger, and that /ɒ/ is a checked vowel, but /fɒ/ is what the source says. I looked in Help:IPA/English and Help:IPA/Conventions_for_English but they doesn't mention anything about transcribing checked vowels. W.andrea ( talk) 02:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I added the secondary stress as we normally do for words of three or more syllables when they have tone 2, modeled on words like
Mälaren. I apologize if the transcription should rather be [²bleːkɪŋˌɛ]. ∼
@ IvanScrooge98: Ok, that's good.
Now, the revert function isn't the reply function. Who would read [ɪɛ] or especially [iːɛ] (or [iːa], same thing as far as what we're discussing is concerned) as anything other than a sequence of two vowels? The fact that Swedish doesn't have phonemic diphthongs (and therefore no diphthongs should be expected in IPA transcriptions of Swedish) is something you're taught in the very beginning stages of learning Swedish pronunciation. We should excercise some common sense.
Back to Konstantin and Ustinovich (actually, only the latter) - Russian Wiktionary confirms that Ustinovich features a soft [sʲ], rather than a hard [s]. So that's another false alarm. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
it is highly likely that a native speaker of English will reinterepret the Daniel- part based on their pronunciation of the nametells me that you need to learn more about English pronunciation and how it's transcribed into IPA. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 08:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@ IvanScrooge98: I meant this in the most neutral manner possible. I'm sorry if that wasn't how you interpreted it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 17:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Given that the disyllabic pronunciation of ie in Daniel contrasts with the monosyllabic pronunciation in Mietois, marking the syllable break is probably not such a bad idea, even if we mark the non-syllabic e in Mietois. Also, both Norstedts svenska uttalslexikon (1997), which is the main Swedish pronunciation dictionary, and Svenska ortnamn : uttal och stavning (1991), which is the main pronunciation dictionary for the place names of Sweden, consider Standard Sweden Swedish to have diphthongs, so I see no reason why ‘no diphthongs should be expected in IPA transcriptions of Swedish’. Standard Finland Swedish has even more diphthongs, which is yet another argument for transcribing both standard forms of Swedish, cf. my comment at Talk:Kimito#Swedish pronunciation. Ardalazzagal ( talk) 15:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, could you please further explain your reasoning behind changing this back? I'm the author of the original edit (92.19.16.128 at the time).
I agree that the /ɒ/ isn't unique to British English. That was an oversimplification. But I don't understand why it's correct to re-route this vowel to another related vowel, when it already has its own page.
If it's really pronounced /ɔ/, why not change the visible vowel to /ɔ/? And if it's pronounced /ɒ/ in RP, why is it being redirected to a different vowel's page?
I don't speak with an RP accent, but I do speak with a related one (A generic blending of educated accents from the North-West of England), and I do pronounce this vowel as /ɒ/ for the examples given.
-- Medavox ( talk) 12:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It is true, the pronunciation that you deleted is neither English nor Chichewa. English speakers probably wouldn't use the open vowel [ɛ] and Chichewa speakers would probably end the word with [a] rather than [ə], so it's neither one thing nor the other. So what do you suggest? I see that you haven't deleted the pronunciation of Nyanja, even though it is also unsourced. Kanjuzi ( talk) 05:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Are you aware of any RS's for the number of Chakavian-speakers? I have an outside source asking me, that in the future we might use as a RS for our article. — kwami ( talk) 22:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand what you're doing there, and yes it is not phonologically a short vowel, but "short o" is the most common and recognizable term for the LOT vowel, especially in a North American context. It's both recognizable to nonspecialists and used by specialists: for instance, the Atlas of North American English uses the term "short-o" to name this phonemic class (pps. 13, 58, and passim). Meanwhile, what the term " broad a" specifically refers to is the system in which words such as class, bath, and dance have a lengthened low vowel like that of father; using the term "broad a" to refer to the father vowel in dialects that don't actually have a broad-a system is confusing or misleading. AJD ( talk) 19:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I echo AJD above and Wolfdog here, in that North American speakers indeed often identify the vowel linguists usually transcribe as /ɑ/ as the LOT vowel, rather than PALM. I think this has to do with the fact NAE is largely rhotic; to rhotic speakers pre-R vowels are often felt like distinct units, and /æ/ doesn't occur in open syllables, so before a non-/r/ consonant is the only environment where a "pure" /ɑ/ can occur and contrast with /æ/. And given NAE's lack of the TRAP–BATH split, save for father, pretty much all daily/native-vocabulary words with /ɑ/ in such environments are LOT words. So it is rather natural for them to associate the vowel more strongly with LOT words. (This may be further reinforced by the marry-merry merger, which can lead to START feeling more like /æ/ + /r/ or at least somewhere in between.)
Here, even linguists are characterizing their own having LOT/THOUGHT/PALM merged as lacking THOUGHT, rather than lacking both LOT and THOUGHT. Another example of such a tendency on the part of North Americans is Webster's Third, which, instead of using a symbol other than \ä\ to mark LOT that differed from PALM, used \ȧ\ to mark PALM that differed from LOT, thus defining \ä\ as prototypically representing LOT. Nardog ( talk) 02:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, what is the state of the changes you proposed at Help talk:IPA/Norwegian? And do you have an opinion on how /r/+dental combinations should be transcribed? I particularly dislike the way the key currently has both ⟨r⟩ and ⟨ʁ⟩. If the consensus to stick to UEN like it says in the introduction, we can eliminate ⟨ʁ⟩ in favor of ⟨ʈ, ɖ, ɳ, ʂ, ɭ⟩ and ⟨r⟩ (or ⟨ɾ⟩, for that matter). I'm behind using the IPA diacritics for tonemes, so I'm wondering if we can set the record straight about the rhotic while we're at it. Nardog ( talk) 18:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
so perhaps it's better to write [bœ̀nːəɾ, bœ̂nːəɾ, fɑst] in the case of UEN in order to achieve harmony between transcriptions of the two languages
– You mean [ˈbœ̀nːəɾ, ˈbœ̂nːəɾ, ˈfɑst]?
Nardog (
talk) 12:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, i don't understand. Your edit summary says "both are fricative trills, not trills" but the result of your revert is the opposite, away from my suggestion Voiced_dental,_alveolar_and_postalveolar_trills#Voiced_alveolar_fricative_trill back to Alveolar trill#Raised alveolar non-sonorant trill, which in addition redirects to the former, which is very confusing for almost all users, and not only because raised alveolar non-sonorant trill is not explained or even mentioned on that page or in the original article. -- Espoo ( talk) 23:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
How about we just leave the velar /x/ symbol there, for the sake of simplicity. It helps readers understand the phonological inventory, and makes more sense. The sources I gave you, list it as velar, and it is velar, so you cannot make the rules here. If you continue to do so, I will report you to admins to block your account. Fdom5997 ( talk) 07:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Are you done moving content from Voiced uvular trill to Voiced uvular fricative? If so, please finish it.
Also, can you explain this edit at Afrikaans phonology? Are you saying the trill variant of /x/ must be a fricative trill rather than a plain one because it is in Dutch? If so, that sounds like OR (or SYNTH at best) to me. Nardog ( talk) 07:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Can we make a table somewhere along the lines of either
Phone | Environment | Phoneme | Morphophoneme | Example |
---|
or
Phoneme | Environment | Phone | Morphophoneme | Example |
---|
? As Aeusoes1 suggested, we seriously could use example words as our guidance à la Wells's lexical set. Can the words listed on Grønnum (2005: 420–1) serve this purpose? Nardog ( talk) 03:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is my half-hearted attempt. It's beyond my grasp, fill in the rest if you're so inclined. Nardog ( talk) 04:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, SDU says (108): "ö· findes kun i høne, øh, bøh og efter r samt sporadik i fremmedord (meuse). Hos ældre også foran r, ɔ". Nardog ( talk) 12:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see the talk pages at Standard Canadian English and at Template:English -or- table. Thank you. Wolfdog ( talk) 14:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this [5] looks a good source to extract info from. – Austronesier ( talk) 11:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Not pressing you but in case ping didn't work, I would like your input at Help talk:IPA/Afrikaans#Recent changes. Thanks. Nardog ( talk) 15:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Just so you know: despite the one sound file you've found, Cambodia is quite rarely pronounced [kæmˈbö̞djə], at least as a GenAm pronunciation (some of the parts of this I think you've misheard). The more typical GenAm pronunciation is in the vicinity of [kʰɛəmˈbö̞.ɾi.ə] or [kʰɛəmˈboʊ.ɾi.ə]. I agree with your transcription of the first syllable (with the unusual [æ], which suggests Mid-Atlantic States, New York City, or Trans-Atlantic pronunciation), though the rest of the transcription is certainly up to debate, possibly better aligning to the GenAm notation I just provided. I'd argue, in this particular sound file, there is a definite (in fact, a required) flap and four syllables. Wolfdog ( talk) 00:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I perceive /d/ in File:En-us-Cambodia.ogg to be an obstruent. To my knowledge [ɾ] can precede /iə/, though.
FWIW, /o/ in all of the word samples you mentioned at WT:LING sound more or less diphthongal to me, except the second /o/ in Oklahoma. Nardog ( talk) 18:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I assume what you put on your user page today was inspired by mine. If so, can you put a little note on where you got the idea? Just a tiny note would be fine. Not that I want credit or anything (you have no such obligation), but I don't want the page to give the impression that I'm somehow endorsing or associated with it. Nardog ( talk) 18:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this is your user page, so you can fill it with whatever content you find suitable, of course. However there are a few things in your "ficticious pronunciation dictionary of German" that I fail to understand:
Love — LiliCharlie ( talk) 12:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm stalking this too, and find it very interesting. Just a small observation:
I don't produce rhymes in Bier/wirr, mehr/Herr, Tür/dürr, spazieren/verwirren. – Austronesier ( talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I've moved the dictionary to User:Kbb2/Sandbox if you still want to view the changes in real time. I'd rather have a short edit history of my user page. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 11:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
You might want to check the history of this user, who seems to have continued to edit IPA transcriptions despite your warning. Nardog ( talk) 03:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, some of your changes in Persian pronunciation in IPA is wrong. The page Help:IPA/Persian is incomplete and does not cover aspiration and palatalization in Persian. Z 20:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't appreciate you going around changing the transcriptions of North American English when your proposal at Talk:General American#Vowels (again) has not been implemented and so far garnered no support. As you said yourself, the proposal was too long and many of us probably haven't mustered the energy to address your points. I suggest you make a summary of the specific changes you want to make and succinctly describe the reasons behind them, and refrain from changing transcriptions in other articles until the changes you propose are reflected at the article about the reference accent itself. Nardog ( talk) 18:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mr Kebab,
Were you ever able to check your sources per Talk:Colognian dialect? While I doubt any IPA transcription will be able to cover all varieties, if we transcribed tone according to a fairly representative accent we could direct readers to the details from the key. — kwami ( talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Want to be clear before I mess things up! @ LiliCharlie:
At Help:IPA/Colognian, T1 (marked tone) is indicated by full length or no length, while T2 (unmarked tone) is indicated by a half-length mark. In the actual articles these may be indicated instead by superscript 1 and 2.
If I remove the half-length sign from T2, then all long vowels are T1, and T1/T2 distinction only occurs in short vowels and diphthongs. Is that correct?
If they should be long, then all short vowels take the marked tone, T1. That doesn't sound right either. Or is it that the T2 short vowels are all reduced?
Or should the T1 circumflex only be added to long vowels and to diphthongs, and T2 vowels all be marked long, leaving all short vowels unmarked?
I'm changing the key to reflect the first of these. — kwami ( talk) 21:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
'Opa' is given as an ex. of T1 on /a/ even though it isn't stressed. Similarly 'Kannapee' on /ee/. 'Poe-a-poe'. 'Idee' on unstressed /i/.
Should any of the monosyllables not be marked for stress? Currently some are and some aren't.
Plus we have /ɧ/ which, while not actually impossible, is so implausible it's not thought to actually exist in any language. (Certainly not in Swedish, which is what it's for.)
And it seems that an inordinate number of the consonant examples have T1, given that T1 is the marked tone, because of all the short vowels. Leaving short vowels unmarked would take care of this. Is this due to a misanalysis by someone who thought T2 was the marked tone? — kwami ( talk) 21:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Much clearer. I think we should remove the duplicate vowels, then, and have tone and stress together. Examples for the vowels could be either T1 or T2, perhaps best to have one of each. — kwami ( talk) 05:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Our phonology article claims ʃ and ɧ are distinct phonemes. Perhaps you could review?
/aːʊ/ only occurs with Stoßton? — kwami ( talk)
I'm confused by the 'long' vowels in accent 2. Some are transcribed with the T2 mark after the following sonorant, some before. Does that mean anything? E.g. äänz, Nähl (though those are written long in orthography), but also ömjonn, with no T2 mark at all, and Bunn /bʊnˑ/, where /ʊ/ does not occur long. And do zaubere, Kakau go with the long diphthong of Strauß or the short one of Zauß? — kwami ( talk)
Hi Kbb2, I've also been wondering what you consider the difference between "R-colored vowels" and "vowels followed by R". Have you written more about this anywhere? Genuinely interested. Thanks! Wolfdog ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Ha, you're following me, huh? Wolfdog ( talk) 13:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this change at B.T.. I know nothing about IPA phonetic alphabets, but I do speak Danish. After looking at Help:IPA/Danish, I refuse to believe ˈpeːˀ is the correct consonant sound for the first letter of "B.T." Since I have no authoritative reason to change it back to beːˀ I am only here to ask you to reevaluate your change. Your link for the reason was about vowels, so it was not much help. Thanks, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 14:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed a similar change at Berlingske. In my layman's experience a Danish B is very similar to an English B and nowhere near a P. If these changes are indeed correct, I think Help:IPA/Danish needs to be updated because the the examples make no sense to me. Cheers, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 14:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, is this correct? Thanks! Dr. Vogel ( talk) 15:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kbb2! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
The notification wasn't sent the first time round because
Wolfdog used the wrong template.
A notification is sent only when a user page is linked preceding a signature in an edit that adds new lines. So simply replacing it with the right template or updating the signature after the comment has already been made doesn't get them notified (linking to a user's page in the edit summary, however, notifies them, regardless of the content of the edit). It's not about {{
u}} vs. {{
ping}}; in fact just [[User:...]]
does the job (rather the templates are shorthand for this), as I'm doing right now.
Tangentially, can you stop inserting empty lines between indented paragraphs, which is discouraged by WP:LISTGAP?
Compare
:A :B
which produces
<dl>
<dd>A</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>B</dd>
</dl>
and
:A :B
which produces
<dl>
<dd>A</dd>
<dd>B</dd>
</dl>
Nardog ( talk) 21:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, Kbb2, if you're not getting my pings/replies/proddings at Talk:English in New Mexico, please take a peek there. Thanks! Wolfdog ( talk) 01:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Based on your belief that it's better to analyze /ɒr/ as a really the two distinct phonemes /ɒ/ + /r/ or that /ɔːr/ is really /ɔː/ + /r/ (I'm here using WP's diaphonemic system, which I sense you have issues with anyway), I'm interested in knowing if you prefer to represent a word like moral as {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɒ|r|ə|l}} or as {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɒr|ə|l}}, the latter I believe being what the WP community has agreed upon. Again, I'm just interested in your thoughts here. 67.85.168.233 ( talk) 21:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Womtelo ( talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I read your revert of my edit where I stated that the neutralization of /ʎ–l/ is towards /ʎ/.
[0] I saw the reference of authors Hanulíková and Hamann you pointed at, and I agree that the referenced text seems to support your revert of my edit.
[1] My edit was done on the basis of e.g. Jozef Mistrík, Basic Slovak, Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladeľstvo, Bratislava, 1985, p 16, where he writes: In writing i, í or e following after d, l, n, t usually mark the soft form of the consonants. This would imply that (in or around 1985) a soft l would be pronounced before i, í or e.
[2] This seems to be supported by what I read on https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlov%C3%A1k_kiejt%C3%A9s, where they state: Az i/y és í/ý betűpárok kiejtése egyforma, rendre [i̞] és [i̞ː], azonban az i, í betűk meglágyítják az előttük álló d, l, n, t betűket, így kiejtésük [ɟ], [ʎ], [ɲ], [c] lesz, addig az y, ý nem., i.e. The i / y and í / ý pairs have the same pronunciation, [i̞] and [i̞ː] respectively, but the letters i, í soften the letters d, l, n, t in front of them, so their pronunciation is [ɟ], [ʎ], [ɲ], [c], while y, ý do not. The same Hungarian article even gives the pronunciation of zelené stromy as [ˈzɛʎɛnɛː ˈstrɔmi̞], clearly indicating that l in front of e has a soft (and palatal) pronunciation.
[3] My edit also seems to be supported by what I read in T. Alan Hall, The Phonology of Coronals, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1997, p 55 [refer to https://books.google.nl/books?id=KTg6pKMobSYC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=palatalization+slovak+%22front+vowels%22&source=bl&ots=XaAil7cdQt&sig=ACfU3U0IHhJXxEJnIGBmX8WC4b1prP8wrw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5uP7t5bLkAhUFb1AKHZdICmUQ6AEwDnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=palatalization%20slovak%20%22front%20vowels%22&f=false], notably: In Slovak /t, d, n, l/ become /c, ɟ, ɲ, ʎ/ respectively by a rule of coronal palatalization before front vowels (Rubach 1993, 37, 111-117).
[4, 5, 6] More support for my edit can be found in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slowakische_Sprache#Aussprache, in https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA (for Central Slovak) and in https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaque#Consonnes.
But ... could it be the case that not so much the softening is disputed (by you) but rather the palatal nature of l before i, í or e? The meaning of the word soft(ened) might be conceived as different from the meaning of the word palatal(ized).
In other words: can we find agreement that before i, í or e we have /lʲ/ or some other softened / palatalized form of /l/ most of the time; my sources [1] and [2] indicate that in (certain) loans, like telefon, l before e is still pronounced /l/.
I am wondering how we may understand what Hanulíková and Hamann write in [0]: The contrast between these two laterals is neutralized towards the velarized alveolar before front vowels; in Western Slovak dialects this neutralization occurs before all vowels (Rendár 2006). One, maybe far-fetched, cause might be that with neutralized towards the velarized alveolar they actually intended to say that the neutralization is directed towards, and hence affects, the velarized alveolar, making it disappear. Redav ( talk) 20:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
After listening to several (YouTube) recordings of language spoken by people (claiming, as well as convincing me, to be) speaking Slovak, I have to admit that I can hear various realizations of ‹l› in front of ‹i›, ‹í› or ‹e›, not all of them sounding softened, palatalized or palatal at all to me.
I cannot make out whether this concerns a diachronic change or synchronic variation among geographic regions, among registers, or among individuals. Or a combination of all of the above. Can you, Kbb2, or anyone else, shed more light on this? Thanks! Redav ( talk) 00:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Can I ask what you meant in this and this? We are not currently positing such a thing as "schwi" in our IPA for English. Wouldn't both mil-AY and mih-LAY be construed as /məˈleɪ/ for those with the weak vowel merger and as /mɪˈleɪ/ for those without it? Nardog ( talk) 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
On a different note, I think you've been overapplying ih for syllable-final /ɪ/. What Help:Pronunciation respelling key#cite_note-5 is instructing is to use it when i can be interpreted as /aɪ/, as in hi and bi. I don't find ih superior in other contexts because it is susceptible to being interpreted as FLEECE/happY. Nardog ( talk) 19:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious about why you reverted my edit on Pho. I'm aware that Canadian English has the caught-cot merger, and that /ɒ/ is a checked vowel, but /fɒ/ is what the source says. I looked in Help:IPA/English and Help:IPA/Conventions_for_English but they doesn't mention anything about transcribing checked vowels. W.andrea ( talk) 02:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I added the secondary stress as we normally do for words of three or more syllables when they have tone 2, modeled on words like
Mälaren. I apologize if the transcription should rather be [²bleːkɪŋˌɛ]. ∼
@ IvanScrooge98: Ok, that's good.
Now, the revert function isn't the reply function. Who would read [ɪɛ] or especially [iːɛ] (or [iːa], same thing as far as what we're discussing is concerned) as anything other than a sequence of two vowels? The fact that Swedish doesn't have phonemic diphthongs (and therefore no diphthongs should be expected in IPA transcriptions of Swedish) is something you're taught in the very beginning stages of learning Swedish pronunciation. We should excercise some common sense.
Back to Konstantin and Ustinovich (actually, only the latter) - Russian Wiktionary confirms that Ustinovich features a soft [sʲ], rather than a hard [s]. So that's another false alarm. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
it is highly likely that a native speaker of English will reinterepret the Daniel- part based on their pronunciation of the nametells me that you need to learn more about English pronunciation and how it's transcribed into IPA. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 08:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@ IvanScrooge98: I meant this in the most neutral manner possible. I'm sorry if that wasn't how you interpreted it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 17:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Given that the disyllabic pronunciation of ie in Daniel contrasts with the monosyllabic pronunciation in Mietois, marking the syllable break is probably not such a bad idea, even if we mark the non-syllabic e in Mietois. Also, both Norstedts svenska uttalslexikon (1997), which is the main Swedish pronunciation dictionary, and Svenska ortnamn : uttal och stavning (1991), which is the main pronunciation dictionary for the place names of Sweden, consider Standard Sweden Swedish to have diphthongs, so I see no reason why ‘no diphthongs should be expected in IPA transcriptions of Swedish’. Standard Finland Swedish has even more diphthongs, which is yet another argument for transcribing both standard forms of Swedish, cf. my comment at Talk:Kimito#Swedish pronunciation. Ardalazzagal ( talk) 15:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, could you please further explain your reasoning behind changing this back? I'm the author of the original edit (92.19.16.128 at the time).
I agree that the /ɒ/ isn't unique to British English. That was an oversimplification. But I don't understand why it's correct to re-route this vowel to another related vowel, when it already has its own page.
If it's really pronounced /ɔ/, why not change the visible vowel to /ɔ/? And if it's pronounced /ɒ/ in RP, why is it being redirected to a different vowel's page?
I don't speak with an RP accent, but I do speak with a related one (A generic blending of educated accents from the North-West of England), and I do pronounce this vowel as /ɒ/ for the examples given.
-- Medavox ( talk) 12:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It is true, the pronunciation that you deleted is neither English nor Chichewa. English speakers probably wouldn't use the open vowel [ɛ] and Chichewa speakers would probably end the word with [a] rather than [ə], so it's neither one thing nor the other. So what do you suggest? I see that you haven't deleted the pronunciation of Nyanja, even though it is also unsourced. Kanjuzi ( talk) 05:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Are you aware of any RS's for the number of Chakavian-speakers? I have an outside source asking me, that in the future we might use as a RS for our article. — kwami ( talk) 22:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand what you're doing there, and yes it is not phonologically a short vowel, but "short o" is the most common and recognizable term for the LOT vowel, especially in a North American context. It's both recognizable to nonspecialists and used by specialists: for instance, the Atlas of North American English uses the term "short-o" to name this phonemic class (pps. 13, 58, and passim). Meanwhile, what the term " broad a" specifically refers to is the system in which words such as class, bath, and dance have a lengthened low vowel like that of father; using the term "broad a" to refer to the father vowel in dialects that don't actually have a broad-a system is confusing or misleading. AJD ( talk) 19:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I echo AJD above and Wolfdog here, in that North American speakers indeed often identify the vowel linguists usually transcribe as /ɑ/ as the LOT vowel, rather than PALM. I think this has to do with the fact NAE is largely rhotic; to rhotic speakers pre-R vowels are often felt like distinct units, and /æ/ doesn't occur in open syllables, so before a non-/r/ consonant is the only environment where a "pure" /ɑ/ can occur and contrast with /æ/. And given NAE's lack of the TRAP–BATH split, save for father, pretty much all daily/native-vocabulary words with /ɑ/ in such environments are LOT words. So it is rather natural for them to associate the vowel more strongly with LOT words. (This may be further reinforced by the marry-merry merger, which can lead to START feeling more like /æ/ + /r/ or at least somewhere in between.)
Here, even linguists are characterizing their own having LOT/THOUGHT/PALM merged as lacking THOUGHT, rather than lacking both LOT and THOUGHT. Another example of such a tendency on the part of North Americans is Webster's Third, which, instead of using a symbol other than \ä\ to mark LOT that differed from PALM, used \ȧ\ to mark PALM that differed from LOT, thus defining \ä\ as prototypically representing LOT. Nardog ( talk) 02:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, what is the state of the changes you proposed at Help talk:IPA/Norwegian? And do you have an opinion on how /r/+dental combinations should be transcribed? I particularly dislike the way the key currently has both ⟨r⟩ and ⟨ʁ⟩. If the consensus to stick to UEN like it says in the introduction, we can eliminate ⟨ʁ⟩ in favor of ⟨ʈ, ɖ, ɳ, ʂ, ɭ⟩ and ⟨r⟩ (or ⟨ɾ⟩, for that matter). I'm behind using the IPA diacritics for tonemes, so I'm wondering if we can set the record straight about the rhotic while we're at it. Nardog ( talk) 18:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
so perhaps it's better to write [bœ̀nːəɾ, bœ̂nːəɾ, fɑst] in the case of UEN in order to achieve harmony between transcriptions of the two languages
– You mean [ˈbœ̀nːəɾ, ˈbœ̂nːəɾ, ˈfɑst]?
Nardog (
talk) 12:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, i don't understand. Your edit summary says "both are fricative trills, not trills" but the result of your revert is the opposite, away from my suggestion Voiced_dental,_alveolar_and_postalveolar_trills#Voiced_alveolar_fricative_trill back to Alveolar trill#Raised alveolar non-sonorant trill, which in addition redirects to the former, which is very confusing for almost all users, and not only because raised alveolar non-sonorant trill is not explained or even mentioned on that page or in the original article. -- Espoo ( talk) 23:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
How about we just leave the velar /x/ symbol there, for the sake of simplicity. It helps readers understand the phonological inventory, and makes more sense. The sources I gave you, list it as velar, and it is velar, so you cannot make the rules here. If you continue to do so, I will report you to admins to block your account. Fdom5997 ( talk) 07:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Are you done moving content from Voiced uvular trill to Voiced uvular fricative? If so, please finish it.
Also, can you explain this edit at Afrikaans phonology? Are you saying the trill variant of /x/ must be a fricative trill rather than a plain one because it is in Dutch? If so, that sounds like OR (or SYNTH at best) to me. Nardog ( talk) 07:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Can we make a table somewhere along the lines of either
Phone | Environment | Phoneme | Morphophoneme | Example |
---|
or
Phoneme | Environment | Phone | Morphophoneme | Example |
---|
? As Aeusoes1 suggested, we seriously could use example words as our guidance à la Wells's lexical set. Can the words listed on Grønnum (2005: 420–1) serve this purpose? Nardog ( talk) 03:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is my half-hearted attempt. It's beyond my grasp, fill in the rest if you're so inclined. Nardog ( talk) 04:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, SDU says (108): "ö· findes kun i høne, øh, bøh og efter r samt sporadik i fremmedord (meuse). Hos ældre også foran r, ɔ". Nardog ( talk) 12:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see the talk pages at Standard Canadian English and at Template:English -or- table. Thank you. Wolfdog ( talk) 14:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this [5] looks a good source to extract info from. – Austronesier ( talk) 11:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Not pressing you but in case ping didn't work, I would like your input at Help talk:IPA/Afrikaans#Recent changes. Thanks. Nardog ( talk) 15:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Just so you know: despite the one sound file you've found, Cambodia is quite rarely pronounced [kæmˈbö̞djə], at least as a GenAm pronunciation (some of the parts of this I think you've misheard). The more typical GenAm pronunciation is in the vicinity of [kʰɛəmˈbö̞.ɾi.ə] or [kʰɛəmˈboʊ.ɾi.ə]. I agree with your transcription of the first syllable (with the unusual [æ], which suggests Mid-Atlantic States, New York City, or Trans-Atlantic pronunciation), though the rest of the transcription is certainly up to debate, possibly better aligning to the GenAm notation I just provided. I'd argue, in this particular sound file, there is a definite (in fact, a required) flap and four syllables. Wolfdog ( talk) 00:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I perceive /d/ in File:En-us-Cambodia.ogg to be an obstruent. To my knowledge [ɾ] can precede /iə/, though.
FWIW, /o/ in all of the word samples you mentioned at WT:LING sound more or less diphthongal to me, except the second /o/ in Oklahoma. Nardog ( talk) 18:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I assume what you put on your user page today was inspired by mine. If so, can you put a little note on where you got the idea? Just a tiny note would be fine. Not that I want credit or anything (you have no such obligation), but I don't want the page to give the impression that I'm somehow endorsing or associated with it. Nardog ( talk) 18:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this is your user page, so you can fill it with whatever content you find suitable, of course. However there are a few things in your "ficticious pronunciation dictionary of German" that I fail to understand:
Love — LiliCharlie ( talk) 12:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm stalking this too, and find it very interesting. Just a small observation:
I don't produce rhymes in Bier/wirr, mehr/Herr, Tür/dürr, spazieren/verwirren. – Austronesier ( talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I've moved the dictionary to User:Kbb2/Sandbox if you still want to view the changes in real time. I'd rather have a short edit history of my user page. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 11:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)