This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Hey everyone. There was a recent discussion about a different group of language templates (the xx-icon family of templates) that had the same design approach as these - a template for each language. That discussion resulted in changing the design to one template that accepts as a parameter the language (see
Template:In lang) - so in this example, instead of a template like {{
IPA-ja}}
it would be {{IPA|ja}}
. For editors, the change is very minimal as instead of a hyphen they use a vertical bar (so exactly the same amount of characters), but the behind the scenes can now be maintained much more reasonably. Now if you want to apply a change to all templates, you need to update each individual template (currently ~289 templates), once consolidated, there is only one single template that needs to be updated.
User:Trappist the monk has experience with this procedure as he was the one that merged the xx-icon set. Would love to hear any comments you have before moving on this in TfD. --
Gonnym (
talk)
11:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
IPA}}
template to count parameters, as {{IPA|ja}}
is currently a valid input yielding ja. (IPA without enclosing square brackets or slashes is frequently used in charts etc.)
Love —
LiliCharlie (
talk)
12:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
/.../
) to be written with characters that are not basic ascii or space modifier letters? If any unicode character can be used in either transcription, it becomes very difficult or impossible for a machine to determine which of /.../
or [...]
is the correct form.IPA|es|transcription
should always yield Spanish pronunciation: [transcription] since
Help:IPA/Spanish uses broad phonetic transcription. In general, AFAICS, hardly any of our Help:IPA/X guides uses phonemic transcription. The plain IPA template should, of course, allow both brackets and slashes - but that goes without saying. I don't think this can ever become a major issue, but it will be an additional thing to clean up and could create a problem that doesn't exist right now.
Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (
talk)
18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)br
returns "Brazilian Portuguese:", while in others e.g. fi
returns "Finland Swedish pronunciation:" and langfi
"Finland Swedish:". This should be consistent (towards the latter I think, given the default is overwhelmingly "<language> pronunciation:" with lang
returning "<language>:").|link=yes
may be useful.lang
, local
, etc.) as a label will have no effect. So editors have done things like {{small|Label:}} {{IPA-xx|...|}}
to show customized labels. This is counterproductive. The template should be able to show customized labels by {{IPA|xx|...|Label:}}
, or at the very least by e.g. {{IPA|xx|...|label=Label:}}
for compatibility. (Perhaps the audio too should have a named parameter like |audio=
. The template documentation currently recommends e.g. {{IPA-fr|o|-|Fr-eau.ogg}}
to keep the default label—even though |3=Fr-eau.ogg
will do the job.)|small=no
would be nice.
after the label, which is inappropriate ({{lang-xx}} certainly don't use it). I have a suspicion whoever first made these didn't know how to insert a normal, breaking space at the end inside {{#switch:...}}
and just used
./
, ˈ
, and ˌ
, which are often used in transcriptions, trigger line breaks in undesirable positions. So editors have used {{nowrap|{{IPA|...}}}}
, {{IPA|/{{wj}}ˈxxx{{wj}}ˌyyy/}}
, etc. ad hoc, but this can easily be solved once for all by wrapping the entire transcription in <span class="nowrap">...</span>
and all whitespaces within it in <span class="wrap">...</span>
(inserting <wbr />
after whitespaces is another way but this doesn't work on Firefox or inside <blockquote>...</blockquote>
).Hi. I'm in negotiation with the Unicode committees to add support for the new extIPA and VoQS symbols, and am requesting a bunch of other unsupported phonetic symbols as well. I've gotten some feedback from LingList, but thought it would be worth asking here as well. I'm open to any system -- Americanist, Dania, whatever -- but my focus is extended IPA support, both obvious things that aren't on the chart, like superscripts, and extensions like those for Sinologists. The main gap in coverage is in superscript variants -- see Secondary articulation#Unicode support of superscript IPA letters for existing coverage of the standard IPA, but there's a lot missing from the Americanist set as well.
So, if you don't mind, I'll list the attestations I've dug up so far and ask you to add any others you know of or come across. Feel free to add additional symbols, but note that Unicode is no longer accepting letters with detached diacritics. (That is, if the diacritic doesn't connect to the base letter, they expect the font to handle it.) They also want a demonstration that a character is actually needed: a table of theoretical symbols won't be enough if they're never used for anything. But writing in a symbol by hand in your department's working papers should be enough -- that's how we got support for ⟨ꞎ⟩. It's nice to have a symbol in an explanatory table and in transcription both, if possible, but the transcription is more important.
Kirk ( talk) 21:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
For example, see 'r with ascender' below. The ref in the TIPA manual is an unsourced chart and so by itself is insufficient to attest to use. Doke (1936) and (1938) are old and so do not demonstrate that the character is needed for digital typesetting. (AFAIK there is no conservation project for these languages that makes use of Doke's field notes, for example.) Dolgopolsky (2013) attests to rather minimal current use. Hopefully taken together these will be adequate.
Evidence for remaining superscript Greek letters, and remaining subscript Greek and Latin letters also welcome. (See Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts#Latin_and_Greek_tables.)
There is a discussion on categories named "Pages including recorded pronunciations" or "Articles...", which editors here may be interested in. Nardog ( talk) 17:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject Linguistics participants may be interested in a move discussion at Talk:Prosody (linguistics). — Wug· a·po·des 23:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
In some translations, the letters I and J are interchanged in ways that's confusing to me as an English speaker. For example, Joseph Stalin -> Iosif Stalin, or Jesus of Nazareth -> Iēsus Nazarēnus. Do we have any articles that talk about this? I imagine there's a name for this, but I don't know what it is, and searching for "IJ" doesn't come up with anything useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
This is prompted by, among other things, this discussion and also this one. My proposal is to "officialise" the use of the terms "languoid", "glossonym", and "doculect" (see here) in talk pages of Wikipedia language articles and related linguistic articles. Particularly in relation to linguistic classification, the current standard terminology is ambiguous and imprecise and generates more than often confusion. I think that if we can agree on using the above terminology we can at least be sure that we are referring to the same things when discussing about linguistic classification (or other topics) in talk pages. Note that this is just a proposal to add somewhere on this project that people are encouraged to use the terminology when it is necessary to disambiguate in talk pages and not in main articles (unless we wish to do so, but that would be a separate suggestion). However, we don't really need to make this official (I don't have strong feelings about it being official), and I encourage anyway all of us to use the terminology if needed when discussing things in talk pages if there isn't agreement on making the use official. Happy editing y'all! :) -- SynConlanger ( talk) 11:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I would need your help because I need a special letter for this article. It is an "S" which look like fraktur but is apparently not; it can be seen here (p. xixx) in front of "Editio Sixtina". Currently, the article uses "𝔰" as it is what ressembles the most to what I want, but it is far from being perfect. Veverve ( talk) 17:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Latn
) script, which happens to be Noto Sans. On
Template:Script/styles.css you can see that template {{
Script}}
does not
embed fonts; instead, it only lists fonts that provide suitable glyphs if installed.<span style="font-size: 150%; line-height: 100%;">𝔰</span>
, which displays as 𝔰.
Love —
LiliCharlie (
talk)
20:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
If you can contribute, please see discussion at Talk:Biblical Hebrew#Recent edits to letter names. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
An edit warrior keeps reinserting incorrect information regarding phonetics and phonology of the Gronings dialect. Can someone fix that portion of the article? Does the source that person used back up the information in the article at all? Because I seriously doubt that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 08:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I think that we have too many vowel articles, and at the same time too few to be consistent in the way we represent vowels on Wikipedia. I'll explain what I mean.
The article open back unrounded vowel currently covers four variants of [ɑ]: open back (close to cardinal [ɑ] or identical), open near-back, near-open back and near-open near-back. That's four variants of [ɑ] in one article. The article about the open front [ ɶ also covers open and near-open variants. This is how it should be: the vowel articles on Wikipedia aren't about cardinal vowels but vowels in world's languages that are close to any given cardinal vowel (except for vowels like [ ɪ).
Also, we don't cover all combinations of height/backness/roundedness in separate vowel articles on Wikipedia. That's another inconsistency. Here's my proposal, divided into parts:
(1) Merge the articles about true-mid vowels with those about close-mid ones:
(2) Rename the articles about the mid-centralized cardinals [i, y, u]:
(3) Merge the articles about the near-close central vowels with those about close central ones:
(4) Merge the articles about (often non-contrastive) schwa-like sounds into schwa:
(5) Merge the articles about open front vowels into one article:
Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 17:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
A separate article for the open front rounded vowel might violate WP:UNDUE. It's an extremely rare vowel that doesn't occur as a phoneme in any language, it just happens to be one of the cardinal vowels (we already have an article about them). Plus, Danish [ɶ] (a canonical example of that vowel) is actually near-open, not open. Also, the distinction between [æ] and the front [a] isn't very clear as they sound awfully similar to each other. I think that as long as we differentiate [æ]/[a] from the central [ä] (which does sound different) that's good enough. [æ] should've never been assigned a separate IPA symbol by the way, and it was Anglocentric of the Association to do so. One of the reasons I'd like to see those three merged is that if we merged open front unrounded vowel with open front rounded vowel we'd have a discrepancy - the near-open variant would be covered in the case of the rounded vowel but not in the case of the unrounded vowel. Plus, the open front unrounded vowel might be transcribed with ⟨æ⟩ anyway.I've now struck out that unnecessary personal comment of mine. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 04:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's inappropriate to talk about information that has been deleted as if there was an option to retain it without changing the consensus that already exists regarding not listing more than one example per dialect.– As I have explained in the very section you have linked to, there is no such consensus.
We didn't discuss merging open central unrounded vowel with other articles.– We are discussing it now.
If, per current consensus, we merge the three open front vowels into one article […].– As this section shows, there is no such consensus either.
I don't know a better way to get rid of open central unrounded vowel than to merge it with open front unrounded vowel.– I think we should respect the sources: languages where sources use [a], [ä], [a̠], etc. should be added to [a], languages where sources use [ɑ], [ɑ̈], [ɑ̟], etc. should be added to [ɑ], languages where sources use [ɐ], [ɐ̞], etc. should be added to [ɐ]. -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
rowspan="2"
prose description for both sounds, but still have two rows in the example columns, e.g.
[1]. That is, if the sounds are allophones in complementary distribution. If however the sounds are phonemes on their own right, I would rather have them in different rows – similar to what we are doing _mutatis mutandis_ with the different phonemes in the examples for languages like English –, e.g.
[2]. --
mach
🙈🙉🙊
06:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
But for the time being, would the following mixed prosa and examples column format be OK to you for conveying the information that languages like Nothern Welsh or Maastrichtian Limburgish have two qualities of the respective vowels (two allophones in complementary distribution in the case of Welsh, two phonemes in the case of Limburgish)?
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Welsh | Northern dialects[1] | llun | [ɬɨːn] | 'picture' | Close when long, near-close when short.[1] Merges with /ɪ/ in southern dialects. See Welsh phonology |
pump | [pɨ̞mp] | 'five' | |||
Limburgish | Most dialects[2][3][4] | leef | [leːf] | 'dear' | The example word is from the Maastrichtian dialect. |
Maastrichtian[2] | bèd | [bɛ̝t] | 'bed' | Typically transcribed in IPA with ⟨ɛ⟩. |
Of course, they would not actually be in the same table. -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 20:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Welsh | Northern dialects[1] | pump | [pɨ̞mp] | 'five' | Close when long, near-close when short.[1] Merges with /ɪ/ in southern dialects. See Welsh phonology |
Limburgish | Most dialects[2][3][4] | leef | [leːf] | 'dear' | The example word is from the Maastrichtian dialect. In the Maastrichtian dialect, this sound contrasts with a true-mid sound typically transcribed with ⟨ɛ⟩. |
In the case of allophones like Northern Welsh [ɨ] and [ɨ̞], you would not mention them at all, not even in prose; but in the case of phonemes, you would mention them with examples?What? No! I meant: When multiple sounds with slightly different qualities which are discussed in the same article (like [ɨ] and [ɨ̞], and [e] and [e̞]) are found in the same language (or dialects of the same language), only one row need be dedicated to them in the occurernce table unless the sounds belong to different phonemes. This does not preclude mentioning the other allophone(s) in the Notes column. And I'm not talking about what to do in prose at all. In prose you can do anything so long as it enhances the discussion of the subject of the article. Nardog ( talk) 23:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I am still not sure whether I understand you correctly. I see it is good that I have asked, so I will ask again: In the case of allophones, you would mention both sounds in the table, but give only one example? I think that is poor design and not helpful to readers. And how do hou decide what example to keep and what example to remove? -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 04:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
All sounds are allophones and are produced with a different quality in each and every phonetic environment.– That is besides the point. It is obvious that there is an infinite continuum of phonetic realizations, and nobody has proposed listing each and every one of them. The point is that the reliable sources our material is based on single out some of them. They consider certain allophones worth mentioning and mention them, including examples. Our articles have had that information for many years. I still do not see any reason (or consensus) why we should now all of a sudden delete that information and deprive our readers of it. -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, re. not liking ⟨ɪ, ʊ⟩ as an undue influence of English, these are actually quite useful letters throughout Africa, where using the ATR/RTR diacritics makes extended transcription difficult to read. ⟨ɪ, ʊ⟩ pair up nicely with ⟨ɛ, ɔ⟩ for the RTR vowels. — kwami ( talk) 03:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I suggest not only not combining IPA sounds that aren't already combined, but uncombining those which are. If you are trying to find information about ONE CERTAIN letter which is in an article where there are two or more sounds, it can be hard, hellish, and even downright impossible to find that information you need. For example, let's say, if all nasals were combined, and you wanted to find information about ɲ, it could take longer than it should. The article could also combine information, basically how the news expresses bias, by hiding information. It makes people like me who are trying to create a language feel like tossing their computer in a piranha-infested lake and jumping in with it. And then swim off a waterfall. (maybe a LITTLE exaggeration) -- LinguistWorldbuilder43 ( talk) 22:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
How come diphthongs don't have Wikipedia articles?? Georgia guy ( talk) 01:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
There are a couple of problems with the IPA templates that make the resulting transcriptions less understandable than they should be. One is that all the language-specific IPA templates return an IPA transcription enclosed in square brackets; but the returned transcriptions are all phonemic, and so should be enclosed in slants. This is surely an elementary and serious conceptual error. Could it be fixed?
Less worrying, but still of concern to phoneticians, is that if an audio file is provided, the sounds made by the speaker are often different from the sounds denoted by the returned IPA transcription, and confusing to readers who don't know about the difference between phonemics and phonetics. The normal solution is to add a second, phonetic transcription to the phonemic one, showing the sounds used in that particular audio instance: e.g. "Wuhan (Chinese city) /ù.xân/ (audio-link) [wu˩ xæn˥˧]". It would be up to editors to add the second transcription where they felt it was appropriate, using the generalized IPA template rather than the language-specific one. Farnwell ( talk) 20:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The range of allophony allowed in a given language is extremely small.Yes, as I said, these transcriptions are broad. See Phonetic transcription#Narrow versus broad transcription. Broad transcription is still phonetic. Let's take Spanish ánfora as an example. The phonemic transcription depends a lot on the phonemic analysis, but let's say it's something simple like /ˈaNfora/ with an archiphoneme /N/ that's undefined for place of articulation. A narrow phonetic transcription might be something like [ˈa̠ɱfɔɾa̠]. A broad phonetic transcription could be [ˈamfoɾa]. There's a whole range of transcriptions between them that differ in level of detail. But they are all phonetic.
If the phrase to be transcribed does not include any of the allowed allophonic features, that transcription will be phonemic. That's not quite what we do. As you said yourself, the range of allophony is small. Small allophony is not no allophony. You could have the phonemic transcription of an English word like bow as /boʊ/ and a broad phonetic transcription like [boʊ] that uses the same exact symbols, but is still phonetic. Again, it's just broad phonetic transcription.
Should wikiproject Linguistics host an editing drive similar to the The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon or the WikiCup? — Wug· a·po·des 20:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Contributors to this WikiProject may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Language#Edits undone March 2020 regarding making that article easier to read. Cnilep ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey WP:LINGUISTICS!
There's an RFC regarding the etymology of the word mottainai and its relationship (if any) to Buddhism. Please see Talk:Mottainai#RFC on Yuriko Sato citation.
Kind regards,
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
FYI - This AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oligoisolating language) might be of interest for members of this project. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow users! I have recently taken the task to completely revamp the Macedonian language article in my sandbox and have made substantial progress in doing so. However, I got kind of stuck with the consonants, vowels and verbs section as writers usually report information related to those with a lot of technical terminology which leaves me confused as to what is relevant to go into the article. Is there are any fellow linguist savvy person who would like to help me please? I would appreciate it very kindly as one of my goals is to get the article to a GA level at least. Thank you very much in advance for any help you offer! P.S. I have an extensive grammar source in English and in Russian if anyone is interested in helping btw. DD1997DD ( talk) 00:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. Category:Central Indo-Aryan languages was recently created as a subcat of Category:Indo-Aryan languages. It currently has just one page, but there are a few edit requests asking to add more (see Category talk:Hindi, Category talk:Urdu, and Category talk:Hindustani language for the open requests). I don't know if this is appropriate, so I thought I'd ask here in case anyone feels like handling this. If so, then they'd probably want to get removed from the parent cat as well. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 13:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I propose that we merge the articles Cot and Caught per WP:COMMONNAME. Most of North America does not distinguish between these two concepts, and so there's no need to have two articles on the same word. I expect some resistance, but only from midwest and southern editors. And before people complain that this shows a US bias, Scottish editors have historically shown support for this merger. April Fools! — Wug· a·po·des 03:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently a user has been adding a lot of new information containing all kinds of buzzwords like "morphophonological theory", "dominant acute". The article was previously already tagged for being incomprehensible, and I think these edits only made the problem worse. If there's anyone who is knowledgeable on the subject, it would be great if you could clean up the article so that it makes sense again. At this point I'm not sure if anyone can understand the article anymore. Rua ( mew) 08:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello all- I came to the project page thinking I might find guidance regarding the naming of article etymology sections. Can anyone tell me if we have a preference? I have the sense that it is usually "Etymology", but couldn't find that stated anywhere in the vast and swirling MoS. Eric talk 16:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at the Blowing a raspberry article and thought someone in the linguistics wikiproject could help out. I have two queries that could help improve the article:
If someone could find scholarly articles that answer those questions, that would be great. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 06:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Regarding a content dispute in which I am involved and which has taken the form of edit warring (→ temp. full-PP for 2 days), we would highly appreciate to hear your third-party input in the talk page discussion. – Austronesier ( talk) 07:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Hey everyone. There was a recent discussion about a different group of language templates (the xx-icon family of templates) that had the same design approach as these - a template for each language. That discussion resulted in changing the design to one template that accepts as a parameter the language (see
Template:In lang) - so in this example, instead of a template like {{
IPA-ja}}
it would be {{IPA|ja}}
. For editors, the change is very minimal as instead of a hyphen they use a vertical bar (so exactly the same amount of characters), but the behind the scenes can now be maintained much more reasonably. Now if you want to apply a change to all templates, you need to update each individual template (currently ~289 templates), once consolidated, there is only one single template that needs to be updated.
User:Trappist the monk has experience with this procedure as he was the one that merged the xx-icon set. Would love to hear any comments you have before moving on this in TfD. --
Gonnym (
talk)
11:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
IPA}}
template to count parameters, as {{IPA|ja}}
is currently a valid input yielding ja. (IPA without enclosing square brackets or slashes is frequently used in charts etc.)
Love —
LiliCharlie (
talk)
12:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
/.../
) to be written with characters that are not basic ascii or space modifier letters? If any unicode character can be used in either transcription, it becomes very difficult or impossible for a machine to determine which of /.../
or [...]
is the correct form.IPA|es|transcription
should always yield Spanish pronunciation: [transcription] since
Help:IPA/Spanish uses broad phonetic transcription. In general, AFAICS, hardly any of our Help:IPA/X guides uses phonemic transcription. The plain IPA template should, of course, allow both brackets and slashes - but that goes without saying. I don't think this can ever become a major issue, but it will be an additional thing to clean up and could create a problem that doesn't exist right now.
Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (
talk)
18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)br
returns "Brazilian Portuguese:", while in others e.g. fi
returns "Finland Swedish pronunciation:" and langfi
"Finland Swedish:". This should be consistent (towards the latter I think, given the default is overwhelmingly "<language> pronunciation:" with lang
returning "<language>:").|link=yes
may be useful.lang
, local
, etc.) as a label will have no effect. So editors have done things like {{small|Label:}} {{IPA-xx|...|}}
to show customized labels. This is counterproductive. The template should be able to show customized labels by {{IPA|xx|...|Label:}}
, or at the very least by e.g. {{IPA|xx|...|label=Label:}}
for compatibility. (Perhaps the audio too should have a named parameter like |audio=
. The template documentation currently recommends e.g. {{IPA-fr|o|-|Fr-eau.ogg}}
to keep the default label—even though |3=Fr-eau.ogg
will do the job.)|small=no
would be nice.
after the label, which is inappropriate ({{lang-xx}} certainly don't use it). I have a suspicion whoever first made these didn't know how to insert a normal, breaking space at the end inside {{#switch:...}}
and just used
./
, ˈ
, and ˌ
, which are often used in transcriptions, trigger line breaks in undesirable positions. So editors have used {{nowrap|{{IPA|...}}}}
, {{IPA|/{{wj}}ˈxxx{{wj}}ˌyyy/}}
, etc. ad hoc, but this can easily be solved once for all by wrapping the entire transcription in <span class="nowrap">...</span>
and all whitespaces within it in <span class="wrap">...</span>
(inserting <wbr />
after whitespaces is another way but this doesn't work on Firefox or inside <blockquote>...</blockquote>
).Hi. I'm in negotiation with the Unicode committees to add support for the new extIPA and VoQS symbols, and am requesting a bunch of other unsupported phonetic symbols as well. I've gotten some feedback from LingList, but thought it would be worth asking here as well. I'm open to any system -- Americanist, Dania, whatever -- but my focus is extended IPA support, both obvious things that aren't on the chart, like superscripts, and extensions like those for Sinologists. The main gap in coverage is in superscript variants -- see Secondary articulation#Unicode support of superscript IPA letters for existing coverage of the standard IPA, but there's a lot missing from the Americanist set as well.
So, if you don't mind, I'll list the attestations I've dug up so far and ask you to add any others you know of or come across. Feel free to add additional symbols, but note that Unicode is no longer accepting letters with detached diacritics. (That is, if the diacritic doesn't connect to the base letter, they expect the font to handle it.) They also want a demonstration that a character is actually needed: a table of theoretical symbols won't be enough if they're never used for anything. But writing in a symbol by hand in your department's working papers should be enough -- that's how we got support for ⟨ꞎ⟩. It's nice to have a symbol in an explanatory table and in transcription both, if possible, but the transcription is more important.
Kirk ( talk) 21:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
For example, see 'r with ascender' below. The ref in the TIPA manual is an unsourced chart and so by itself is insufficient to attest to use. Doke (1936) and (1938) are old and so do not demonstrate that the character is needed for digital typesetting. (AFAIK there is no conservation project for these languages that makes use of Doke's field notes, for example.) Dolgopolsky (2013) attests to rather minimal current use. Hopefully taken together these will be adequate.
Evidence for remaining superscript Greek letters, and remaining subscript Greek and Latin letters also welcome. (See Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts#Latin_and_Greek_tables.)
There is a discussion on categories named "Pages including recorded pronunciations" or "Articles...", which editors here may be interested in. Nardog ( talk) 17:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject Linguistics participants may be interested in a move discussion at Talk:Prosody (linguistics). — Wug· a·po·des 23:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
In some translations, the letters I and J are interchanged in ways that's confusing to me as an English speaker. For example, Joseph Stalin -> Iosif Stalin, or Jesus of Nazareth -> Iēsus Nazarēnus. Do we have any articles that talk about this? I imagine there's a name for this, but I don't know what it is, and searching for "IJ" doesn't come up with anything useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
This is prompted by, among other things, this discussion and also this one. My proposal is to "officialise" the use of the terms "languoid", "glossonym", and "doculect" (see here) in talk pages of Wikipedia language articles and related linguistic articles. Particularly in relation to linguistic classification, the current standard terminology is ambiguous and imprecise and generates more than often confusion. I think that if we can agree on using the above terminology we can at least be sure that we are referring to the same things when discussing about linguistic classification (or other topics) in talk pages. Note that this is just a proposal to add somewhere on this project that people are encouraged to use the terminology when it is necessary to disambiguate in talk pages and not in main articles (unless we wish to do so, but that would be a separate suggestion). However, we don't really need to make this official (I don't have strong feelings about it being official), and I encourage anyway all of us to use the terminology if needed when discussing things in talk pages if there isn't agreement on making the use official. Happy editing y'all! :) -- SynConlanger ( talk) 11:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I would need your help because I need a special letter for this article. It is an "S" which look like fraktur but is apparently not; it can be seen here (p. xixx) in front of "Editio Sixtina". Currently, the article uses "𝔰" as it is what ressembles the most to what I want, but it is far from being perfect. Veverve ( talk) 17:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Latn
) script, which happens to be Noto Sans. On
Template:Script/styles.css you can see that template {{
Script}}
does not
embed fonts; instead, it only lists fonts that provide suitable glyphs if installed.<span style="font-size: 150%; line-height: 100%;">𝔰</span>
, which displays as 𝔰.
Love —
LiliCharlie (
talk)
20:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
If you can contribute, please see discussion at Talk:Biblical Hebrew#Recent edits to letter names. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 21:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
An edit warrior keeps reinserting incorrect information regarding phonetics and phonology of the Gronings dialect. Can someone fix that portion of the article? Does the source that person used back up the information in the article at all? Because I seriously doubt that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 08:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I think that we have too many vowel articles, and at the same time too few to be consistent in the way we represent vowels on Wikipedia. I'll explain what I mean.
The article open back unrounded vowel currently covers four variants of [ɑ]: open back (close to cardinal [ɑ] or identical), open near-back, near-open back and near-open near-back. That's four variants of [ɑ] in one article. The article about the open front [ ɶ also covers open and near-open variants. This is how it should be: the vowel articles on Wikipedia aren't about cardinal vowels but vowels in world's languages that are close to any given cardinal vowel (except for vowels like [ ɪ).
Also, we don't cover all combinations of height/backness/roundedness in separate vowel articles on Wikipedia. That's another inconsistency. Here's my proposal, divided into parts:
(1) Merge the articles about true-mid vowels with those about close-mid ones:
(2) Rename the articles about the mid-centralized cardinals [i, y, u]:
(3) Merge the articles about the near-close central vowels with those about close central ones:
(4) Merge the articles about (often non-contrastive) schwa-like sounds into schwa:
(5) Merge the articles about open front vowels into one article:
Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 17:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
A separate article for the open front rounded vowel might violate WP:UNDUE. It's an extremely rare vowel that doesn't occur as a phoneme in any language, it just happens to be one of the cardinal vowels (we already have an article about them). Plus, Danish [ɶ] (a canonical example of that vowel) is actually near-open, not open. Also, the distinction between [æ] and the front [a] isn't very clear as they sound awfully similar to each other. I think that as long as we differentiate [æ]/[a] from the central [ä] (which does sound different) that's good enough. [æ] should've never been assigned a separate IPA symbol by the way, and it was Anglocentric of the Association to do so. One of the reasons I'd like to see those three merged is that if we merged open front unrounded vowel with open front rounded vowel we'd have a discrepancy - the near-open variant would be covered in the case of the rounded vowel but not in the case of the unrounded vowel. Plus, the open front unrounded vowel might be transcribed with ⟨æ⟩ anyway.I've now struck out that unnecessary personal comment of mine. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) ( talk) 04:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's inappropriate to talk about information that has been deleted as if there was an option to retain it without changing the consensus that already exists regarding not listing more than one example per dialect.– As I have explained in the very section you have linked to, there is no such consensus.
We didn't discuss merging open central unrounded vowel with other articles.– We are discussing it now.
If, per current consensus, we merge the three open front vowels into one article […].– As this section shows, there is no such consensus either.
I don't know a better way to get rid of open central unrounded vowel than to merge it with open front unrounded vowel.– I think we should respect the sources: languages where sources use [a], [ä], [a̠], etc. should be added to [a], languages where sources use [ɑ], [ɑ̈], [ɑ̟], etc. should be added to [ɑ], languages where sources use [ɐ], [ɐ̞], etc. should be added to [ɐ]. -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
rowspan="2"
prose description for both sounds, but still have two rows in the example columns, e.g.
[1]. That is, if the sounds are allophones in complementary distribution. If however the sounds are phonemes on their own right, I would rather have them in different rows – similar to what we are doing _mutatis mutandis_ with the different phonemes in the examples for languages like English –, e.g.
[2]. --
mach
🙈🙉🙊
06:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
But for the time being, would the following mixed prosa and examples column format be OK to you for conveying the information that languages like Nothern Welsh or Maastrichtian Limburgish have two qualities of the respective vowels (two allophones in complementary distribution in the case of Welsh, two phonemes in the case of Limburgish)?
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Welsh | Northern dialects[1] | llun | [ɬɨːn] | 'picture' | Close when long, near-close when short.[1] Merges with /ɪ/ in southern dialects. See Welsh phonology |
pump | [pɨ̞mp] | 'five' | |||
Limburgish | Most dialects[2][3][4] | leef | [leːf] | 'dear' | The example word is from the Maastrichtian dialect. |
Maastrichtian[2] | bèd | [bɛ̝t] | 'bed' | Typically transcribed in IPA with ⟨ɛ⟩. |
Of course, they would not actually be in the same table. -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 20:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Welsh | Northern dialects[1] | pump | [pɨ̞mp] | 'five' | Close when long, near-close when short.[1] Merges with /ɪ/ in southern dialects. See Welsh phonology |
Limburgish | Most dialects[2][3][4] | leef | [leːf] | 'dear' | The example word is from the Maastrichtian dialect. In the Maastrichtian dialect, this sound contrasts with a true-mid sound typically transcribed with ⟨ɛ⟩. |
In the case of allophones like Northern Welsh [ɨ] and [ɨ̞], you would not mention them at all, not even in prose; but in the case of phonemes, you would mention them with examples?What? No! I meant: When multiple sounds with slightly different qualities which are discussed in the same article (like [ɨ] and [ɨ̞], and [e] and [e̞]) are found in the same language (or dialects of the same language), only one row need be dedicated to them in the occurernce table unless the sounds belong to different phonemes. This does not preclude mentioning the other allophone(s) in the Notes column. And I'm not talking about what to do in prose at all. In prose you can do anything so long as it enhances the discussion of the subject of the article. Nardog ( talk) 23:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I am still not sure whether I understand you correctly. I see it is good that I have asked, so I will ask again: In the case of allophones, you would mention both sounds in the table, but give only one example? I think that is poor design and not helpful to readers. And how do hou decide what example to keep and what example to remove? -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 04:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
All sounds are allophones and are produced with a different quality in each and every phonetic environment.– That is besides the point. It is obvious that there is an infinite continuum of phonetic realizations, and nobody has proposed listing each and every one of them. The point is that the reliable sources our material is based on single out some of them. They consider certain allophones worth mentioning and mention them, including examples. Our articles have had that information for many years. I still do not see any reason (or consensus) why we should now all of a sudden delete that information and deprive our readers of it. -- mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, re. not liking ⟨ɪ, ʊ⟩ as an undue influence of English, these are actually quite useful letters throughout Africa, where using the ATR/RTR diacritics makes extended transcription difficult to read. ⟨ɪ, ʊ⟩ pair up nicely with ⟨ɛ, ɔ⟩ for the RTR vowels. — kwami ( talk) 03:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I suggest not only not combining IPA sounds that aren't already combined, but uncombining those which are. If you are trying to find information about ONE CERTAIN letter which is in an article where there are two or more sounds, it can be hard, hellish, and even downright impossible to find that information you need. For example, let's say, if all nasals were combined, and you wanted to find information about ɲ, it could take longer than it should. The article could also combine information, basically how the news expresses bias, by hiding information. It makes people like me who are trying to create a language feel like tossing their computer in a piranha-infested lake and jumping in with it. And then swim off a waterfall. (maybe a LITTLE exaggeration) -- LinguistWorldbuilder43 ( talk) 22:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
How come diphthongs don't have Wikipedia articles?? Georgia guy ( talk) 01:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
There are a couple of problems with the IPA templates that make the resulting transcriptions less understandable than they should be. One is that all the language-specific IPA templates return an IPA transcription enclosed in square brackets; but the returned transcriptions are all phonemic, and so should be enclosed in slants. This is surely an elementary and serious conceptual error. Could it be fixed?
Less worrying, but still of concern to phoneticians, is that if an audio file is provided, the sounds made by the speaker are often different from the sounds denoted by the returned IPA transcription, and confusing to readers who don't know about the difference between phonemics and phonetics. The normal solution is to add a second, phonetic transcription to the phonemic one, showing the sounds used in that particular audio instance: e.g. "Wuhan (Chinese city) /ù.xân/ (audio-link) [wu˩ xæn˥˧]". It would be up to editors to add the second transcription where they felt it was appropriate, using the generalized IPA template rather than the language-specific one. Farnwell ( talk) 20:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The range of allophony allowed in a given language is extremely small.Yes, as I said, these transcriptions are broad. See Phonetic transcription#Narrow versus broad transcription. Broad transcription is still phonetic. Let's take Spanish ánfora as an example. The phonemic transcription depends a lot on the phonemic analysis, but let's say it's something simple like /ˈaNfora/ with an archiphoneme /N/ that's undefined for place of articulation. A narrow phonetic transcription might be something like [ˈa̠ɱfɔɾa̠]. A broad phonetic transcription could be [ˈamfoɾa]. There's a whole range of transcriptions between them that differ in level of detail. But they are all phonetic.
If the phrase to be transcribed does not include any of the allowed allophonic features, that transcription will be phonemic. That's not quite what we do. As you said yourself, the range of allophony is small. Small allophony is not no allophony. You could have the phonemic transcription of an English word like bow as /boʊ/ and a broad phonetic transcription like [boʊ] that uses the same exact symbols, but is still phonetic. Again, it's just broad phonetic transcription.
Should wikiproject Linguistics host an editing drive similar to the The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon or the WikiCup? — Wug· a·po·des 20:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Contributors to this WikiProject may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Language#Edits undone March 2020 regarding making that article easier to read. Cnilep ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey WP:LINGUISTICS!
There's an RFC regarding the etymology of the word mottainai and its relationship (if any) to Buddhism. Please see Talk:Mottainai#RFC on Yuriko Sato citation.
Kind regards,
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
FYI - This AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oligoisolating language) might be of interest for members of this project. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow users! I have recently taken the task to completely revamp the Macedonian language article in my sandbox and have made substantial progress in doing so. However, I got kind of stuck with the consonants, vowels and verbs section as writers usually report information related to those with a lot of technical terminology which leaves me confused as to what is relevant to go into the article. Is there are any fellow linguist savvy person who would like to help me please? I would appreciate it very kindly as one of my goals is to get the article to a GA level at least. Thank you very much in advance for any help you offer! P.S. I have an extensive grammar source in English and in Russian if anyone is interested in helping btw. DD1997DD ( talk) 00:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. Category:Central Indo-Aryan languages was recently created as a subcat of Category:Indo-Aryan languages. It currently has just one page, but there are a few edit requests asking to add more (see Category talk:Hindi, Category talk:Urdu, and Category talk:Hindustani language for the open requests). I don't know if this is appropriate, so I thought I'd ask here in case anyone feels like handling this. If so, then they'd probably want to get removed from the parent cat as well. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 13:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I propose that we merge the articles Cot and Caught per WP:COMMONNAME. Most of North America does not distinguish between these two concepts, and so there's no need to have two articles on the same word. I expect some resistance, but only from midwest and southern editors. And before people complain that this shows a US bias, Scottish editors have historically shown support for this merger. April Fools! — Wug· a·po·des 03:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently a user has been adding a lot of new information containing all kinds of buzzwords like "morphophonological theory", "dominant acute". The article was previously already tagged for being incomprehensible, and I think these edits only made the problem worse. If there's anyone who is knowledgeable on the subject, it would be great if you could clean up the article so that it makes sense again. At this point I'm not sure if anyone can understand the article anymore. Rua ( mew) 08:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello all- I came to the project page thinking I might find guidance regarding the naming of article etymology sections. Can anyone tell me if we have a preference? I have the sense that it is usually "Etymology", but couldn't find that stated anywhere in the vast and swirling MoS. Eric talk 16:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at the Blowing a raspberry article and thought someone in the linguistics wikiproject could help out. I have two queries that could help improve the article:
If someone could find scholarly articles that answer those questions, that would be great. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 06:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Regarding a content dispute in which I am involved and which has taken the form of edit warring (→ temp. full-PP for 2 days), we would highly appreciate to hear your third-party input in the talk page discussion. – Austronesier ( talk) 07:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)