![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Each of the articles for portmanteau and contraction mentions the same distinction, that "contractions are formed from words that would otherwise appear together in sequence, such as do and not to make don't, whereas a portmanteau is formed by combining two or more existing words that all relate to a single concept". The article for contraction notes that there is some overlap, but neither article is sourced. There is some debate regarding the list of portmanteaus (which is a mess for a variety of reasons) on whether to include terms like vocoder (voice encoder), Juneteenth (June nineteenth), and and Spam (spiced ham). There are many such examples there which, taken literally as "words that would otherwise appear together" would qualify as contractions. Looking more closely at contractions, however, most of the examples suggest that they are mostly used in less formal speech rather than the formation of new words. Is there a source to clarify the distinction, and can the distinction be made more clear? HalJor ( talk) 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The blend vs. portmanteau portion of this topic has been previously discussed at Talk:Portmanteau and at Talk:Blend. (Pinging @ DavidWBrooks, Vikom, Florian Blaschke, and TAKASUGI Shinji: from those discussions.)
Usage maven Bryan Garner has blend and portmanteau as synonyms (emphasis added):
A portmanteau is a type of luggage with two separate sections. A portmanteau word is formed by combining the sounds and meanings of two different words. Linguists also call such a word a blend.
Most portmanteaus merge the initial part of one word with the end of another: smog (smoke + fog) and infomercial (information + commercial). Others combine one complete word with part of another: docudrama (documentary + drama) and palimony (pal + alimony). Sometimes words with the same sounds are combined to create a pun: shampagne (sham + champagne).
— Bryan Garner, Law Prose #194
Garner goes on to mention Lewis Carroll's well-known portmanteaus chortle, galumph, and slithy (as well as the fact that Carroll coined the phrase portmanteau word as well, though not portmanteau of course). I could see Blend word and Portmanteau being one article, because I don't know what distinction there is to draw between the two, although Contraction feels different enough to be separate.
As for the first two, I believe that blend word is primary. I seem to have a sentimental attachment to portmanteau as a stand-alone article, although I'm not sure I can articulate a valid, policy-based reason to keep it separate. The only reason I can think of, is the Lewis Carroll connection, but that's probably a pretty weak reason, unless a lot more material could be found specifically about that. On Wiktionary, yes, separate articles; but here? Sadly, probably not. Perhaps this should be formalized with a Merge request (for Blend + Portmanteau; not Contraction); I'll probably create one, if someone else doesn't. Mathglot ( talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Side comment: I hope that "such syntactic blends as It’s his job is the problem, a combination of the sentences It’s his job and His job is the problem" doesn't appear in one of our articles. That looks like folk etymology to me, as It's his job is the problem is much more obviously derived from It's his job that is the problem, not from mashing two separate sentences awkwardly together. There are several dialects that routinely drop that. I cannot count the number of times I have had to add a that to a sentence in Wikipedia itself because it was painfully ambiguous; some editors habitually write without that even when they think they are writing with especial formality and clarity, just because they're used to the lack of it and are accustomed to accept the ambiguity as normal. But the results can be very confusing, especially for non-native English speakers.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Category:Phonetics articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray ( talk) 05:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I just added an IPA transcription of Robert McNamara's surname based on the pronunciation in this ABC News video. I'm far from an expert at IPA transcription, so I would appreciate it if someone could double-check my transcription. (If there's a better page for this kind of issue, let me know.) Rublov ( talk) 20:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The newly created List of languages by number of phonemes could do with some attention (here's a sneak peek: the language listed with the largest inventory is Norman French). – Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Participation is appreciated at Talk:Voiced labialized-velar approximant#Requested move 24 May 2021. Nardog ( talk) 12:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed the asterisks look different, namely more centered than in many fonts, when put inside Template:PIE. E.g. *outside/*inside. It's a minor issue and probably not equally noticeable to every user, but if bored I may want go through all the articles using it to fix inconsistencies; before that I wanted to make sure I am doing it right and hear about other minor possible fixes I could do on the way. My first in this direction was apparently well received, most others will be hopefully simplier. The italics part is even more nitpicking, my understanding is that "*" shouldn't be in italics, unless the surrounding text is. My rationale for keeping the asterisk outside is that it isn't part of the foreign world and that reconstructed forms are sometimes rendered without templates and so with the same asterisks as normal text. When multiple forms are given, this way the code gets a bit more complicated; making the template somehow ignore this character could be simplier, otherwise a mention to leave it out in the template documentation may help. Other templates may also show the same problem. Any suggestions are welcomed. Personuser ( talk) 13:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
lang
attribute, adjusts wrapping as described, and adds an (as far as I can tell unused) CSS class. –
Joe (
talk) 09:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)I've been frustrated with how Wiki Text handles example formatting, and I know I'm not alone in this feeling. We often have to hack together the markup and it doesn't always turn out so good regardless. A while back, I submitted a feature request on Wikimedia Phabricator which would allow continuous example numbering and cross-referencing. However, it hasn't gotten a reply–– Phabricator has a bit of a backlog, and this request probably sounds a bit niche. If you would support this idea or if you would like to add anything to the feature request, you can leave a comment here.
Alternately, if anybody has any handy tricks or secret wisdom about hacking together markup for nice examples, please do share! Botterweg14 ( talk) 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
What to do about Assyrian Neo-Aramaic [aii] and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic [cld], given different SIL codes on non-linguistic grounds per this source [1]? They are two different churches and ethnic identities, but not two different language varieties. Most reliable sources distinguish between dialects of Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) spoken by Jews and Christians, but not between Assyrian and Chaldean dialects. As far as I can tell, it is impossible to write articles on either of these topics without a large amount of original research, since the vast majority of reliable sources discuss NENA rather than "Assyrian" or "Chaldean". ( t · c) buidhe 09:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Opinions and comments needed here.
It is a renaming proposal of the Italian municipality currently spelled Codogné. It was proposed to change the spelling to Codognè. The reason of the proposal is that the Italian state websites listing Italian municipalities use the same accent (è) for every accented town name and that on the website of the town itself this is the most common spelling. The reason to reject the proposal is that Italian orthography handbooks and encyclopedies which distinguish between two different accents prescribe the current spelling (é) corresponding to the prescribed pronunciation in Standard Italian. Since both options are reasonable a large number of opinions is desirable to have a shared consensus.
Tsistunaɡiska ( talk) 06:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion on the MoS about whether etymologies only apply to words: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:SECTIONSTYLE,_"etymology"_and_User_talk:Catchpoke. Catchpoke ( talk) 19:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Category:Criticism of political correctness. Please see the discussion if you are interested. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
In which articles should occurrences of sounds that have been described as voiceless approximants, such as [ʍ] in Scottish English whether, be included? 10:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
References
I applaud the decision to raise this tricky issue for discussion. It is noticeably confusing in Voiceless labiovelar fricative when we read "Features of the voiceless labial–velar fricative: Its manner of articulation is approximant". I think it is wise at this stage not to go against IPA policy, but on the other hand I think it would not be out of place to ask the IPA to give an opinion on a problematical area that falls within its scope. Ideally, someone should write a short article for the Journal of the IPA outlining the problem as it confronts WP, asking the IPA membership to comment and the Executive to consider whether a change in the IPA chart is called for. RoachPeter ( talk) 14:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I doubt '[t]he International Phonetic Association clearly belongs in the "there are no such things" camp'. In figure 6 on page 35 of the Handbook the symbol ⟨l̥⟩ is used for an unvoiced lateral approximant where ⟨ɬ⟩ would be available for the corresponding fricative, and on page 136 Šuštaršič & Komar mention "a voiceless labial-velar approximant [ʍ]" in Slovene. Also, what is ⟨n̥⟩ used in the exemplification of the diacritic ⟨◌̥⟩ on page 24, if ⟨n⟩ symbolizes a nasal without friction a.k.a. nasal approximant? — On Fricative#Pseudo-fricatives we have a sentence that reads: 'In addition, [ʍ] is usually called a "voiceless labial-velar fricative", but it is actually an approximant.' Love — LiliCharlie ( talk) 17:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The only case where this is a problem is ⟨ʍ⟩, and then only because it has a dedicated IPA symbol, and that a historical relic. Any other voiceless approximants should be covered under the corresponding voiced approximant, but cross-linked to and from the equivalent fricative, with the potential ambiguity being noted in both. That is, whether an author transcribes a sound in the language they describe as [ɥ̊] or [çʷ] or [ɸʲ], or as [l̥] or [ɬ], we should follow them as the RS and not impose an ideological decision that they must be wrong because their transcription contravenes one or another statement by the IPA.
LiliCharlie makes a good point here. Once a convention is established, the IPA needs to get consensus to change it. A lack of consensus to change something does not mean they'd have consensus to establish it today. E.g. ⟨ɱ⟩, which violates the stated conventions of the IPA and I doubt would get consensus if it were proposed as a new symbol today (it would be ⟨m̪⟩), but which has failed to get consensus to retire. Similarly ⟨ɧ⟩, which is used as a phonemic rather than as a phonetic symbol, something the IPA says it doesn't do.
The IPA is not an arbiter of which phonetic distinctions there are in languages. Its job is to provide symbols for them, not to define them. How even members of the IPA use those symbols often differs from the description by the IPA. As LiliCharlie points out, this is true even in the Handbook. There are many more examples in JIPA. The IPA not only tolerates this, but only attempts to apply some order to it. That is, I think LiliCharlie is correct in doubting that the IPA has taken a stand on the issue of whether [ʍ] is a fricative, an approximant, or ambiguous. They simply need to call it something, and there's been no consensus to change what they call it.
As for Scottish (or at least Scots) /ʍ/, among older speakers it's indeed a velar fricative [xʷ]. Even among younger speakers, and in RP English, it's arguably [hʷ]. If [h] is called a fricative, as it is in the IPA, then so would both [xʷ] and [hʷ]. You also have languages like Kham which are analyzed as having [ɥ̊] and [w̥]; phonologically, analyzing these sounds as [çʷ] and [xʷ] runs into the difficulty that there is no /ç/ or /x/ in the language, nor any other labialized consonantal segments, but there are /y/, /ɥ/, /u/ and /w/ and other voiceless sonorants, such as the nasals.
I doubt most of the modern authors who call English /ʍ/ a 'fricative' have actually investigated the question. They may call it that because that's the tradition in the English lit (dating from before there was such a thing as 'approximants'), or because that's what the IPA calls it. With more obscure languages, an author is more likely to make an attempt to analyze the nature of the sound. For instance, with Hupa, Golla lists the fricatives /x xʷ h W/ (elsewhere ⟨ʍ⟩), but says that /W/ is a labialized glottal fricative, forming a labialization pair with /h/. He also says that while e.g. /ha/ is phonetically [ḁ], /W/ is phonetically [u̥]. Thus /ohW#/ is phonetically [o̥u̥]. If we're going to insist that voiceless approximants are 'fricatives', then we'd need to characterize voiceless vowels as fricatives as well. Better IMO just to follow our sources, and to note how differing descriptions may correspond to each other. — kwami ( talk) 19:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"The IPA is not an arbiter of which phonetic distinctions there are in languages. Its job is to provide symbols for them, not to define them."
The one exception would be for [ʍ], because that has a dedicated IPA symbol that makes its treatment problematic. I wouldn't object to keeping the article at 'Voiceless labial–velar fricative', as long as we are clear in the heading that that label may be inaccurate. However, rather than saying something like 'arguably, the labial-velar fricative is often neither velar nor a fricative', another possibility would be to move the article to ' ʍ', and to cover the usage of the IPA symbol itself as the topic of the article. The sound [w̥] could then be covered in more detail at Labial–velar approximant (voiceless section), the sound [xʷ] could be covered at labialization, and disputes over the English sound could be covered at Pronunciation of English ⟨wh⟩. All of those articles would be listed in the 'See also' section of the 'ʍ' article.
For a parallel, note how we treat [ɧ] at Sj-sound, rather than under the IPA name 'simultaneous voiceless postalveolar and velar fricative', a description which a former president of the IPA has stated several times is inaccurate. — kwami ( talk) 06:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
History of ⟨ʍ⟩ through Kiel
|
---|
⟨ʍ⟩ was adopted specifically for the English wh sound. Usage for other languages has always been ambiguous. AFAICT, it was introduced in the 1900 chart. It was not defined there apart from its placement in the chart (with [ʍ w] as a voicing pair of fricatives under the column labiales and secondarily under vélaires), and in a statement that for both the back of the tongue is raised. ([j] was also a fricative, as was [ɥ], which had 2ary articulation in the palatales column.) The 1904 description says it "is one variety of Northern Engish wh." The 1912 description used the same wording, and the 1912 chart showed it as a fricative in the 'lips' column, with secondary articulation in the 'back' column. [j], [ɥ], [w] were still considered fricatives. In 1921, ⟨ƕ⟩ replaced ⟨ʍ⟩. In 1932 and 1947, [w] and [ɥ] are in a new row for 'Frictionless Continuants and Semi-vowels', under the bi-labial column with 2ary articulation under the velar and palatal columns. [ʍ] is not on the chart and is defined as "voiceless w". In the 1949 Principles, the chart is the same but the description (p. 14) says, "the letter for the voiceless fricative corresponding to w is ʍ, but it is generally preferable to represent this sound by the digraph hw." The 1979 revision places ⟨ʍ⟩ in the chart for the first time since 1904. It is placed in the fricative row, and was no longer presented as the voiceless partner to [w]. It is also labial-velar, in the same column as [k͡p]. That is, it's defined as a doubly articulated [x͡ɸ], which according to Ladefoged and Maddieson is for all practical purposes impossible. The chart presentation reaches it current treatment after the Kiel convention, with ⟨ʍ⟩ listed under 'other symbols' as a "voiceless labial-velar fricative" and ⟨w⟩ as a "voiced labial-velar approximant". However, the Report on the Kiel Convention (p. 70) reported that the convention had decided that the chart should include the wording that "[w] represents a voiced labial-velar approximant and [ʍ] its voiceless counterpart," but that for reasons of space it was not possible to comply with this decision. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The problem we seem to have here, besides the poorly defined outlier character ⟨ʍ⟩ in the IPA, is that some phoneticians/phonologists have argues that voiceless approximants do not exist. But others argue that they do exist, though no language seems to make a phonemic distinction between them and fricatives. I don't follow the argument that because one POV says a sound doesn't exist, we can't report on it following RS's that say it does exist. — kwami ( talk) 23:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
impos[ing] an ideological decisionmore than describing them definitively as approximants. Nardog ( talk) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Norwegian language conflict has an old split proposal from 2017. I am not an expert in the field nor an enthusiast so idk if this would be useful or a good idea, but would like to remove the split tag to clean the backlog. I'm messaging here hoping there will be some discussion on the matter, and if not please ping me back and I'll delete the split tag. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe use this one instead?
https://mingle-ish.com/phrasal-verbs/ 213.205.194.52 ( talk) 14:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Can some people please take a look at the edits at Faux (surname), Defaux (surname), Talk:Defaux (surname), and Dufaux (surname). I and another editor disagree, so input from others is welcome. Fram ( talk) 17:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_29#Ɥ for where to rd the character itself when we have an article on the letter, such as turned h for 'Ɥ' (the capital of which has no IPA use). — kwami ( talk) 22:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm coming across redlinked phonemes, such as / Kʰ/ in Garhwali language#Allophony which I assume should link to the same target as Kh (IPA). Do we need some new redirects, or are these approximations to IPA which need replacing by some homoglyph? Certes ( talk) 14:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I listed Kh (IPA) at RFD, as I agree it's a bad target, based on transliteration from non-Latin scripts and nothing to do with the IPA. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pashyanti.
Venkat TL (
talk) 10:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
In a recent discussion with one of our most active admins in the area of copyvio cleanup, it turned out that she believed that language example sentences (whether glossed or not) are subject to copyright. Given that the owner of the copyright is supposed to be the linguist who first published them, and that the vast majority of such language use we have quoted in our articles comes from linguistics works that aren't going into the public domain any time soon, then this means that we may, in principle, expect all such language examples to eventually get expunged from Wikipedia.
Now, I tried discussing the matter, and that went nowhere. Also, I'm too irked to go on. So I'm wondering, don't we have some sort of community decision on this matter? I vaguely recollect there was a similar discussion in the past (Gosh, I'm even convinced it was with the same person), but I'm unable to locate it. Failing that, is there some authoritative online resource that explains the relevant issues? – Uanfala (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
We should spell this out at WP:C or someplace similar, so that it's part of WP policy, noting especially that paraphrasing linguistic data would be unethical. But I don't know where we should put it. Any ideas? — kwami ( talk) 01:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 23#ISO 639:none. Thanks! — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 16:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Irish phonology for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 22:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
For those who're interested in exotic affricates (or at least have better competence in phonetics than I do), the question at Talk:Affricate#The velar-bilabial affricate kɸ might be of interest. – Uanfala (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was looking for the Etymology subgroup but the redirect brought me here. Right now, we have an editor who, over the past few years, has added dozens and dozens of names to this page, none of whom are supported by Wikipedia articles. It is a very common name in China so the list of historical figures with the name Yan could possibly be in the hundreds. Is there a policy on who is included in a surname list? I have reverted their edits but they are very focused on this page so I expect to be reverted myself. Thank you for any information (or a second pair of eyes) you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed that {{ IPA link}} redirects the post-stopped nasals mᵇ etc. to pre-stopped consonant because the Module:IPA_symbol/data currently does so in the presence of ⟨ ᵇ⟩ etc. Maybe this should be fixed. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
FYI: {{ Near-front vowel}} and {{ Near-back vowel}} have been nominated for deletion. Nardog ( talk) 10:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Truthiness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 08:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I am wondering if {{ Anthony}}, which is a template of names derived from the Latin Antonius and its Anglicized variant Anthony, is within the scope of this project. I have worked on a few name origin tree templates like this and when I was checking the tags on Antaine, I noticed this project. Should this project be tagged on this type of template.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't discern a significant difference, but I don't know a lot about the subject matter.
I wondered if Performative text and Performative utterance should be merged. But I defer to those with expertise. :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Linguistics! If you're ever in the mood to write about an engrossing academic personality, check out Allen Walker Read. He was an American linguist and etymologist who, among other things, studied bathroom graffiti and the origin of "ok." He was really more of an etymologist than a straight-up linguist, but contributed a ton to the study of American and British English.
I've been intermittently expanding the article for a couple months and have assembled a bunch of high-quality sources on the talk page here. There's tons of material there that could be used to expand the article. Happy editing! Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I am looking for opinions on how best to view foreign language words used in English. At what point does a foreign word become an English word of foreign origin? The relevance of this distinction relates to how that word should be treated when used in English - should the word follow English norms of usage, spelling, grammar, pronunciation etc, or should it follow the norms of the lending language. For example, is troika an English word or Russian? Or the phrase 'à la carte', English or French, and should it be spelt with or without the accent? Some might say that if a word is used in English and especially is in an English dictionary, it has become an English word that has begun undergoing assimilation, and that assimilation will vary and be changing depending on many factors. The words troika and eureka would presumably have been written in the Roman script from the start, beginning the assimilation process immediately. This question has come from an extensive debate around the use of Maori words in English. There has been a trend in the last few years to use Maori words more regularly in written and spoken English, such as tīpuna. Some of these words would rarely have been used before, if at all. This therefore goes beyond usage of the well assimilated Maori words that have been used for decades in English, particularly in NZ English, words such as pakeha and kumera. This change is part of the Maori renaissance begun roughly fifty years ago and specifically after legislative and policy changes in the last decade or so. Should the word pakeha, for example, that has been used in NZ English for a couple of hundred years, have its spelling 'corrected' to pākehā. Is it an assimilated English word that does not need to be altered or is it a Maori word that must follow Maori language rules even when used in English, such as its spelling? This NZ example is complicated because nearly all the sources available are subject to legislative changes and official policy directives that require the new Maori spellings to be used and, on national TV and radio, the 'correct' pronunciation. This compromises the independence and hence the reliability of otherwise reliable secondary sources. The implications of using the 'correct' form of a word that has been borrowed has wider implications than just Maori words. For example, is anyone pronouncing the '-t' at the end of 'trait' open to correction? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Request for comment on removal of prefix "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty" | |
Contested and attempted removal of the prefix "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty", which is construct used as a pipe for the wikilink Capital punishment in Islam and as phrase remains unreferenced. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 22:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
Is there a reason to have both Maledictology and Scatolinguistics? They seem to cover the same material...although the articles as written suggest the former is under the purview of psychology? I'm also not sure how notable either of these are qua subdisciplines of linguistics..., like there's certainly research about profanity, but are there enough sources about this as its own field to warrant a Wikipedia article? Umimmak ( talk) 07:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Fortis and lenis are both terms that have inconsistent definitions and are rarely used in comparison to voiced/voiceless in every context, it seems, other than Wikipedia pages for phonology; this is needlessly confusing and voiced/voiceless should be enforced over them. There are two different reasons one may argue against this proposition. Firstly, one might say that fortis and lenis mean voiced and voiceless themselves. In this case, fortis and lenis, as the rarer terms, should not be used for the sake of recognition. Otherwise, one may propose an alternative definition for fortis and lenis; it is the strength of a consonant, or the length, possibly something even more exotic. These simultaneous arguments, when viewed together, show why this fails; there is no consistent definition of fortis and lenis! In fact, there exist consonant inventory tables which use fortis and lenis in place of voiced and voiceless, despite the fact that plenty of pages for phonology, including Portuguese phonology and Spanish phonology, are entirely comprehensible without mentioning either word once, even in their many sources. In conclusion, fortis and lenis are dated and ambiguous terms that should be replaced with voiced and voiceless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.122.45 ( talk) 22:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The page Regular sound correspondences between Hungarian and other Uralic languages strikes me as a problem. Leaving aside the weirdly long name, the page is unreferenced and the topic seems unencyclopedic. We generally don't have articles on cognate sets, and nothing about these cognates strikes me as being the subject of major coverage. I considered taking it to AfD, but I'm interested in whether other editors think there's value in keeping this around and how we might be able to improve it. — Wug· a·po·des 03:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Each of the articles for portmanteau and contraction mentions the same distinction, that "contractions are formed from words that would otherwise appear together in sequence, such as do and not to make don't, whereas a portmanteau is formed by combining two or more existing words that all relate to a single concept". The article for contraction notes that there is some overlap, but neither article is sourced. There is some debate regarding the list of portmanteaus (which is a mess for a variety of reasons) on whether to include terms like vocoder (voice encoder), Juneteenth (June nineteenth), and and Spam (spiced ham). There are many such examples there which, taken literally as "words that would otherwise appear together" would qualify as contractions. Looking more closely at contractions, however, most of the examples suggest that they are mostly used in less formal speech rather than the formation of new words. Is there a source to clarify the distinction, and can the distinction be made more clear? HalJor ( talk) 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The blend vs. portmanteau portion of this topic has been previously discussed at Talk:Portmanteau and at Talk:Blend. (Pinging @ DavidWBrooks, Vikom, Florian Blaschke, and TAKASUGI Shinji: from those discussions.)
Usage maven Bryan Garner has blend and portmanteau as synonyms (emphasis added):
A portmanteau is a type of luggage with two separate sections. A portmanteau word is formed by combining the sounds and meanings of two different words. Linguists also call such a word a blend.
Most portmanteaus merge the initial part of one word with the end of another: smog (smoke + fog) and infomercial (information + commercial). Others combine one complete word with part of another: docudrama (documentary + drama) and palimony (pal + alimony). Sometimes words with the same sounds are combined to create a pun: shampagne (sham + champagne).
— Bryan Garner, Law Prose #194
Garner goes on to mention Lewis Carroll's well-known portmanteaus chortle, galumph, and slithy (as well as the fact that Carroll coined the phrase portmanteau word as well, though not portmanteau of course). I could see Blend word and Portmanteau being one article, because I don't know what distinction there is to draw between the two, although Contraction feels different enough to be separate.
As for the first two, I believe that blend word is primary. I seem to have a sentimental attachment to portmanteau as a stand-alone article, although I'm not sure I can articulate a valid, policy-based reason to keep it separate. The only reason I can think of, is the Lewis Carroll connection, but that's probably a pretty weak reason, unless a lot more material could be found specifically about that. On Wiktionary, yes, separate articles; but here? Sadly, probably not. Perhaps this should be formalized with a Merge request (for Blend + Portmanteau; not Contraction); I'll probably create one, if someone else doesn't. Mathglot ( talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Side comment: I hope that "such syntactic blends as It’s his job is the problem, a combination of the sentences It’s his job and His job is the problem" doesn't appear in one of our articles. That looks like folk etymology to me, as It's his job is the problem is much more obviously derived from It's his job that is the problem, not from mashing two separate sentences awkwardly together. There are several dialects that routinely drop that. I cannot count the number of times I have had to add a that to a sentence in Wikipedia itself because it was painfully ambiguous; some editors habitually write without that even when they think they are writing with especial formality and clarity, just because they're used to the lack of it and are accustomed to accept the ambiguity as normal. But the results can be very confusing, especially for non-native English speakers.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Category:Phonetics articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray ( talk) 05:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I just added an IPA transcription of Robert McNamara's surname based on the pronunciation in this ABC News video. I'm far from an expert at IPA transcription, so I would appreciate it if someone could double-check my transcription. (If there's a better page for this kind of issue, let me know.) Rublov ( talk) 20:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The newly created List of languages by number of phonemes could do with some attention (here's a sneak peek: the language listed with the largest inventory is Norman French). – Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Participation is appreciated at Talk:Voiced labialized-velar approximant#Requested move 24 May 2021. Nardog ( talk) 12:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed the asterisks look different, namely more centered than in many fonts, when put inside Template:PIE. E.g. *outside/*inside. It's a minor issue and probably not equally noticeable to every user, but if bored I may want go through all the articles using it to fix inconsistencies; before that I wanted to make sure I am doing it right and hear about other minor possible fixes I could do on the way. My first in this direction was apparently well received, most others will be hopefully simplier. The italics part is even more nitpicking, my understanding is that "*" shouldn't be in italics, unless the surrounding text is. My rationale for keeping the asterisk outside is that it isn't part of the foreign world and that reconstructed forms are sometimes rendered without templates and so with the same asterisks as normal text. When multiple forms are given, this way the code gets a bit more complicated; making the template somehow ignore this character could be simplier, otherwise a mention to leave it out in the template documentation may help. Other templates may also show the same problem. Any suggestions are welcomed. Personuser ( talk) 13:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
lang
attribute, adjusts wrapping as described, and adds an (as far as I can tell unused) CSS class. –
Joe (
talk) 09:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)I've been frustrated with how Wiki Text handles example formatting, and I know I'm not alone in this feeling. We often have to hack together the markup and it doesn't always turn out so good regardless. A while back, I submitted a feature request on Wikimedia Phabricator which would allow continuous example numbering and cross-referencing. However, it hasn't gotten a reply–– Phabricator has a bit of a backlog, and this request probably sounds a bit niche. If you would support this idea or if you would like to add anything to the feature request, you can leave a comment here.
Alternately, if anybody has any handy tricks or secret wisdom about hacking together markup for nice examples, please do share! Botterweg14 ( talk) 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
What to do about Assyrian Neo-Aramaic [aii] and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic [cld], given different SIL codes on non-linguistic grounds per this source [1]? They are two different churches and ethnic identities, but not two different language varieties. Most reliable sources distinguish between dialects of Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) spoken by Jews and Christians, but not between Assyrian and Chaldean dialects. As far as I can tell, it is impossible to write articles on either of these topics without a large amount of original research, since the vast majority of reliable sources discuss NENA rather than "Assyrian" or "Chaldean". ( t · c) buidhe 09:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Opinions and comments needed here.
It is a renaming proposal of the Italian municipality currently spelled Codogné. It was proposed to change the spelling to Codognè. The reason of the proposal is that the Italian state websites listing Italian municipalities use the same accent (è) for every accented town name and that on the website of the town itself this is the most common spelling. The reason to reject the proposal is that Italian orthography handbooks and encyclopedies which distinguish between two different accents prescribe the current spelling (é) corresponding to the prescribed pronunciation in Standard Italian. Since both options are reasonable a large number of opinions is desirable to have a shared consensus.
Tsistunaɡiska ( talk) 06:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion on the MoS about whether etymologies only apply to words: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:SECTIONSTYLE,_"etymology"_and_User_talk:Catchpoke. Catchpoke ( talk) 19:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Category:Criticism of political correctness. Please see the discussion if you are interested. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
In which articles should occurrences of sounds that have been described as voiceless approximants, such as [ʍ] in Scottish English whether, be included? 10:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
References
I applaud the decision to raise this tricky issue for discussion. It is noticeably confusing in Voiceless labiovelar fricative when we read "Features of the voiceless labial–velar fricative: Its manner of articulation is approximant". I think it is wise at this stage not to go against IPA policy, but on the other hand I think it would not be out of place to ask the IPA to give an opinion on a problematical area that falls within its scope. Ideally, someone should write a short article for the Journal of the IPA outlining the problem as it confronts WP, asking the IPA membership to comment and the Executive to consider whether a change in the IPA chart is called for. RoachPeter ( talk) 14:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I doubt '[t]he International Phonetic Association clearly belongs in the "there are no such things" camp'. In figure 6 on page 35 of the Handbook the symbol ⟨l̥⟩ is used for an unvoiced lateral approximant where ⟨ɬ⟩ would be available for the corresponding fricative, and on page 136 Šuštaršič & Komar mention "a voiceless labial-velar approximant [ʍ]" in Slovene. Also, what is ⟨n̥⟩ used in the exemplification of the diacritic ⟨◌̥⟩ on page 24, if ⟨n⟩ symbolizes a nasal without friction a.k.a. nasal approximant? — On Fricative#Pseudo-fricatives we have a sentence that reads: 'In addition, [ʍ] is usually called a "voiceless labial-velar fricative", but it is actually an approximant.' Love — LiliCharlie ( talk) 17:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The only case where this is a problem is ⟨ʍ⟩, and then only because it has a dedicated IPA symbol, and that a historical relic. Any other voiceless approximants should be covered under the corresponding voiced approximant, but cross-linked to and from the equivalent fricative, with the potential ambiguity being noted in both. That is, whether an author transcribes a sound in the language they describe as [ɥ̊] or [çʷ] or [ɸʲ], or as [l̥] or [ɬ], we should follow them as the RS and not impose an ideological decision that they must be wrong because their transcription contravenes one or another statement by the IPA.
LiliCharlie makes a good point here. Once a convention is established, the IPA needs to get consensus to change it. A lack of consensus to change something does not mean they'd have consensus to establish it today. E.g. ⟨ɱ⟩, which violates the stated conventions of the IPA and I doubt would get consensus if it were proposed as a new symbol today (it would be ⟨m̪⟩), but which has failed to get consensus to retire. Similarly ⟨ɧ⟩, which is used as a phonemic rather than as a phonetic symbol, something the IPA says it doesn't do.
The IPA is not an arbiter of which phonetic distinctions there are in languages. Its job is to provide symbols for them, not to define them. How even members of the IPA use those symbols often differs from the description by the IPA. As LiliCharlie points out, this is true even in the Handbook. There are many more examples in JIPA. The IPA not only tolerates this, but only attempts to apply some order to it. That is, I think LiliCharlie is correct in doubting that the IPA has taken a stand on the issue of whether [ʍ] is a fricative, an approximant, or ambiguous. They simply need to call it something, and there's been no consensus to change what they call it.
As for Scottish (or at least Scots) /ʍ/, among older speakers it's indeed a velar fricative [xʷ]. Even among younger speakers, and in RP English, it's arguably [hʷ]. If [h] is called a fricative, as it is in the IPA, then so would both [xʷ] and [hʷ]. You also have languages like Kham which are analyzed as having [ɥ̊] and [w̥]; phonologically, analyzing these sounds as [çʷ] and [xʷ] runs into the difficulty that there is no /ç/ or /x/ in the language, nor any other labialized consonantal segments, but there are /y/, /ɥ/, /u/ and /w/ and other voiceless sonorants, such as the nasals.
I doubt most of the modern authors who call English /ʍ/ a 'fricative' have actually investigated the question. They may call it that because that's the tradition in the English lit (dating from before there was such a thing as 'approximants'), or because that's what the IPA calls it. With more obscure languages, an author is more likely to make an attempt to analyze the nature of the sound. For instance, with Hupa, Golla lists the fricatives /x xʷ h W/ (elsewhere ⟨ʍ⟩), but says that /W/ is a labialized glottal fricative, forming a labialization pair with /h/. He also says that while e.g. /ha/ is phonetically [ḁ], /W/ is phonetically [u̥]. Thus /ohW#/ is phonetically [o̥u̥]. If we're going to insist that voiceless approximants are 'fricatives', then we'd need to characterize voiceless vowels as fricatives as well. Better IMO just to follow our sources, and to note how differing descriptions may correspond to each other. — kwami ( talk) 19:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
"The IPA is not an arbiter of which phonetic distinctions there are in languages. Its job is to provide symbols for them, not to define them."
The one exception would be for [ʍ], because that has a dedicated IPA symbol that makes its treatment problematic. I wouldn't object to keeping the article at 'Voiceless labial–velar fricative', as long as we are clear in the heading that that label may be inaccurate. However, rather than saying something like 'arguably, the labial-velar fricative is often neither velar nor a fricative', another possibility would be to move the article to ' ʍ', and to cover the usage of the IPA symbol itself as the topic of the article. The sound [w̥] could then be covered in more detail at Labial–velar approximant (voiceless section), the sound [xʷ] could be covered at labialization, and disputes over the English sound could be covered at Pronunciation of English ⟨wh⟩. All of those articles would be listed in the 'See also' section of the 'ʍ' article.
For a parallel, note how we treat [ɧ] at Sj-sound, rather than under the IPA name 'simultaneous voiceless postalveolar and velar fricative', a description which a former president of the IPA has stated several times is inaccurate. — kwami ( talk) 06:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
History of ⟨ʍ⟩ through Kiel
|
---|
⟨ʍ⟩ was adopted specifically for the English wh sound. Usage for other languages has always been ambiguous. AFAICT, it was introduced in the 1900 chart. It was not defined there apart from its placement in the chart (with [ʍ w] as a voicing pair of fricatives under the column labiales and secondarily under vélaires), and in a statement that for both the back of the tongue is raised. ([j] was also a fricative, as was [ɥ], which had 2ary articulation in the palatales column.) The 1904 description says it "is one variety of Northern Engish wh." The 1912 description used the same wording, and the 1912 chart showed it as a fricative in the 'lips' column, with secondary articulation in the 'back' column. [j], [ɥ], [w] were still considered fricatives. In 1921, ⟨ƕ⟩ replaced ⟨ʍ⟩. In 1932 and 1947, [w] and [ɥ] are in a new row for 'Frictionless Continuants and Semi-vowels', under the bi-labial column with 2ary articulation under the velar and palatal columns. [ʍ] is not on the chart and is defined as "voiceless w". In the 1949 Principles, the chart is the same but the description (p. 14) says, "the letter for the voiceless fricative corresponding to w is ʍ, but it is generally preferable to represent this sound by the digraph hw." The 1979 revision places ⟨ʍ⟩ in the chart for the first time since 1904. It is placed in the fricative row, and was no longer presented as the voiceless partner to [w]. It is also labial-velar, in the same column as [k͡p]. That is, it's defined as a doubly articulated [x͡ɸ], which according to Ladefoged and Maddieson is for all practical purposes impossible. The chart presentation reaches it current treatment after the Kiel convention, with ⟨ʍ⟩ listed under 'other symbols' as a "voiceless labial-velar fricative" and ⟨w⟩ as a "voiced labial-velar approximant". However, the Report on the Kiel Convention (p. 70) reported that the convention had decided that the chart should include the wording that "[w] represents a voiced labial-velar approximant and [ʍ] its voiceless counterpart," but that for reasons of space it was not possible to comply with this decision. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The problem we seem to have here, besides the poorly defined outlier character ⟨ʍ⟩ in the IPA, is that some phoneticians/phonologists have argues that voiceless approximants do not exist. But others argue that they do exist, though no language seems to make a phonemic distinction between them and fricatives. I don't follow the argument that because one POV says a sound doesn't exist, we can't report on it following RS's that say it does exist. — kwami ( talk) 23:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
impos[ing] an ideological decisionmore than describing them definitively as approximants. Nardog ( talk) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Norwegian language conflict has an old split proposal from 2017. I am not an expert in the field nor an enthusiast so idk if this would be useful or a good idea, but would like to remove the split tag to clean the backlog. I'm messaging here hoping there will be some discussion on the matter, and if not please ping me back and I'll delete the split tag. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe use this one instead?
https://mingle-ish.com/phrasal-verbs/ 213.205.194.52 ( talk) 14:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Can some people please take a look at the edits at Faux (surname), Defaux (surname), Talk:Defaux (surname), and Dufaux (surname). I and another editor disagree, so input from others is welcome. Fram ( talk) 17:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_29#Ɥ for where to rd the character itself when we have an article on the letter, such as turned h for 'Ɥ' (the capital of which has no IPA use). — kwami ( talk) 22:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm coming across redlinked phonemes, such as / Kʰ/ in Garhwali language#Allophony which I assume should link to the same target as Kh (IPA). Do we need some new redirects, or are these approximations to IPA which need replacing by some homoglyph? Certes ( talk) 14:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I listed Kh (IPA) at RFD, as I agree it's a bad target, based on transliteration from non-Latin scripts and nothing to do with the IPA. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pashyanti.
Venkat TL (
talk) 10:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
In a recent discussion with one of our most active admins in the area of copyvio cleanup, it turned out that she believed that language example sentences (whether glossed or not) are subject to copyright. Given that the owner of the copyright is supposed to be the linguist who first published them, and that the vast majority of such language use we have quoted in our articles comes from linguistics works that aren't going into the public domain any time soon, then this means that we may, in principle, expect all such language examples to eventually get expunged from Wikipedia.
Now, I tried discussing the matter, and that went nowhere. Also, I'm too irked to go on. So I'm wondering, don't we have some sort of community decision on this matter? I vaguely recollect there was a similar discussion in the past (Gosh, I'm even convinced it was with the same person), but I'm unable to locate it. Failing that, is there some authoritative online resource that explains the relevant issues? – Uanfala (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
We should spell this out at WP:C or someplace similar, so that it's part of WP policy, noting especially that paraphrasing linguistic data would be unethical. But I don't know where we should put it. Any ideas? — kwami ( talk) 01:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 23#ISO 639:none. Thanks! — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 16:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Irish phonology for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 22:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
For those who're interested in exotic affricates (or at least have better competence in phonetics than I do), the question at Talk:Affricate#The velar-bilabial affricate kɸ might be of interest. – Uanfala (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was looking for the Etymology subgroup but the redirect brought me here. Right now, we have an editor who, over the past few years, has added dozens and dozens of names to this page, none of whom are supported by Wikipedia articles. It is a very common name in China so the list of historical figures with the name Yan could possibly be in the hundreds. Is there a policy on who is included in a surname list? I have reverted their edits but they are very focused on this page so I expect to be reverted myself. Thank you for any information (or a second pair of eyes) you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed that {{ IPA link}} redirects the post-stopped nasals mᵇ etc. to pre-stopped consonant because the Module:IPA_symbol/data currently does so in the presence of ⟨ ᵇ⟩ etc. Maybe this should be fixed. – Austronesier ( talk) 20:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
FYI: {{ Near-front vowel}} and {{ Near-back vowel}} have been nominated for deletion. Nardog ( talk) 10:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Truthiness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 08:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I am wondering if {{ Anthony}}, which is a template of names derived from the Latin Antonius and its Anglicized variant Anthony, is within the scope of this project. I have worked on a few name origin tree templates like this and when I was checking the tags on Antaine, I noticed this project. Should this project be tagged on this type of template.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't discern a significant difference, but I don't know a lot about the subject matter.
I wondered if Performative text and Performative utterance should be merged. But I defer to those with expertise. :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Linguistics! If you're ever in the mood to write about an engrossing academic personality, check out Allen Walker Read. He was an American linguist and etymologist who, among other things, studied bathroom graffiti and the origin of "ok." He was really more of an etymologist than a straight-up linguist, but contributed a ton to the study of American and British English.
I've been intermittently expanding the article for a couple months and have assembled a bunch of high-quality sources on the talk page here. There's tons of material there that could be used to expand the article. Happy editing! Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I am looking for opinions on how best to view foreign language words used in English. At what point does a foreign word become an English word of foreign origin? The relevance of this distinction relates to how that word should be treated when used in English - should the word follow English norms of usage, spelling, grammar, pronunciation etc, or should it follow the norms of the lending language. For example, is troika an English word or Russian? Or the phrase 'à la carte', English or French, and should it be spelt with or without the accent? Some might say that if a word is used in English and especially is in an English dictionary, it has become an English word that has begun undergoing assimilation, and that assimilation will vary and be changing depending on many factors. The words troika and eureka would presumably have been written in the Roman script from the start, beginning the assimilation process immediately. This question has come from an extensive debate around the use of Maori words in English. There has been a trend in the last few years to use Maori words more regularly in written and spoken English, such as tīpuna. Some of these words would rarely have been used before, if at all. This therefore goes beyond usage of the well assimilated Maori words that have been used for decades in English, particularly in NZ English, words such as pakeha and kumera. This change is part of the Maori renaissance begun roughly fifty years ago and specifically after legislative and policy changes in the last decade or so. Should the word pakeha, for example, that has been used in NZ English for a couple of hundred years, have its spelling 'corrected' to pākehā. Is it an assimilated English word that does not need to be altered or is it a Maori word that must follow Maori language rules even when used in English, such as its spelling? This NZ example is complicated because nearly all the sources available are subject to legislative changes and official policy directives that require the new Maori spellings to be used and, on national TV and radio, the 'correct' pronunciation. This compromises the independence and hence the reliability of otherwise reliable secondary sources. The implications of using the 'correct' form of a word that has been borrowed has wider implications than just Maori words. For example, is anyone pronouncing the '-t' at the end of 'trait' open to correction? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Request for comment on removal of prefix "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty" | |
Contested and attempted removal of the prefix "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty", which is construct used as a pipe for the wikilink Capital punishment in Islam and as phrase remains unreferenced. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 22:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |
Is there a reason to have both Maledictology and Scatolinguistics? They seem to cover the same material...although the articles as written suggest the former is under the purview of psychology? I'm also not sure how notable either of these are qua subdisciplines of linguistics..., like there's certainly research about profanity, but are there enough sources about this as its own field to warrant a Wikipedia article? Umimmak ( talk) 07:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Fortis and lenis are both terms that have inconsistent definitions and are rarely used in comparison to voiced/voiceless in every context, it seems, other than Wikipedia pages for phonology; this is needlessly confusing and voiced/voiceless should be enforced over them. There are two different reasons one may argue against this proposition. Firstly, one might say that fortis and lenis mean voiced and voiceless themselves. In this case, fortis and lenis, as the rarer terms, should not be used for the sake of recognition. Otherwise, one may propose an alternative definition for fortis and lenis; it is the strength of a consonant, or the length, possibly something even more exotic. These simultaneous arguments, when viewed together, show why this fails; there is no consistent definition of fortis and lenis! In fact, there exist consonant inventory tables which use fortis and lenis in place of voiced and voiceless, despite the fact that plenty of pages for phonology, including Portuguese phonology and Spanish phonology, are entirely comprehensible without mentioning either word once, even in their many sources. In conclusion, fortis and lenis are dated and ambiguous terms that should be replaced with voiced and voiceless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.122.45 ( talk) 22:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The page Regular sound correspondences between Hungarian and other Uralic languages strikes me as a problem. Leaving aside the weirdly long name, the page is unreferenced and the topic seems unencyclopedic. We generally don't have articles on cognate sets, and nothing about these cognates strikes me as being the subject of major coverage. I considered taking it to AfD, but I'm interested in whether other editors think there's value in keeping this around and how we might be able to improve it. — Wug· a·po·des 03:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)