User talk:Kbb2

An IP

You might want to check the history of this user, who seems to have continued to edit IPA transcriptions despite your warning. Nardog (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: Thanks for the heads-up. This is not surpising, and the fact that I gave him a rather strongly worded warning was a consequence of his previous behavior (edits under different IP's) - but you're probably aware of that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: This is the same guy, look at the edit summaries. You can report him if you want, at least you won't be ignored. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

IPA for Persian

Hi, some of your changes in Persian pronunciation in IPA is wrong. The page Help:IPA/Persian is incomplete and does not cover aspiration and palatalization in Persian. Z 20:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Both aspiration and palatalisation are not phonemic in Persian, but merely realisational preferences. Users who have mastered our diaphonemic transcriptions for English terms would be puzzled to see aspiration marked for Persian, but not for the language this encyclopaedia is written in. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: Yeah, pretty much what he said. German, Swedish and Norwegian /p, t, k/ are also allophonically aspirated and we don't mark that in our transcriptions because English stops behave in pretty much the same way (minor differences aside). Persian seems to aspirate its stops in most positions and so it is quite similar to some varieties of spoken (Northern) Standard German. These guides don't need to cover each and every phonetic detail. As far as I remember, some transcriptions (presumably the Tajik ones) even included a raising diacritic on ⟨ɔ⟩. That was definitely an overkill. We use ⟨ɔ⟩ to indicate a mid back rounded vowel on Help:IPA/Icelandic and Help:IPA/Slovak and I don't think that anyone would think that it's appropriate to give Tajik (or Persian in general) a special treatment. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Transcriptions of NAE

I don't appreciate you going around changing the transcriptions of North American English when your proposal at Talk:General American#Vowels (again) has not been implemented and so far garnered no support. As you said yourself, the proposal was too long and many of us probably haven't mustered the energy to address your points. I suggest you make a summary of the specific changes you want to make and succinctly describe the reasons behind them, and refrain from changing transcriptions in other articles until the changes you propose are reflected at the article about the reference accent itself. Nardog (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: The main point is to start transcribing the tense vowels with the length mark ⟨ː⟩.

I've just reexamined those edits. I assume you mean these specific articles:

• Comparison of General American and Received Pronunciation
• Cot–caught merger
• English-language vowel changes before historic /l/
• English-language vowel changes before historic /r/
• Flapping
• H-dropping
• Phonological history of English consonants
• Phonological history of English consonant clusters
• Phonological history of English diphthongs
• Phonological history of English low back vowels
• Phonological history of English vowels
• Th-stopping
• Rhoticity in English

as well as the English -or- table.

If you check them yourself and see their state before my edits, you'll see that they were already inconsistent in the way the length marks were used. And at least 50% (a rough estimate) of what I've edited was other stuff, fixing phonemic transcriptions (does anyone argue that there exist phonemic */ɝ/ or */ɚ/ in GA?), fixing inconsistent marking of vowel length in contexts other than IPA transcriptions of NAE, removing dark l's and aspiration (and therefore making those transcriptions less selectively narrow, as I call it - there's no reason to denote aspiration to the exclusion of the voicelessness of lenes, nasal release of all plosives, unreleased plosives as in actor, etc.), removing inconsistent marking of syllable breaks, fixing transcriptional errors, etc. In some places I also changed ⟨ɹ⟩ to ⟨r⟩. In transcriptions of NAE neither symbol is really more correct and there's no proper way to denote the (labialized and pharyngealized) bunched approximant (unless someone wants to write it [ɵ̯˞ˤ] - but that's a bit ridiculous, [ɵ̯˞ˤɐɪ̯t͡ʔ]), which is a common allophone of /r/ in NAE. ⟨ɻ⟩ works only as a broad transcription as the sound is dorsal rather than coronal. Also, let's not forget about the postalveolar fricative allophones after /p, t, d, k/ and about possible flapping of /r/ after /θ/.

I was careful to only choose articles of which NAE isn't the only subject. I can explain some of my edits:

• In the English -or- table, at least the distinction between [ɒr] and [ɒːr] is necessary. The former occurs in RP and NYCE and the latter in Boston English. In RP and NYCE the sound contrasts with the /ɔː/ of THOUGHT, but in Boston it doesn't. There's also another problem: in RP and NYCE, /ɒ/ is a checked vowel, but in Boston /ɒː/ is free because it is the outcome of the cot–caught merger. If an RP speaker heard forest pronounced with [ɒː] he'd immediately label such a pronunciation as not belonging to RP and would probably take it as a dark variety of /ɑː/ which you can hear in Geordie and sometimes also in Cockney (although I'm not so sure about the latter). I'm pretty sure that speakers of New York English would also label [ɒː] as not being native to the city. I've also removed the rounded variant from the first GA column (I mean the one to the left) as I'm not sure how widespread it is (though we could think of restoring it with the length mark).

The same kind of reasoning can apply to these two edits: [1], [2].

• IMO, a bare ⟨ɒ⟩ shouldn't be used for the THOUGHT vowel or a merged LOT–THOUGHT one as the danger of confusion with the LOT vowel of RP and NYCE is too big. See e.g. [3]. Who transcribes low THOUGHT like that? I've literally never seen a bare ⟨ɒ⟩ used that way. This is why especially uniform omission of the length marks in transcriptions of NAE is a bad idea. Generally, it seems to me that it's better to retain them.

What else that I did was controversial? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I said "summary" and "succinctly". Saying "another tl;dr" doesn't make people suddenly read. Nardog (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

See the talk page, maybe that version is better. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I do have some thoughts about what you're putting forth, but I want to address them once I've understood all your points and where you're coming from on the whole. The lengthiness and stream-of-consciousness nature of your posts are making me reluctant to do that (call me lazy, but that's that). And I have a hunch some others are feeling similarly given no one has really made an argument for or against your proposal. Nardog (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: This is a legitimate point, not being lazy. What about now? I think that my last message sums up the entirety of what I want to change and why. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Colognian

Hi Mr Kebab,

Were you ever able to check your sources per Talk:Colognian dialect? While I doubt any IPA transcription will be able to cover all varieties, if we transcribed tone according to a fairly representative accent we could direct readers to the details from the key. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Apologies Kwami, I thought I've already replied to you back in January (I didn't). I tried to do some research now but the results of it don't seem to strongly suggest using any transcription to the exclusion of the other. Because the realization of tones varies from dialect to dialect (I mean the whole Ripuarian-Limburgish dialect area), it may be the case that it's the best to use the superscript numbers for the tones. That way we ensure consistent representation of tones across the whole Ripuarian/Limburgish-speaking area, because we already have quite a few Limburgish transcriptions on WP.

We could improve Colognian dialect so that it shows how exactly the phonetics of the pitch accent works. We could also create Help:IPA/Limburgish and Ripuarian, similar to Help:IPA/Alemannic German as a cover guide for all other dialects. But doing the latter is too challenging to me and so someone else would have to try it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My first idea was to use the circumflex [◌̂] to mark the falling Stoßton of Colognian, and the half-long sign [ˑ] for Schleifton, which has longer segments. (Both in conjunction with the stress mark [ˈ], of course.) However this would mean we mark tone/​pitch of one "prosodeme", and length/​duration of its counterpart. As Schleifton is the unmarked one, it seems preferable not to indicate it at all. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If we explained in the key that [◌̂] was a falling tone in Cologne (if that's right) but realized differently elsewhere, I think that would be acceptable. For Spanish we note that the /θ/ of Castilian is /s/ in most of Latin America, for example. Many of our charts are for some representative dialect or accent and note that things are different elsewhere. The important part is that it be predictable from the transcription. I'd think people using the Colognian key should be able to figure things out as well as those using the Spanish and other key.

But yes, definitely should be done in conjunction with expanding the Colognian article to provide the details.

Mr Kebab, how does LiliCharlie's proposal strike you? [ˈ] vs [ˈ...◌̂], I mean. It should at least give people an idea of Colognian proper, and should be extendable to any other dialect or accent they might be familiar with. I'd really prefer to keep IPA transcriptions IPA, per the MOS. We've got a similar problem w tone in SE Asia, where people working on the languages want to use digits 1-5 for relative pitch, but unfortunately the opposite order of digits as elsewhere. It can get confusing for anyone not in their walled garden. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: It sounds good to me. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Want to be clear before I mess things up! @LiliCharlie:

At Help:IPA/Colognian, T1 (marked tone) is indicated by full length or no length, while T2 (unmarked tone) is indicated by a half-length mark. In the actual articles these may be indicated instead by superscript 1 and 2.

If I remove the half-length sign from T2, then all long vowels are T1, and T1/T2 distinction only occurs in short vowels and diphthongs. Is that correct?

If they should be long, then all short vowels take the marked tone, T1. That doesn't sound right either. Or is it that the T2 short vowels are all reduced?

Or should the T1 circumflex only be added to long vowels and to diphthongs, and T2 vowels all be marked long, leaving all short vowels unmarked?

I'm changing the key to reflect the first of these. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

'Opa' is given as an ex. of T1 on /a/ even though it isn't stressed. Similarly 'Kannapee' on /ee/. 'Poe-a-poe'. 'Idee' on unstressed /i/.

Should any of the monosyllables not be marked for stress? Currently some are and some aren't.

Plus we have /ɧ/ which, while not actually impossible, is so implausible it's not thought to actually exist in any language. (Certainly not in Swedish, which is what it's for.)

And it seems that an inordinate number of the consonant examples have T1, given that T1 is the marked tone, because of all the short vowels. Leaving short vowels unmarked would take care of this. Is this due to a misanalysis by someone who thought T2 was the marked tone? — kwami (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Heike (1964:52) gives minimal pairs like /ʃtiːf/ "stiff, rigid" vs. /ʃtîːf/ "stiffness, rigidity; strength starch", /huːs/ "house (nom./​acc.)" vs. /hûːs/ "house (dat.)", /ʃlɛːʃ/ "bad" vs. /ʃlɛ̂ːʃ/ "beats, blows, strikes (n. pl.)" with long vowels, /zei/ "she" vs. /zêi/ "sieve" with a diphthong, and /kan/ "(I/​he) can" vs. /kân/ "(tea)pot, jug" with a short vowel. (Heike uses bold typeface instead of IPA [◌̂].) However, syllables with short vowels can bear Stoßton only if the coda contains a sonorant (/m, n, ŋ, r, l/). This means that Colognian tone does not depend on vowel length, but rather on vocalic length in the coda, where "vocalic" refers to sharply defined formant structures, as in the Jacobson-Halle feature system.

2. Heike never uses stress marks for monosyllables, no matter which tone they bear. — Only stressed syllables can bear Stoßton. The Colognian Academy's dictionary Das Kölsche Wörterbuch (³2009), which indicates tone throughout, also confirms this in its preface on page 23. Unfortunately, the words Oppa and Kannapee are not among its 24.000 entries. (I also searched for possible variant spellings.) This makes both these unsourced examples strange in more than one way. peu à peu is transcribed as [ˌpøaˈpøˑ], and Idee as [ɪˈdeˑ], with a circular [ˑ] indicating Stoßton (and consequently also length of syllable-final vowels). — I might check more or all of the examples on the help page, but I am too busy at this point.

3. Heike uses /ʃ/, not /ɧ/. He describes three allophones of this phoneme (1964:45f.): [ʃ], [£‛], and [ʒ]. [ʃ], the default realisation, and [ʒ], which mostly occurs word-finally in front of vowels (sandhi), have lip rounding. His idiosyncratic symbol [£‛] represents "a more or less palatalised [ʃ] ... with unrounded [entrundeten, lit. "de-rounded"] lips" that is common after front vowels. — The symbol /ɧ/ is used for Heike's [£‛] in publications (dictionary, grammar, textbooks, etc.) of the influential Akademie för uns kölsche Sproch ("Academy for our Colognian Language"), which might explain its use by some Wikipedians. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Much clearer. I think we should remove the duplicate vowels, then, and have tone and stress together. Examples for the vowels could be either T1 or T2, perhaps best to have one of each. — kwami (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Our phonology article claims ʃ and ɧ are distinct phonemes. Perhaps you could review?

/aːʊ/ only occurs with Stoßton? — kwami (talk)

I'm confused by the 'long' vowels in accent 2. Some are transcribed with the T2 mark after the following sonorant, some before. Does that mean anything? E.g. äänz, Nähl (though those are written long in orthography), but also ömjonn, with no T2 mark at all, and Bunn /bʊnˑ/, where /ʊ/ does not occur long. And do zaubere, Kakau go with the long diphthong of Strauß or the short one of Zauß? — kwami (talk)

For personal reasons it may take a week or two before I resume this discussion. Sorry. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

R-colored vowels

Hi Kbb2, I've also been wondering what you consider the difference between "R-colored vowels" and "vowels followed by R". Have you written more about this anywhere? Genuinely interested. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: General American NURSE-LETTER (same phoneme) is genuinely r-colored, which means that it's actually a syllabic consonant [ɹ̩], I don't consider it a vowel but a consonant with a possible slight vocalic onglide. After all, [ɫ̩] isn't a vowel, no? So why should [ɹ̩] be a vowel. It's a rhetorical question, I'm just challenging the position of some scholars on this.

We need to remember that before /ɜːr/ became what it is today it corresponded to /ɛr, ɪr, ʊr/ which eventually underwent a complete coalescence to a syllabic [ɹ̩]. I think that it's best to consider North American NURSE-LETTER to be /ər/ phonemically, which means that /ə/ is stressable in NAE regardless of whether /ʌ/ is a phoneme separate from it. Most Americans find the British distinction between /ɜː/ and /ə/ difficult to reproduce, which means that both NURSE and LETTER shouldn't be differentiated in phonemic transcription. Because the nurse-letter merged vowel behaves the same as the sequences /əl, əm, ən/, it makes no sense to say that it's /ɜːr/ or /ʌr/ phonemically because /ʌ/ doesn't form syllabic consonants with any other consonant and the alleged */ɜː/ doesn't exist in General American.

I guess whether /ɑːr/ etc. are r-colored or not depends on speaker. I doubt that there are any speakers of GA that produce START with a full retroflexion throughout.

In Scotland, none of these are r-colored, especially when /r/ is realized as a tap or it's vocalized. In short, an r-colored vowel is a vowel that is produced with partial or almost full retroflexion. I say almost because there may be a slight schwa onglide in the case of the nurse-letter vowel.

I also think that it's bad practice to analyze the north-force vowel as /ɔːr/ in North America. It should be /oʊr/ because of how widespread the cot-caught merger is. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I got what where your head's at now. As for your north-force idea, I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm trying to think, intuitively or on my own (I don't have a cot-caught merger), if I would pattern north/force with [ɔː] or with [oʊ]. I think my instincts align with the latter, but again I don't have the merger and this could easily be a case of perception but not production. And trying to think of a way to test my instincts on this more naturally but I can't at the moment. Wolfdog (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Ha, you're following me, huh? Wolfdog (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I'm a professional stalker... or so I thought :P Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

B.T.

Regarding this change at B.T.. I know nothing about IPA phonetic alphabets, but I do speak Danish. After looking at Help:IPA/Danish, I refuse to believe ˈpeːˀ is the correct consonant sound for the first letter of "B.T." Since I have no authoritative reason to change it back to beːˀ I am only here to ask you to reevaluate your change. Your link for the reason was about vowels, so it was not much help. Thanks, --SVTCobra (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed a similar change at Berlingske. In my layman's experience a Danish B is very similar to an English B and nowhere near a P. If these changes are indeed correct, I think Help:IPA/Danish needs to be updated because the the examples make no sense to me. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: That discussion is about the way we transcribe Danish into IPA. It's not that long. Danish phonology explains how plosives work in Danish. All pairs are voiceless and are distinguished by aspiration (or affrication, in the case of the alveolar plosives) and so by writing them ⟨pʰ, p, tˢ, t, kʰ, k⟩ we're fixing the defective transcription ⟨p, b, t, d, k, ɡ⟩ (or even worse - ⟨pʰ, b̥, tˢ, d̥, kʰ, ɡ̊⟩) which is an imposition of Danish orthography on the way Danish is transcribed in IPA.

English plosives are more variable than the Danish ones and English /b, d, ɡ/ are variably voiced.

I'll update the guide once I finish updating the transcriptions. That shouldn't take a long time. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. While your explanation was pretty much Greek to me, it assured me it was not a mistake. I look forward to the updated guide. Mange tak, --SVTCobra (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: It's been updated. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have been looking at it and especially contrasting Help:IPA/Danish with Help:IPA/English focusing entirely on ⟨b⟩ and ⟨p⟩ and the examples given. I have been sounding out various words trying to contrast what I am doing with my lips, tongue and airflow as I say them. My layman's conclusion, being fluent in both languages, is the Danish B is indistinguishable from the English B when it is at the start of a word. (I don't really know what the difference is between 'voiced' and 'voiceless'.) And I was really surprised ⟨b⟩ is not even in the Danish guide. And then I noticed ⟨k⟩ and its examples which I thought were right out. "God (good)" and "gås (goose)" are not pronounced with a hard K like "scan" or "kiss". Anyway, I don't expect you to take any action based on what I say here, but I wonder if we can find a Danish linguist and not just rely on English-speakers poring over Den Danske Ordbog for hints. Lastly, our sister-project Wiktionary seems to agree with me. The example in IPA/Danish was "bog (book)" which Wiktionary has in IPA as /bɔɡ/, [ˈb̥ɔʊ̯ˀ] certainly not ⟨p⟩. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: The /k/ in English "scan" is different from that in "kiss". The latter is aspirated, the former isn't. Danish plosives contrast purely by aspiration, not voicing (although the unaspirated plosives may be allophonically voiced in certain environments, but this hasn't been reported in any paper I'm aware of.) The illogical transcription ⟨pʰ, b̥, tˢ, d̥, kʰ, ɡ̊⟩ is used only because it then allows the transcriber to write them with /p, b, t, d, k, ɡ/ in phonemic transcription as that fits Danish orthography more closely (something a transcriber should never do - the way you transcribe a language into IPA shouldn't be dictated by its orthography). Both ⟨pʰ, b̥, tˢ, d̥, kʰ, ɡ̊⟩ and ⟨pʰ, p, tˢ, t, kʰ, k⟩ convey the exact same information.

Also, Help:IPA/English is a diaphonemic guide, whereas Help:IPA/Danish is phonetic (two steps closer to actual pronunciation).

Compare the Danish guide with Help:IPA/Icelandic, which transcribes the stops in the same way (it's just that the aspirated alveolar stop is written with ⟨tʰ⟩, which is also a more logical choice in the case of Danish - affrication is merely a phonetic detail and it's inconsistent to write the aspirated alveolar stop with ⟨tˢ⟩ and the unaspirated stops with ⟨b̥, d̥, ɡ̊⟩ which gives an illusion of a narrow transcription - it's not, it's just a strange way to write [p, t, k].) Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply, though it was hard to follow because well, many of these words are not in my vocabulary. The reason I brought up /k/ is Voiceless velar stop uses "kiss" and "gås" while Help:IPA/Danish uses "scan" and "god" as the approximations. I agree "kiss" and "scan" are not the same, but I would argue "gås" and "god" are the same. Anyway, I shan't bother you again about this because I am clearly out of my depth.

@SVTCobra: That's why you should read the articles I've linked to.

Help:IPA/Danish uses "scan" and "car" as approximations for the unaspirated and aspirated stops. If you compare the second consonant in English "scan", you'll see that it comes pretty damn close to the first one in Danish "god" as well as the initial consonant in English "god". English /k/ and /ɡ/ can just as correctly be written /kʰ/ and /k/, as in Icelandic. The same applies to the corresponding consonants in German (as well as what we write with ⟨p, b, t, d⟩). By "German" I mean Hannover Standard German (the one heard in German news and taught to non-natives) and all other accents that closely approximate it, rather than the rather loosely defined standard varieties of Switzerland and Austria (the latter approximates Hannover SG anyway...) Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Admittedly, I did not click the Icelandic IPA link because it felt like it would introduce another level of complexity I wasn't ready for. And I have already done some experiments with unaspirated and aspirated stops (using smoke instead of a candle). Perhaps it's the visual rejection of seeing a K instead of a G, and a P instead of a B. Or maybe it's my failure to understand why one IPA guide is diaphoneme and another is allophone, instead of IPA being universal. But I guess, you even said the Wikitionary IPA notations weren't technically wrong, just "illogical". I am decades separated from the German I studied, but I have decided not to try and use IPA in my current efforts to learn basic Russian. And I don't feel so bad not knowing so many of the words you use because neither does my spellchecker. Cheers, and thanks for trying to educate me. --SVTCobra (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

On Linglish.net there's a blog post entitled Buy a pie for the spy in which Thomas Tsoi from Hong Kong compares the English /b~p/ contrast with the (Mandarin and Cantonese) Chinese /p~pʰ/ contrast, and explains why 'most untrained Chinese speakers are unaware of this “voiced” property.' Danish is pretty much like Chinese in this respect. (And English lenis obstruents are certainly not always fully voiced.) Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sejr

Hi, is this correct? Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@DrVogel: It looks more plausible than [sajˀr], yes. But is it correct? I'm not sure. I'm 80% sure that it is. You should ask a native speaker of Danish. It's quite possible that the noun sejr and the surname Sejr are homophonous. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully @SVTCobra: is still watching this? Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am extremely confident the surname is pronounced the same as the noun. As far as I know, the usage as a name goes back to Valdemar II of Denmark. The name doesn't have a separate origin from the noun's meaning of "victory". As for IPA, I am completely word blind, I'm afraid. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@DrVogel: This just crossed my mind. "Valdemar Sejr" would literally be "Valdemar Victory" because "Valdemar the Victorious" would have been "Valdemar den Sejrende" or "Sejrherren Valdemar" (lord of victory Valdemar) or "Valdemar den Sejrrige" (Valdemar the one rich in victories). Danish may have fewer words than English, but the penchant for compound words makes it quite rich. Sorry, I know this was two weeks ago. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

One more for you guys: Rygh :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Kbb2! You created a thread called Perception of Swiss Standard German at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:English in New Mexico

The notification wasn't sent the first time round because Wolfdog used the wrong template. A notification is sent only when a user page is linked preceding a signature in an edit that adds new lines. So simply replacing it with the right template or updating the signature after the comment has already been made doesn't get them notified (linking to a user's page in the edit summary, however, notifies them, regardless of the content of the edit). It's not about {{u}} vs. {{ping}}; in fact just [[User:...]] does the job (rather the templates are shorthand for this), as I'm doing right now.

---

Tangentially, can you stop inserting empty lines between indented paragraphs, which is discouraged by WP:LISTGAP?

Compare

:A

:B

which produces

<dl>
  <dd>A</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
  <dd>B</dd>
</dl>

and

:A
:B

which produces

<dl>
  <dd>A</dd>
  <dd>B</dd>
</dl>

Nardog (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: Thanks for the explanation.

Fixed, thanks again. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the specifics here but I guess the main takeaway is I'll try to just use "User:..." from now on. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

{{u}} is purely a shorthand for User:..., only slightly shorter (even less so if you use the pipe trick). {{ping}}, on the other hand, is useful when notifying multiple users at once. Nardog (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, Kbb2, if you're not getting my pings/replies/proddings at Talk:English in New Mexico, please take a peek there. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: You wrote that reply a day ago. I'll respond ;) Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Vowel+R

Based on your belief that it's better to analyze /ɒr/ as a really the two distinct phonemes /ɒ/ + /r/ or that /ɔːr/ is really /ɔː/ + /r/ (I'm here using WP's diaphonemic system, which I sense you have issues with anyway), I'm interested in knowing if you prefer to represent a word like moral as {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɒ|r|ə|l}} or as {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɒr|ə|l}}, the latter I believe being what the WP community has agreed upon. Again, I'm just interested in your thoughts here. 67.85.168.233 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@67.85.168.233: It's not my belief but an objective fact. /ɒ/ is an open back rounded vowel in English phonology and /r/ is a postalveolar approximant. The two sounds have *nothing* to do wi3th each other. You're confusing phonemes with diaphonemes, and even to call /ɒr/ a diaphoneme is misleading. It's a sequence of two diaphonemes: /ɒ/, the short "o" of "cot" (whatever it represents in any given accent) and the initial /r/ of "red" (again, whatever it represents in any given accent).

I don't. The correct transcription is {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɒr|ə|l}}, per Help:IPA/English. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

(1) Applying Wells's lexical set: Does moral contain the start vowel, the north vowel or the force vowel in your national or local variety of English? (2) Which of the numerous national varieties of English are you talking about? (3) Is any variety of Standard English more "correct" than any other? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: Can you rephrase your message? I'm not sure if I've fully understood it (I'm assuming it's a reply to what I wrote). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No it wasn't in reply to what you wrote. But note that following Well's rules of syllabification the first vocoid and the /r/ of moral belong to the same syllable. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: I know. Wells's rules often seem to make more sense than other analyses. If our guide were truly diaphonemic, we'd transcribe "nearer" as /ˈniːr.ər/, with a mandatory syllable break, rather than the current */ˈnɪərər/. The presence of /ɪə/, /ʊə/ and /ɛə/ as phonemes separate from /iː/, /uː/ and /eɪ/ depends solely on whether the accent is rhotic or not. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wait. But then why does the WP diaphonemic template give the two as a single "unit" (I'm not sure what the right word is here, if not phoneme) /ɒr/? Why does our WP even use or allow "doubles" like this at all? Why don't we just use singular phonemes? Wolfdog (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: GA has a mandatory cot-caught merger (completed a long time ago) before /r/ instead of the father-bother merger. That's why. In RP, I believe, many if not most words with /ɔː/ before an intervocalic /r/ correspond to the FORCE vowel in Scotland, which means that there are traces of this distinction even in contemporary RP. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that words such as moral, coral, and perhaps also sorry, etc., are ambiguous when it comes to a diaphonemic transcription of English words. These words seem to contain neither of the "doubles" start vowel, north vowel, nor force vowel, none of which have /ɒ/ in RP, though they contain /O/ ("some open o sound") preceding an (at least potentially) homosyllabic /r/. Do they contain, as Kbb put it, 'the short "o" of "cot"' (the lot vowel), or maybe the cloth vowel? Which is it? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: It's a subvariety of LOT (proved by the fact that it merges with START in some non-standard AmE: /ˈmɑrəl/, /ˈkɑrəl/) that undergoes near-mandatory (except for 5 words or so) merger with /ɔː/ in General American (but not, AFAIK, in any major variety of English English). It's not CLOTH, which has a different definition. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Kbb2, for your response above. I think I follow. Especially because I realize many of these doubles act in ways that require footnotes at Help:IPA/English: i.e. act according to special rules (dare I say nearly in the style of distinct phonemes?). Anyway, LiliCharlie, I agree that TOMORROW words are not CLOTH words. Both lexical sets come in handy for many and perhaps even a majority of GenAm varieties (including to my own), but whereas TOMORROW/START are of one kind and CLOTH/THOUGHT are of another. Wolfdog (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: There's no such set as TOMORROW, though. In RP, the distinction between /ɒ/, /ɑː/ and /ɔː/ is possible only before an intervocalic /r/. In other positions, only /ɑː/ and /ɔː/ (whenever there's an "r" in spelling - obviously, /ɒ/ is not only possible but mandatory in words like "not") appear. In GA, the only vowels in the open back area are /ɑː/ and /ɔː/, which are free/tense/long/however you want to call them. RP /ɒ/ is checked/lax/short, like /ɪ, ʊ, ɛ, ʌ, æ/. Note that Wells has never specified special lexical sets for prevocalic /ɪr, ʊr, ɛr, ʌr, ær/ - these are just /ɪ, ʊ, ɛ, ʌ, æ/ + /r/. The reason lexical sets like START exist is to account for non-rhotic dialects: in RP, START = PALM unless a vowel follows. /ɪr, ʊr, ɛr, ʌr, ær, ɒr/ require a following vowel by definition, so I guess Wells thought there was no need for separate sets for them.

In GA CLOTH is THOUGHT. CLOTH just means that a word that belongs to that set is pronounced with /ɒ/ in contemporary RP and /ɔː/ in conservative RP and GA. So e.g. off is a CLOTH word, but dog isn't because all varieties of RP use /ɒ/ in that word, unlike GA which uses /ɔː/. (so it doesn't belong to any lexical set). Interestingly enough, /dɔːɡ/ seems to be a possible (if not prevalent) pronunciation in Norfolk. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

TOMORROW is indeed a supplementary lexical set. (It may just be used in A Handbook of Varieties of English for all I know, but I certainly didn't invent it.) Anyway, I used it for convenience and you understood exactly what I meant. The rest I get, thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Yeah, what I mean is just that it's non-Wellsian, if I can put it that way. I'm aware of various supplementary lexical sets and find many of them useful. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Womtelo (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Slovak /ʎ–l/-merger before front vowels?

I read your revert of my edit where I stated that the neutralization of /ʎ–l/ is towards /ʎ/.

[0] I saw the reference of authors Hanulíková and Hamann you pointed at, and I agree that the referenced text seems to support your revert of my edit.

[1] My edit was done on the basis of e.g. Jozef Mistrík, Basic Slovak, Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladeľstvo, Bratislava, 1985, p 16, where he writes: In writing i, í or e following after d, l, n, t usually mark the soft form of the consonants. This would imply that (in or around 1985) a soft l would be pronounced before i, í or e.

[2] This seems to be supported by what I read on http://hu.wiki.x.io/wiki/Szlov%C3%A1k_kiejt%C3%A9s, where they state: Az i/y és í/ý betűpárok kiejtése egyforma, rendre [i̞] és [i̞ː], azonban az i, í betűk meglágyítják az előttük álló d, l, n, t betűket, így kiejtésük [ɟ], [ʎ], [ɲ], [c] lesz, addig az y, ý nem., i.e. The i / y and í / ý pairs have the same pronunciation, [i̞] and [i̞ː] respectively, but the letters i, í soften the letters d, l, n, t in front of them, so their pronunciation is [ɟ], [ʎ], [ɲ], [c], while y, ý do not. The same Hungarian article even gives the pronunciation of zelené stromy as [ˈzɛʎɛnɛː ˈstrɔmi̞], clearly indicating that l in front of e has a soft (and palatal) pronunciation.

[3] My edit also seems to be supported by what I read in T. Alan Hall, The Phonology of Coronals, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1997, p 55 [refer to https://books.google.nl/books?id=KTg6pKMobSYC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=palatalization+slovak+%22front+vowels%22&source=bl&ots=XaAil7cdQt&sig=ACfU3U0IHhJXxEJnIGBmX8WC4b1prP8wrw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5uP7t5bLkAhUFb1AKHZdICmUQ6AEwDnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=palatalization%20slovak%20%22front%20vowels%22&f=false], notably: In Slovak /t, d, n, l/ become /c, ɟ, ɲ, ʎ/ respectively by a rule of coronal palatalization before front vowels (Rubach 1993, 37, 111-117).

[4, 5, 6] More support for my edit can be found in http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Slowakische_Sprache#Aussprache, in http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA (for Central Slovak) and in http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Slovaque#Consonnes.

But ... could it be the case that not so much the softening is disputed (by you) but rather the palatal nature of l before i, í or e? The meaning of the word soft(ened) might be conceived as different from the meaning of the word palatal(ized).

In other words: can we find agreement that before i, í or e we have /lʲ/ or some other softened / palatalized form of /l/ most of the time; my sources [1] and [2] indicate that in (certain) loans, like telefon, l before e is still pronounced /l/.

I am wondering how we may understand what Hanulíková and Hamann write in [0]: The contrast between these two laterals is neutralized towards the velarized alveolar before front vowels; in Western Slovak dialects this neutralization occurs before all vowels (Rendár 2006). One, maybe far-fetched, cause might be that with neutralized towards the velarized alveolar they actually intended to say that the neutralization is directed towards, and hence affects, the velarized alveolar, making it disappear.Redav (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

After listening to several (YouTube) recordings of language spoken by people (claiming, as well as convincing me, to be) speaking Slovak, I have to admit that I can hear various realizations of ‹l› in front of ‹i›, ‹í› or ‹e›, not all of them sounding softened, palatalized or palatal at all to me.

I cannot make out whether this concerns a diachronic change or synchronic variation among geographic regions, among registers, or among individuals. Or a combination of all of the above. Can you, Kbb2, or anyone else, shed more light on this? Thanks!Redav (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Respelling

Can I ask what you meant in this and this? We are not currently positing such a thing as "schwi" in our IPA for English. Wouldn't both mil-AY and mih-LAY be construed as /məˈleɪ/ for those with the weak vowel merger and as /mɪˈleɪ/ for those without it? Nardog (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

On a different note, I think you've been overapplying ih for syllable-final /ɪ/. What Help:Pronunciation respelling key#cite_note-5 is instructing is to use it when i can be interpreted as /aɪ/, as in hi and bi. I don't find ih superior in other contexts because it is susceptible to being interpreted as FLEECE/happY. Nardog (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: I'll revert myself, thanks. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Pho

I'm curious about why you reverted my edit on Pho. I'm aware that Canadian English has the caught-cot merger, and that /ɒ/ is a checked vowel, but /fɒ/ is what the source says. I looked in Help:IPA/English and Help:IPA/Conventions_for_English but they doesn't mention anything about transcribing checked vowels. W.andrea (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@W.andrea: Because /ɒ/ as we use it on Help:IPA/English is reserved for those vowels in Canadian and American English that correspond to actual /ɒ/ in British English (in theory or otherwise, because the actual British pronunciation can feature a different vowel altogether), which features a full three-way contrast between /ɒ/, /ɑː/ and /ɔː/. As Canadian English features no such distinction (all of those vowels fall together as [ɒ], which is unlike British /ɒ/ in that it's a free vowel), whether we write "pho" /fɒ/, /fɑː/ or /fɔː/ makes no difference, but only the last transcription seems to be in accordance with Help:IPA/English (the second one is equally as bad as the first one as we don't use /ɑː/ for an orthographic ⟨o⟩). In BrE, /ɒ/, /ɑː/ and /ɔː/ are impossible pronunciations of a word-final ⟨o⟩, which is pronounced /oʊ/. Well, maybe /ɔː/ is possible, but it's very counter-intuitive indeed.

The system used on Help:IPA/English is diaphonemic, which makes it more abstract than those found in dictionaries. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Blekinge

I added the secondary stress as we normally do for words of three or more syllables when they have tone 2, modeled on words like Mälaren. I apologize if the transcription should rather be [²bleːkɪŋˌɛ]. ∼イヴァンスクルージ九十八（IvanScrooge98）_{（会話（ｔａｌｋ））} 09:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: You add secondary stress where there's actual secondary stress. Which source states that Blekinge has it? Or, alternatively, which source says that words that have three or more syllables always have secondary stress? I've already warned you about editing Swedish transcriptions. You need to be sure about what you're doing, and if you don't think that your knowledge in any given area is sufficient then you need to edit in other areas. Take this edit for instance - you can't just edit the IPA and then ask whether your change was correct. You should use the talk page for that, or go to Help talk:IPA/Icelandic.

Riad (2014) doesn't seem to support the idea that secondary stress influences the phonetic realization of Swedish tonemes, so that could've been a false alarm - but I'm not sure of that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Then I think many of the secondary stress marks we have for Swedish should not be there (and actually I prefer that we add them only when there is a defined secondary stress). ∼イヴァンスクルージ九十八（IvanScrooge98）_{（会話（ｔａｌｋ））} 13:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: Our transcriptions of Swedish should be fixed in accordance with dictionary transcriptions as well as rules laid out in other reputable sources such as Riad (2014). If this topic is too hard for you (it sure is for me, I tend to stay away from Swedish) then you should edit in other areas. You can't be good at everything. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I never tried to be good at everything, I simply tried to be consistent with what has been done so far with Swedish IPA transcriptions. As I said, maybe we should remove the secondary stress mark where it does not denote an actual secondary stress (including at the already mentioned Mälaren and many other articles), at least as long as we have no sources that deal exhaustively with the issue. For sure it is a complex topic. ∼イヴァンスクルージ九十八（IvanScrooge98）_{（会話（ｔａｌｋ））} 14:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: You shouldn't model your changes on existing transcriptions and hope that they're correct. You either know that they're correct or you don't. Also, regarding your most recent edits in the area of Icelandic pronunciation - are you absolutely sure that you know what you're doing?

No "maybes", please. Let's base this on knowledge (not guessing) and reputable sources. If you're out of your depth here then that's fine, because so am I. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Don’t worry, the only edit I was not certain about was the one concerning the transcription for Katrín, but Icelandic phonology is very clear about it, so everything is fine. ∼イヴァンスクルージ九十八（IvanScrooge98）_{（会話（ｔａｌｋ））} 14:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: Still, be careful with vowel length. Getting it right is the most important thing in Icelandic transcriptions.

Also, what about [4]? Are you sure that these sounds are palatalized? Russian phonology#Assimilative palatalization says that there are many exceptions to this phenomenon. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am also pretty sure of that and since the name Konstantin was transcribed in both ways here and there on the wiki, I tried to be consistent with one IPA, also minding the examples listed in the help. And I think the main exceptions the page mentions involve other consonants, like liquids, etc. ∼イヴァンスクルージ九十八（IvanScrooge98）_{（会話（ｔａｌｋ））} 14:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: That's fair enough an explanation as far as Konstantin is concerned. What about Ustinovich? How do you know that's not an exception? You realize that Russian phonology#Assimilative palatalization can be incomplete (just like Icelandic phonology#Vowel length), right? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I see it can be, but it states that such kind of regressive assimilation depends “on what these consonants are, in what morphemic position they meet and to what style of speech the word belongs”, adding “the more similar the consonants are, the more they tend to soften each other”. While this may be a general statement, there should be no exceptions regarding a fricative followed by its occlusive counterpart, unlike /n/+C which afaik almost never assimilates except before palatals. And as Ustinovich is not a compound (at least, its “first half” isn’t), /s/ and /tʲ/ belong to the same morpheme here. ∼イヴァンスクルージ九十八（IvanScrooge98）_{（会話（ｔａｌｋ））} 15:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: Uh... what are you basing these edits on? Were you the one who put those secondary stresses there? I don't think we should perform an indiscriminate removal of secondary stresses until we know what we're doing. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I mostly added those myself. In the source there was no secondary stress marked for such cases, but since I had thought we were always marking secondary stress for tone 2, I added the ⟨ˌ⟩. I am going strictly by the ref now. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話（ｔａｌｋ）） 07:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: Ok, that's good.

Now, the revert function isn't the reply function. Who would read [ɪɛ] or especially [iːɛ] (or [iːa], same thing as far as what we're discussing is concerned) as anything other than a sequence of two vowels? The fact that Swedish doesn't have phonemic diphthongs (and therefore no diphthongs should be expected in IPA transcriptions of Swedish) is something you're taught in the very beginning stages of learning Swedish pronunciation. We should excercise some common sense.

Back to Konstantin and Ustinovich (actually, only the latter) - Russian Wiktionary confirms that Ustinovich features a soft [sʲ], rather than a hard [s]. So that's another false alarm. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s not really the same thing, I believe it’s still a good solution for unstressed hiatuses with [ɪ] for certain English speakers. I agree that it is superfluos for [iːa] etc. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話（ｔａｌｋ）） 08:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: Explain what you mean, please. Tell me how it's needed (and don't start edit wars over contested transcriptions, if you could). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

What should I explain? As you know way better than me, they may be realized as diphthongs by some. And to be fair, you are the one who removed ⟨.⟩ from the help without even checking if any occurrences of {{IPA-sv}} used it or not nor opening a discussion. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話（ｔａｌｋ）） 08:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: If you want to keep ⟨.⟩ you should be able to explain why it should stay in the guide. We use it very sparingly on Wikipedia, so I think that we need a good reason to do so.

That only applies to ⟨ɪ⟩ before ⟨ə⟩ - the latter sound doesn't exist in Swedish (not in the variety we're transcribing). Plus, some instances of /ɪ/ actually do form diphthongs with the following vowel (as [jV]) - see Riad. The syllable break should be removed unless there's another way we can apply it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

See especially the example I used for the help: it is highly likely that a native speaker of English will reinterepret the Daniel- part based on their pronunciation of the name (which is used in both languages). The help should help avoid these things as much as possible, and no matter how sparingly it is used in Swedish transcriptions (as it is seldom needed), as long as it is used somewhere for the purpose I explained, the syllable break mark should stay in the help. Otherwise it should not be found in either place. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話（ｔａｌｋ）） 08:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: They won't, though. The "e" in Swedish Daniel is [ɛ], not [ə]. Nobody who can read English IPA would interpret /ɪɛ/ to mean anything other than a sequence of two vowels. English /ɪ/ does not undergo compression before /ɛ/, and no source uses ⟨ɪɛ⟩ to denote a varisyllabic sequence. It's a disyllabic one.

Also, don't forget that the majority of English dictionaries use the non-phonemic symbol ⟨i⟩ before vowels. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I know, but spelling does influence how one perceives a pronunciation. And we know Swedish unstressed /ɛ/ might be a little centralized and sound closer to the English /ə/. I am still not convinced we should not use it in such instances. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話（ｔａｌｋ）） 08:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: Now this is just an off-topic reply. We're talking specifically about IPA transcriptions of Swedish and how they can be understood by someone who already knows how English is transcribed into IPA. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

We alone clearly cannot settle this. The help is aimed primarily to non-experts, so I don’t agree with your removals. I invite you to open a proper discussion at the help talk, or I may do so instead. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話（ｔａｌｋ）） 08:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: Go ahead, but seeing something like it is highly likely that a native speaker of English will reinterepret the Daniel- part based on their pronunciation of the name tells me that you need to learn more about English pronunciation and how it's transcribed into IPA. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm just jumping in here to point to this table I made a few years ago to help with figuring out assimilative palatization with Russian consonant clusters. It's incomplete, which is why I never put it in main space, but it's still helpful. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: Thanks, it should be helfpul indeed. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m thanking too. It is definitely helpful. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 20:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: I meant this in the most neutral manner possible. I'm sorry if that wasn't how you interpreted it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s fine. Maybe I shouldn’t have been this impulsive. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 20:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: I'm reporting you to the administrators. We've already had a discussion about secondary stresses a year ago - see User talk:IvanScrooge98#Long consonants in Swedish. You can't expect people to constantly clean up after you. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, in this case I just complied to how secondary stresses were already in use in some articles, thinking that was the implicit consensus. But still, feel free to report me. I have no other arguments against this. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 08:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Given that the disyllabic pronunciation of ie in Daniel contrasts with the monosyllabic pronunciation in Mietois, marking the syllable break is probably not such a bad idea, even if we mark the non-syllabic e in Mietois. Also, both Norstedts svenska uttalslexikon (1997), which is the main Swedish pronunciation dictionary, and Svenska ortnamn : uttal och stavning (1991), which is the main pronunciation dictionary for the place names of Sweden, consider Standard Sweden Swedish to have diphthongs, so I see no reason why ‘no diphthongs should be expected in IPA transcriptions of Swedish’. Standard Finland Swedish has even more diphthongs, which is yet another argument for transcribing both standard forms of Swedish, cf. my comment at Talk:Kimito#Swedish pronunciation. Ardalazzagal (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing [ɒ] back to [ɔ] on English Phonology

Hello, could you please further explain your reasoning behind changing this back? I'm the author of the original edit (92.19.16.128 at the time).

I agree that the /ɒ/ isn't unique to British English. That was an oversimplification. But I don't understand why it's correct to re-route this vowel to another related vowel, when it already has its own page.

If it's really pronounced /ɔ/, why not change the visible vowel to /ɔ/? And if it's pronounced /ɒ/ in RP, why is it being redirected to a different vowel's page?

I don't speak with an RP accent, but I do speak with a related one (A generic blending of educated accents from the North-West of England), and I do pronounce this vowel as /ɒ/ for the examples given.

--Medavox (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Medavox: This isn't about /ɒ/ per se but whether /ɒ/ it's realized as [ɒ] or [ɔ]. The square brackets denote allophones, whereas the slashes denote phonemes (which we aren't discussing here). The phoneme /ɒ/ is realized as [ɔ] in modern RP, where /ɔː/ is closer to [oː]. The two vowels don't merge. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Chewa

It is true, the pronunciation that you deleted is neither English nor Chichewa. English speakers probably wouldn't use the open vowel [ɛ] and Chichewa speakers would probably end the word with [a] rather than [ə], so it's neither one thing nor the other. So what do you suggest? I see that you haven't deleted the pronunciation of Nyanja, even though it is also unsourced. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kanjuzi: LPD gives /niˈændʒə/ for "Nyanja", whereas CEPD transcribes that word as /ˈnjændʒə/, just like us. The Routledge Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English says that "Chichewa" is pronounced /tʃɪˈtʃeɪwə/. That's all I was able to find in those dictionaries. What should we do? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Presumably the English pronunciation is /tʃeɪwə/ in that case. As for Nyanja, /ˈnjændʒə/ is more usual. Kanjuzi (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

population of Chakavian?

Hi. Are you aware of any RS's for the number of Chakavian-speakers? I have an outside source asking me, that in the future we might use as a RS for our article. — kwami (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Sorry, no. I've never done any in-depth research in the area of non-standard BCMS (nor Slovene). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"Short o"

I understand what you're doing there, and yes it is not phonologically a short vowel, but "short o" is the most common and recognizable term for the LOT vowel, especially in a North American context. It's both recognizable to nonspecialists and used by specialists: for instance, the Atlas of North American English uses the term "short-o" to name this phonemic class (pps. 13, 58, and passim). Meanwhile, what the term "broad a" specifically refers to is the system in which words such as class, bath, and dance have a lengthened low vowel like that of father; using the term "broad a" to refer to the father vowel in dialects that don't actually have a broad-a system is confusing or misleading. AJD (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I echo AJD above and Wolfdog here, in that North American speakers indeed often identify the vowel linguists usually transcribe as /ɑ/ as the LOT vowel, rather than PALM. I think this has to do with the fact NAE is largely rhotic; to rhotic speakers pre-R vowels are often felt like distinct units, and /æ/ doesn't occur in open syllables, so before a non-/r/ consonant is the only environment where a "pure" /ɑ/ can occur and contrast with /æ/. And given NAE's lack of the TRAP–BATH split, save for father, pretty much all daily/native-vocabulary words with /ɑ/ in such environments are LOT words. So it is rather natural for them to associate the vowel more strongly with LOT words. (This may be further reinforced by the marry-merry merger, which can lead to START feeling more like /æ/ + /r/ or at least somewhere in between.)

Here, even linguists are characterizing their own having LOT/THOUGHT/PALM merged as lacking THOUGHT, rather than lacking both LOT and THOUGHT. Another example of such a tendency on the part of North Americans is Webster's Third, which, instead of using a symbol other than \ä\ to mark LOT that differed from PALM, used \ȧ\ to mark PALM that differed from LOT, thus defining \ä\ as prototypically representing LOT. Nardog (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur with the other two. And by the way, in a similar vein, the "long a" refers (among English speakers) to FACE. Wolfdog (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Norwegian

Hi, what is the state of the changes you proposed at Help talk:IPA/Norwegian? And do you have an opinion on how /r/+dental combinations should be transcribed? I particularly dislike the way the key currently has both ⟨r⟩ and ⟨ʁ⟩. If the consensus to stick to UEN like it says in the introduction, we can eliminate ⟨ʁ⟩ in favor of ⟨ʈ, ɖ, ɳ, ʂ, ɭ⟩ and ⟨r⟩ (or ⟨ɾ⟩, for that matter). I'm behind using the IPA diacritics for tonemes, so I'm wondering if we can set the record straight about the rhotic while we're at it. Nardog (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: (Sorry for the late reply.) I'll try to restore my user pages where I worked on articles about Norwegian. Of course they should be transcribed with retroflex letters (save for /rl/, which should be written with a plain ⟨l⟩).

so perhaps it's better to write [bœ̀nːəɾ, bœ̂nːəɾ, fɑst] in the case of UEN in order to achieve harmony between transcriptions of the two languages – You mean [ˈbœ̀nːəɾ, ˈbœ̂nːəɾ, ˈfɑst]? Nardog (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: As I said the stress mark seems to be redundant, so no (though I'd write [bœ̀nːər, bœ̂nːər, fɑst], with ⟨r⟩ for the reasons I explained on Help:IPA/Swedish. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification – but now I'm further confused as to why you repeated the Norwegian transcription that you think achieves greater harmony with Swedish in the discussion. Were you referring to use of the length mark for geminates, or just the diacritics? Nardog (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: The length marks, but the stress marks must be retained. Norwegian and Swedish, unlike (standard) Serbo-Croatian allow final stress on polysyllabic words. I can't imagine using the rising tone diacritic in Swedish to indicate final stress, it'd be silly. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Czech phonology

Hi, i don't understand. Your edit summary says "both are fricative trills, not trills" but the result of your revert is the opposite, away from my suggestion Voiced_dental,_alveolar_and_postalveolar_trills#Voiced_alveolar_fricative_trill back to Alveolar trill#Raised alveolar non-sonorant trill, which in addition redirects to the former, which is very confusing for almost all users, and not only because raised alveolar non-sonorant trill is not explained or even mentioned on that page or in the original article. --Espoo (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sallaans dialect

Moved to Talk:Sallaans dialect

 – Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Voiceless dorsal (velar) fricative in Dutch Low Saxon and West Frisian

How about we just leave the velar /x/ symbol there, for the sake of simplicity. It helps readers understand the phonological inventory, and makes more sense. The sources I gave you, list it as velar, and it is velar, so you cannot make the rules here. If you continue to do so, I will report you to admins to block your account. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: I've already given you sources that say that the velar [x] (a plain cardinal [x] produced without trilling of the uvula) is the marker of southern dialects spoken below the rivers Rhine, Meuse and Waal. Neither Dutch Low Saxon nor West Frisian use the soft G and to claim otherwise is to perpetuate a WP:HOAX (not necessarily in phonemic transcription, but to say that the voiceless dorsal fricative is phonetically properly velar in those dialects/languages *is* perpetuating a hoax.) The fact that you're not addressing what those sources say is strange.

Your sources claim that the fricative is velar because its fricative component is post-velar, articulated at the very back of the soft palate - but the trilling is genuinely uvular. As those dialects/languages do not contrast any velar and uvular sounds (nor do they feature other uvular sounds - not West Frisian though, in that language /r/ can be uvular), it is nothing but a convenient fiction to say that [χ] is velar. It also forms a voiceless-voiced (or a fortis-lenis) pair with /ɣ/ that is a pure fricative and is generally velar.

I'd like to see a study that differentiates between velar, post-velar and uvular places of articulation and between plain and trilled fricatives confirm that Dutch Low Saxon and West Frisian do indeed use a plain cardinal [x] as opposed to a trilled fricative transcribed as [ʀ̝̊˖] in narrow transcription.

The [χ−ɣ] pair doesn't have to be transcribed with ⟨x⟩ and ⟨ɣ⟩. There is no other dorsal fricative in those dialects/languages and we already list the palatal /j/ in the same column. Plus, the labiodental approximant is given a narrow transcription instead of /w/ and, on Help:IPA/West Frisian, the long close-mid monophthongs are given the narrow transcription of ⟨ei øy ou⟩ instead of the broad ⟨eː øː oː⟩.

Also, on Help:IPA/Danish and Help:IPA/Norwegian /f−v/ do not represent a voiceless-voiced pair as the latter is a phonological approximant. I see zero reason not to write the uvular fricative with ⟨χ⟩. Again, let's not perpetuate hoaxes.

I don't appreciate misrepresenting my behavior to other users. I'd like to remind you that yesterday you insisted that there's a distinction between ei and ij as well as au and ou in Dutch and that Dutch ui is pronounced [ʏi]. I'm sorry to say but IMO you have no business editing anything related to Dutch or regional languages spoken in the Netherlands. Just my two cents. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

What source did you give me? The one on Northern Standard Dutch does not count. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: Two sources - the Collins & Mees one and the Gussenhoven one. They do count, the hard/soft G distinction applies to both dialects/regional languages and the standard language alike, just like the pronunciation of /r/. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kbb2 Although I do have a better idea. How about we display the fricative as a velar one, but yet within an IPA link description, put in the IPA symbol for a post-velar fricative. I could very well go with that idea. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: That will create a discrepancy between West Frisian phonology and Help:IPA/West Frisian. ⟨x⟩ and ⟨χ⟩ are also quite similar and editors may confuse them in transcription. The sound can be written with ⟨χ⟩ throughout and there's nothing wrong with that. After all, in the case of the close-mid front unrounded vowels, the short-long contrast is universally transcribed ⟨ɪ−eː⟩ in Dutch, West Frisian, Dutch Low Saxon, Brabantian and Limburgish alike. ⟨χ−ɣ⟩ can be treated the same, especially given the fact that we're using a narrow transcription of ⟨ʋ⟩ instead of ⟨w⟩ (in the case of Dutch Low Saxon - West Frisian is a bit different in that regard). If we decide to treat Northern and Belgian Standard Dutch separately on Help:IPA/Dutch, those changes will match that guide. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So I did read into more detail of your source, but it does say that “the exact point of articulation of /x/ varies idiolectally between post-velar and pre-uvular” not simply “uvular”. But I do believe that it would be less misleading if we choose a velar symbol. Fdom5997 (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom997: It's postvelar-uvular. The frication is post-velar (I dunno what they mean by "post-velar or pre-uvular", "post-velar" already says that the fricative portion is articulated at the back of the soft palate, just front of the uvula), but the trill component (Collins & Mees call the fricative "scrapy", which tells us that it's trilled) is by necessity purely uvular. You can't have a velar trill, nor a post-velar one. Perhaps you can have a palatal one, but the soft palate can't trill against the dorsum, unlike the uvula. See voiceless uvular fricative, I've just updated it. I insist on using ⟨χ⟩ as the difference between the hard and soft G is very marked in the Netherlands. We already use that symbol in Afrikaans phonology, Yiddish phonology, Help:IPA/Afrikaans and Help:IPA/Yiddish. Plus, it is [χ] that varies between a pure fricative and a trilled one in world's languages, not [x]. The former symbol implies trilling (scrapiness) and it also implies lack of palatalization in front vowel contexts. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Uvular trill/fricative

Are you done moving content from Voiced uvular trill to Voiced uvular fricative? If so, please finish it.

Also, can you explain this edit at Afrikaans phonology? Are you saying the trill variant of /x/ must be a fricative trill rather than a plain one because it is in Dutch? If so, that sounds like OR (or SYNTH at best) to me. Nardog (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: I will.

It's impossible that it's a pure trill, either in Afrikaans or any other language mentioned by Lass. Post-velar and uvular varieties of /x/ must have dorsal frication to be heard as /x/ and not /r/ (which can be uvular not only in Afrikaans but also Swiss German). You can actually remove that source altogether, it's enough to use Bowerman. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Catford plain voiceless uvular trills do exist. However Catford does not classify all sounds with a small amount of local friction as fricatives but only those with an artictulatory configuration that leads to audible local friction if modally voiced. Thus, if you devoice an approximant trill [ʀ] leaving everything else unchanged, the result will be a voiceless approximant trill [ʀ̥] even if some local friction is detectable, in Catford's terminology. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer sooner than later. It is jarring to see the voiceless one covered at the trill article and the voiced one at the fricative article. In the future, I suggest you edit articles locally or in your sandbox and roll them out at once when moving, splitting or merging content between them, for the benefit of readers.

Don't explain it to me, do it in the article (and at Voiceless uvular fricative#Occurrence, where Wells doesn't provide verification for the trill being obstruent). The onus is on you to provide appropriate verification for the content you're putting in. Which work by Lass are you talking about? It's not like a pair of phonemes can never have the same realization. Nardog (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello? If you're not going to do this anytime soon I might revert your edits to the voiceless articles. Nardog (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Voiceless uvular fricative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Waal

Voiceless velar fricative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Waal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Danish vowels

Can we make a table somewhere along the lines of either

Phone	Environment	Phoneme	Morphophoneme	Example

or

Phoneme	Environment	Phone	Morphophoneme	Example

? As Aeusoes1 suggested, we seriously could use example words as our guidance à la Wells's lexical set. Can the words listed on Grønnum (2005: 420–1) serve this purpose? Nardog (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: Why not? We just need to retranscribe what Basbøll writes with |e eː ɛ ɛː| as |e̝ e̝ː e eː| if we don't want to confuse our readers. All other morphophonemes can follow his transcription. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering whether the words listed by Grønnum were enough to cover all allophony or not. Nardog (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: If not all then most of it. Missing examples can be taken from Basbøll. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is my half-hearted attempt. It's beyond my grasp, fill in the rest if you're so inclined. Nardog (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: I'll take a look at it. Thanks for notifying me. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. So far I'm particularly perplexed by three things:

• How does our article currently analyze what Basbøll calls short |a| and gravis-assimilation? How should it? The table in Danish phonology#Vowels doesn't account for this AFAICT.
• Grønnum says høne has [œː] and gøre has [œ̞ː] (which are [œ̝ː, œː] in standard IPA, right?). Is there any reason you have not covered this allophony in the table?
• What phone, phoneme , and morphophoneme is the vowel in tøj?

Nardog (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

[œ̝ː]

For what it's worth, SDU says (108): "ö· findes kun i høne, øh, bøh og efter r samt sporadik i fremmedord (meuse). Hos ældre også foran r, ɔ". Nardog (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. So it also says that [œ̝ː] is old-fashioned in r-contexts. I bet all of those words but høne have [øː] ([œː] when r-colored) in the standard described in Grønnum (2005). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Disputes, disputes, disputes

Please see the talk pages at Standard Canadian English and at Template:English -or- table. Thank you. Wolfdog (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

German /x/ after vocalized /r/

Moved to Talk:Standard German phonology/Archive 2 § /x/ after vocalized /r/

 – Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Low German /j/ (or /ʑ/) and more.

Hi, this[5] looks a good source to extract info from. –Austronesier (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Afrikaans key

Not pressing you but in case ping didn't work, I would like your input at Help talk:IPA/Afrikaans#Recent changes. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Cambodia transcription

Just so you know: despite the one sound file you've found, Cambodia is quite rarely pronounced [kæmˈbö̞djə], at least as a GenAm pronunciation (some of the parts of this I think you've misheard). The more typical GenAm pronunciation is in the vicinity of [kʰɛəmˈbö̞.ɾi.ə] or [kʰɛəmˈboʊ.ɾi.ə]. I agree with your transcription of the first syllable (with the unusual [æ], which suggests Mid-Atlantic States, New York City, or Trans-Atlantic pronunciation), though the rest of the transcription is certainly up to debate, possibly better aligning to the GenAm notation I just provided. I'd argue, in this particular sound file, there is a definite (in fact, a required) flap and four syllables. Wolfdog (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: The recording has three syllables and no flap (I have both [d] and [ɾ] in Polish, so the difference is obvious to me - it's one of length, among other things). Pretty much all words (including Cambodia, per LPD) ending in unstressed postconsonantal /iə/ vary as far as the amount of syllables is concerned as that sequence varies between [i.ə] and [jə] (=[i̯ə]) - the latter can merge with NEAR (realized as [ɪ̯ə] or [ɪ̯ɐ], with the schwa being more prominent) in non-rhotic BrE: [kʰamˈbəʊdɪ̯ə]. The latter realization (meaning [jə]=[i̯ə]) seems to block flapping. Similar treatment of unstressed postconsonantal /iV/ (or /ɪV/, actually - I mean the short close front unrounded vowel, however you write it) has been reported to occur in Swedish. It's a cross-linguistic phenomenon.

I'll find other recordings and I'll post them here. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what to tell you to try to convince you, except know that, as a native American English speaker, what I clearly hear is four syllables and a flap. I could pronounce an articulate [d] and it would not sound like the relevant phone in that recording. (Obviously British English mergers wouldn't apply to me or this particular recording.) Wolfdog (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: There's definitely no flap on the recording. [d] might be shorter, but it's a short plosive, not a flap (though I'm open to being proven wrong if you analyze the formants). I'm a native speaker of a language where /d/ contrasts with /ɾ/ (which normally is not trilled) phonemically and my ears are attuned to the difference. In Polish, the two can even occur next to each other, as in Odra [ˈɔdɾa] (name of a river). But there may as well be four syllables on the recording - the thing is that FLEECE is pronounced as incredibly short - I hear it as [j] and the recording as trisyllabic, but maybe I'm wrong.

/iə/ -> [jə] isn't a British thing. Americans do that as well. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no technology to analyze formants. I believe you about what you hear; I've studied Spanish for many years and there are certainly distinct phonemes /r/, /ɾ/, and /d/ that can yield examples similar to your Odra one. Obviously, in American English, "typical" alveolar [d], a flap, and the short [d] in that recording (something in-between a flap and typical [d]) are all allophones; what I'm saying is it's certainly not the typical [d], which if articulated in the relevant position would be perceived by GenAm ears as stilted, over-articulate, or even slightly foreign. So there's something special going on here. We Americans typically have what I perceive as flaps (or you as short plosive [d]) in Cambodia, media, Lydia, etc. For some reason or other, I distinctly hear four syllables on the recording; again, this could be something about the way my American English brain has been "wired". You do have a point, though, when it comes to the murkiness of syllabication in terms of [iə]; actually, syllabication in general appears to be highly murky, as I'm sure you know. We usually say Ca.li.forn.[jə] or Vir.gin.[jə] and yet A.ca.d[i.ə] or Co.lum.b[i.ə]. Unlike the previous four, some words/names do have unmarked variation between the two options, even within GenAm: Ar.me.n[jə] or Ar.me.n[i.ə]. Wolfdog (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Well, I do hear a typical [d] there, as in do and dark. The only difference between them is voicing - in Cambodia it is fully voiced. The fact that it's shorter than in do and dark can be inferred from the fact that it's unstressed.

I don't think that media and Lydia can feature a flap when they're pronounced as disyllabic. In AmE, this seems to be analyzed as a phonemic change from /iə/ to /jə/: /ˈmidjə, ˈlɪdjə/ (so [ˈmidjə, ˈlɪdjə], without flaps because /d/ is preconsonantal), which appear alongside /ˈmidiə, ˈlɪdiə/ ([ˈmiɾiə, ˈlɪɾiə], with intervocalic flaps). Perhaps Nardog can help us here? Is [ɾjə] a possible sequence in AmE?

I'm aware of varisyllabicity of some of the words ending in /iə/. But this is about the amount of syllables that any given word has, rather than the location of the syllable boundaries. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hm... very different from my perspective. All I could quickly find online was this. Do you hear it as transcribed? Wolfdog (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: I can only listen to the first recording, but I do hear it as trisyllabic. When I slow it down, it clearly features a flap, unlike our Cambodia.

Perhaps you'll find these two articles interesting: [6], [7]. LPD, whether you own the app or the book (or both) covers compression as well, and AFAIK so does CEPD (but only in the book). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Also check out [8] and [9]. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'm sure I've seen some of Wells's blogs in the past. Looks like the consensus is "This is complicated, and no two scholars agree!" As usual, the more you learn, the less you know. Wolfdog (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I perceive /d/ in File:En-us-Cambodia.ogg to be an obstruent. To my knowledge [ɾ] can precede /iə/, though.

FWIW, /o/ in all of the word samples you mentioned at WT:LING sound more or less diphthongal to me, except the second /o/ in Oklahoma. Nardog (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi, I assume what you put on your user page today was inspired by mine. If so, can you put a little note on where you got the idea? Just a tiny note would be fine. Not that I want credit or anything (you have no such obligation), but I don't want the page to give the impression that I'm somehow endorsing or associated with it. Nardog (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: Done. I thought that doing it was a bit too much, so thanks for proving me wrong. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: Would you change anything or is what I did what you wanted? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Nardog (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the note but as a matter of fact I'd appreciate it if you consolidated your edits into fewer. Not like I don't know how to exclude the namespace on the watchlist but... Nardog (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: The editing spree will last for a few days. You can re-add the page to your watchlist after the weekend. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Jeez, I would use a sandbox. Nardog (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: On second thought, maybe you're right. I'd rather not have such a long edit history of my user page. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You must realize you just added the new sandbox to the watchlist of everyone who watches here. lol Nardog (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ficticious pronunciation dictionary of German

Hi, this is your user page, so you can fill it with whatever content you find suitable, of course. However there are a few things in your "ficticious pronunciation dictionary of German" that I fail to understand:

• Why do you mark stress on monosyllables?
• Why do you capitalize the orthographic representation of [ˈvaːm ˈvaʁ̞m]? Is this a proper name that has no entry in the two German pronouncing dictionaries you mention?
• Why do you mark [ˈfaːn] for ⟨fahren⟩ with red exclamation marks? — Such a pronunciation (which BTW coincides with possible pronunciations of ⟨Farn⟩ /farn/ "fern" and ⟨Fahn’⟩ —the poetic or regional truncated form of ⟨Fahne⟩— /faːn/ "flag") is frequently used by speakers of Standard German, as are intermediate forms such as [ˈfaːʁn̩ faːʁ̞n ˈfaːn̩] etc. Where would you draw the line between standard and non-standard pronunciations of ⟨fahren⟩?

Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: I'll ping you when the list is finished. I should've used my sandbox, I'm still not 100% sure what I'm doing. Certainly, I could've done more research on the symbols used in LPD. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm stalking this too, and find it very interesting. Just a small observation:

• Tür [ˈtyɐ →ˈtʏɐ], Bier [ˈbiɐ →ˈbɪɐ], mehr [ˈmeɐ →ˈmɛɐ], spazieren [ʃb̥aˈtsiːʁən (...) →-ˈtsɪɐn] look unusal to me. The long/short (tense/lax) contrast is commonly neutralized in morpheme-internal /VrC/, but not in /Vr#/ (except for unstressed der etc.)

I don't produce rhymes in Bier/wirr, mehr/Herr, Tür/dürr, spazieren/verwirren. –Austronesier (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's another unsolicited comment by stalker #1: I think I pronounce ⟨Ionisation⟩ with [ʔj-]: the dictionary symbol ⟨i̯⟩ is pronounced as [j], but my pre-vocalic [ʔ] (or alternatively: creaky voice) remains nonetheless. And my nativized pronunciation of ⟨Repertoire⟩ may not always be distinguishable from ⟨Rapper Twa⟩ [ˈʁɛpɐ...] (a fictitious rap singer called Twa /tvaː/). — I like your Danish-y ⟨b̥⟩ in [ʃb̥aˈtsiːʁən] which reminds me of the time I was taught the concept of archiphonemes. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the dictionary to User:Kbb2/Sandbox if you still want to view the changes in real time. I'd rather have a short edit history of my user page. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)