User talk:Ahls23/Archive

Russian "dentals"

Hi, I noticed that you made a few changes around Wikipedia to reflect that Russian /t͡s s sʲ z zʲ/ are dental. Looking at Chew (2003:67), however, I don't see a confirmation of this information. The seeming rationale, that these consonants are in the "dental" column, is undermined by the adjacent column that puts clearly postalveolar sounds (yes, including the rhotics) in an "alveolar" column. It seems that, for phonological reasons, Chew has chosen to combine both dental and alveolar consonants into one column. I recommend we find a more authoritative source to back up this claim. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough :) Got any ideas? I can't read cyrylic very good, but there must be even a free document (most likely in Russian) available confirming this. Why? Cause it's true. I know it's not enough to have these claims kept on Wikipedia, but it's enough of motivation (for me at least) to find sources to back them up. I've talked about phonetics with many people, including those who spoke Slavic languages... and in this group, everyone says they're touching their teeth while pronouncing /t d s z/. You don't require any knowledge whatsoever to answer such a question, innit? So "native speakers aren't experts" doesn't quite apply here. That's why I feel it's important to fix the misleading information about these sounds being simply "alveolar" in Slavic languages (which don't seem to occur [the ones I mentioned], contrary to what "phoneticians" write, unless allophonically). --Ahls23 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Are they dental or are they denti-alveolar? Speakers wouldn't be able to tell them apart. — Lfdder (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In Slavic languages? Most probably denti-alveolar, probably most of them are laminal as well (not counting the affricates). That's more or less a guess (well, it is one), but that's how it is in Polish. --Ahls23 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've checked your source for Romanian and it's just the consonant phoneme table where t, d, ts, s, n, l and r are all bunched under 'dental'. That just won't do. What we'd be looking for here are phonetic studies. — Lfdder (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please keep discussion in one place (here). Thanks! — Lfdder (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Well yes, Polish "dentals" are in fact also denti-alveolar (most of which you can check in Rocławski 1976, I as a native speaker with a good knowledge of phonetics confirm that). There aren't separate tables for those on the "dental" /s z t͡s d͡z/ pages, so we can cover both in one table, and perhaps add relevant notes in the "notes" section. --Ahls23 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes to vowel articles

Can you explain why you've made these changes? I'm not convinced breaking up the vowel space any further is worthwhile. — Lfdder (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

To show that the fully front /ɪ/ and fully back /ʊ/ do exist. And if I understand you correctly, you're concerned with the IPA templates... that's why I've changed the vowel pages, not made new ones and changed the templates (which I tried to do to see the outcome, but failed to even make them appear). I don't see a reason why these shouldn't be included. --Ahls23 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

NZE vowel chart

I've made a centring diphthongs chart for NZE based on yours. Let me know if I need to change anything to match your style or anything like that. Cheers. — Lfdder (talk)

Not really, it looks just like I would make it. Great job! Maybe you could check if you have Norfolk or Scottish diphthongs chart. I'll post Norfolk monophthongs soon. --Ahls23 (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Afraid not. I'm guessing you've not got access to the wonderful world of paywalled journals and the like, so if you think it might be in a journal article you've spotted, I can maybe take a look. — Lfdder (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't, because they're very expensive here. Multiply the price you pay for them 4 times or so and that's how I see those prices. Anyway, I'll have a look around. I doubt I will be very successful with Norfolk diphthongs chart though. --Ahls23 (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I probably wouldn't pay for them either and not just cos of the cost. As an aside, I've had to use Inkscape for the first time today cos Illustrator would choke on your svg and I'm rather liking it (unlike GIMP). ;P — Lfdder (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Time to go open source :P I've been using Inkscape for a long time (since August) and I love it. It's very simple. But like you, I can't say the same about GIMP. I'm probably too accustomed to Photoshop. --Ahls23 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you happen to have anything on Korean vowels? HoIPA chapter unfortunately appears to be based on the speech of people who are no longer with us. — Lfdder (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really, sorry. --Ahls23 (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to respond. Thanks anyway. — Lfdder (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

/ɜ/ and /ɛ̈/

Does the symbols /ɜ/ and /ɛ̈/ pronounce as the same way ? 198.105.116.142 (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

They may or may not mean the same sound. The most accurate way to learn this is to compare vowel charts. Or F1/F2 formants, if that's your thing... Unfortunately I'm puzzled about the latter. --Ahls23 (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you think this pronunciation is [ʏn fɛ̈t] ? 198.105.116.142 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Standard European French /ɛ/ is somewhat raised and retracted (=centralized) [ɛ̝̈]. Quebec vowel is probably similar. Or the same. Who knows. Look for the vowel chart, I've never found any. Otherwise I would've posted it already. --Ahls23 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You hear [ivɛ̈ːʁ] or [ivaɛ̯ʁ] in this audio ? 198.105.116.142 (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I hear something like [ivæːʁ]. Ahls23 (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You hear [pœtɛːtʀ] or [pœtaɪ̯tʀ] ? 198.105.116.142 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The latter. Is it a quiz or what? --Ahls23 (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to know that you think Quebec accent is normal or strange. 198.105.116.142 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak a word of French so my opinion is of no relevance here. In fact, I don't have an opinion about this - for reason I've already pointed out. --Ahls23 (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This one is difficult to guess that is [tãpaɪ̯t] or [tãpei̯t] ? 198.105.116.142 (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I can clearly hear the first "option" - but have you read my reply? --Ahls23 (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've read your reply. 198.105.116.142 (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dental sibilants?

Are these essentially laminal alveolar? — Lfdder (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In my native language {Polish} there's nothing alveolar about them, they're apical post-dental. European Spanish has laminal denti-postalveolar sibilants before /t d/, but they're not consistent at using it, sometimes pronouncing basically Polish /s z/ in these positions. I think describing these as laminal alveolar is confusing. For me it gives the impression that the tip of the tongue is lowered. At least in my language, that would sound like a lisp. --Ahls23 (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is post-dental? — Lfdder (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I pronounce /s z/ with the tip of my tongue against lower teeth. That's how majority of (or all, I'm not sure yet) Slavs pronounce it. --Ahls23 (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

So where is the closure? If the blade's resting then air is just flowing in freely. — Lfdder (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess the closure is post-alveolar, somewhat lower than the alveolar ridge and slightly behind it, that's how it feels like when I pronounce it. I guess by these standards, you could say it's laminal (post-)alveolar, but I wouldn't use such description (look above for the reason). --Ahls23 (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if the 'place' of articulation isn't the lower teeth, why is it dental? What do you mean, it gives the impression the tip is lowered? How much lower than the lower teeth? This is from p. 154 of The Sounds of the World's Languages, quoting Puppel et al. (1977):

The polish sounds s̪ and z̪ belong to dentalized sounds, i.e. those which are articulated in the alveolar region but with the blade of the tongue being very close to the inner side of the upper front teeth. Thus, the hissing effect is very strong. [...]

Is this description flawed? Do you pronounce them differently? — Lfdder (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean that calling it just laminal alveolar without mentioning the dentition would give me such an impression. Nope, the description sounds good. Perhaps the best description then would be "laminal denti-alveolar". --Ahls23 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could move those sibilants below the alveolar tables and write "denti-alveolar" above them. I don't see a problem with that, as long as we keep dentalized sibilants apart. --Ahls23 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, if it's 'dental' in literature, we should keep 'dental'. But are all the other 'dentals' on that list similar to Polish? I'm especially doubtful about Chinese. Also, should we add the passage above to the two articles so it's hopefully made more obvious how this sound is pronounced? — Lfdder (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No reason to be doubtful about Chinese, Lin keeps dental and alveolar sounds apart, so that /s t͡s t͡sʰ/ and /tʰ t n l/ are in different columns (dental and alveolar). I'm not adding sounds to dental articles unless the author explicitly states the dentition. Plus, it's listed separately for 4 dialects in 4 separate tables - Min, Meixian, Suzhou, and Mandarin in general. No way that would be a mistake. Also, I've heard Mandarin and their /s/ sounds exactly the same as ours. We could add that passage to these articles, but there's a catch here - in my language, the tip presses against the inner side of the lower front teeth. I missed that before. So I don't know how that would be helpful, since it doesn't mention lower teeth... --Ahls23 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder, does this s also sound similar to you? — Lfdder (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Very. It's likely the same as mine. It's Spanish, right? I clearly hear [säɰˈɾe̞s]. I honestly think that almost whole Latin America (I'm talking about Spanish) has a dental /s/, which is just labeled as laminal alveolar. --Ahls23 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's Cypriot Greek, but I think that transcription would be exactly right. — Lfdder (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I know what they mean that Greek and Spanish sound similar. She (he?) sounds totally like someone from South America. --Ahls23 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it weren't for θ. ;P — Lfdder (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Tottenham"

Hi, Could you explain to me the rationale of showing the pronuncation of Tottenham as a three-syllable word when it is not actually pronounced like that by people in London or indeed the rest of the UK? I notice that Wikipedia gives the pronunciation for "Leicester" correctly as (/ˈlɛstər/ LES-tər). In other words, the IPA rendering takes account of the peculiarity of local pronunciation ("local" meaning the whole of the UK), whereas the spelling would imply something different. (American and other visitors to London can often be heard asking the way to "Lie-cester Square".) If you search YouTube etc. for people talking about Tottenham (eg Tottenham Hotspur FC), you are unlikely to hear any native speaker pronouncing Tottenham with three syllables. You will hear it as two syllables (with a glottal stop, I think – but you would be the expert on this – dividing the two).

In fact, if you listen to Harry Redknapp talking in this YouTube clip, he says the word "Tottenham" within the first ten seconds and it is a perfect demonstration of how it is pronounced. Redknapp is from London and has a working class background, but the pronunciation of "Tottenham" does not change with class differences. In this second YouTube clip, again within the first ten seconds you will hear someone with a more "received English" accent saying it in the same way. Dubmill (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about this. I still think it is more common to pronounce it as only two syllables (Tot-nm), but there are some people who say it as three, only with the middle "uh-n" part being said so quickly as to make it barely perceptible. I guess it's a rather minor question overall, although I note the subject has come up on Yahoo Answers and elsewhere. Dubmill (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This website has something to say on the matter and refers specifically to Tottenham: [1]. Dubmill (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Slashes represent phonemic transcription, which seemed to be /ˈtɒtənəm/. Now, due to the unstressed nature of schwa it can (and indeed is, as you point out) be elided [ˈtʰɒtnəm]. The second /t/ then turns to a glottal stop, because even in Received Pronunciation it's an allophone of /t/ before a nasal [ˈtʰɒʔnəm]. Actually pronunciationlondon made a mistake by writing /ˈtɒʔnəm/ - it should be [ˈtɒʔnəm]. Glottal stop isn't a native phoneme, but an allophone of /t/.

I think it's very possible that /ˈtɒtənəm/ was once the proper pronunciation, but it doesn't matter. I think the best option is to transcribe it as /ˈtɒtnəm/, and I've changed it to that. Thanks for the feedback. --Ahls23 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you active?

I'm writing on behalf of WikiProject Linguistics to see if you are active or not. I've moved your name to the inactive participants list. If you are active, feel free to move your name back to the active participants list. We hope you come back soon! Joeystanley (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)