User talk:Aeusoes1/Archive 10

The following is an archive of debate between various editors of Wikipedia and User:Aeusoes1 regarding the awful things he's done on Wikipedia. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on AE's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

/ɜ/ and /ɛ̈/

Does the symbols /ɜ/ and /ɛ̈/ pronounce as the same way ? 198.105.116.142 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Not usually. The centering diacritic of [ɛ̈] can indicate a range of difference from the cardinal point of [ɛ]. Because there already is a symbol for [ɜ], it's safe to assume that a given linguist's use of [ɛ̈] in a source doesn't mean the same thing as [ɜ], but the decision to choose one or another to represent a given vowel is often a judgment call. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh

Well wishes for your graduate studies. I visited your talk page because Bhaskarbhagawati is, IMO, vandalizing the Etymology of Assam page, and thought you might be able to help. Chaipau (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted his edits. You should put something in the administrator's noticeboard, focusing on his refusal to discuss the matter. There's no way that blanking sections with no talk page discussion is anything but a behavior issue. It may not be vandalism (who knows what's in BB's heart), but it is part of a disruptive pattern. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pangender , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. April Arcus (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for input

I have been engaged in a dispute at Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias for some time now that could be of relevance to the many pronunciations of non-English names throughout WP. It's a former featured article, and one of the contributors who got it to FA status objects to the pronunciation of the name Caxias being indicated, for a rotating set of reasons. Any input there would be appreciated, as we don't seem to be resolving it ourselves and hardly anyone else is watching the page. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmong in Minneapolis

Hi! You might be interested in what I started: History of the Hmong in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. I also created a navigation template that links between this and Merced. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good start. You might want the two articles to have similar layouts. It also seems a little strange to have a "history" section in an article about history. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get around to switching the layouts upon finding more info. I only use the "History of" title as a form of precedent from a series of articles started about Jewish populations in U.S. cities and counties. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Started History of the Hmong in Fresno, California as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been waiting for that one. Keep it going. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one: History of the Hmong Americans in Metro Detroit WhisperToMe (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there is enough to start a general overview of the Hmong in California. I have Hmong in Wisconsin and I also wonder if there will be enough on the Hmong in Wausau (it sounds like there was some antagonism in the town since it was all White before). The main thing impeding me is that Google News archives search is down, so it's much harder for me to find news articles about the Wausau Hmong, especially from the 1990s, but I can try to see what I can find WhisperToMe (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

ˈɡɹiːtɨŋzˈɝθlɪŋ

I've seen your comments on Talk pages of some of the pages I've edited, so I dropped in on your User page to have a look around. Looks mighty homelike to me! In fact, I'm swiping a couple of Babel boxes from you, ipa and Cyrl-4: not 5, because while I'm thoroughly comfortable with Russian кириллица, I'm not very familiar with its use for other languages.

Maybe we'll e-chat when you get back from your Wikibreak. --Thnidu (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You can feel free to drop me an email whenever you'd like. My wikibreak is to keep me from spending two hours each morning going through the changes on my watchlist and chiming in on talk page discussions. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

GAh!

Er, sorry for interrupting your work on your dissertation, but might I ask you to glance at the top and foot of Talk:African American Vernacular English and to chime in? Thanks! -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

pêche

Hello, this pronunciation is [pæʃ] or [pɐɪ̯ʃ] ? Fort123 (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll feel free to give my opinion in AE's place if you don't mind. Definitely diphthongal to my ears. In fact, [pɐɪʃ] sounds like a reasonable transcription, [pæʃ] not at all. Of course, in North American English, /æ/ frequently develops into a diphthong ([ɛə] or the like, see æ-tensing), but that does not matter here. It is possible that the glide [ɪ] is an automatic insertion between [ɐ] ~ [æ] and [ʃ], so (depending on analysis) /pæ(ː)ʃ/ (or even /pɛ(ː)ʃ/) might be the underlying phonemic representation. Is the speaker from Québec? See Quebec French phonology#Diphthongization. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on books

Hi! In order to make more public knowledge of controversies/deficiencies in some books I started User:WhisperToMe/Hmong: History of a People to show people documented history of a book that could easily be used by a Wikipedian as a source. By writing these articles Wikipedians will understand that they need to have caution when using sources.

I thought about doing this since User:Nposs raised issues about the book here: User_talk:Nposs#History_of_a_People_by_Quincy and Talk:Hmong_people#blue eyes, blonde hair WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Making a vowel chart out of formant values

Hello. How do you do that? There's this image: http://www.tuninst.net/HUMAN-VOICE/vowel/PIX/Uldall-Fischer.gif, but it strikes me as unreliable. When I follow the values written close to the chart on the right, Icelandic /ɔ/ turns out to be mid central, and /a/ fully front. Neither of these are correct, so what would be the correct way of making a vowel chart based on formant values? I know how to use Inkscape and GIMP, so that is not a problem. Peter238 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I almost wanted to ask you the same thing (I'd like to one day replace the current vowel chart at Russian phonology with one that's got more up-to-date data (either a source from 1959 or one from about ten years ago). A while back, I inquired at the reference desk, but I haven't really followed up on the answer. It's kind of been on my back burner for a while, though. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! All my vowels charts are simply SVG retraces of the charts on which they are based. But what does Steewi mean by saying "converting the axes to a log scale"? I'm not really good at maths, and my knowledge of phonetics often ends where the 'serious' stuff begins. If you figure out the answer, please do let me know. Peter238 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That just means it's logarithmic rather than linear. Apparently our perceptions of speech sounds are as such, rather than linear. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mid vowels in a dialect of Bavarian

Hello once again. Do you know which paper describes the /ø - œ - ɶ/ distinction in the Amstetten dialect of Bavarian? I think I read it once, but don't remember the title anymore. Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got the answer: it's The Sounds of the World's Languages, pages 289 and 290. Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Help:IPA for French

• un bébé [ɐ̃ ˈbebe] :

Hello, the sound [e] sounds more like [ɪ]. 199.59.78.19 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Where are you from? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 00:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm from Montreal. Honestly, the sound [e] sounds more like the short i in English. 199.59.78.19 (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Acoustically, they are very similar. It may sound more like English /ɪ/ because they are both short. There could also be something special about that speaker. Descriptions of French say it is closer to English /eɪ/, though. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[eɪ] is a diphthong, but [e] is a monophthong, [e] is between [ɪ] and [ɛ]. 138.229.24.107 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

falling or rising diphthong

diphthongization of a hiatus: if one of the two vowels in a hiatus is stressed then usually the formerly stressed vowel becomes the dominant one in the diphthong (and retains the word's point of stress).
so the correct pronunciation [maˈes.tɾo] becomes [ˈma̯es.tɾo] (the stress remaining on the /e/)
there are however dialects that go further: [ˈmaɪ̯s.tɾo] (stressing the /a/ and degrading the e to a semi-vowel)
reference: Alarcos Llorach, Emilio (2000), Gramática de la lengua española. Real Academia Española. ISBN 84-239-7922 9. P 42-43.

while "máistro" [ˈmaɪ̯s.tɾo] is rather rare (and funny sounding, almost like German "Meister"), sounds "máestro" [ˈmae̯s.tɾo] very forced, and it is most certainly not used "during fast speech" as it is claimed in the article! ;)

--Ninud (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian vowels

Hello. Currently, on Russian phonology there's this statement: Non-open back vowels velarize preceding hard consonants: т [tˠɨ]^ⓘ ('you' sing.). /o/ and /u/ labialize all consonants: бок [bʷok]^ⓘ ('side'), нёс [nʲʷɵs]^ⓘ ('(he) carried'). It strikes me as unclear, therefore I changed it to /ɨ/, /o/ and /u/ velarize preceding hard consonants: ты [tˠɨ]^ⓘ ('you' sing.). In addition, /o/ and /u/ labialize all consonants: бок [bʷok]^ⓘ ('side'), нёс [nʲʷɵs]^ⓘ ('(he) carried').[citation here, as in article] But then... what about situations when /o/ is unstressed? In such cases, it is a mid-to-near-open central unrounded vowel - and it certainly doesn't labialize succeeding consonants. In such cases, analyzing it as /o/ (the way some scholars [or perhaps the majority of them] do) strikes me as unjustified. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 22:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reworded it a little bit to further clarify the point. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 22:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I found the source for the pre-vowel [j]-glide after palatalized consonants. Unsurprisingly, it's Jones & Ward (1969) -" The Phonetics of Russian". On the page 172 they write: "a slight j-glide is heard on the release of contact of /lʲ/ when a vowel follows, but not usually in other cases. The glide must not be exaggerated so that /lʲ/ sounds like /lʲj/." Most probably, they state similar things about other palatalized consonants. I can't access the full book on Google Books, so maybe you can check all the relevant pages in Jones & Ward (1969) and use them as a source for that sentence. Peter238 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I can check my notes when I get home. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

My notes aren't exhaustive, but Jones & Ward do indicate that there is a slight amount of frication after /tʲ/ and /dʲ/ so that there's a short fricative element, like /sʲ/ (p. 104-5). It is kind of similar to the /lʲ/ offglide in that it indicates that the tongue doesn't make quite a sharp transition from consonant to vowel. I don't think they say anything else about other consonants having palatal offglides or onglides. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]}

Invitation

Hello. I invite you to this discussion about changes to Help:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 11:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you help

Please write me portugal pronunciation of this name Danilo Saveljic--Trobinson66 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Advice needed on controversial article

Could I ask for your advice on a difficult issue in the Phonetics area? There is an article on the Italian phonetician Luciano Canepari, and some years ago (before I had anything to do with WP) there was discussion about deleting it on the grounds that his work was not notable. I believe the article has since been changed, in that it now contains some very unpleasant personal attacks that for me go completely against what a WP article on a person should contain. The arguments concern disagreements between L.C. and a young Italian phonetician, Alex Rotatori. I have never met A.R., and only met L.C. once many years ago. I disagree with most of what L.C. has written in the field of phonetics, but I would not want to argue for removal of the article on those grounds. But if you take out the invective, there isn't much left. My question is this: is it possible to reopen the case for removing a page once it has been decided to keep it? RoachPeter (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There isn't a hard, fast rule about how long you should wait if there are no meaningful changes to the case against an article, but six years is a plenty of time. I think, as an established professional in the field, you can make a stronger case against Canepari's notability than users did in the previous deletion discussion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Latin in small caps

Hi! I started a topic in WikiProject Latin relating to the use of small caps in Latin spelling and pronunciation (and if it involves them, other articles). You aren't listed on that Project page, but you commented on the topic in the article talk page, so I thought I'd invite you to give your opinion. — Eru·tuon 23:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy newish year

-- and perhaps you're as delighted as I am that of late AAVE hasn't been showing up on the watchlist so often. (Really, I've had my fill of "common sense" linguistic stupidity for one lifetime.)

IFF you're in the mood, I have an AAVE-unrelated question about phonology. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Oistrakh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (Фи́шелевич) О́йстрах}}, ''David Fiodorovič (Fišelevič) Ojstrakh'', {{IPA-ru|dɐˈvʲid ˈfʲɵdərəvʲɪtɕ (ˈfʲiʂɨlʲɪvʲɪtɕˈojstrəx}}, {{lang-uk|Дави́д Фе́дорович (Фі́шелевич) О́йстрах}}, Davyd Fedorovych (

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a cromulent chunklet of cyrillicizing and aipeeaying, Sir. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

AAVE

Thank you for your hard work about AAVE. But this is an edit I'd never make. When somebody who's spattered such charges indignantly says he's leaving, I normally try to let him have the final word. If he goes under the impression that he's defeated a "PC" clique or whatever, that's fine with me. The important thing is that he says he's gone; let's not bait him or otherwise impel him to return. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Stop unilaterally reverting all of my edits. If you'd like to improve upon what I've done, that would be great. But you can't just revert all of my good faith edits with snide quips like 'this is not an improvement'. If you continue, you will be reported and blocked. Handpolk (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my reasons for reverting your edit were explicated in the talk page. By all means, feel free to report my behavior to whomever you wish. But empty threats to do so will have no effect. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Admission

I have just launched another article on an "issue" (not!) in language. Sorryyyy. Well, faced with the existence of this thing, I thought it unlikely that XfD would succeed, and thought it better to turn it into an article on the non-subject that was informed by a bit of actual linguistics understanding and rational thought. You may find certain minor aspects of it amusing in one way or another. (For example: "Why did he waste hours of his life on that?!") -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Geordie high vowels

Hello there. I have a question: Watt & Allen (2003:269) reads as follows: "[i] and [u] are diphthongs in morphologically open syllables, such that freeze [fɹiːz] and frees [fɹeiz], or bruise [bɹuːz] and brews [bɹɵʊz] are not homophonous." These look like instances of a phonemic FLEECE split (/iː/ - /ei/) and a phonemic GOOSE split (/uː/ - /ɵʊ/), respectively. Or am I mistaken? Curiously, the phoneme list contains only /iː/ and /uː/, but then again - the authors admit that their view of Geordie vowels is rather "simplistic and incomplete". — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 16:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds very similar to the æ-tensing of the mid-Atlantic in the influence of morphology on minimal pairs. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added these splits to Phonological history of English high front vowels and Phonological history of English high back vowels, respectively. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Dress-vowel

Hey, just wanted to explain my change in Help:IPA for French, which you reverted. Your point is well-taken that best has [ɛ] in more dialects than RP and North American. However, there are two important dialects that actually have [e] or [ɪ] in this word: Australian and New Zealand. Since these are prominent English-speaking countries, it is likely that a subset of our readers speak Australian or New Zealand English, and these readers would interpret the use of the example best as indicating that French /ɛ/ is pronounced with a mid to near-close vowel. This is unacceptable, since the close-mid vowel is a separate phoneme in French. Hence, I think we need to specify best as an RP or North American example. Clearly the example applies to a few other dialects, but these are the most prominent ones. — Eru·tuon 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, mid (or close-mid?) [e] occurred in conservative RP, though that's not really relevant since nobody really uses it anymore. (South African sometimes has [e] as well.)

I would be open to saying British and North American, since Irish and Scottish also seem to use [ɛ]. Still, I think using an example that doesn't apply for Australians and Kiwis, without saying so, is unacceptable. English Wikipedia isn't supposed to be just for North Americans and Brits. — Eru·tuon 17:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but TBH most of these guides tend to ignore Southern Hemisphere dialects. The entry for [e] would be incorrect, as hey is pronounced with [ʌɪ] or [æɪ] in Aussie and Kiwi dialects. Too wouldn't be right for [u], as it is [ʉ]. I'm not a fan of overly parsing which English is being approximated, especially when we get into less-well known dialects. I suppose it can be construed as ignoring Southern Hemisphere speakers, but I see it as sort of a lie-to-children thing where the effort to be pedantically precise can actually be a hindrance to the goals of indicating pronunciation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I did a little calculation: there are about 320,000,000 English speakers in Canada, the US, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, and about 27,400,000 in South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. So if the proportions of Wikipedia readers are similar (which is probably not quite true), we'll be misleading about a tenth of our readers, not a huge deal.

I get the point about being too precise, but surely if the pronunciation approximations are supposed to be worth anything, they've got to be specific. There are clear dialectal differences outside of the Southern Hemisphere, and these will affect how people understand the pronunciation approximations. It seems like the examples hey and too assume North American or archaic RP pronunciation; Southern British pronunciation nowadays would have [ɛɪ] and [ʉː]. If North American is the "default", this should be noted somewhere, and approximations that assume a different pronunciation system should be marked. This will may require a bit of work.

Looking at List of countries by English-speaking population, there are lots of English speakers in nations like India where other languages are native. Hence, I wonder if US English speakers are truly the majority on Wikipedia, and whether the majority of people visiting the IPA help pages will assume that they represent a North American pronunciation. — Eru·tuon 19:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also the irritating fact that symbols used for traditional RP are either originally inaccurate or are now inaccurate, as pointed out by Geoff Lindsey. This means that several examples in Help:IPA are inaccurate, like the ones for [ɒ ɔ o æ], as well as examples on some other IPA help pages. This is perhaps a minority opinion, but I find the auditory evidence provided quite convincing. — Eru·tuon 19:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

They are no longer accurate, but only for most younger speakers. /ɒ/ is open-mid in younger speakers, but near-open in older speakers (therefore, /ɒ/ is still phonetically correct, at least partially.) /ɔː/ raised from open-mid to mid position (therefore the symbol /ɔː/ is still phonetically correct for this vowel) and became more rounded in 1940s (if I remember correctly), and /æ/ started becoming fully open [a] in the 1960s. I think nobody would use a symbol which from the start was phonetically inaccurate. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "originally inaccurate" is pushing it. Lindsey indicates that many of the traditional symbols were accurate for RP of a certain period, but that this system soon changed. As to /ɔː/, he says it's now usually closer to [oː], so that German Dom and Southern British dorm are homophones or close to it. If so, the transcription */oː/ would be more accurate than /ɔː/. Similarly, */ɔ/ would be more accurate for modern pronunciation than /ɒ/. Lindsey discusses how these vowel shifts are based on overcrowding of the vowel space, which suggests that they are likely to remain.

I guess the "originally inaccurate" relates to [ɪ], which, as Lindsey points out, is basically identical to [e], and that the strut vowel, transcribed as /ʌ/, was always rather variable between [ə ʌ ɐ a] (or something like that), and could therefore be transcribed as /ə/. This is more phonetic variation and transcriptional choice than inaccuracy, though. — Eru·tuon 21:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindsey's statement about the STRUT square always sets off my BS meter, mainly because of this. But since his system is not for RP, maybe there is some logic in it. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you're somewhat familiar with Lindsey. I'm not totally sure I agree with his lumping of strut with schwa. It's partly due to his ESL-related concerns (or whatever the British term is). Wells's examples appear to show cases where strut and schwa contrast, at least based on native-speaker intuitions. However, he doesn't give phonetic data; it could be that the contrast between unorthodox and an orthodox is minimal, even when pronounced by Wells himself. But if unorthodox is truly distinguished from an orthodox, then Lindsey's analysis of strut as stressed schwa would fail. But this is a marginal case; in most cases, I don't think Lindsey's analysis is problematic. — Eru·tuon 01:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Unorthodox may or may not be distinguished from an orthodox. It depends on the phonetic realization of /ʌ/. If it's open, in the [ɐ] region, then most likely un- will be distinct from an, which would have a (close-)mid and probably also shorter [ɘ ~ ə]. That is precisely the case in RP, but maybe not in some varieties of Estuary English. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 13:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another thing to factor into all of this is prestige. While there is variation in even North American pronunciations, there is a tacit bias towards a very small number of prestige varieties. RP and GA are the major ones, so much so that I would venture to guess that even Aussie and Kiwi readers might have a basic understanding of these varieties because their pronunciations are so often glossed over. I'm not familiar with all of the details (both phonetic and geographic) between what you are calling archaic and modern RP. Kind of makes it messy. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

One feature of conservative RP was the three open back vowels /ɑː ɒ ɔː/, which are now /ɑː ɔ oː/ according to Lindsey, with more even quality distribution. Another was a close pronunciation of /æ ɛ/, which are now /ɛ a/. And then there is the recent diphthongization of /iː uː/. If you find time, reading Geoff Lindsey's posts would be really enlightening, since he provides many audio examples of both pronunciations, and very good discussion of phonetics and the phonological considerations of the vowel space.

Lindsey's analysis provides some perspective on other dialects as well. It could be said that GA had a system rather similar to conservative RP, but has undergone different modifications: /æ/ remains or is further raised and diphthongized, and /ɑː ɒ ɔː/ usually remain low, but instead merge in various ways. Australian is similar to RP in retaining a closer pronunciation of /æ/. — Eru·tuon 21:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Australian /æ/ has been described by some recent sources as identical to [a]. See e.g. [1] (p. 344) and [2] (pp. 159-160). — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Peter238: Thanks for the correction. I'm clearly not that knowledgeable about AuE. Perhaps New Zealand English provides a better example of /æ/ not being lowered, then. — Eru·tuon 01:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It does. Bauer et al. (2007:99) provide detailed charts with NzE vowel ranges. The range for /æ/ is [e̞ ~ æ], or slightly more back, while the range for /ʌ, ɑː/ (which in both AuE and NzE have the same quality) is [æ̈ ~ ɐ ~ æ̞̈ ~ ɐ̞]. South African /æ/ is also most often [æ ~ ɛ], though it can be [a] in Johannesburg. Another example of an accent with the unlowered /æ/ is the Norfolk dialect, which uses [æ] ([ɛ] in older speakers), sometimes a slightly diphthongized [æɛ]. True Cockney also keeps /æ/ fairly high ([æ ~ ɛ], sometimes diphthongizing it), because /ʌ/ in this accent is very front [ɐ̟ ~ a]. I'm not aware of any other accents outside North America that never realize /æ/ as [a]. Maybe parts of West County. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 13:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Creation of IPA for X pages

I already knew that there were some housekeeping to do, but I dind't know what and how. I've just created Help:IPA for Romansh and enlarged that list. Michael Peter Fustumum (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see Help talk:IPA for Romansh. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 17:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

diasystem

I agree that consistency with the source is important, assuming the examples were the author's own. But the very next sentence says /a/ is the vowel American use in pot. I suppose it's not worth worrying over, since those who already understand will note the contradiction, and correcting it won't better inform those who don't. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. Take a look at my most recent edit. Pot is still used for both, but it's articulated that /ɔ/ is for New England pronunciations. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that helps, and agrees with my thought, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

How good is your memory? Can I take you back 9 years? — Post-creole continuum

Hi Aeusoes1. We haven't dealt much with each other, in fact I recall only this Anyway, I was looking at Post-creole continuum and read this piece "a closely related language whose speakers assert dominance of some sort", which you added here (in the process removing the utter nonsense that was there before!). I am wondering whether we shouldn't remove reference to speakers, retaining only the reference to language that is, "a closely related language whose speakers,which asserts dominance of some sort". In many situations, the speakers whose language it is/ originally was or who brought the language are no longer present or are no longer a factor — for example, the Portuguese in Cape Verde — while language processes continue to run their course. Don't you agree? Regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mahican language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labio-velar consonant. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Faroese phonology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Glide and Hiatus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop

Hello Aeusoes1. I'm concerned about the mass changes you're making w/editsummary "Chinese language/dialect NPOV wording tweaks." Having looked at 50 or so I'm no longer confident all of them qualify as NPOV. Some conflict with the China WProjects' MoS, too. I ask that you stop making further such changes please. At least until a consensus forms at e.g. WT:CHINA anyway. Thanks, 146.199.151.33 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I can hold on while you make your case. To be fair, I have also been removing some unsourced statements, particularly in regards to what turns out to be overblown accounts about controversy regarding the classification of Chinese varieties. If you feel that there are other POV or MOS issues, feel free to explain further at WT:WPC. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I'd also like to hear from other interested folks if we can, since this spans a few hundred pages. I saw some removals that were good. I should be able to add more on the various points tomorrow (Sat). 146.199.151.33 (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Another problem with mass changes - especially as you are concerned with Chinese topics - is your changes hiding less constructive changes (aka vandalism). Did you intend to endorse the preceding IP editor's vandalism of pronunciation? That might sound rather blunt, but after reviewing the first 48 recent edits - only two of which were even plausible - I'm blown away no one else noticed 2.5 weeks of vandalism. When choosing to work across many articles, you have a wonderful opportunity to catch problems. Shenme (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Blunt is not the right word. Perhaps rude or presumptuous would be more accurate. I could even use shocking to describe the nerve of someone who would strongly imply that I am responsible for monitoring the editing history of anonymous contributors to any of hundreds of articles I touch up.

I could also use vacuous for your suggestion that, by making a particular class of edits to hundreds of different articles, I should naturally tack on non-sequitor goals. Those non-sequitor goals can actually get in the way of the initial ones. Case in point: I spent several hours yesterday fixing the citations of a single article I came across. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chinese language may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |title=[Untitled review of ''[[Ethnologue]]'', 15th edition]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with tables

Hello, long time no see. Can you help me in creating this table?--Adamʂa123 (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)