Talk:Cockburn, South Australia

Comment

Quote from User_talk:Avochelm:

Your edit of Cockburn, South Australia on 29 October 2005 had the comment Copied information from cockburn.org.au by the copyright holders. Did you mean "by permission of the copyright holders"? If so, could you please add a note about the permission to the talk page? Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The person who created that website is my associate. I copied that information to here while working for him. --Avochelm 09:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds OK then. Just needed to check. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cockburn, South Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161012010923/http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/ to http://maps.sa.gov.au/plb/%23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hello Nardog, Some comments in view of your recent changes to Cockburn's pronunciation:

• I'm not wedded to my original [ɚ:].
• But I wasn't too keen on your /ˈkoʊbn/ – making it like Melb'n shortened the second vowel too much.
• I thought your /ˈkoʊbɜːrn/ was fine but the r made it too rhotic.
• I'm proposing /ˈkoʊbɜːn/ to remove the rhotic factor.

-- Just to assure you I'm not starting a pointless edit war.  ;-) Cheers, SCHolar44 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@SCHolar44: Please see WP:RHOTIC. Our IPAc-en transcriptions are, as laid out in our Help:IPA/English key which every such transcription links to, "diaphonemic", viz. designed in such a way that they can be pronounced by speakers of pretty much any accent of English. Cockburn should be transcribed with /ɜːr/ because any rhotic speaker would pronounce it with /r/ (and often be incapable of pronouncing it without it). /ɜː/ represents a rare situation where a word is pronounced with /ɜː/ in non-rhotic accents but not with /ɜ(ː)r/ in rhotic accents, as in Möbius, so it's seldom appropriate.

/ˈkoʊbn/ was a mistake and is phonotactically impossible. Even in words like carbon where a pronunciation with [n̩] (a syllabic consonant) is a possibility, we write it /ən/ because that's the underlying (phonemic) representation and because in most if not all contexts where [n̩] is a possibility, [ən] also is. Nardog (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)