User talk:Mr KEBAB/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Alveolo-palatals

While I agree they don't deserve a column in the IPA consonants table, simply because the term is limited to fricatives and affricates so the column needlessly widened the already crowded table, they definitely have to be listed somewhere on one of the tables. Should they be moved back to the co-articulated consonants? Or just outside the pulmonics/affricates tables? Nardog (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: It's not limited to fricatives and affricates. All consonants marked as palatal on the official IPA chart can be alveolo-palatal (apart from [cç, ɟʝ, ç, ʝ] and perhaps [j̊, j], but that may be debatable). [tɕ, dʑ, ɕ, ʑ] can stay where they are right now, because they're sibilant counterparts of [cç, ɟʝ, ç, ʝ]. The classification is correct. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, my mistake. I also missed the fricatives and affricates were moved to the sibilant rows. I'm fine with the current layout. Sorry to have bothered you. Nardog (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: No problem, but if [tɕ, dʑ, ɕ, ʑ] are essentially sibilant counterparts of [cç, ɟʝ, ç, ʝ], shouldn't we merge the articles on them? Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be consistent with other alveolo-palatals (those which do not have their own IPA symbols). But the thing with [(t)ɕ, (d)ʑ] is that they sound way closer to [(t)ʃ, d(ʒ)] than to [(c)ç, (ɟ)ʝ]. I wonder why only the fricatives are given their own IPA symbols, but that would be my best guess (and perhaps they're more common cross-linguistically?). And I would want to know why before we decide to merge the articles for [(t)ɕ, (d)ʑ] with [(c)ç, (ɟ)ʝ]. Nardog (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: That depends on what you consider [tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ] to be. IMO, considering canonical [tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ] to be weakly palatalized is just weird. It's like saying that canonical [l] is palatalized or that canonical [n] is velarized. The coloring should be neutral. Plus, no language contrasts weakly palatalized [tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ] with [tɕ, dʑ, ɕ, ʑ], but there are languages (Polish, Mandarin, etc.) that contrast hard, completely unpalatalized [tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ] with [tɕ, dʑ, ɕ, ʑ].

If you consider canonical [tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ] to be hard, then [tɕ, dʑ, ɕ, ʑ] are much closer to [cç, ɟʝ, ç, ʝ]. If you don't, they sound as something in between them, but a bit closer to [tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ] because of their sibilant nature. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: On second thought, considering [tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ] to be weakly palatalized is much weirder because these variants are much closer to [tɕ, dʑ, ɕ, ʑ] than the flat postalveolars. I hope the IPA clarifies this should they ever write the next edition of the Handbook. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, while you're at it, I would appreciate your input at Talk:Voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant#Requested move 23 December 2017. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: I'd put that on hold. We should merge the articles on [tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ] with the ones on [tʂ, dʐ, ʂ, ʐ] - see User:Mr_KEBAB/VPAS (it's far from being 100% finished). It's a bit too early to start a discussion about that on Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics, and I don't want time pressure to finish all of the four articles. If editors agree on the merge (there are good reasons for it), then we can think of appropriate article names, which will be a minor issue anyway. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as other postalveolar consonants are concerned, I'd also move them to the corresponding articles about retroflex consonants. Maybe the articles on [ɹ] and [ɻ] should be fully merged, I'm not sure. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were prepping those articles, sorry if I stepped on your feet. But wouldn't you at least agree there need to be articles named "voiceless/voiced postalveolar fricative/affricate"? Your wording ("merge ... with the ones on [tʂ, dʐ, ʂ, ʐ]", "...move them to the corresponding articles about retroflex consonants") suggests you're intending to merge the postalveolars into articles named "...retroflex...", which seems odd. Don't you actually mean the other way around? Or do you actually think they should be gathered in articles that have "retroflex" in their names?

I also have a feeling it wouldn't be a bad idea to accumulate only truly retroflex (subapical) sounds into the articles on retroflexes, provided that they are common enough to warrant the articles, though I don't know how practical it is to ascertain the actual tongue shape of each sound described as retroflex. Nardog (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No wonder you didn't, the only person I told about that was No such user. I only said that because the merge is very likely to occur, so we'll rename them again anyway.

I have no idea how we should call them. I'm counting on other editors to choose the names. Lazy, I know.

Ok, but the very reason I want to merge the articles on postalveolar/retroflex sibilants is that flat postalveolar sibilants found in Polish, Lithuanian etc. are sometimes called retroflex. The corresponding Mandarin sounds are always called retroflex, whereas the corresponding French sounds are never considered to be retroflex. But they're all the same sounds pronounced with flat tongue. (EDIT: That's irrelevant to what you wrote) As far as other retroflex consonants are concerned, that strikes me as severely limiting. What about non-subapical retroflexes/postalveolars that are transcribed with the retroflex symbols? Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

On that note, I have a serious suspicion on the accuracy of the article Retroflex consonant. I've just posted it here, so there I would also appreciate if you could give us an input. Nardog (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankly―and you seem to agree on this―the current organization of speech sounds is an utter mess. You've already touched upon this idea at WT:LING but there are a lot of scarcely attested sounds that are better merged with related sounds. I think [ä] and [ɒ̈] can merge too. There are also completely unattested Labiodental trill etc., which I think should be redirects to an article called Unattested sound or something to that effect (or to some existing article). Nardog (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I screwed up by not merging [ɪ̈, ʊ̈] with [ɘ, ɵ] a few months ago when I said I would. But the articles are almost ready and the merge can still be performed. I think that [ɯ̽] and [ɤ] can stay separate. At least I think that's what you're talking about.

I'd merge [ɒ̈] with [ɞ̞] but not necessarily [ä]. [ɶ, ɑ, ɒ] also cover both open and near-open sounds, but it's good to preserve the rounded-unrounded distinction, which is consistent with the rest of the articles. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not so sure if I would like "merging [ɪ̈, ʊ̈] with [ɘ, ɵ]". As far as English is concerned, [ɪ̈, ʊ̈] are better transcribed as [ɨ̞, ʉ̞] (or even simply [ɨ, ʉ]) because ⟨ɨ, ʉ⟩ aren't occupied by other phonemes. Are [ɪ̈, ʊ̈] known to contrast with [ɨ, ʉ] in any language? If not, I feel like they are better merged with [ɨ, ʉ] than with [ɘ, ɵ].

I agree [ɯ̽] may keep its own article. Nardog (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: The reason [ɪ̈, ʊ̈] should be merged with [ɘ, ɵ] is that [ɪ, ʊ] cover both near-close and close-mid vowels (see near-close near-front unrounded vowel and near-close near-back rounded vowel). Because of that, it's pretty much impossible to determine whether vowels transcribed with [ɪ̈, ʊ̈] (or the corresponding non-IPA symbols [ᵻ, ᵿ]) are near-close or close-mid unless that is explicitly stated in a given source. I agree that you should expect [ɪ̈, ʊ̈] to be near-close, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia.

There's also the issue of the centralizing diacritic itself, which some authors (e.g. Collins & Mees in their Phonetics of English and Dutch) use to mean mid-centralized, not centralized, or even both. For example, they say that the pre-/r/ allophone of /i/ is [ïə], but it's actually [ɪə] (at least in Randstad, other speakers probably use a fully close vowel with an optional schwa offglide). So even when we know that a scholar considers [ɪ, ʊ] to be near-close, we can't really be sure that their [ɪ̈, ʊ̈] are near-close as well. So it makes a lot sense to merge [ɪ̈, ʊ̈] with [ɘ, ɵ]. It's consistent with the series of edits I made to [ɪ, ʏ, ʊ] almost a year ago.

When we merge [ɪ̈, ʊ̈] with [ɘ, ɵ], we'll be also able to list more English dialects with central rounded FOOT and NURSE. This is good for our readers. Plus, the variants of FOOT transcribed with [ɵ] and [ʊ̈] may not be different at all (different sources use different notations, very often without providing vowel charts).

If you want to see the drafts, visit User:Mr KEBAB/Close-mid central unrounded vowel and User:Mr KEBAB/Close-mid central rounded vowel. They're almost ready to be published. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

English pronunciations of Polish names

Hi, long time no see! I wonder what's your opinion on Polish (and maybe other Slavic) names pronunced in English? For example, Łódź beling pronunced like WOOCH? Do they sound strange or foreign? I'm very interested to hear your opinion. – ^{they call me} AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 12:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: [wuːtʃ] for Łódź does sound foreign. It must be so, because only the first sound is correct as far as Standard Polish is concerned. But we're not talking about a non-native pronunciation of a Polish name in Polish, but an English approximation thereof. It's a big difference. I'd have no problem with hearing [ˈbɪdɡɑʃtʃ] or [ˈbɪdɡɑʃ] for Bydgoszcz and [ˌʃvɪnɵʊˈʉʃtʃə] for Świnoujście. Only someone that doesn't know how phonetics/phonology work would. But there's no excuse for not getting the stress right. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation requests

English: It seems /ərˈnɛstoʊ ˌɛskəˈbeɪdoʊ/ in 1, 2 and 3? And is the respelling ər-NES-toh NET-oh ES-kə-BAYD-oh or ər-NEH-stoh NET-oh EH-skə-BAYD-oh?

Hindi: Does the surname Mirza have a stress in Sania Mirza? Hindustani pronunciation in Forvo

And some questions about Serbo-Croatian names:

1) It seems that words in onomastika are proper names, but geographical names like the mountain Konjuh are also proper names... So I am not sure if they are given names and surname...

2) Is it Mártič or Mȃrtić for Petra Martić? [1]

3) Is it Jȕrak or Jȕrāk for Darija Jurak? [2]

4) Is it Lȕčić or Lúčić for Mirjana Lučić-Baroni?

5) Is it Tȍmić (1, 2) or Tómić (2) for Bernard Tomic?

6) Does it have two pronunciations Dȁmīr and Dámir? dȁti, Dȁmīr (Dámir)

7) Is it Bȁšić or Bàšić for Mirza Bašić?

Truly grateful and happy new year :D LoveVanPersie (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: I'm not sure if there's any English word that begins with /ər/ as opposed to /ɜːr/. It seems to me that only the latter is allowed in the unstressed word-initial position. @Nardog:, can you confirm that? You have a better grasp of phonology than me. The non-rhotic pronunciation in the third link is definitely /ɜːrˈnɛstoʊ ˌɛskəˈbeɪdoʊ/, with strong /ɜːr/, not weak /ər/ (phonetically [əː] and [ə] in the narrator's accent, but you probably know that already). Bear in mind that in much of the North America there's no actual distinction between /ər/ and /ɜːr/. There's a related English name Ernest by the way, and it's pronounced /ˈɜːrnɪst/, with the same /ɜːr/ but stressed (/ər/ can't be stressed in accents that contrast it with /ɜːr/).

The correct respelling is ur-NES-toh ES-kə-BAYD-oh. Stressed /ɛ/ can never occur in the syllable-final position.

It's initial in both cases, but it seems to me that only the female pronouncer treats the first name as trisyllabic ([ˈsaːnɪaː]). The man seems to compress /-nɪ.aː/ into [-njaː], yielding [ˈsaːnjaː]. This is very similar to what happens to unstressed /i/ before /ə/ in English (see Help:IPA/English).

1. For surnames, look under pr. I'm not sure what it stands for, but that's where they are. For first names, look under m. os. ime (for male first names) and ž. os. ime (for female first names).

2. They're two different surnames. Hers is Martić with ć.

3. Jȕrak is diminutive of Juraj. The surname is Jȕrāk, with a long post-accentual a.

4-6. Both pronunciations are correct.

7. I'd only transcribe Bȁšić. I don't know about the other variant. It could be that Elly Bašić insisted on pronouncing her surname Bàšić like Rachel Weisz insists on the /vaɪs/ pronunciation of her surname. Maybe it has dialectal connotations. These are all speculations by the way. Mail HJP if you want a definitive answer.

Happy New Year and thanks for reposting your requests here. I appreciate your cooperation. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Darija in HJP seems a male first name but Darija Jurak is a female... And I found pr.'s meaning just now: prezime (last name) in Kratice i odrednice. There is another list of explanations I found just on the bottom of HJP: Kratice i popis jezika. LoveVanPersie (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Dario is a male first name, not Darija which is its female equivalent. There's a semicolon after m. os. ime. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But Weisz seems a German surname, shouldn't it be /vaɪs/? LoveVanPersie (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: It should. That's why she insists on that pronunciation. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You have a better grasp of phonology than me. Well, that's flattering but probably not true. Anyways, I think you're right, I can't think of any instance of word-initial /ər/. Searching in CEPD/LPD seems to confirm that. Happy new year. Nardog (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: Thanks! Happy new year to you too. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it /kɑːnuː/ or /kænuː/ in [3]?

Are Aleksándar and Alèksāndar both correct? ([4]) And is [aleksǎːndar mǐtroʋitɕ, -lěksaːn-] a correct shortening? LoveVanPersie (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: It's /ˈkɑːnuː/, with /ɑː/ and initial stress.

Yes, per HJP.

I prefer [alěksaːn-], with initial [a]. It's clearer that way. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Is [jâna fêt, jǎːna-] or [jâna fêt, jǎː-] better? LoveVanPersie (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Are [o] and [i] in the same syllable in [ǎndroitɕ]? LoveVanPersie (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: The latter.

No, of course not. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it /deɪ ˈmɪnər/ day MIN-ər in clip 1 and /dɪ ˈmɪnər/ dih MIN-ər in clip 2? Which is more correct or both are correct? LoveVanPersie (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: The correct IPA is /də mɪˈnɔːr/. See [5]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Does she pronounce /ˈsoʊni ˈkɛnɪn/ SOH-nee KEN-in in the clip? LoveVanPersie (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: No, it's /ˈsoʊniə ˈkɛnɪn/ (SOH-nee-ə KEN-in). Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Does he pronounce /θəˈnɑːsi ˈkɒkɪnɑːkɪs/ thə-NAH-see KO-ki-nah-kis in the record? And is Ñíguez a Spanish surname or a Catalan one? The four Ñíguez in WP are from Elche from one family. LoveVanPersie (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

LoveVanPersie That's almost correct. The IPA is /θəˈnɑːsi ˌkɒkɪˈnɑːkɪs/ (thə-NAH-see KOK-ih-NAH-kis). I've noticed that you're still confused about the lax vowels, which can't ever end stressed syllables (save for extremely rare instances of loanwords such as pho). You don't have to use the IPAc-en and respell templates here by the way. You're making an effort that doesn't make a difference (I don't mean to sound disrespectful, I'm just trying to save your time). The reason we use the IPAc-en template in articles is because of the mouseover feature and because it links to Help:IPA/English where all of the symbols are explained. In the case of the respell template, we use it mainly because it links to Help:Pronunciation respelling key.

Yes, the spelling itself proves it. Catalan doesn't have ⟨ñ⟩, they use ⟨ny⟩ instead (interestingly, that feature is shared with some African languages). Compare Catalan Catalunya [kətəˈɫuɲə] with Spanish Cataluña [kataˈluɲa]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember them. Is the respelling of the surname should be KOK-ih-NAH-kis? And is it /ˈkɪriɒs/ or /ˈkiːriɒs/ in the clip? The respelling isn't consistent with IPA in Nick Kyrgios. LoveVanPersie (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: It's KOK-ih-NAH-kis, yes.

The correct syllabification seems to be /ˈkVr.i.ɒs/ (where V stands for vowel), so /ˈkiːriɒs/ is probably impossible. The only possibilities are /ˈkɪriɒs/ and /ˈkɪəriɒs/ (Australian [ˈkiɹ-] and [ˈkiːɹ-], respectively), and I think it's the former. The dialect of English I speak ("I'm trying to imitate" is probably a more suitable phrase) doesn't have phonemic vowel length, so it's a bit hard for me to distinguish Australian /ɪ/ from Australian /ɪə/, as they have pretty much exactly the same quality and differ only in length. Strangely, I don't have such problems with English /ɪ/ and /ɪə/ in the same positions. Apparently I still have more to learn as far as AuE is concerned. /ɪ/-tensing still sounds strange to my ears.

Here, the pronunciation with /ɪr/ is more obvious, as the commentator is British. I'm 95% sure that the correct IPA is /ˈkɪriɒs/, with the lax /ɪ/. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Does he pronunce /trɒˈiːsi/ tro-EE-see in the clip? LoveVanPersie (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Nope, unstressed syllable-final /ɒ/ appears only before consonants. The correct IPA is /ˈtrɔɪsi/ (TROY-see). The [ɪ] is definitely non-syllabic ([ɪ̯]) and short. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and don't stay up too late. Good night :D LoveVanPersie (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick, but /iː.r/ is certainly possible albeit rare, most notably in some Americans' pronunciation of hero and zero (see AoE pp. 481–2). Parallels to this are also found in Nero, pharaoh, and guru. Nardog (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: I know. I was talking about /ˈkiːr.i.ɒs/. But that surname is definitely /ˈkɪriɒs/, with the MIRROR vowel. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that's what you meant. I agree the name does seem to have MIRROR, at least judging from the UK pronunciation in the video you linked to. Nardog (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it /ˈtiːɑːfoʊ/ TEE-ah-foh in clip 1 and clip 2? LoveVanPersie (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: It's /tiˈɑːfoʊ/. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it /dəˈlækwə/ də-LAK-wə in video 1 and video 2? LoveVanPersie (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: It is. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

1) Is it [ˈnorbert ˈgomboʃ] in the record?

2) Is it /ˈsmiːtʃɛk/ SMEE-chek in the record?

3) And is it /pəˈlænski/ pə-LAN-skee here?

4) Is it /ˈstɛfɑːn ˈkɑːzlɒv/ STEF-ahn KAHZ-lov here?

5) What's the Slovak pronunciation of Jozef Kovalik?

6) Is it /ˈfiːliːp ˈpɛliːvɔː/ FEEL-eep PEL-ee-vaw here? And how about their Polish pronunciation of Filip Peliwo? LoveVanPersie (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: 1. Yes, but only when there's a pause between the words, as on the recording. The correct IPA for the variant without a pause is [ˈnorberd ˈɡomboʃ] (notice that ⟨ɡ⟩ is the correct transcription, not ⟨g⟩).

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. No, it's /ˈstɛfɑːn ˈkɒzlɒv/. What we transcribe /ɑː/ on Help:IPA/English can never be written with ⟨o⟩.

5. Visit Help:IPA/Slovak and Slovak orthography and tell me the IPA. It's straightforward (remember that the surname is written Kovalík, with ⟨í⟩).

6. The guy has a non-native accent and so the recording can't be used as a source.

Visit Help:IPA/Polish and Polish orthography and tell me the IPA. It's straightforward. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Does he accually pronounce /ˈkɒzlɒv/? I feel that it sounds /ˈkɑːzlɒv/ with an American English accent like dog...?

Is Slovak name Martin pronounced [ˈmarcin]? It seems wrong... Martin Kližan LoveVanPersie (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Our diaphonemic transcription forces us to write /ˈkɒzlɒv/. From it, you can easily deduce that the General American pronunciation is [ˈkɑːzlɑːv].

The answer to this question is also on Slovak orthography. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Consonant clusters containing both voiced and voiceless elements are entirely voiced if the last consonant is a voiced one, or voiceless if the last consonant is voiceless." But pr and kr seem exceptions? LoveVanPersie (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: This applies to obstruents, not sonorants. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But the examples include hlavný /ɦlavniː/ and viac jahôd /vi̯adzjaɦu̯ot/? LoveVanPersie (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Slovak /v/, while it's a phonological sonorant, behaves both like a sonorant and an obstruent.

/ts/ is an obstruent, which is enough. If the sequence were reversed, the outcome would be a simple [j ts]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But p and k are also obstruents. LoveVanPersie (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss Slovak phonology with you. Try to get your hands on The Lexical Phonology of Slovak which should answer your question. Perhaps sonority hierarchy will answer that question too.

With that being said, /pr, kr/ are definitely [pr, kr] in Slovak. Can't tell you why, it's just the way it is. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What about tr? And are there other exceptions you know? LoveVanPersie (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Definitely [tr].

I don't know whether we can call these exceptions. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! How about tl, pl and kl?

And should we need to remove the tie bars on Help:IPA/Mandarin, where [t͡ɕ], [t͡ɕʰ], [ʈ͡ʂ] and [ʈ͡ʂʰ] are with tie bars but [ts] and [tsʰ] are without them. In Template:IPAc-cmn, transcriptions for the six affricates are all left out tie bars.

As for the pronunciation of Martin, the audio record is [ˈmartin] in Wiktionary and Forvo. But Slovak orthography tells me it is [c] rather than [t]? LoveVanPersie (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: They're [tl, pl, kl].

I think so. We definitely shouldn't be inconsistent and transcribe [tɕ, tɕʰ, ʈʂ, ʈʂʰ] with tie bars and [ts, tsʰ] without them. That's not acceptable.

The correct IPA is [ˈmartin], yes.

But Slovak orthography tells me it is [c] rather than [t]? It doesn't. Look again. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Do ď, ť, ň, ľ rarely exist in surnames? LoveVanPersie (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: The reason for spelling /ɟ, c, ɲ, ʎ/ as ⟨d, t, n, l⟩ in certain cases is also in that article. It'll answer your question. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the /v/ in Viktória pronounced [v] or [ʋ]? I think it's a normal situation so it is pronounced [v]. But it seems a case of "[ʋ] occurs in all other cases". So I'm confused...

Is the /m/ in Škamlová pronounced [m] or [n]? I think it's the former according to Slovak phonology, in which /m/ only "has the allophone [ɱ] in front of the labiodental fricatives /f/ and /v/".

Is Rebecca Šramková pronounced [ˈrebet͡sa ˈʃraŋkoʋaː]? And is Šramková a Czech or Slovak surname?

Is Anna Karolína Schmiedlová pronounced [ˈana ˈkaroliːna ˈʃmiedloʋaː]? LoveVanPersie (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: The answer is on Help:IPA/Slovak, which you seem to be quoting. The note you're quoting is unambiguous, so I don't understand why you're saying that it's a normal situation so it is pronounced [v] (whatever you mean by normal situation). There's nothing to be confused about.

/m/ never assimilates to [n] or [ŋ] in standard Slovak. It'd be a strongly abnormal pronunciation that doesn't occur in any language I'm aware of.

Please don't ask me about the pronunciation of Slovak words. Radoslav Ivan is a better candidate for that, but bear in mind that I am somewhat abnormally generous when it comes to answering your questions. Radoslav might not have that much time or patience.

Once again, you're asking me a question you could've answered yourself. See Šramková and pay attention to the spelling.

Anna probably has a long [nn], as in Polish. But I don't know about Karolína nor Schmiedlová. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

With that being said, I'd be extremely surprised if Rebecca was pronounced with [ts]. It's probably [k]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

All gratitude! LoveVanPersie (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Hmm, apparently Šrámková is a Czech surname. Šramková is just a Slovak adaptation thereof, so Jana Šramková has a misspelled surname, which should be Šrámková. But I could be wrong, so ask on Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics to confirm that.

Also, are you 100% positive that the first name of Chantal Škamlová is pronounced with [x], not [ʃ]? It seems to be a French name. The same applies to Andrej Martin - are you sure that the surname is pronounced with [t] and not [c]? The research we did was on a first name, not a surname. They don't have to be pronounced in the same manner (see homograph). What I'm saying is that you should never add IPA if you're not sure if it's correct. It could be taken as WP:VANDALISM and get you banned. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not sure about them. I just add IPA according to Help:IPA/Slovak and didn't know it could be wrong... LoveVanPersie (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: But you should've expected that. Hardly any language respells every single loanword. The Serbian variety of Serbo-Croatian does, Slovak doesn't. It doesn't even have a fully phonemic orthography. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it /ˈkʊdlə/? LoveVanPersie (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: It's /ˈkuːdlə/. The vowel is too central to be Australian /ʊ/, which is a back vowel. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it /bərˈnɑːrdə ˈpɛrə/ or /bɜːr-/? LoveVanPersie (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: The first name is pronounced /bərˈnɑːrdə/, but I'm not sure about the surname. GA doesn't distinguish /ɛr/ from /ɛər/, so it's either /ˈpɛrə/ or /ˈpɛərə/. It'd be perfect if I could hear the British pronunciation of the surname. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Please stop adding IPA when you're not sure about it. It's disruptive. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a pronunciation by a commentator but I don't know if it is correct... LoveVanPersie (talk)

@LoveVanPersie: It's /ˈpɛrə/. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There is another one by an Australian commentator. LoveVanPersie (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: He also says /ˈpɛrə/. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! And is the respelling of /bərˈnɑːrdə/ bər-NAR-də? LoveVanPersie (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: It is. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it /ˈtɛnɪs ˈsændgrɪn/ TEN-is SAND-grin?

Are the transcriptions in Jonas Björkman correct? LoveVanPersie (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: It's a bit hard to tell and I'm not gonna guess the IPA. Do you have a different recording?

I hope they're correct now, but I'm not sure. I don't speak Swedish. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How about this? LoveVanPersie (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Ok, this one is better. The correct pronunciation is /ˈtɛnɪs ˈsændɡrən/ (TEN-iss SAND-grən). Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: The IPA you added to Brian Dabul is wrong. It's [ˈbɾaʝan], not [ˈbɾjan] because it's an English loanword - see [6]. We've already discussed the issue of loanwords in Slovak, the same applies to Spanish.

It's better to leave words untranscribed than to transcribe them incorrectly. Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The same applies to Movistar, which is correctly transcribed [moβisˈtar]. /st/ is not a valid onset in Spanish (compare Spanish estar with Italian stare and Latin stāre), and the /s/ can be retracted to [h], which in most dialects is only possible in the syllable coda. Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[ps̩ːt]

[ɑe ˌwɪʃ ˈjǝʉ | ˌmɪstə kəˈbæb | ə ˈhæpǝɪ njǝʉ ˈjɪə ˌtweɾ̃ǝɪˌæɪˈɾǝɪn ‖ oːɫ ðǝ ˈbest] — ^{they call me} AWESOMEmeeos ... [ˈɔɪ̯]! 00:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: [θẽə̃ŋks! hæpi nʉ jiɻ tə jʉ tʉ. ðə faɪɻ̍wɻ̍ks hiɻ wɻ̍ ɻiɫi ɫæʊd‿ðɵʊ! wʌŋ‿kəd θɪŋk "ɑɻ ðə ɻʌʃn̩z ətækɪŋ ʌs?" θẽə̃ŋk‿ɡɑd (oɻ hʉɛvɻ̍/wʌɾɛvɻ̍ jə bəɫiv ɪn) aɪ həv disn̩t hɛdfɵʊnz. ðɛɻ tʃip, jɛʔ vɛɻi əfɛktɪv əp‿bɫɑkɪŋ æʊtʔ æʊtsaɪd noɪzəz, əspɛʃɫ̩i wɛn jə pɫeɪ ðɪs: [7].] Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Danish phonology

Hi, would you be able to review this edit at Danish phonology? Sources I quickly turned to all had /r/, /R/, or /ʁ/ as the phonemic representation of the rhotic. I'm not familiar with the topic but I highly doubt the edit is well founded, so I'd appreciate if you could take a look at it. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: Done. Which source uses /ʁ/ by the way? The only phonemic symbol I've ever seen is /r/, but I haven't read a lot about Danish. It doesn't help that my Danish is poor (as is my Serbo-Croatian)... Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The IPA illustration. I didn't have access to the full text; I just looked at the first page and saw /ʁ/ in the consonant inventory table. So it may be a different symbol used in the text. Nardog (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: I'm pretty sure that the IPA illustration focuses on phones much more than phonemes, so it's probably [ʁ] (but I could be wrong). Basbøll certainly writes /r/. 04:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: If Grønnum also lists [ð] and perhaps [ɪ̯, ʊ̯, ʌ̯] (which she changed to [j, w, ɐ̯] in newer works) in the consonant table then it's a table of phones, rather than phonemes. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerning MBMBaM

Aww see, you're right. I understood the concept of "allophones" but didn't know the terminology. I realize now what you meant. Sorry about the trouble. I won't undo your edits anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabblequeen (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dabblequeen: No problem. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)