User talk:Mr KEBAB/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Swedish /j/

Sorry for restoring the previous message on your talk page, didn't know about that policy (and I swear I read all the WP you've redirected me to). I know sources are essential and very important (I'm the first who wants to see sources cited), but, bear with me, I couldn't find more than that wiktionary entry (which seems reliable enough). I apologise for being repetitive and maybe giving the impression of being a troll / vandal (and I swear I'm not, really). We could find a common agreement about what to do and stop playing the reverting game (which is tedious and ridiculous, I agree). I suggest one of the followings: I could either cite the wiktionary as a source (but it seems I need your permission to do so, otherwise it would be OR / vandalism again) or add the tag [citation needed] (which is a possibility allowed by wiki as far as I know and should be taken into account I think). I hope you will reply this time... thanks. 78.159.213.239 (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. As I said on your talk page, I apologize for my former wording of edit summaries / the message on your talk page, I was angry at one troll on Turkish WP that was abusing his rights to accept pending revisions to have his way. Not really an excuse to be an asshole to other editors, just saying.

I can't say whether Swedish has or doesn't have an allophonic voiced alveolo-palatal fricative. If reading about phonetics has taught me anything, it's that it's only reasonable to have limited trust in your hearing. I'm not a phonetician (as you righly suggested), I have no idea whether you are one (which could as well be the case), nor am I from Sweden. But I'm not sure whether I could reliably distinguish a voiced palatal fricative from an alveolo-palatal one nor a voiced alveolo-palatal fricative from a palato-alveolar one. Relying on your ears alone is fine as far as blogs and forums are concerned, but not Wikipedia articles. That's why I insist that the Swedish entry be properly sourced. I'm afraid that Wiktionary would not be considered WP:RELIABLE, just as Wikipedia isn't.

If there's anything I don't want to do here, it's to treat this site as my personal blog. You don't need my permission to do anything, I'm just trying to follow the rules, and any user can do moderating work here, at least to an extent.

I have a solution: I'll reinstate the Swedish entry on voiced alveolo-palatal sibilant, and you'll find a source within a month (look through your local library). It's a reasonable middle way, no? Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it is! Thank you for your time and patience, I'll do my best in order to find a reliable source (even though I probably won't succeed, since surfing the web, even with accurate researches, has given me no results so far; and I doubt I'll find something in the library, but hope dies last). The best would be to ask an expert with a degree in phonetics (even better if shedish) and trust his word, but I know no one at the moment. I do own some books about phonetics, one of whom is written by Malmberg, a swedish phonetician, but it's quite old and sometimes uses different symbols, like the voiceless palatal fricative (the one present in German words such as "Ich") instead of the universally accepted voiceless alveolo-palatal sibilant fricative, which is also used here on wiki (and that enforces your suggestion about palatal and alveolo palatal fricatives being very similar and not easily distinguishable; is the exact opposite situation of the one we're discussing now (voiced alveolo-palatal vs voiced palatal, with the latter being used as an allophone but, apparentely, not the former, at least considering the available sources). As I said, I'll try to push my researches the furthest possible, hoping to find something finally. Thanks again for understanding my efforts and for being fair and patient with me. 78.159.213.239 (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, reverted, but it'd really be the best if you found a book or a journal article. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires us to provide sources that can be checked by other editors.

The issue of using ⟨ç⟩ vs. using ⟨ɕ⟩ is a different one (and the former is not totally obsolete a transcription, you can still encounter it in some modern works on Swedish phonetics/phonology!), but I get what you mean. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Voiceless glottal fricative

I don't know which link should be used, but Peve language and Lamé language are to two different articles. Also, nothing was clarified. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

/ɹ/ in Standard Austrian German

Please state where in Moosmüller et al (2015) /ɹ/ is mentioned. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skunkassociation (talk • contribs) 15:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Skunkassociation: It's not /ɹ/ but [ɹ]. It's an allophone of /r/. I've added that information myself (see [1] and [2]), but I don't have access to the source anymore. You must find that on your own. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB:I have Moosmüller's et al paper and the closest thing regarding your claim that [ɹ] is an allophone of /r/ I can find is:

A speaker-specific representation has to be assumed regarding the trill. The chart lists both the uvular trill and the alveolar trill. Most speakers make use of a uvular production (either trill or fricative). However, for those speakers who exclusively apply an alveolar production (either trill or approximant), /r/ has to be assumed.

I cannot tell if it's a case of ambiguous phrasing or what exactly they mean by "alveolar production (either trill or approximant)", but I cannot imagine that they were referring to \ɹ\ as this sound simply does not exist in the phoneme inventory of SAG. Skunkassociation (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Skunkassociation: You're still confusing phonemes with allophones. Nobody is saying that SAG has */ɹ/ i.e. an alveolar approximant phoneme. What I and the source is talking about is [ɹ], an alveolar approximant phone, an allophone of /r/. That's a big difference.

The citation unambiguously says that /r/ can be alveolar or uvular in SAG. When it's alveolar, it's either a trill or an approximant. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: My point is that no speaker of SAG would realise /r/ in any given position as [ɹ]. I don't know what kind of approximant the source is talking about, but it can't be [ɹ], as, and I cannot stress this enough, no one ever produces that sound in SAG. Skunkassociation (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Skunkassociation: Let's continue our discussion here. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Flemish vs. Dutch

While I agree with you that most written sources should not be stated to be in Flemish (newspapers, sporza, ... all use Dutch), for spoken sources, older sources, and some exceptions, "Flemish" is the correct, generally used term. Please don't change all mentions of Flemish blindly to Dutch (or the much more rarely used "Belgian Dutch"), but do so selectively. Fram (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: I'm not changing them blindly. If I see that the article is talking about a local (West/East) Flemish dialect, I don't change anything, or write "Dutch (West Flemish dialect)". Remember that linguists consider West and East Flemish to be dialects of Dutch.

The term "Flemish language" should not be used at all. It falsely suggests that Belgian Standard Dutch is a separate language (which is a ludicrous idea with no basis in reality) or that linguists consider (West/East) Flemish to be a separate language (they do not).

The fact that the DVD box reads 'Vlaams' is irrelevant - we're on English Wikipedia. 12:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We're on enwiki, and like I said elsewhere Flemish is much, much more commonly used in English than "Belgian Dutch" for the common "Tussentaal" in Flanders, as spoken in general, on TV, on DVDs, ... This is not the sub-Flemish regional dialects (West-Flemish, Antwaarps, whatever) nor the clearly distinct "Dutch" (either some general Dutch or the more specific "Hollands"), both in vocabulary and in pronunciation. This doesn't make it a language, but a language variety (liek American English) with a specific common name, Flemish. For written sources, this should be rarely used, as there the difference with Dutch is too small: but for spoken sources, it often is the better choice. Fram (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Then let's write "Dutch (Belgium)" or "Dutch (Belgian)". Flemish disagrees with a part of what you said and lists five (!) definitions of that word. It is not unambiguous at all. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It is entirely inappropriate to unilaterally change all references to Flemish to Dutch. In print media, it may be understandable to do so; however, in the spoken word it is incorrect. One would need to seek consensus to do that, and make those changes after. Citing a single reference that says "Don't use Flemish" is inadequate. Scr★pIron^IV 12:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: We don't need a consensus not to use "Flemish-language (...)" categories that coexist with "Dutch-language (...)" categories. It's a non-issue, as there is no "Flemish language" as opposed to "Dutch language". The former is a name for varieties of the latter. Stop perpetuating myths. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your analysis of the situation appears to be a minority viewpoint at this time. Not all scholars, and not all editors, agree with your assessment. Further discussion is warranted. Per WP:BRD your bold changes should be reverted, and a discussion held until a consensus is reached. At this point, there are hundreds of affected articles. Scr★pIron^IV 13:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: ...so you're actually trying to tell me that there is such thing as Flemish language? Care to present a reputable source to back that bold statement up? Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say there are nearly 6 million reputable sources, speaking it on a daily basis. Please see WP:COMMONNAME Scr★pIron^IV 13:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: I'm talking about sources that are reputable by Wikipedia standards (see WP:OR and WP:VERIFIABILITY). I'm not talking about the name but the actual existence of a language called "Flemish", a 'language' you claim that exists. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

RE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:77.179.35.229 - Thank you!

https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/sites/default/files/IPA_Number_chart_(C)2005.pdf is not very clear about this. 77.179.35.229 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Hello, I'm KylieTastic. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cambridgeshire have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KylieTastic (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong - this is a standard practice in pronunciation dictionaries (and maybe even dictionaries in general). Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I was just self reverting but you beat me too it... I wasn't paying attention and it look like a random deletion due as no edit summary. Sorry about that. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: No problem, thanks for the clarification. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Question.

Hello, I have been looking at your edits, and they all seem to be phonology- and IPA-related. Does that mean you have an interest of different languages' phonologies? And if one gave you an IPA transcription of a certain word in another language, can that mean you can reproduce it just like a native speaker would? Thanks! — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 11:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Hi. It does. It depends on how narrow such a transcription would be. I can produce many if not most of the sounds recognized by the IPA and some of their variations (dental vs. denti-alveolar vs. alveolar plosive, dental vs. alveolar vs. retracted alveolar sibilant fricative etc.). Among vowels, I have huge problems with [ɶ] and some problems with distinguishing [ɯ] from [ɤ] without referring to their rounded counterparts. All of that may or may not mean that I'll be able to pronounce a certain word from a certain language like a native speaker. Pronouncing full sentences is even more challenging. So the answer is: I'd like to think that I can, but that's not always the case. I'm far from being a phonetician. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice! For me however, I am quite okay with vowels, but I have problems with stress and intonation, and consonant clusters. For example, the Georgian მწვრთნელი (mc̣vrtneli, "trainer") /mtsʼvrtʰnɛli/ is really hard to pronounce without a syllabic consonant (i.e, mtsʼvr̩tʰnɛli/). Another one is Czech and Slovak tongue twister strč prst skrz krk (stick your finger through your throat) /str̩t͡ʃ pr̩st skr̩z kr̩k/. And don't even get me started with tones. Mandarin 你好 (nǐhǎo, "hello") /ni˧˥ xɑʊ̯˨˩(˦)/ cannot be done properly without listening to a native speaker. With narrow transcriptions, I'm okay with most diacritics, such as dental, aspirated and voiceless consonant. Some of the harder diacritics to articulate are linguolabial, apical and laminal. Know of any expert phoneticians who can fluently read the IPA? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 00:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Any actual phonetician is required to read the IPA and to be able to produce most of its sounds, otherwise he/she wouldn't be a phonetician. Peter Roach, one of the authors of Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary and other books has an account here (User:RoachPeter), you can ask him. Maybe User:Kwamikagami could be of help too, but I don't know whether he's an actual phonetician. I guess he is.

To me, intonation is more challenging than stress, but I do have some trouble distinguishing secondary stress from primary stress. I have to overpronounce them. When it comes to tones, no language that I speak more or less fluently has them. I think the examples you provided can be pronounced with an epenthetic schwa(s) and you can still sound native ([mtsʼ(ə)vərtʰnɛli], [stərt͡ʃ pərst skərs kərk]). The Czech/Slovak one will sound perfectly natively with schwas, and the rhotic would normally have only one alveolar contact [ɾ], i.e. it would be a tap. Only the geminated r's are trilled in Czech/Slovak, but the single ones can be trilled too in emphatic speech.

Tones are a mess, but I'd like to think that I can produce remotely native-sounding Mandarin tones. Words in Urban East Norwegian are usually easy to pronounce as well, the tonemes consistently follow one pattern, it's just that the final rise is optional and is not always realized. I think it's realized in the absolute utterance-final position, or something like that. I'm not sure. Problems begin when you try to pronounce compound words (which chaotically take either of the tonemes, the rules are complex - see "The Phonology of Norwegian" by Kristoffersen) or when you try to speak in full sentences, when you must pay attention not only to the tonemes themselves, but also tone groups and de-accented words that are pronounced tonelessly. Not to mention the intonation - you have to impose sentence intonation on the correct pronunciation of tonemes. It's a nightmare to learn, the resources never feel good enough and you're essentially forced to swim before you're ready (I mean you have to rely on your ears). The same applies to vowel length in Icelandic, but it's not phonemic, unlike tonemes in Norwegian (and Swedish).

I find it interesting that you find turning the voice on and off easy (I suppose this also applies to sonorants like [m, n, l, r]) but not the apical-laminal distinction. Apical consonants are pronounced with the very tip of the tongue, laminal consonants use the blade of the tongue, so that they're slightly more back. I find it one of the easiest distinctions in the IPA. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Concerning about the last paragraph, no pun intended, I become tongue-tied trying to articulate apical and laminal consonants. The voiced and voiceless distinction is really whether you are 'whispering' or not. — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 12:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: For practical purposes that's a good description, but it's more complicated than that. Besides duration and articulatory force, the difference between /b/ and /p/ in Swiss German dialects (or any other language that has a lenis-fortis contrast) is that the former is "whispered voiceless", whereas the latter is just voiceless. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Phonemes vs. phonemic representation

Hello. We're having a debate on the page Great Vowel Shift regarding this topic. Can you please clear us up? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Native language

Hi, I wonder what your native language is? Because your user page suggests that English is not your native language. — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 23:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)