SUM1

Untitled

Good day SUM1. I would like to discuss with you about your changes to the IPA of "Il Canto degli Italiani". So far you have mantained some of my corrections and I have mantained some of your modifications but this time you have fully reverted my edit, not just the unassimilated consonants and syllables that you have written in the edit summary, even if I am not sure that I have understood what you mean with that. Can you tell me, line by line, what in my last correction does not convince you? I think that some of your edits could be correct in a certain way and should be kept, but I am telling you already that certain others are phonetically wrong. This might require some time, you can do it when you prefer. 5.171.9.55 (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@5.171.9.55: In which case, I assume you're also 5.171.9.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and you use multiple IPs (apparently to make this one single edit). Your last edit consisted of the following:

• You added secondary stress marks where they are not necessary, because the primary stress is in the middle of three syllables (all of which are the same length in the song), such as changing [sɛ‿d.ˈde.sta] to [ˌsɛ‿d.ˈde.sta]. (You also did the same to single-syllable words, where it is less necessary still.)
• You assimilated consonants that are not assimilated in the song, because it's a song, which is sung far slower than speech in some places. For example, you assimilated the [m] to an [n] in [per.ˈke‿s.sjam di.ˈviː.zi] (changing it to [per.ˈke‿s.ˌsjan di.ˈviː.zi]), even though the [m] is pronounced because the syllable is at least a whole second long.
• You removed syllable arrangements that are found in the song, such as changing [ban.ˈdjɛː.ra(‿)ˈuː.na ˈspɛː.me |] to [ban.ˈdjɛː.ra (|) ˌuː.na ˈspɛː.me |]. Indeed, in some performances of the first repeat, it is pronounced as in your edit, but in the second, [ra] and [uː] are always pronounced as a single syllable, so there needs to be an optional undertie there. Likewise, Raccolgaci un'unica is not pronounced [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃ‿u.ˈnuː.ni.ka] in the song in the first repeat but rather [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃi u.ˈnuː.ni.ka]. My [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃi(‿)u.ˈnuː.ni.ka] was a compromise that attempted to preserve this arrangement, since [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃ(i) u.ˈnuː.ni.ka] is missing the undertie, and [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃ(i‿)u.ˈnuː.ni.ka] has the undertie in the wrong case, but [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃ(i)(‿)u.ˈnuː.ni.ka] would be more accurate.

Your other changes, such as [ma‿il] to [ma‿i̯l] and [ˈvɛs.pri] to [ˈvɛ.spri], were minor and not what I had significant issues with. Although three-consonant clusters are allowed in the onset (although there is a note that s + a voiceless consonant is unstable and tends to syllabify as s.C), I went with [ˈvɛs.pri] because that's how the syllables tend to be divided in the song, with [s] beginning before the beat and [p] commencing the beat. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Good day SUM1. Yes, I am the same user, my ip address always changes after some time but starts in the same way, there are also minor edits made by me in other pages. Now I am going to explain for which reasons I have made those edits.

• Secondary stresses. In the beginning I used primary stresses, for the same reason you said, but after you removed them again I thought that it would have been better using secondary stresses. This because it is a song and songs have their own rhythm, in this case two primary stresses for each verse (fra-TèL-li / d'i-Tà-lia), while the other stressed words could be marked with secondary stresses. In Italian the sounds [ɛ] and [ɔ] can occur only in stressed syllables, so it is necessary to mark such occurrences with a stress even in monosyllables. The same applies to words which have been shortened for rhythmic reasons (siàmo > siàm) because the remaining syllable is tonic anyways. A particular case here is your modification of the verse "il suon d'ogni squilla", where the primary stresses of the song fall over "suon" and "squilla", while "d'ogni" is only secondary inside the verse. Do you agree with my considerations? For me, it is indifferent using primary or secondary stresses for these monosyllables, the important thing is to mark them with a stress.
• Your point about the assimilated nasals is a good point, let's keep all of them unassimilated.
• The third point is the most complex. I based my idea of optimal phonetic transcription on the written text, so where there is any punctuation I think that it is better to indicate it. I know that in some cases a diphthong can be formed between the final vowel of a word and the initial [i] or [u] of the following, this is why I put the interruption symbol in brackets. We both did more or less the same thing, but while I gave priority to the punctuation you gave priority to the song, by indicating in brackets the undertie instead. I prefer my solution but if you dislike it we can keep yours. Rather, let me say a thing about the use of the undertie in general. It should be used to link words which, written separately, could give a wrong impression: when the previous word ends with [j] and the following starts with a vowel (this should be always transcribed [j‿V] instead of [i‿V]), when the previous word is shortened because it "sounds" better pronounced along with the following as a single word, when there is syntactic gemination between different words, and in the case I have spoken about earlier. It should not be used to link words which show no difference whether they are taken singularly or together, for example when there is a hiatus between [-V] and [V-]. Back to the song, when a word ending with a certain vowel is followed by the same vowel, the first vowel should be put in brackets ([-(V)‿V-]), while when a word ending with [(t)ʃi] il followed by a vowel, either the [i] disappears or it forms a hiatus with the following vowel (which means that the correct transcription should be [-ʃ(i)‿V-]) because in Italian the sequence [ʃjV] cannot exist, it will be either [ʃi.V] or [ʃV]. These are the reasons of my corrections about this point, what is your opinion about them?
• Minor issues. The diphthongal symbol under [i̯] and [u̯] was added by you in the beginning in some words, I have just added where it was missing: if "ma il" is pronounced as a single syllable, then [ai̯] is a diphthong even if there is an undertie in the middle. The sequence of "s" followed by consonant in Italian is always found at the beginning of a syllable (ve-spri), all the phonetic transcriptions here follow this rule so this case should not be an exception, but anyway when I have listened to the song I have heard "vèè-spri", not "vèss-pri". Being these minor issues I hope that they can be restored as I had modified them.

I would like to make a final consideration: the singers of that song do not follow perfectly the orthoepy (sometimes they open an "e" or an "o" which should be close or viceversa, and sometimes they do not apply the syntactic gemination), but the transcription must follow standard Italian rules, so personally I believe that we should not give more weight to what we hear in that song than to the official text, also because if another choir sings the anthem and is recorded the pronunciation we hear will be different. Apart from this, I think that we may find a point of agreement about the challenged transcriptions. 5.171.9.18 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• @5.171.9.18: Okay, although usually single-syllable words in IPA are automatically stressed, unless written with underties to other words. They also don't make much difference if the vowel isn't different based on stress, such as in your [ˌnoi̯ ˈfum.mo da (s.)ˈsɛː.ko.li] or [ˌd͡ʒa‿l.ˈloː.ra swo.ˈnɔ ǁ]. If you insist on keeping the secondary stress marks in [ˌnoi̯] for example, you'd have to connect it to the adjacent word with an undertie, since it's only a secondary stress relative to that word ([ˈfum.mo] in that case).
• The optimal phonetic transcription cannot be based entirely on the written for the simple reason that it is a song, and it is almost always sung rather than spoken. You will thus hear the sung version and be more accurate with the transcription of the sung version than any other transcription. This does not mean abandoning stressed/unstressed vowels or gemination but simply reflecting the syllable arrangement, etc. of how it is supposed to be sung. Your note about undertie use does not apply to my final suggestion of [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃ(i)(‿)u.ˈnuː.ni.ka] for Raccolgaci un'unica. It means either [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃi u.ˈnuː.ni.ka] or [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃ‿u.ˈnuː.ni.ka]. On the other hand, my [ban.ˈdjɛː.ra(‿)ˈuː.na ˈspɛː.me |] was a compromise that forwent the diphthong symbol under [ˈu̯ː], since it's impossible to write that in brackets cleanly. With the diphthong symbol included and the undertie outside brackets, the undertie would've fully corresponded to the use you described. However, it's known that diphthong symbols themselves aren't always necessary when syllable breaks are used. In any case, I believe the second repeat of bandiera, una speme has to be encapsulated in some form. My comments didn't address identical vowels at word boundaries. You can put the first ones in brackets.
• You can also restore the diphthong symbols and syllable arrangement of Vespri. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Good day SUM1. I am glad that we are acting collaboratively to provide a shared phonetic transcription for the Italian anthem!

• Secondary stresses: all right, the solution to join tonic monosyllables with secondary stresses to an adjacent word is a good one.
• I am examining the verses about which I have doubts. The verse [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃi(‿)u.ˈnuː.ni.ka] could be written either with [-i u-], if we consider it a hiatus, or with [-i‿u-], if we consider it a diphthong, I was wrong to transcribe [-t͡ʃ‿u-] because the sound [i] is actually pronounced and it is distinct from the [u]. The verse [di ˈfon.der.t͡ʃi‿in.ˈsjɛː.me] should be written with [-t͡ʃ‿i-] because the two "i"s are pronounced as one, I cannot see the meaning in two consecutive [i] sounds linked to each others by an undertie. The verse [u.ˈnjaː.mo.t͡ʃi(‿)a.ˈmjaː.mo.t͡ʃi] should be written with [-i a-] and no undertie or better with [-i (|) a-] in my opinion, because those vowels are pronounced separately and they do not form a diphthong but a hiatus. The verse [ban.ˈdjɛː.ra(‿)ˈuː.na ˈspɛː.me |] could be written with [-a(‿)u-] in order to give the impression that it is pronounced as a diphthong despite the comma, but in this case the [u] must have neither the stress nor the long symbols or it would form a hiatus (that is like in the word "aumentare" [aumenˈtaːre] and unlike in the word "paura" [paˈuːra]). Do you think that my solutions for these cases can work?

If you tell me that you agree I will try to fix the IPA like this. Should I change something in a way that you disagree on you are free to fix it. 5.171.9.34 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@5.171.9.34: At first glance I don't see any real issues with your suggestions, other than that I don't see why [ban.ˈdjɛː.ra(‿)u.na ˈspɛː.me |] should not have the long vowel or stress symbols in [ˈuː.na], mainly because they would need to be retained in brackets for when it is pronounced as a separate syllable in the first repeat, leading to [ban.ˈdjɛː.ra(‿)(ˈ)u(ː).na ˈspɛː.me |], but because that's a bit of a mess, I think it's better, instead of deleting information, to retain the information of the transcription of the word. It doesn't make much difference to the pronouncer to pronounce [ban.ˈdjɛː.ra ˈuː.na ˈspɛː.me |] then [ban.ˈdjɛː.ra‿ˈuː.na ˈspɛː.me |]. He just knows the second repeat should be the same as the first but with [ra] and [uː] as one syllable. But [ban.ˈdjɛː.ra u.na ˈspɛː.me |] then [ban.ˈdjɛː.ra‿u.na ˈspɛː.me |] might be more misleading, with the lack of information about the original pronunciation of [ˈuː.na]. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the case of "una" is particular. When "una" is a numeral, the word is pronounced tonic and long [ˈuːna] ("ne rimane una sola" = "only one remains"). When it is an article it is pronounced short and unstressed [una] ("vide una rana" = "he saw a frog"), because it leans the following word and its stress. Listening to the song, the stress falls on "speme" and the [u] in "una" is neither stressed nor long, and in the phonetic transcriptions that I have watched here "una" is never transcribed with stress or length symbol, so the original pronunciation of this article is simply [una]. In any case a diphthong is formed by a vowel followed by a semi-vowel which by definition cannot be stressed or long, the first vowel can but not the semi-vowel. If you think that the stress is necessary anyways, it should at least be secondary because the primary falls on [ˈspɛː.me]. 5.171.9.30 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@5.171.9.30: Okay, you can add it without stress. (Also, what you said about diphthongs is not true, and diphthongs with long vowels do exist.) · • SUM1 • · (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, tonight or tomorrow I am going to edit the IPA according to what we agreed on here. About the diphthongs, I wak talking about Italian phonetics but as you showed me in other languages they work differently. 5.171.9.30 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@5.171.9.30: If you're referring to the last paragraph of this, it refers specifically to rising diphthongs ([ia], [ua], etc.) as vowel-semivowel combinations. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I have just finished editing the page, have a look and check if everything is all right. (About the diphthongs, I was referring to the falling diphthongs formed by a vowel and a semi-vowel like [ai̯] (what we were talking about), but I know that also rising diphthongs exist when formed by a semi-vowel and a vowel like [i̯a] (or better to say by a semi-consonant and a vowel like [ja]) and in that case the second vowel can actually be long and stressed.) 5.171.9.117 (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@5.171.9.117: No, I'm saying that on these two articles (1, 2), only rising diphthongs in Italian are referred to as vowel–semivowel combinations. Falling diphthongs, like [au], are not. They are referred to as diphthongs.

The remaining issues are all with syllable arrangements, some incorrect ones of which you have restored. The first issue is with Raccolgaci un'unica. It should be [rak.ˈkɔl.ɡa.t͡ʃ(i)(‿)u.ˈnuː.ni.ka], since the [i] is not pronounced in the second repeat, and it joins with the following syllable. Likewise, the [i] is sometimes not pronounced in the second repeat of Uniamoci, amiamoci/uniamoci, and it joins with the following syllable, so it should be [u.ˈnjaː.mo.t͡ʃ(i)(‿)a.ˈmjaː.mo.t͡ʃi |]. The same goes for rivelano ai popoli. In the second repeat, [no] and [ai̯] are sung as one syllable (1, 2, 3), so it should be [ri.ˈveː.la.no(‿)ai̯ ˈpɔː.po.li]. (Even in the first repeat, this is sometimes done.) This also goes for ha il core, ha/e la mano (1, 2, 3, 4), which should be [ˌa‿i̯l ˈkɔː.re‿ˌa‿l.la ˈmaː.no |] (or at least [ˌa‿i̯l ˈkɔː.re(‿)ˌa‿l.la ˈmaː.no |]), and le penne ha perdute (1, 2, 3, 4), which should be [le ˈpen.ne‿ˌa‿p.per.ˈduː.te ǁ] (or at least [le ˈpen.ne(‿)ˌa‿p.per.ˈduː.te ǁ]).

These are the kinds of syllable arrangements I was referring to in the first reply that should be retained. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Good day SUM1. If you want you are free to add the undertie in the last occurrences, in brackets because those vowels in Italian form a hiatus even if in the song they are pronounced very fast. Actually in my opinion the same should go for the first cases, because hearing the song I always hear the final [i] even if very fast, it never diasppears completely, and in Italian the sequence [(t)ʃjV] cannot exist (while similar cases like [(t)sjV] exist and are even common). You can add the undertie in brackets as for the other cases. Is this a possible solution? 5.171.9.114 (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@5.171.9.114: I've restored the aforementioned underties in brackets. Hopefully it is acceptable. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

No complaints, it is fine with me. We did a good job!

If I can ask you a personal question... You worked on many national anthems: what do you think about the Italian one? Do you like it (music and meaning)? 5.171.9.59 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@5.171.9.59: It's one of the better European anthems, in my opinion definitely above the UK's and Germany's for example (in both music and lyrics), but I'm more interested in the lesser known anthems of the world. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Grazie :-) 5.171.9.140 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Mueller–Weiss syndrome

Could we switch from stub to start as i've done a bit of further editing? also, maybe increase the importance? it was important enough to have 4500 views on day 1. Mwinog2777 (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mwinog2777: Yes, it's no longer a stub. It also does seems to meet mid importance on the WikiProject's importance scale. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ethiopia maps

Hi SUM1, the maps available for Ethiopia on Wikipedia seem quite poor, especially on the zone level, leaving your File:Map of zones of Ethiopia.svg as quite a standout. (I recently created 2023 South Ethiopia Region referendum, and am looking to find/make a map of the involved zones/woredas, which led to this comment.) I think it would be a great idea to duplicate and crop your map for each region, showing its zones/woredas. I think I could manage this (I'm an amateur but that much is possible), but thought I'd ask if you thought it was a good idea and/or would like to do it yourself. A bit more work would be required to make the 2023 referendum map as yours gives each region its own object rather than each zone. The best I could do would be to duplicate the SNNP object and manually crop it (after zooming into the SNNP object), so I thought I'd ask if you would mind taking a look? No worries if not! Best, CMD (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@CMD: Apologies for the late reply. I occasionally get requests to update my Ethiopia zones map, but with the rate Ethiopia changes its administrative divisions (including, indeed, entirely removing a region), unfortunately I'd far too busy to maintain maps of all of the regions and their zones individually myself. If I do get time, I may try to at least create some initial revisions. And of course, you're welcome to utilise my zones map to create any other map you wish to. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

They're certainly doing a lot of internal restructuring! At least mapping the Sidama region might be simple enough, if you dip back into these things. Best, CMD (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the English IPA Chart

Hi SUM1, I was wondering if you could take a look at the issue I raised at Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects. In short, there seems to be a row missing for the vowel in "boxes", which is the subject of the "Rosa's roses" merger and often transcribed as [ɨ], at least in American English. I don't really know how to go about adding an appropriately researched row for this that accounts for all the dialects of English, but you seem to know what you're doing when it comes to linguistics pages—is this something you could take care of? Thanks :) WikiMaster111 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Template editing

I have mentioned you here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I've added a note to my user page so that hopefully shouldn't happen again. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Dzongkha IPA

Hello, I noticed that you added the Dzongkha IPA pronunciation to the lyrics in the article Druk Tsenden, so I'm wondering if you could do the same for other articles like the districts and the Druk Gyalpos of Bhutan. Thank you for your consideration. Wiktionarish00 (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Mali Empire, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Hi and thanks for the message. That was a long time ago, and I'm unfortunately too busy now, so no thanks. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)