Talk:Murska Sobota

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

when was murska sobota under croatian authority? never. Never under Croationa authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.97.162 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jalšva[edit]

I've removed "Jalšva" as the birthplace of Lazar Roth because I can't confirm that such a place exists (despite the fact that it's been copy-pasted all over the web). It could be a Slovenian misspelling of another toponym, perhaps Jelšava, Slovakia (?). Someone is welcome to restore it if they can figure out the current/proper name.Doremo (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exonyms[edit]

An anonymous user removed the exonyms (and other variant names) from the lede of the article. Please discuss the issue here first (and provide a rationale) before deleting them again. Doremo (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription[edit]

The IPA transcription should include stress marks, so I read [múːrska sóːbɔta] as intended to mark stress; i.e., [ˈmuːɾska ˈsoːbɔta]. Tone is not generally marked, but Slovenski pravopis (2001; note: SP does not use IPA transcription) indicates that in standard Slovene the vowels in the name have long falling tone (i.e., Slovenian conventional û ộ, not ú ó). These would be marked û ô (generic fall) in an IPA transcription. The Pannonian dialects of Slovene are non-tonemic, so the symbols ú ó would not represent dialect tone either. Doremo (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not intended to mark stress. Not marking tone is wasting the potential of IPA, and you're clearly mistaking SP transcription and IPA transcription based on what's written in the SP. Tonal accent is more prestigious, and therefore we should indicate the tone wherever it's possible. The article Slovene language uses [ú óː] for what's transcribed ⟨ȗ ọ̑⟩ in the Slovenski Pravopis transcription. It seems that you need to read these tables. Ironically, [ú óː] is exactly how Slovenski Pravopis uses IPA! It is not true what you written, that SP doesn't use IPA. Take a look at the first two examples on "Slovenski pravopis 2001: MS". --Peter238 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The SP representation is not IPA. For example, pet, petih is IPA [ˈpeːt], [ˈpɛːtix] (non-tonemic transcription). SP has pét, pêtih (non-tonemic transcription) and pệt, pétih (tonemic transcription). Neither of these SP representations corresponds to the IPA transcription. Doremo (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you want to have a discussion if you don't read my replies thoroughly. --Peter238 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your comment above: "It is not true what you written, that SP doesn't use IPA." I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Doremo (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it could also be my somewhat chaotic style of writing. Anyway, what I meant is that some entries in SP do use the IPA alongside the ordinary tonal orthography. Here are two examples, take a look at the first two entries: "Slovenski pravopis 2001: MS". My point was that they use it exactly as I and Slovene language uses it, and they don't use stress marks either. As it turns out, stress marks in tonal transcriptions are redundant not only according to me. I don't have anything against transcriptions that only include stress, but standard tonal pronunciation should be, in my opinion, more than welcome here. It carries more information. Peter238 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IPA [ə] is used in SP. But I don't think any of the SP entries have the standard IPA [ɛ] or [ɔ]. Some languages do have tone on unstressed syllables (unlike Slovene) so, although I agree that it's more informative to include tone (when the information is available), marking the stress is really only redundant if one already knows the patterns of Slovene phonology. Most WP users reading IPA would be helped by the redundancy because they wouldn't know the phonological patterns specific to Slovene. Doremo (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep our discussion on Talk:Slovene language#SP to IPA, because if I answered you here I'd just repeat myself (just read my last messages there), and I hate doing that. Peter238 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're also welcome to comment on the conversation at Talk:Slovene_language#SP_to_IPA. Doremo (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave a comment there, sure. --Peter238 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Of course, it is intended to mark stress, but since only stressed vowels carry phonemic tonal distinction, adding stress marks to a tonal phonetic transcription of Slovene is a perfect example of redundancy. What's more - it doesn't work the other way round! [ˈaː] can mean either [áː] or [àː], and therefore it's not a complete transcription, as far as the standard tonal variety is concerned. As I said, tonal standard Slovene is more prestigious, and always includes non-tonal standard Slovene in itself. --Peter238 (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having read more about the topic, I clearly did misunderstand your contribution, so I sincerely apologize for that. (Recent problems with unrelated articles probably set me up to unfairly expect the worst.) But it's been a good opportunity for me to learn more about the notation, and I think it's also produced a useful discussion at Talk:Slovene_language#SP_to_IPA. Doremo (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the only thing I care about is that you noticed it and admitted it. Some people can't do that. That's great that you're learning, actually so am I. I didn't know some of the stuff you and CodeCat posted today, thanks! That discussion is indeed quite useful, but also quite tough to read due to how Wikipedia handles lengthy posts. Anyway, we've got to deal with what we have. Peter238 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murska Sobota. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murska_Sobota&oldid=1204133224"