Talk:American and British English pronunciation differences/Archive 2

Sentient
Both pronunciations seem to be common to both countries. Is there really a significant Pondian difference? Dbfirs 12:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's use the plain IPA template?
I see no reason not to use the plain IPA template here. I think that we're making things more confusing than they are by using the IPAc-en template. We've already stated that the British transcriptions are RP (as expected) and the American ones are GA (again, as expected). There's no reason not to follow the sets of symbols used on Received Pronunciation and General American. That way, the RP transcriptions won't contain (used by an extreme minority of speakers), it'll correctly show the accent to be non-rhotic and the GA transcriptions won't make a false distinction between  and  (and others). We're actually misleading our readers by listing these two separately. The difference between the pronunciation of the German surname Mann and the word twat is exactly the same: RP-speaking Brits use, whereas Americans that speak GA (and most other regional accents) use.

I'm completely for the existence of the IPAc-en template and Help:IPA/English but I think that we should use them in a more restrictive manner. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not with the current structure of the article. To use different sets of symbols, the value of each symbol in each accent must be defined early in the article. I think we should just merge it with Comparison of General American and Received Pronunciation like RoachPeter once argued. Nardog (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A2B2 Common to both countries.
Where there are two pronunciations that are common to both countries, should we mention them here in an article that is about the differences? I'd be inclined to say only if there is a strong preference by country, but that can be difficult to establish because of regional variations. What does anyone else think?  D b f i r s   09:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In particular, a self-published website (http://yek.me.uk/gavgb.html) should not be used as an authority on pronunciation when it contradicts the latest edition of the OED. Is it just a copy of a paper by D Fry?    D b f i r s   08:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the article says: "Words with multiple points of difference of pronunciation are in the table after this one" for the "Single differences" table. Where the difference is caused by a shift of stress, should such entries be moved to the second table?    D b f i r s   09:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A self-published website (http://yek.me.uk/gavgb.html) by Daniel Butler Fry is accurate about 60 to 90 percent. There's actually more differences between British & American English.  Majority of the duplicates are moved to multiple differences section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NKM1974 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NKM1974, for moving the duplicates. The website does seem to be a useful source, but should be checked against major dictionaries.    D b f i r s   20:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "self-published website" referred to is not by D.B. Fry (a distinguished British phonetician who has been dead for many years) but by Jack Windsor Lewis, who has been for many years one of the foremost British authorities on English phonetics, and author of the influential Concise Pronouncing Dictionary of British and American English (Oxford University Press). The article may be difficult reading (and JWL has his own personal way of spelling), but it is undoubtedly an authoritative statement on the subject being discussed here. (BTW, are not most websites "self-published"?). RoachPeter (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The content has changed since I first read that page. ".me.uk" websites are usually just personal sites, but I agree that the page now seems stable and contains valuable insights.   Db<i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  22:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To the users who lack structure & organization, the way you label things on this page is chaotic & sloven. The reasons are likely:
 * 1) a force of habit.
 * 2) you are old & not tech-savvy.
 * 3) you are young & have poor thinking in judgment.
 * Based on past observations, this is the correct way to label things on Miscellaneous pronunciation differences: A2, B2 or AB2.
 * 1) adultBAB2
 * 2) pianistAB2
 * 3) divisiveA2
 * 4) galaAB2
 * 5) finance/-ial/-ierAB2
 * 6) (n)eitherAB2
 * 7) roofAB2
 * 8) AnthonyAB2
 * 9) combativeAB2
 * 10) nomenclatureAB2
 * 11) codicilB2
 * 12) fastidiousB2
 * This is the incorrect way & don't do that anymore on the Miscellaneous pronunciation differences: A1, B1, A2B2, etc.
 * 1) adultBA2B2
 * 2) pianistA1B2
 * 3) divisiveA1
 * 4) galaA2B2
 * 5) finance/-ial/-ierA2B2
 * 6) (n)eitherA2B2
 * 7) roofA2B2
 * 8) AnthonyA2B2
 * 9) combativeA2B2
 * 10) nomenclatureA2B2
 * 11) codicilB1
 * 12) fastidiousB1
 * This is indolence, write the whole thing on the Multiple differences section:
 * 1) ˈkʌmbətɪv (CORRECT) & ˈkʌm- (WRONG & INDOLENT)
 * 2) /ˌdɪlɪˈtænteɪ/ (CORRECT) -teɪ (WRONG & INDOLENT)
 * When someone edits information due to duplicates, mistakes, etc., look before you make changes because it takes a long time to correct the information.
 * Word of advice, observe, follow the patterns & employ it. Do check on the history section that dates back to 2005.
 * An old proverb, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". You need to stop doing what you want to do.  NKM1974 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why does the lead say? Nardog (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A1 & B1 applies to these sections with a subscript. For example, French stress words (addressbA1 (noun), decadebB1, etc.) & Miscellaneous stress (pretence/pretenseAA1, etc.)
 * Miscellaneous pronunciation differences (A2 means that American speakers may use either pronunciation;B2 means British speakers may use either pronunciation.) There's no A1 or B1 for Single & Multiple differences. NKM1974 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And what makes you say that? Nardog (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on old posts & dates back before you & I came to this site. Check the old logs before you came to this site. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_pronunciation_differences&offset=&limit=500&action=history) NKM1974 (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how articles develop on Wikipedia. Articles are edited boldly, through the process of which implicit consensus arises. And should there be any disagreement, we discuss it and try to reach a consensus, and the consensus will decide. This is known as the BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle.
 * AFAICS the sole reason for your disagreement you have cited so far is the implicit consensus. That's not a valid reason. You may disagree with an edit, but you have to demonstrate why the previous version was better. The status quo does not automatically take precedence. Otherwise there could be no modifications to articles, only additions. Nardog (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a log dating to November 8, 2016 & before, there's no A2B2. It's only AB2 for simplicity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_pronunciation_differences&oldid=748561523) NKM1974 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your argument? Nardog (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's my response, 6 months overdue. Article rules doesn't apply in Wikipedia, but it's better to have structure & organization.
 * My point here is you need 3 basic, important skills for writing: grammar, punctuation & spelling.  This applies to filling out an application form or write a formal letter, ie., composition, essay or report.  Nowadays, if you make a mistake, whether big or small.  One of these three scenarios can happen.  First, if you submit a formal letter full of mistakes, some people will question the level of your education.  Second, your application can be rejected when applying for employment due to an error on your part.  Finally, you can also lose money because your writing on a check is illegible.  As people get older, they listen & speak more, but read & write less.  It is important to have basic writing skills, even though, modern technology is paperless & digital.
 * I remember more than 8 months ago, this site was stagant & lacking updates. Most users don't like me for including old pronunciations that was common 80 years ago because it doesn't have a place in modern period.  I include old pronunciations for historical purpose & not as an accessory or decoration.  If you have issues with old pronunciations, my advice is take phonetic lessons, check old dictionaries that you can find in a local library & watch old movies from the previous century.
 * In the spring & summer of last year, I came up with a list of words that wasn't brought to this site's attention. I brought words that are obvious, obscure & historical.  Some examples are aluminium (obvious), disciplinary (obscure) & questionnaire (historical).  Also, I brought structure & organization, ie. eliminating duplicates, putting things in alphabetical order & updating links of people and/or places to Wikipedia articles.
 * In a short period of time that takes years to achieve, this work can be arduous. At times my post are in question, but thank you for correcting my mistake.  Regards to the user(s) maintaining this site.  Summer is around the corner, I'll be spending less time & taking a break due to health issues. NKM1974 (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with your change of A2B2 to the more concise AB2, but not with your refusal to use B1 where the so-called American pronunciation is also the most common in British English.  <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  09:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Affixes eitiv AmE
In Affixes, it is better to add, before the open paren at the end of the first paragraph, “;eitiv is not the norm in AmE for, at least, cumulative, figurative, decorative, operative, and imaginative. “ This is per Collins’ Online Dictionary and the speakers of these words on Online YouGlish, Eitiv would be controversial as not the norm in AmE for several other words in which the previous syllable is unstressed, including speculative, noting Webster’s Online Dictionary, so they are not proposed. Eitiv is also not the norm for those who elide the unstressed vowel before the -ative in some of the cited words, but the preceding syllable, as spoken, is then stressed, not unstressed, the subject of the paragraph. Eitiv is generally less uncommon when the base word is an -ate verb. --Js10013 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Affixes -rary,-rery,-rory
In Affixes, it would be better to omit -rery and -rory from the end of the parenthesis for the first paragraph. -rary is the only -r?ry affix per a query of the Online British National Corpus so there is no point in listing the other two. In BrE, unlike in AmE, the three most common, by far, unstressed vowel -rary words, con-temporary and literary regularly elide the vowel before -rary per Collins’ Online Dictionary and the speakers of those words on Online YouGlish; two elisions would be odd indeed. --Js10013 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of Disambiguous/Redirect Links & Spelling
To the users who rarely come to this page, what is the purpose of disambiguous/redirect link? I find disambiguous/redirect link totally useless. Posting specific link is more concise & simple than disambiguous/redirect link. Here's an example for Richelieu: With disambiguous/redirect link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richelieu_(disambiguation) Without disambiguous/redirect link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richelieu Same link but without disambiguous/redirect link is much simple & better than the other one. The reason that I put links on proper names of people & places, if there's any or none, is to match with the phonetics.

Lyon, the headquarter of Interpol in France, has no "s" on the end in French. Lyons was a traditional English spelling that was common before the Second World War. After the war, the "s" is dropped & the pronunciation is no longer anglicized. https://www.nytimes.com/1964/11/22/archives/a-look-at-lyons-french-city-the-worlds-silk-capital-is-famous-for.html I used Google auto-spell check and there is no "r" in quaternary & quatercentary. Check page 643: http://alexandriaesl.pbworks.com/f/The+New+Fowler%27s+Modern+English+Usage.pdf Check page 349: https://archive.org/stream/pronouncingdicti00unse#page/348/mode/2up/search/quaternary Check page 348: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.94053/page/n381 I hope those links above are proofs of evidence that you will no longer add "r" on quater- or "s" in Lyon in French. If you have issues with words, my advice is take phonetic lessons, check old dictionaries that you can find in a local library, listen to archive audio & watch old movies from the previous century. NKM1974 (talk) 17:35, 03 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Links to DAB pages must go through the (disambiguation) qualifier because of the guidelines WP:INTDAB and WP:HOWTODAB. In brief: User:DPL bot looks for and reports links to disambiguation pages. They all have to be fixed by hand. Today, it reports 5,949 bad links (see WP:TDD). About 5-10% of those will be technical errors (direct links to a DAB page when the whole page is the intended target, e.g. in the see-also section of a DAB page or in a hatnote); but the bot has no way of telling those apart from ambiguous links which need to be made unambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ... so we have to use an indirect link just to keep a bot happy? <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  18:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. You have to use an indirect link so that DABfixers can make the encyclopaedia better. In September 2015, there were 110,393 bad links to DAB pages. Narky Blert (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I assume that they use the bot to identify problem links. I've seen the bot's messages on talk pages.  One can't expect a bot to judge whether a link should really be to a disambiguation page, but the fixers will soon see that the link is valid.  I guess the policy of an indirect link is so that the bot doesn't flag the link as a possible error.  How else could it know?   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  19:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Narky Blert (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:INTDABLINK. It's not just so that the bot doesn't flag it but also because it tells other editors that the link is intended to direct to the dab page. Nardog (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * According the the OED, quartercentenary was last used in the nineteenth century and is "nonstandard", and quarternary was last used in the sixteenth century. I remember old wireless dials with "Lyons" printed on them and I think we pronounced it like lions, but that was a long time ago and I certainly wouldn't write it or pronounce it that way today.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  18:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Mistakes in transcription
These edits of mine (save for one edit by IvanScrooge98) aren't about updating anything. What I meant that the mistakes you've made in transcription are like those I've already corrected in the past.


 * You should write ⟨ən⟩ when the sound is syllabic, rather than use it in free variation with ⟨ə⟩. Neither "Citroën" nor "Parmentier" feature syllabic nasals. To learn when to write ⟨ən⟩ and when ⟨ə⟩, google "syllabic consonant formation" or something like that. The rules for writing ⟨əm⟩, ⟨əl⟩ vs. ⟨ə⟩, ⟨ə⟩ are similar but not exactly the same (e.g. ⟨əl⟩ can be written after but ⟨ən⟩ and ⟨əm⟩ can't).
 * The schwa cannot be stressed in the system we use here (see Help:IPA/English), so transcriptions such as or  make little sense. If you see a stressed schwa in a dictionary (or some other work), write it with ⟨ʌ⟩ (though... are  and  possible pronunciations?)
 * The intervocalic shouldn't be separated from the preceding vowel (thus ⟨ˈ⟩, not ⟨ˈ⟩ for "Thoreau").
 * We don't transcribe the father-bother merger. "Watteau" should be written with ⟨ɒ⟩ in both cases.
 * We differentiate ⟨ɪər⟩ from ⟨ɪr⟩, and the former latter cannot be used before consonants and in the word-final position. American "Irkutsk" must begin with.
 * We don't denote stress after primary stress within the same word.
 * We write the vowel with ⟨i⟩, not ⟨ɪ⟩. Wherever you see ⟨ɪ⟩ used in the word-final or prevocalic positions, use ⟨i⟩ (the instances of  are a bit more tricky than that, but checking whether the syllable with  contains $⟨r⟩$ in spelling is sufficient to determine whether to write it with  (when it's spelled with $⟨r⟩$) or  (i.e. as ⟨i⟩) (when the $⟨r⟩$ is absent from spelling).
 * "Porous" isn't an example of AmE using where BrE uses  as we assume the north-force merger here. The majority of AmE speakers have it.

Hope this is helpful. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I know some of these things, but I'm referring to the materials that Dbfirs or Wolfdog corrected, moved or removed in the past. I'm asking which section on the French or miscellaneous stress section belongs to, eg., disciplinary, manatee, etc.  I copy & paste the phonetics on LPD, CEPD or Collins' dictionary website to a Wikipedia article.  I will learn and follow those patterns that you posted.  NKM1974 (talk) 08:30, 06 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what my edits (nor this message) are about, though.
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

débâcle
Most dictionaries give the stress on the second syllable for both British and American English. Collins on-line has an audio file with stress on the first syllable, and some old dictionaries claim this for British English, but should we not reflect modern pronunciation and the majority of dictionaries? Does the word have two or three syllables? <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i> 20:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've no objection to studying the historical pronunciation of words, but this article is about current differences between American and British pronunciations. American and Modern British stress is on the second syllable, not the third.  Perhaps we should move the word to its own section on older differences?  <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  06:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In the future, if there's anything I can find on old pronunciations, I will make a note or section & put information, as in phonetics or google links. NKM1974 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath
Poly(math) ending is always a trap /-mæθ/, but the ending on aftermath is a bath /-mɑːθ/. Why is the /-mɑːθ/ ending on aftermath not included? NKM1974 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because in British English the last vowel is usually short as in American English. In any case, the trap-bath split is excluded from the differences in the article.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  18:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Readability
Is it me, or is our system becoming a little unreadable when we're getting to the point of instances like liaisonabA2* or ((bi)p)artisana.B1/2? Plus sometimes asterisks are used and other times they aren't. Any ideas on how we could possibly simplify the system? It might be better to add more charts at this point, than to have two or three different symbolic notations being used at once on single words (plus, for many of them, footnotes anyway). Wolfdog (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Issue and tissue

 * You direct me to Phonological_history_of_English_consonant_clusters when I try to include on this page the words issue and tissue, which use /ʃ/ in AmE and traditionally use /sj/ in BrE (though both variants occur in BrE). If anything, this page you provide actually negates your argument. The article details that /sj/ → [ʃ] in words ending -ssure, such as pressure [ˈprɛʃər] (also in words ending consonant+sure, consonant+sion, -tion). This passage, with pressure explicitly given as an example, obviously applies to both American and British English, since both pronounce words like pressure with this coalescence. So we can disregard that. Then there's the paragraph that actually mentions issue which begins In some other words, presenting a list of words that are actually exceptions to phonological rules and therefore not predictable according to normal coalescence rules; however, they are indeed predictable according to one's AmE versus BrE accent and therefore indeed belong here on this page of AmE/BrE differences. (I also find fault with the statement that, for issue, the coalesced pronunciation is common but not universal in the standard accents. This is demonstrably false and should be changed. The coalesced form is indeed "universal" in the standard North American accent. At best, American dictionaries warn that the non-coalesced form is "chiefly British.") Furthermore, the homophonous pairs table in that section gives mergeable pairs like suit/shoot and sue/shoe that do not exist among American speakers. So clearly we're talking about two lexical peculiarities here. Wolfdog (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

My last edit summary
My last edit summary wasn't clear so I made a null edit to explain, but now I realise that this Wikipedia ignores null edits and removes them from the page history. What I wanted to say is that the difference between the medial consonants in water is one in accent only but our diaphonemic representation of the word remains unchanged, for which see Help:IPA/English. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Questionnaire will be reinstated
The British pronunciation of questionnaire registers on An English Pronouncing Dictionary Ed.6 (published in 1944) & Collins Dictionary website. An English Pronouncing Dictionary Ed.6 & Collins Dictionary NKM1974 (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool: Go ahead and add those citations. Wolfdog (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Issue with this page
My issue with this page is that the Stress section (French/miscellaneous & verbs ending in -ate) are largely ignored & neglected. Most users here are focused on Miscellaneous pronunciation differences (Single & multiple). Informations, such as, notes & phonetics should be added in the Stress section. Marshmallow has British & American phonetics on the stress section.

A1, B1 or AB1 belongs in the Stress section: French/miscellaneous & Verbs ending in -ate.

A2, B2 or AB2 belongs in the Miscellaneous pronunciation differences: Single & Multiple.

removed so many useful information from December 2016 until June 2017 because the user mentioned that there's no difference & it's only regional. Also, the user mentioned that historical words should be removed because it has no place in modern English. Just because people don't say pre-1940 pronunciation words anymore doesn't mean it should be removed. The New Fowler's Modern English Usage published in 2000 has pre-1940 pronunciations of pristine, questionnaire, schism, etc. An English Pronouncing Dictionary Ed.6 & Pronouncing Dictionary of American English, published in 1944 & 1949 respectively, has information that was common before or after the Second World War. See link below. Finally, the user finds Collins Dictionary, Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary (CEPD) & Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (LPD) to be a false, invalid & unreliable source. According to the user, Merrian Webster Dictionary is the only source that's true, valid & reliable.

I have a question for you.

What is your English proficiency? What sources do you use for adding information? Do you take into account the pronunciations of native speakers? Do you have or use the 3rd Edition of Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (LPD) & the 18th Edition of Cambridge Pronouncing Dictionary (CEPD)? You add materials that wasn't covered before, but some of your post are in question, especially if it's related to English pronunciations.

You should setup an account, so you can use more features from creating & edit articles with a padlock, especially semi-protected & lock-protected materials. If someone sent you a message regarding Wikipedia articles, you should reply & not ignore the message.

You must be from the Philippines, because the materials you post regarding British English are inconsistently wrong. You incorporate American, Australian, Canadian, European continent, Philippine & World English to British English. It seems that American & British English is not in your register because you don't focus or know Stress section (French/miscellaneous) & verbs ending in -ate.

What is your motive for posting items that's already checked & verified before? Are you looking for the following: attention, credibility, notoriety, popularity, recognition & reputation? If the answer is yes, that's not the way to seek attention, credibility, notoriety, popularity, recognition & reputation. I brought the information 2 years ago not for attention, credibility, notoriety, popularity, recognition & reputation. I did it because this site was stagnant & lacking updates.

On the Edit Summary, you leave a blank information & never provide any summary. That is absolutely frustrating because those post end up being reverted or the information is either insignificant or trivial. You are wasting yours & other's people time for adding/editing materials that lacks sources & not providing a brief summary. So don't do that anymore.

The 37 past revisions with the blue highlights are your logs full of insignificant & trivial information:
 * 09:14, 25 September 2020
 * 08:58, 25 September 2020
 * 15:58, 18 September 2020
 * 15:57, 18 September 2020
 * 15:42, 18 September 2020
 * 05:16, 26 August 2020
 * 06:07, 7 August 2020
 * 06:20, 6 August 2020
 * 06:10, 10 June 2020
 * 06:08, 10 June 2020
 * 15:31, 30 September 2019
 * 11:05, 2 September 2018
 * 10:55, 18 August 2018
 * 10:44, 18 August 2018
 * 10:21, 23 December 2017
 * 10:21, 23 December 2017
 * 05:51, 28 September 2017
 * 05:27, 21 September 2017
 * 05:22, 21 September 2017
 * 06:45, 17 February 2016
 * 06:11, 31 January 2016
 * 01:24, 30 January 2016
 * 01:19, 30 January 2016
 * 07:24, 18 January 2016
 * 07:24, 18 January 2016
 * 07:21, 18 January 2016
 * 07:18, 18 January 2016
 * 09:11, 4 November 2015
 * 10:15, 30 September 2015
 * 10:14, 30 September 2015
 * 08:01, 4 September 2015
 * 08:00, 4 September 2015
 * 03:45, 16 August 2015
 * 03:44, 16 August 2015
 * 06:33, 15 August 2015
 * 06:31, 15 August 2015
 * 10:48, 25 July 2015

I agree with &. Since you ignore & never reply to any of the messages on your talk section, your account & IP should be blocked permanently for adding/editing materials that lacks sources, not providing a brief summary & making insignificant/trivial post that ends up being verified, reverted & removed, eventually.

Finally, if you have issues with historical words or want evidence regarding phonetics & pronunciations, do these 3 things:
 * 1. check & read, both old & new, dictionaries.
 * 2. get phonetic lessons.
 * 3. listen to audio & watch old films/videos from the 1930s.

Here are three links dating from 1944, 1949 & 2000, respectively: An English Pronouncing Dictionary Ed.6, Pronouncing Dictionary of American English &The New Fowler's Modern English Usage

NKM1974 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wrong, I adopted some, if not many, American or British in my register, and hey, I shouldn't be blocked, and I really need to keep on helping by editing. Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Not communicating is never an option, whether you are a new editor, experienced editor, administrator, or even Jimbo Wales. If you are so arrogant as to think that you are "too busy to reply those messages", you are headed for an indefinite block. And I will gladly do anything I can to facilitate that block sooner rather than later. If your attitude is that you don't have to follow the same policies everyone else must follow, you need to stop editing immediately because you are harming Wikipedia far more than you are helping it. We don't need someone with that attitude. You can consider this a final warning for disruptive editing. Your comments here will forever be in the history of this page and will serve as a basis for an indefinite block. Sundayclose (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm really against an indefinite block, that's not the way to deal with me. I'm not truly a disrupter. How could I contribute anytime in the next years to come? The best thing is to block errant unregistered users sharing the same IP address as me, not me. I'm sorry for saying "too busy to reply those messages" but I wasn't arrogant; I take that back. I lost the time to reply. If I did reply, nobody responded to my posts. Give me the chance to defend myself before a block occurs. Santiago Claudio (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You should be blocked permanently, you never reply to past messages. You are taking evasive action & ignoring messages. I haven't been here for a long time. If I have questions about my post, at least I leave an information on the Edit Summary. NKM1974 (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't decide "the way to deal with" you. An administrator decides how to deal with you when you are blocked for disruptive editing. "How could I contribute anytime in the next years to come?" When you're blocked you can't edit; that's the entire point. Disruptive editors are blocked so they can no longer damage Wikipedia as you are doing. "If I did reply, nobody responded to my posts." That's simply a lie. Stop making disruptive edits and start communicating. If you can't do that, go away. Sundayclose (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't lying or evading, was I? I often was called to do house errands or left the house then go home that's why I really was too busy to answer in the past. Do you want me to leave many things alone when I see them amiss or they could need my attention? Santiago Claudio (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, "leave many things alone" if you plan to edit Wikipedia. If you are "too busy to answer", then stop editing until you are not too busy. It's as simple as that. Communicate. Respond to messages that are conveyed to you on Wikipedia. If you can't do that, you don't need to be editing. Everyone else must follow these rules. There's nothing special about you that excuses you from your responsibilities as an editor. Wikipedia will be perfectly OK without you if you can't obey the rules. Now, I've made my point, and I don't intend to your repeatedly respond to your beating a dead horse. Sundayclose (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of editing all the articles that you see on Wikipedia, do only the items that's close & pertinent to you. I only do minor revisions from pronunciation to spelling. I couldn't do everything because they are very difficult to maintain. NKM1974 (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In response to 's original post in this section: Apparently, we have two entirely different points of view on this. You're worried that A1, B1 or AB1 belongs in the Stress section: French/miscellaneous & Verbs ending in -ate. A2, B2 or AB2 belongs in the Miscellaneous pronunciation differences: Single & Multiple. I'm baffled as to why we even have those two separate systems. Why can't we have one unified system? Then you describe, in some detail, well... a lot of minor details you don't like here and there. But my point in starting this section was that the problems are broad,  wide, systematic in terms of the whole page, etc. I'm not interested in a thousand little problems; the page needs cleanup at the macro level before we get into every micro point.

In response to your specific grievances with me, I doubt anyone has a problem with pre-1940 pronunciation words, whatever that means; the problem we have (and I think this is what you meant to write) is with pre-1940 pronunciations. If you believe this already unwieldy and cluttered page (again: my whole criticism) needs more pronunciations, including pronunciations that span across the English language's over-1500-year history and across all regional dialects, then we fundamentally disagree with what this page even is. I can say with certainty that a majority of visitors to and editors of this page are expecting pronunciations that can exist in standard dialects of American and British English in the present day. Wolfdog (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Why can't we have one unified system? Users kept labeling A2, B2 or AB2 to A1, B1 or AB1. Since I haven't been here since last year, I'm willing to make revisions of what I posted on the Miscellaneous pronunciation differences: Single & Multiple. Also, add more information on the Stress section, as in notes & phonetics: French/miscellaneous & Verbs ending in -ate. Finally, revise items that need to be checked, verified & removed that other users have posted. I check this article's past logs to find which material that needs to be resurrected or not. That's what other users should be doing to find out which item is added or removed.


 * I want to bring more pronunciations that wasn't brought to this site's attention before. The information that I brought back in September 2018 up to November 2019 is insufficient. There's more information I want to bring to this site but wasn't able to due to health reasons. I hope that issue with is resolved.  That's the user who kept adding "aftermath" & other insignificant/trivial items that are verified, checked & removed, eventually. NKM1974 (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article also sins in that it does not define the word "Commonwealth" on first use, because I found this unsourced comment (or whatever you want to call it) on the table:"The spelling of this letter as a word corresponds to the pronunciation: thus Commonwealth (including, Canada) zed and U.S. zee." See? It uses the word "Commonwealth" without defining it first .--Fandelasketchup (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Chimpanzee is reinstated, American phonetics for Urinal & Vaginal should be removed
The pronunciation of chimpanzee registers on An English Pronouncing Dictionary Ed.6 (published in 1944), Pronouncing dictionary of American English (published in 1949), Collins Dictionary & Lexico websites. An English Pronouncing Dictionary Ed.6, Pronouncing dictionary of American English & Collins Dictionary.

Is it necessary to add American phonetics for urinal & vaginal? The American pronunciations of urinal & vaginal should be removed because they are also common in Britsh English. NKM1974 (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Is your point that UK readers already would know to assume the American pronunciations of urinal and vaginal without the need of phonetic notations? Wolfdog (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, due to US influence from the internet to media. Like in the case of skeletal, I only included the British phonetic because the American pronunciation is common in Britain. NKM1974 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I always figured the more phonetic transcriptions (i.e. specifics) the better here, but I suppose there could be a countergargument to that. My main problem with the page, as I've alluded, is we try to divide pronunciations into some basic major patterns (intelligent, on the surface), which themselves often have exceptions and require further caveats and footnotes, pretty much ad nauseam. Anyway, in this case: feel free to remove the phonetics. Just thought they might be helpful. (I'm concerned too that many more pronunciations than we're actually letting on really belong under "Multiple differences".) Wolfdog (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarissa Ward
She's American, isn't she? But she pronounces record (noun) as - British or Irish albeit rhotic, and the unstressed suffix -ative in certain words like administrative, innovative, investigative, perhaps even legislative as, again characteristically British or Irish. Therefore she's among a handful of Americans or Canadians who pronounce certain words like many Irish people or some other persons from the rest of the Commonwealth of Nations. Is it because she first grew up in London, that's why she learned (learnt) to use the chiefly British pronunciation? If so, does she pronounce predecessor(s) as, not ? Let me know! Santiago Claudio (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Species
Before you make any further revisions of this article, wait for the native speakers. or might be able to provide an answer. If they remove your post, you have to accept that response. If you don't know the stress section (French/miscellaneous), then English is not in your register. Single/multiple differences section is your only focus & knowledge.

Here's are the 2 links regarding the stress section (French/miscellaneous) & make a note of the blue highlights:

00:56, 7 August 2021

00:58, 7 August 2021

If you don't know the stress section, don't touch this article anymore. I don't want to sound cross, but you're a hit-and-run user. Hit-and-run in this context mean: On the Edit Summary, you leave a blank information & never provide any summary. Also, you're dodging & ignoring messages. You never reply on your talk section by reading those past messages.

If you want to post anything in future regarding BrE/AmE pronunciation differences, bring something that wasn't done or seen before. Check my post, you should get an idea what I'm talking about by checking the past logs. I've contributed so many information in this article & want high-quality standards. I brought words that are obvious, obscure & historical. Some examples are aluminium (obvious), disciplinary (obscure) & questionnaire (historical). Also, I brought structure & organization, ie. eliminating duplicates, putting things in alphabetical order & updating links of people and/or places to Wikipedia articles.

& since you know more about English, should the post by  be deleted with link:

06:06, 6 August 2021

06:07, 6 August 2021

The reason I asked it's because blogs shouldn't be cited as a source. Isn't that a Wikipedia policy?

Regardless of region, here's the phonetic /ˈspiːʃiːz/ with 3 links to cite as sources:

An English Pronouncing Dictionary Ed.6

Pronouncing dictionary of American English

Go to page 755 of 899 for information of The New Fowler's Modern English Usage

, is back to his old habit again. He's a hit-and-run user whose nick & IP should be blocked permanently. This isn't an attack, but the user is unresponsive. When I add/delete an information, I make a note on the Edit Summary & reply to the messages on the Talk section. I don't edit all the articles on Wikipedia. I only do minor edits from punctuation to spelling.

As for Clarissa Ward, you've answered your question. NKM1974 (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) What made you think I was a native speaker is beyond me. 2) It shouldn't matter whether I am (or anyone is) because Wikipedia decides what goes into its articles based on verifiability, not on personal experience. Nardog (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert. I based the pronunciation by sounds & register such as dicitonaries & phonetic books with audio. NKM1974 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * English is in my register, on the contrary. My post was not on the stress section (French/miscellaneous). Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing that post. It's a force of habit for you to leave a blank on the Edit Summary that lacks sources. I hope you don't post that's already checked & verified before, like aftermath in the past. You bring back information that's checked & verified by users. Why? Is it because the articles hasn't been updated for a while? Just because an article hasn't been updated for a while doesn't mean it's inactive. Perhaps, users are trying to find & research for useful information that's pertinent to the subject. It takes a very long time to check/verify information & sources. If a user checks & verifies your post, it was removed due to blank information on the Edit Summary or lack of sources, don't post that information in the future because it's very frustrating for other users. You are wasting other people & your time for bringing back items that's already checked & verified before. If you leave a blank on the Edit Summary that lacks sources, they have the right to remove that information. From this forward, you make a note on the Edit Summary & cite your sources so that users can check & verify if the information is valid or invalid. I hope you don't continue doing this in the future. If you do that again, you will be reported to have you remove from this site. NKM1974 (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Lot-Cloth Split
Hi, so if I'm reading this row right, /ɒ/ is BrE and /ɔː/ is AmE for alcohol, atoll, Austin, gnocchi, oratory, parasol, sausage. Are we saying that this excludes words? If so, why are we excluding them? Because it would make the list too long? Wolfdog (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Austin, oratory, sausage are definitely CLOTH words (Wells 1982: 137), so I've removed them. Curiously missing from the list are pre-velar /ɔ/ words, such as mock, dog, gong, which (contrary to the popular? belief) do not belong to any standard lexical set. The cot–caught merger and the fact GA has never been stringently codified obviously make determining which words have /ɔ/ difficult. Nardog (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)