Talk:Scottish vowel length rule

Examples needed
This article would greatly benefit from concrete examples (e.g. "brewed" is longer than "brood"). Grover cleveland (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It doesn't make a darned bit of sense to the layman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.251.34 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed
-- Not all vowels enumerated in 'The Scottish Vowel System' are covered in 'Vowel Length' which apparently describes only Central Scots,

-- 'The long /ɑː/, /ɒː/ or /ɔː/ realisations of vowel 12 usually occur in all environments in final stressed syllables.' -- either 'in all environments' or 'in final stressed syllables'. 89.231.112.123 (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source states "... in all environments in final stressed syllables,..." Nogger (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Far too erudite
This article is unintelligible to a person without expertise in this field. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Read vowel length for a start. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. It at no point even explains what the vowel length rule is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.73.200 (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We seem to be reading two different articles then. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this basically saying, 'words sound different in different parts of the country?' I don't understand how that is a rule. As a Scot, I find this interesting but I don't actually know what this page is saying to me81.143.7.209 (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Read vowel length for a start. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It is rubbish and doesn't have key recent references to contemporary accents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.104.165 (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Read vowel length for a start. Calling rubbish a great article written in a fairly simple language is ridiculous, especially if you don't understand what it actually says (how can you judge it objectively then?). People, why do you expect to have everything handed to you on a plate? Make the effort and do the research. If you don't understand some of the terminology used here, then go and find out what it means. Use the search function. I thought it was obvious... — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * HOW can it be a GREAT article if the people most likely to view it can't understand it? I am a well educated Scot who is struggling with it, and am amazed that there are so few actual examples of what is being discussed. It ISN'T written in "simple language", otherwise the layperson would be able to come to it and understand most of it. You are saying that a great article in simple requires researching other articles just to understand the terminology, and you don't see the irony? Let me guess; you wrote some of it?2.101.151.84 (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Lance Tyrell


 * But what did you do after realizing that you don't understand it? Did you follow the blue links or check the sources listed at the bottom of the article? I guess not, so you can only blame yourself.


 * This article cannot explain fundamental phonological/phonetic concepts such as vowel length, phonetic environment or phoneme. These are separate and to a certain extent off-topic concepts that are discussed in separate articles (read WP:CONTENTFORK). I'm not saying that this article is perfect, but you're really underestimating its usefulness because you're unwilling to read other articles to improve your understanding of this one.


 * Wikipedia is not a course in phonetics. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The same applies to those who don't understand the IPA. The only reply they can receive is: learn it. You can't expect linguistic articles not to use the IPA. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Far too erudite: take two
I'm not sure what all the rancor of the above discussion is about, but I seem to be not the first person to notice that this page is practically unintelligible outside the linguistics field and even confusing for those deep within linguistics, since it characterises a very niche area within phonetics. Maybe citing a specific difficulty would be helpful. Again, keep in mind that, regarding an Anglic set of dialects' rules, this article is intended for a general audience. Do we really need, for example, to include in the table the first row labelled "Aitken"? What in the world can any conceivable reader glean from columns labelled with things like "1l, 1s, 8a, 10, 2, 11, 3" etc.: an alphanumeric list that seemingly follows no obvious order or pattern? Some of the prose seems redundant/over-clarified and other times under-clarified. To take just one example of the former, a standalone bullet reads /iː/ and /eː/ (11 and 8) are usually long. Yes, isn't that already obvious from the fact that they are represented with length marks? Let's start with those two confusions. Wolfdog (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is just as much about Scots as it is about English. Bear that in mind. Apparently there are three types of that are distinguished in Scots phonology/dialectology (and maybe even can have different phonetic realizations, depending on the area). So yes, apparently we do need the Aitken row.
 * Usually long means something different than always long. This needs clarification, but bear in mind that this article is meant to transcribe the SVLR in detail. If we can use more noob-friendly language without watering down the article, that's great. If not, that's too bad. But we should use IPA instead of Aitken's names whenever we can. EDIT: Aitken removed.
 * I'm working on the notes and on a section in which vowel length in Geordie is described. I've already fixed phonemic transcriptions in this article as much as I could.
 * We could also reorganize the article and merge the first two sections. As I'm working on the article right now, I suggest waiting a few days before you do that (if you want to). Sol505000 (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your first paragraph proves at all that we need the Aitken row. The logical connection is completely lost on me. Can you rephrase?
 * I do follow your "usually long" point. I feel like that needs to be stressed a little more deliberately, something like "usually rather than always long". Everything in linguistics that is said is actually nearly always implied to be "usually"; as you know, linguistics is inherently a field teeming with exceptions, outliers, and grey areas. One could even say "Scots speakers usually follow this SVLR".
 * Maybe you got this from the previous complainers, but I'm actually not dismissing the IPA whatsoever. I'm fully onboard with using the IPA. A lot of what confuses me on this page is the prose and the weird notation (again: "1l, 1s, 8a, 10, 2, 11, 3"... Huh??). If anything, the IPA is the one area of common ground: the one easy-to-follow aspect of this article for those with a basic knowledge of linguistics. The rest is what's baffling, noob reader or not.
 * I appreciate the Geordie info.
 * Yeah, I like the idea of merging the first two sections, but I'm happy to wait it out. Thanks for the feedback. Wolfdog (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There seem to be three types of that are distinguished in Aitken's system but not in IPA. Sol505000 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but why do we need a row full of perplexing labels: 1l, 1s, 8a, 10, 2, 11, 3, etc.? What general reader cares about (let alone comprehends) these secret alphanumeric codes? That's my point. (I appreciate that most of this info is coming from Aitken; certainly, he should continue to be heavily cited). Wolfdog (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how hard it is to understand that e.g. is alternatively called vowel 5 in Scots dialectology.  is literally the only vowel that has more than one name. If those names are widely used in Scots dialectology then yes, they should stay. Their presence harms nobody. Sol505000 (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if I'm confused or you are. What in the world does "1l" mean? Does that "l" mean "long"? Why is there an "a" in "8a"? Where is the regular number "8"? What order are these numbers in (and why are they not in sequential order)? Why are we using these undefined notations at all? These, and other questions, are all completely predictable coming from a general reader of this page; I'm trying to help hypothetical general readers in the future by making things clearer. Wolfdog (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, l seems to mean "long" and s "short". The sequential order works worse for English, see the Wells row.
 * If you can prove that these names aren't widely used in Scots dialectology (and you find a way to differentiate between the three varieties of ) then, I guess, you can go ahead and delete them. If you can't prove that, let's end the conversation about removing Aitken please. It's going nowhere. I trust that the original author of the page knows better than both of us what terminology is used in Scots dialectology. Sol505000 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleting the row was my first suggestion but not the only possibility that could be helpful. We could just as well keep the row, but we need to at the very least define things or (maybe the best option) rename or reorganize the labels. We can't expect readers to have read the cited sources or understand labels specific to a single source with no explanation. (Plus, no link to the source is even provided here.) Even you are not precisely clear about what the "l" or the "a" means, apparently. This is exactly my problem: readers might (and in fact will) be confused. We have no obligation to incorporate verbatim a chart from a highly technical paper. Tables are used on Wikipedia to simplify and clarify information; instead, this table actually obscures it. So let's leave the table but just edit it for clarity. I don't have to prove anything; I'm begging someone who understands this to make it clearer. You and I can barely understand it ourselves. That's a general Wikipedia problem, which I think we can both agree on. We're on the same side here. How about I offer some renames for the labels? Would that be a good next step forward towards something productive? Wolfdog (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's seriously incorrect (compare the section "vowel length" below). The rule is not about some vowels being "short" and some "long" but the fact that length depends on the environment. You should probably do more research on the subject. Sol505000 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly, I should... since I appear to be baffled, as I've repeatedly admitted. And it would be lovely for anyone who really does understand this research to make it clearer for dummies like myself. I was just offering a better "look" for the table. Perhaps when I have more time for a deep dive, I'll indeed do that. At the same time, you suggested that I wait a few days to perform any edits, since you are working on the article right now. I hope you can bring some clarity to it, and I'm sorry if my questions have been distracting you from improving the page. I appreciate the discussion! I'll shut up for a while. Let me know if you'd like my feedback on anything, or just leave me be if you feel I've been annoying you too much as it is. Best of luck! Wolfdog (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

KIT
Thanks for the edits. As for, are we sure that that should not be represented as a separate phoneme from , etc.? Wolfdog (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Wells, only Edinburgh English needs separate symbols for those. I know very little aboot Scots so I won't comment on that ;) Sol505000 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)