Talk:White South African English phonology

Vowel chart
I see no reason to duplicate the information just for the sake of having a table in the article. It's like WP:CONTENTFORK within one article. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's much easier to read, providing a fast and convenient look at the same information which is outlined in more detail in the prose. Complete newcomers to the topic can read the prose and those with some middling or higher knowledge of IPA can avoid prose, if they prefer, by reading the chart. We've introduced similar collapsible vowel charts in a variety of dialect pages, so it's also keeping with that trend. Wolfdog (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, but if we're to keep it, the table needs to be closely moderated so that it fully matches the article. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will put the article under my watchlist. Thanks for your willingness. Wolfdog (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The table isn't collapsible anymore, apparently per MOS:COLLAPSE. It doesn't provide the same information as the article - for instance, the split (which is one of the most marked features of SAE) cannot be explained in a table like this. The same applies to the (incomplete) lot-cloth split. The table also fails to show that  for  in Cultivated is rare,  for  is closer to Broad than General and that monophthongization of,  and  is never categorical.


 * The vowel section is already quite long as it is and I want to introduce a table that would compare different transcription systems of SAE with those of RP, AuE and NZE. I think that would be more helpful. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Separate entries for START and LETTER vowels
As they are non-contrastive, there's hardly any need to list them separately from the plain. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do you see evidence that they are non-contrastive in all five varieties? And isn't LETTER only for unstressed syllables? Wolfdog (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But so is COMMA, no? I'll re-check the sources (not only the ones we use). Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Even by our own charts, they seem to be somewhat or entirely contrastive; that's why I'm a little confused. The most common START is something like [äː]; while LETTER is most commonly [ə]. However, I'm happy to admit that LETTER and COMMA are non-contrastive. And NURSE is again mostly contrastive, as something like [ɛ~ø]. Wolfdog (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, what I meant was that START and LETTER don't contrast with their non-rhotic counterparts, not that there's START-LETTER merger. My bad. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * . OK... I see; so "START/PALM" is one phoneme, as is "LETTER/COMMA". Can we then label them as such (including both of Wells' labels for each)? Wolfdog (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The choice is arbitrary. We can write PALM/START and COMMA/LETTER (yes, I would write the non-rhotic set first) or just PALM and COMMA. I think Wells would use either the former or both, and Lindsey would mostly go for the latter to put an emphasis on the lack of contrast. However, AFAICS, we shouldn't merge COMMA and LETTER cells as some Broad speakers actually contrast them (see 'Sonorants'). Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, while the choice is arbitrary, we should be consistent and write THOUGHT/NORTH (or THOUGHT/NORTH/FORCE? I'm not sure whether FORCE can't be distinctive for older Cultivated speakers) instead of THOUGHT. I think it's an unnecessary complication, and I would just go with PALM and THOUGHT. We can explain the PALM-START, THOUGHT-NORTH and COMMA-LETTER mergers somewhere else in the article (though the fact that SAE is to a very large extend non-rhotic makes their presence pretty obvious). Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment about being consistent and putting the non-rhotic set first is fine, though I think going with the "former" option is best, as the lack of contrast is not simply obvious (there is no such merger in non-rhotic NYCE, for example) and will confuse some people (as it did me). The same can be done for THOUGHT/NORTH(/FORCE). My personal feeling is that being clear here overrides being concise (and really, adding these words barely hurts the concise factor). Wolfdog (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. I really appreciate it! Wolfdog (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I can see my confusion. Lexical sets aren't akin to phonemes but to diaphonemes. We can't speak of "SAE missing NORTH and FORCE vowels" as that'd be a misunderstanding of levels of abstraction. SAE doesn't contrast THOUGHT, NORTH and FORCE vowels, but they still exist on an abstract level in L1 English as a whole. The fact that people from South Africa don't distinguish them doesn't change the fact that many people from Scotland and some from the United States do. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly it! Wolfdog (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Black SAE
I feel that it should have its own article. The vowel section would be somewhat easier to read if we restricted it to only White and Indian SAE, as they're almost identical in the case of vowels, whereas Black SAE is much closer to other African English dialects such as Nigerian. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Lexical sets
To people unfamiliar with SAE, this article is virtually useless because, while it describes the phonemes' realisations in great, even extreme detail, it says nothing about what lexical sets these phonemes pertain to. For example, I had no idea what /ɵ/ stood for. At first I suspected KIT, but it seems to be FOOT, doesn't it? Could have been STRUT as well. And that's for someone who is fairly well-versed in English phonology. Someone who's not would understand next to nothing. So the most important thing is a chart that defines the phonemes in terms of their lexical sets. Then you can go into all the details of slightly rounded, slightly less rounded, a tiny bit advanced, and the like. 90.186.170.236 (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone who actually speaks SAE, and has a fairly good knowledge of English phonology, I can back this up. The lack of reference to any lexical sets makes much of this article -- especially the section on vowels -- very difficult to follow. Where there are examples in the text, this is easier. For instance, the implications of this are pretty difficult to determine: Whereas this is pretty clear:


 * The section on consonants does a better job of this. But the irony is that that section is far easier to follow without lexical sets/examples, as the realization is typically closer to RP.


 * This problem was compounded (for me anyway) by the article's use of (again, for me anyway) unfamiliar notation for certain vowels, such as /ɵ/ for /ʊ/ and /e/ for /ɛ/. The former is listed as a an alternative notation on the RP article. The latter appears to he standard in the RP article (apparently following Wells), but differs from what's laid out in the IPA for English. I hate to quibble without assisting with any changes, but I don't have access to the cited sources. 105.226.186.216 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

" White" ??
Isn't it a bit biased to say that this accent is restricted to white people? Clearly all South Africans are expected to use this standard accent, not just so-called "whites". 2001:8003:1605:400:F11F:E630:E5B0:F8 (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly not, though. Black South Africans have their own accent (far more distinct from White SAE than AAVE as compared to General American English) and so do Indians. Indian SAE is much closer to the accents described in this article than Black SAE, which has a distinct (stereotypically) African sound to it. Sol505000 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)