User talk:Mr KEBAB/Archive 1

IPA for Russian
Ahem. Not sure if this is the right place to attract attention (sorry if not), but I still expect you to reply to my proposals for «IPA for Russian‎» additions. —Tacit Murky (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is, but when you're doing it is not right (too soon) - it's been only one day! Exercise patience. I will reply. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

GA page
This link uses the word "accentless" http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/midwest/

"In other parts of the “accentless” Midwest another distinctive pronunciation pattern can be heard." That was a sentence in that writing. That's why I used that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishayes00003 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate you deleting my stuff. I will be taking it to the talk page Chrishayes00003 (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't appreciate you lying about what the sources say (and the article is not "yours" - see WP:OWNERSHIP). I've already taken it to the talk page. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Russian declension
Maybe you'll be interested to review Russian declension (with my recent additions). Strangely, there is no talk page; nobody ever discussed any of that content… Tacit Murky (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks, but all I'm more or less knowledgeable about is the phonology of Russian. I can't review that article even if I wanted to, I simply don't understand the subject. If you want me to check the grammar as far as English is concerned, you better ask a native speaker instead (my English is ~B2 at best). Good luck! Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Archiving
It is of no consequence that the archive subpage has been created - it can be blanked, deleted or left as is; it doesn't particularly matter. The important part is that recent (and ongoing!) debate on the talk page is not unnecessarily obscured by having it archived - it is not beneficial to potential contributors to the page. --Njardarlogar (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, restored. But there's no reason to restore other discussions, just as there wasn't any strong reason to archive them. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Accent related edits
Thank you very much for your notice regarding removal of edits related to accents and for directing me to the relevant Wikipedia policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

"Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."

I believe that my edits are in compliance with the policy because they objectively state that several software packages are popular, (which can be seen from their rankings in the apple store), not that they are good or bad or that one is better than the other. In addition, they do not constitute advertising, marketing or public relations because they list several competing products, and also the alternative of live speech therapy sessions. They are on point and enhance the information content of the articles, since the Wikipedia articles relate to accents, potential disadvantages of foreign or regional accents, and efforts to modify accents.

If you feel that they do not belong in some particular articles, perhaps it would make sense to remove them from some but not from all of the articles, or to move them to a less prominent location within the articles. I feel that wholesale removal is unwarranted given their relevance to the subject matter of the articles and compliance with Wikipedia policies on tone and style.

Happy to continue the conversation with you and the good Doctor.

--EngTutor (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngTutor (talk • contribs)

Also, if you notice other Wikipedia articles include lists of popular software, such as the article on Word-processing, Spreadsheets Optical Character Recognition,  and so on. The inclusion of lists of software is analogous to the list of speech trainer organizations which already appears in the accent reduction article.

--EngTutor (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Apart from WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:ELNO (the latter recommended by ), also see WP:NOTHERE and WP:SPA. The point is that you're very likely to be banned if your only edits (or the majority of them) are promotional. Perhaps WP:RFC is the best place to ask about more information on that, and whether your links should be reinstated into some of the articles. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

/ɵ/ phoneme
Hi. Can you show me where it was decided to abandon the /ɵ/ two-variant "phoneme"? I just would like to see the discussion/relevant page to update myself on WP's current policy with IPA. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here. You're right to call it a "phoneme", because it is not one - it's an ad-hoc transcription to indicate the neutralization. Too bad we don't transcribe the  vowel as, because then the  neutralization could be transcribed simply as . Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Voiced dental fricative
Thanks for the correction. Should teach me to write about languages I haven't properly studied! I added a note to Icelandic phonology about the symbols noting that usually they're dental, but not in this case. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly your fault... the alveolar versions of are not very common sounds, they don't have separate IPA symbols, and probably the only sources that describe Icelandic  as alveolar are the SOWL and the paper that SOWL cites. But then again, maybe it's just because there's not nearly as much available as far as Icelandic phonetics are concerned compared with e.g. German, nevermind English. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Now that's... unusual, but no problem! Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Didn't know what the protocol was, sorry if I overdid it! You and @Rebbing are the first ever to contact me on Wiki, and both of you wrote to me today. Anyway, have a great weekend! Mpaniello (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Mpaniello


 * Not a problem, as I said. Likewise. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

About Danish and relatedness
Hey, I see you kept nullifying my factually correct edit on Danish phonology. You're making a common mistake of thinking that similarity has anything to do with relatedness; these two things, in linguistics, are very different. Bokmål is very similar to Danish because it was instated during Danish rule, this doesn't however change the fact (Old_Norse) that Swedish and Danish are both descended of Old East Norse, while Norwegian, along with Icelandic, Faroese (and Norn) is descended of Old West Norse.

Think about this analogy; you speak, dress and act much more like your friend who lives near you and went to the same school as you did. This doesn't change the fact that you and your friend aren't related. However, you have almost nothing in common with your cousins, who live on the other side of the country; this doesn't change the fact that you two are still related. Now, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are all related but in the group "North Germanic Languages" these three do not genealogically form a natural class.

So please, stop nullifying corrections with factual bases. Shuntooth (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop pushing your Nynorsk-biased POV. Bokmål comes from Old East Norse and is just as valid as Nynorsk (which comes from Old West Norse). It doesn't matter which variety came first, what counts is the current situation. Plus, as far as I can see (see Nynorsk), it's Bokmål that came first, not Nynorsk, and it has 10x more native speakers (well, 'native writers', to be more exact).


 * So please, stop using the terms 'corrections' and 'factual' when the only thing you want to do is to push your pro-Nynorsk agenda. I won't be fooled! Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no personal interest in the Nynorsk vs. Bokmål debate. I don't know either, so accusing me of an agenda is absurd to say the least. Needless to say, language standards don't have anything to do with the actual historical linguistics. You're resorting to anecdotes (what the ratio of 'native speakers' either Norwegian standard has is completely irrelevant) but you're not referencing any data that has been acquired with the historical-comparative method. Shuntooth (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No need to use the replyto template here, the owner of a user talk page is notified each time you write on it.


 * Fine, I have no reason not to believe you. Don't consider me anti-Nynorsk either, both varieties are valid and, above all, official. What I was trying to say is that you should read Bokmål and Nynorsk first, and if you disagree with the tables there, take it to the corresponding talk pages. The second sentence on Bokmål is sourced, and says 'Bokmål is the preferred written standard of Norwegian for 85% to 90% of the population in Norway (...)'. I wouldn't call it an 'anecdote', it's important to say it in this discussion.


 * I'm a bit baffled here. You seem not to understand that there's no such thing as written standard Norwegian outside of Bokmål and Nynorsk, and there's no such thing as the single spoken standard of Norwegian (which is known for making Norwegian as Foreign Language learners angry and exhausted when trying to learn it), and Norwegian dialects form an inseparable dialect continuum with dialects spoken along the Swedish border, so that one could even argue that there's no 'spoken Norwegian' at all, just a Norwegian-Swedish dialect continuum. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, in any case, Maunus has changed the lead, so we might as well end our discussion here. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mid back rounded vowel
I cannot check Basbøll because I cannot access it.

As for the mid back rounded vowel; I seem to have misread those sources I gave (I saw a down tack where there was an up tack), which is embarrassing, and I apologize. The example is still wrong, though; monolog is pronounced with [o] ([o̝]) in standard Danish.__Gamren (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Try Grønnum (2005).


 * Hmm, that's strange. That word has been there for years... but you're right. I changed it to ost. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's a good example (and I'm flattered that you find it strange that I'm right ;)). But what page am I supposed to look at?__Gamren (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No, what I found strange is that it had been overlooked for so long. Try page 214 onwards. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand English
In the Short front vowels section, I thought you had added the part that says 'bed' and 'fed' sound like 'beard' and 'feared'. I now see that that part has been present for some time. I have a big problem with it. The NZ pronunciation of beard and feared does not stress the 'r', which isn't heard, so indeed the four words sound the same to a New Zealander. But other nationalities pronounce the 'r', so the words sound nothing alike. It's incorrect for the article to make the connection because it deceives international readers into thinking that we NZ-ers insert an 'r' into 'bed' and 'fed'. Do you agree that we should remove the comparison? You seem to know a bit about IPA so where do we go from here? Akld guy (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We unambiguously state that we're talking about the New Zealand diphthong, not any other realization of the NEAR vowel from around the world. There's no possibility of confusion. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I made what I think is a clarification. Akld guy (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if that's gonna help someone. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry
I am sorry, sir. I believe I have mistaken "Open-mid back unrounded vowel" with another page. I check the history and my IP address was not listed prior to. I am sorry about the hassle.74.102.216.186 (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)