User talk:Peter238/Archive 4

R in Dutch
So, I found this thesis on the R in Dutch. I think you might be interested and it has data we can use at Dutch phonology pages etc. Here it is: http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/306415Gati123 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice one, thanks! — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 21:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Next week I'll try to add a complete list of possible realizations of Dutch to Dutch phonology. I'll use a couple of different sources, including the one you gave me. Uitspraak van de r in het Nederlands features an extremely interesting (and, unfortunately, unsourced) statement: "Er is ook nog een lateraal fricatieve velaire r, waarbij het schurende geluid komt van lucht die langs de zijkant van de tong ontsnapt; deze r begint meestal met een tikje, ook geproduceerd langs de zijkant van de tong." Maybe you'd be able to dig up a Dutch source which talks about it. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll dig for information and I have already asked the user who added the 'lateraal fricatieve velaire' r if (s)he has a source. If you want any more help, just ask! Gati123 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I got a response from that user: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Atalanta#lateraal_fricatieve_velaire_r_in_het_Nederlands (at the dutch wikipedia). She hasn't got a source to prove it. Her verification is that she herself has that r. An educated philologist has checked the page and hasn't complained about that r. But as there is no source I think it's better to not use it. I will search for more sources! Hope this helps Gati123 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It does, thanks! — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again it's been a while (I spent a month in Sweden for work) I read the thesis another time so let me know if you need any help with it Gati123 (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks. Peter238 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

R in Dutch (Canepari & Cerini (2013))
Canepari and Cerini (2013), p. 69 state the following about neutral international Dutch (symbols not in Unicode are here replaced with ?): “Before consonants or pauses, the situation is a bit more complicated: some speakers invariably use, while others produce: , ie a provelar semi-approximant or approximant (with possible uvularization), featuring lateral contraction and negligible postalveolarization (as in American-English accents).” Such sounds are also described for various of the other Flemish and Netherlandic accents. LiliCharlie (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but AFAIK Canepari's work is not considered a reliable source here, unless it talks about Italian. I myself noticed several errors in his works (like saying that open front is a non-RP realization of the phoneme, which may have been true 40 years ago, but not now. Nowadays, it is a part of RP - see the last sentence of Received_Pronunciation). Peter238 (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is a misunderstanding. In Canepari’s vocoid system the symbol is defined as a central vocoid, which is typical of Jamaicans and others, but definitely not of whatever generation of RP speakers. (Confusingly, Canepari’s symbol for a fully open front vocoid is ). LiliCharlie (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a misunderstanding. The vowel I am referring to is transcribed in IPA, but  in canIPA. Also, don't forget that these vowels are labelled differently in IPA and canIPA:
 * - The front unrounded vowel is labelled as near-open front in IPA, but open front in canIPA. According to Canepari, it's the lowest front vowel that you can pronounce.
 * - The front unrounded vowel (well,  in canIPA) is labelled as open front in IPA, but open near-front in canIPA. That's the vowel I'm talking about. Peter238 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Labialisation
Is labialisation normally noted in IPA with superscript w? How are onglides differentiated if so? I guess it makes sense given that is a thing. Ogress smash! 21:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In IPA, $\langle\rangle$ and $\langle\rangle$ are the only standard ways of transcribing labialization and palatalization. Using these symbols for semivowels/approximants is non-standard, just as transcribing the rhotic consonant in RP/GA as, when actually it is trilled by nobody who speaks these accents. See . Peter238 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been dealing with Gaelic (and the Arabics) so long my brain is broken concerning IPA standard on these things. Good christ, someone needs to go back in time and club the Gaelicists in the head with their nearly identical-appearing forward- and backward-leaning marks on every consonant. Ogress smash! 01:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK both Irish and Scottish Gaelic use $\langle\rangle$ and $\langle\rangle$ (AFAIK $\langle\rangle$ is used only in narrow phonetic transcriptions, only by some authors) in the standard way. In Irish, at least, is phonetically  before unrounded vowels, and  before rounded vowels, while  is phonetically  (for sources, see Irish phonology). So it is just the approximant that is omitted in transcriptions, the velarization/palatalization is still there (at least according to the page I've just linked to). It is probably similar in Scottish Gaelic. Peter238 (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of Gaelic phonology, but Gaelicists use angled apostrophes to mark "slender" and "broad" ($\langle\rangle$ and $\langle\rangle$) consonants, not IPA. Ogress smash! 06:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, good to know. Thanks! Peter238 (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for not undoing my changes without considerations!!! ZH8000 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh... you're welcome, but I don't understand. Is that a sarcasm or what? Peter238 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

General American
Do people use that many socks when they don't get their way? I am frankly astounded at the number of times that fellow has reverted the same edit. Tharthan (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He probably has some kind of mental illness, but that's obviously not an excuse. Peter238 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Jkrdsr SPI
It looks we've both reported them at the same time; see Sockpuppet investigations/Jkrdsr. What should we do? Alakzi (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My report contains more potential sockpuppets. I think you can just remove your report without any problems. Peter238 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've redirected mine to yours. Thanks. Alakzi (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Always happy to help. Peter238 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you two! LOL! Sockpuppet investigations/NeilN --Neil N  talk to me 17:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh jolly good. Where's an admin when you need one? Alakzi (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Crazy vandal blocked. The fun of reverting is over :P Peter238 (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

French phonology
Hi,

(I am a representative of 78.194.41.67 (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_phonology&type=revision&diff=661727377&oldid=661727005))

Thank you for your correction. However, the schwa is not a phoneme "in French". cf. UPCID FRENCH : http://web.phonetik.uni-frankfurt.de/L/L2010.html

Or, did you find a minimal pair that opposes /œ/ and /ə/ (schwa) in French? Satië.75ter (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please sign your messages. It's not my job to do that. Schwa is not a phoneme only for some speakers. French phonology reads as follows: "(...) Furthermore, this merger occurs mainly in French as spoken in France; in Quebec, and  are distinguished." It cites  as the source. Peter238 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)