User talk:Aeusoes1/Archive 1

The following is an archive of debate between various editors of Wikipedia and User:Aeusoes1 regarding the awful things he's done on Wikipedia. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on AE's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Archives

July 2005-Oct. 2006 next →

Welcome

Hello Aeusoes1/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved these exchanges back to the Damao section of Talk:Portuguese_Creole where it belongs. Regards. WikiSceptic 08:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeusoes,

Can you support Ў being used as a syllable onset in Belorusian? If not, we shouldn't go with IPA [w].

Thanks, kwami 23:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on the talk page. Regards. WikiSceptic 12:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been moved to the appropriate Talk page where others may contribute to the discussion. AEuSoes1 20:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aeusoes1 wrote: I noticed your inclusion of an external link in the Japanese section of non-native pronunciations of English. It seems redundant to me to have such a link when there is one provided for all languages at the bottom. Do you have something in mind that would imply we ought to do the same for all the languages or should we remove it and allow readers to find the language themselves at the bottom?AEuSoes1 03:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aeusoes1,

Thanks for the note about Japanese accent. I was unaware of the link at the bottom when I added a related link in the Japanese accent section. The latter goes directly to Japanese speakers, so it provides an advantage for people interested in that topic specifically, but I agree that the link at the bottom covers the topic. This makes it clearly a judgement call and I'll be content whichever way you call it. Thanks for asking!

Fg2 03:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AE, thanks for bringing it to me. Before editing Romanian phonology I had checked if the IPA article didn't have such a diacritic, but I couldn't find anything on non-syllabic vowels. Now I see things changed.

"Heart and soul"? :-)

At that time I was looking for a way to make the distinction between vowels and semivowels as visible as possible, because the difference is not just phonetically obvious, but also phonological. Not having much at hand (not even a standardized way in Romanian literature) I opted for ěa ǐa ǒa ǔa. Your solution is of course the best as much as standardization is concerned. However, I don't know if that arch is visible enough. Look at these examples: e̯a i̯a o̯a u̯a. At least on my computer (hi-res, IE/Win) the arch is reduced to a thin short horizonal line below the letter, and in the case of i it's not even centered, so it looks like a kind of liaison symbol connecting it to the previous letter: mi̯au̯ (a cat's meow in Romanian). I see the IPA article has larger fonts for increased visibility, but this can't be done everywhere.

I'm not against editing the article on Romanian phonology, on the contrary, I had actually started fixing those symbols myself after I got your message, until I noticed they looked much worse than I expected. I would say that at present, for the sake of clarity, we had better leave it as it is. As soon as technology improves I will agree with using standardized symbols. --AdiJapan 08:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeusoes,

As for Russian consonants being velarized, that was certainly always my impression, and it's the standard description. However, SOWL under velarization on p. 361 says,

The set of Russian palatalized ('soft') sounds is often said to be opposed to a set of velarized consonants, but a study of the available x-rays of the articulations in question suggests that the term velarized may be appropriate only for the laterals.

Not a call I can make on my own. kwami 09:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like this: ĕ ĭ ŏ ŭ? Hmmm, you're right, this diacritic is much better designed. But then, it looks pretty much similar to what I used. If you think it's worth making this change everywhere, I'm not stopping you, although I don't see the benefit of doing it. I must also tell you that I have used the same symbols (ě ǐ ǒ ǔ) in other Romania-related articles as well, and it would be quite a challenge to find them all. --AdiJapan 10:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I think the most important thing here is to let the reader know exactly what we're talking about and what convention is used. Everything else is, well, just a shell. --AdiJapan 10:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back from wikibreak. Thanks for your work on the Romanian phonology. Here are the answers to the "oddities" you found in the article:

• /iĭ/: I included it in the diphthong section because of its structure. The phonetic transcription is correct. It is not a long vowel, but a vowel terminated in a semivowel. I'm afraid Omniglot is wrong, the sound /ə/ has nothing to do with the pronunciation of "ii". Actually I have no idea where they took all that stuff from, but I could count as much as 20 mistakes on that single page. No, I'm not kidding. Some of those mistakes are pretty childish, or simple typos, so all I can say is that in what concerns Romanian the information Omniglot provides is totally unprofessional. My advice is to ignore it completely.

• You were right about ceainic, the pronunciation is /'ʧĕaĭ.nik/ and I just corrected it.

• Yes, there are two ways of saying undershirt. The version maiou comes directly from the French maillot and is pronounced much like in French with the addition of a semivocalic /ŭ/ at the end; this pronunciation is considered by some to be overcorrect, but is indeed used. The other one, maieu, is the more usual pronunciation.

• The story about the /ʲ/ is actually much longer. The actual pronunciation is in many cases a palatalisation of the previous consonant, but not always. Since the article is about phonology and not phonetics, I considered the perception of this sound to be more important than the actual articulation. This /ʲ/ is perceived as a vowel (although a non-syllabic one) and for this reason it is written as such. You may want to read this quite long PDF [1] mostly on Romanian grammar, but which also has some information about the Romanian phonetics and phonology (page 16). --AdiJapan 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AE, I replied you here: Talk:Romanian phonology. Cheers. --AdiJapan 10:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I moved that fact about the formation of a pidgin onto the Pidgin page?--ikiroid | (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it has to be in only one place I guess it's more appropriate in the pidgin article, but I don't see why it can't be in both. AEuSoes1 23:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my idea is to put a link to Pidgin in the section on "Development of a Creole." How's that sound? It will help people see more into the stages of language development. I'll keep it in the creole page too though.--ikiroid | (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the policy, and it says that "Further Reading" is for media not used as a source in the article. However, this resource is used in the article, in Development of a Creole Language:

• Keith Whinnom (in Hymes 1971) suggests that pidgins need three languages to form, with one (the superstrate) being clearly dominant over the others.

So it is used in the article, therefore, it belongs in references.--ikiroid | (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I suppose that does count as being used. I put it as further reading for the other parts of the book. I only know what Whinnom argued because of another book I read that used it as a source. So it's pretty indirect. AEuSoes1 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very indirect, nevertheless, it still belongs. Thanks for understanding.--ikiroid | (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeusoes,

Can you support [ʌ] being in GA? I don't mean just s.o. using that symbol, but say a formant chart that shows it's a back rather than central vowel? In L.A., which is pretty close to general GA, it's definitely central, but of course it could well be a back vowel in other dialects. kwami 06:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Romanian phonology you reverted the Unicode symbols to their HTML codes. Did you have a particular reason for that? As far as I can see Cmdrjameson's edit was useful. The page looks identical with HTML entities and Unicode, but for an editor it's always better to actually see those symbols in the edit box. — AdiJapan ☎ 07:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I have two concerns:

1. I want the four Romanian semivowels to have a uniform notation, and I thought that vowel plus diacritic was the best idea. I still think it is. But I agree that [j] and [w] are far better known than any other notation of those two semivowels, so what I want is not so important.
2. Any diacritic we may choose to use will have to be graphically clear. At least on my computer the diacritic for nonsyllabic vowels (the small circumflex below the letter) looks like a short underline at normal font size and can easily be overlooked, because underlining can mean just about anything. I'm using IE on Windows, that is, just what more than 80% of the readers worldwide use.

If you find a way to address these points (at least the second) then I agree with changing. As it is you can replace semivocalic i and u with j and w if you want, but I suggest keeping e and o with very visible diacritics.

I'm not sure why you say switching is easier with HTML codes. Just about any good editor can do the replacement on Unicode symbols as well. — AdiJapan ☎ 11:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a little problem. In the meantime I talked with Kwami (see on his talk page here [2]) about the difference between semivowel [u̯] and approximant [w] and it appears that they are not the same thing. I've also been looking for information on what phoneticians say about Romanian semivowels/approximants and although I didn't find much yet -- I'm still waiting for some emails from people I asked -- I know this one thing for sure: Romanian diphthongs are considered to consist of a vowel and a semivowel. This pretty much says it all: those sounds are semivowels, not consonants. Now only part of phoneticians see a clear difference between semivowels and similarly sounding consonants. For those who really care I think we should have the right symbols, that is, vowel symbols with an arch below, or something like that, instead of [w] and [j].

In English there is a difference in the articulation of ascending and descending diphthongs. For example in cow and wack are pronounced with a different kind of [u]-like sound. Kwami's example goes on the same line. That difference doesn't exist in Romanian. For example "mai am" (I still have) and "caiac" (kayak) are pronounced with exactly the same semivowel, despite the fact that it belongs to the first syllable in the first example, and to the second in the other.

Note: I see that article Semivowel uses the arch for semivowels, and it even mentions two languages with semivowels deriving from mid-vowels [e] and [o], just like in Romanian.

Frankly I don't know which is the best solution. In a nutshell, all Romanian diphthongs and triphthongs can be analyzed as sequences of vowels and semivowels, the problem being how to write phonetically those four semivowels. I thought using the reversed caret or the breve was good enough if an explanation is given about what it means. The problem is that Wikipedia should be uniform in symbols. Then if you use the arch for semivowels you have (or I have) problems with displaying them correctly, especially with i. — AdiJapan ☎ 10:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick comments. 1. The word 'semivowel' is often used to mean a vowel-like approximant such as [j] or [w], so you have to know what your author means. 2. It's always nice to be consistant in notation. However, convenience or readability may be an overriding factor. The symbols <j> and <w> are often used for [i̯] and [u̯]. (Of course, many linguists will say there's no difference.) kwami 12:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are [w] and [u̯] ever phonemically different in any language? If not, then the ditinction is surely irrelevant; and in any case, if both are included within the same phoneme, then the choice would be arbitrary. Inicidentally, the argument that Vu̯V is distinct from VwV because of different syllables may suffer from the IPA option of writing them as Vu̯.V or similar. --Nema Fakei 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edits in the Serbian section of non-native pronunciations of English. I was wondering if you could provide the actual Serbian words for "some" or "one" and "that". Also, the page is missing anything on Croatian and Bosnian. Do you think that the three languages are similar enough to go under the same category? AEuSoes1 20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding translations (all gender specific):

* some - neki/neka/neko, cyrillic: неки/нека/неко

* one - jedan/jedna/jedno, cyrillic: један/једна/једно

* that - taj/ta/to, cyrillic: тај/та/то

Regarding Croatian, Bosnian and other of the same family: the situation is essentially the same as "languages" basically differ mostly accent and some slang. I was thinking about puting this in there, but I did not want to get involved in the tricky business of dealing with differing beliefs as to whether these are or are not the same language.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your new question at my talk page. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again ... --Aleksandar Šušnjar 02:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, that's whom. --Ptcamn 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am serious when I put extra spaces withing the slashes for IPA. I use mozilla browser and the IPA characters are never clear, and tend to merge with the neighboring slashes. Note that IPA characters are made by slightly modifying Roman charactes, and their bottom right tend to merge with a slash. eg., /ɰ/. /ʈ/, /ɖ/, /rˌ/, etc. Cygnus_hansa 11:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeusoes,

The idea of frequency of use you're marking for fact check in the grammaticalization article is basic to the concept and can be found in any introduction to the subject. Check the refs at the bottom of the page. I'll leave in the fact check for acquisition of honorifics, though this should be easy enough to do. kwami 08:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article that you work so often on, Anglophone pronunciation of foreign languages, it is stated that o is fronted to [ɵ] between two palatized consonants, while in Russian phonology, it is stated that it is fronted to [ø]. Do you know which it is?

Thanks for teaching me how to do the IPA things by the way. BirdValiant 00:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would agree that it would be a middle vowel. It'd have to move a long way to be fronted. BirdValiant 00:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How'd you verify that it's [ɵ]? And when is [ɑ] used? That was quite the large edit, not that that's bad. BirdValiant 15:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it sound like /æi/ (to me, I'm Australia) to me? The article is suggesting that Canadian rasing turns /ai/ into dipthong like the broad Australian prounciation of the i in machine (also transcribed as /ɘi/) and to me they sound quite different. Myrtone@Aeusoes1.com.au

"Are you saying that Australian way and Canadian why sound exactly the same to you?" Does Canadian rasing apply to the the word 'why?' Myrtone@Aeusoes1.com.au

To my knowledge, Canadian rasing only applies before a voicless consonant within a morpheme, and never when on vowels in the final position, even if followed by an initial voicless consonant. Your exapmle is still not perfect becuase of speakers that pronounce /wh/ differently. Thus 'which' and 'witch' are homophones for nearly all Australias, but for many (especially older) Canadians (as with some Americans, Irish, and Scots) they are minimal pairs, right? But having said that, Leonard Cohen's pronouncation of the vowel in '(k)night' does sound like "our" pronounation of 'hate' but with an 'n' in place of 'h'. Myrtone@Aeusoes1.com.au

I wonder where this convention can be found, the link is dead. And what is the rationale of this, anyway? I thought that linking to the appropriate page of a single IPA symbol would help the reader to find out how to pronounce it. Andreas 22:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A normal link is a problem, because the underline interfers with legibility. But that can be suppressed. I don't know about not linking at all. kwami 02:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also wondering why this sudden forceful delinking is taking place in many articles, destroying a lot of work by other people. It was in my view always helpful for single IPA symbols to have a link to a more expanded explanation. Could you please stop doing this until we had a proper discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(pronunciation)#Linking_single_IPA_symbols −Woodstone 16:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said you've 'never heard that' in the edit summary on California English - I'm curious though, because I've never associated it with California at all. When I was in class once, a guy had just given a presentation and the teacher asked if he'd had any Southern heritage. Turns out his dad was from Texas, and the English professor explained about how people from the South can't audibly distinguish between pin and pen. That's a foreign notion to me, because the two are distinctly separate when I say them; then again, I had only barely picked up on his using the merger when he gave his presentation. Could it be that the existence in California at all is due to influences from other areas? Moulder 06:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But thank you more for cleaning up the IPA links in the Quebec French article! CJ Withers 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a California Wikipedian, you may be interested in the California WikiProject (and/or one of its 'daughter' Wikiprojects on Southern California, Santa Barbara County, California State Highways and California County Routes). Please take a look at the WikiProject to see if there is anything that interests you. If you have any comments or questions, feel free to contact me. If enough people express an interest, it would also be very easy to create additional daughter WikiProjects, such as a Northern California WikiProject or a California Politics WikiProject.

It has also more than seven months since the 2nd Los Angeles area Wikipedia meetup ([ 26 September]] 2005), so it is time for another one. There have also been California meetups in San Diego (18 October 2005) and a very small one in Santa Barbara (8 April 2006. It's also about time that the Bay Area gets its first Meetup if anyone is willing to organize it. ^BlankVerse 05:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that "on" had all but conquered "nous" in usage of parisian and quebecois french. I've never heard Cajun french, and in the book The Power of Babel McWhorter talks about how the usage of "nous" in France immediately isolates you as an inexperienced speaker. Where did you hear that it was only Cajun?-- The ikiroid  18:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though I am in error. I had read the Cajun French article a while ago and recalled it comparing the dialect with Parisian french. Upon a second look, I can see that it mentions that using on for nous is more widespread. In addition, looking at the page on French personal pronouns (who knew there was such a page?!) it seems that on can be used instead of nous but it is a bit more complex; complex enough that I would be surprised if speakers didn't have difficulty with it.

I'm still going to need more to indicate that written French is "awkward when spoken" though. AEuSoes1 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding....I didn't even know that article on pronouns even existed! I do appreciate that you fixed your own edit, though. There are a lot of stubborn editors that would have done otherwise. I'm sorry if I came off as confrontational about the whole thing. Have a good one!-- The ikiroid  01:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Regarding your recent edit to Pidgin, I agree that A pidgin is the mother tongue of no one was entirely redundant, but I was wondering what was wrong with 'learnt'? It's not incorrect, informal or ambiguous. garik 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Sorry it's taken an awfully long time for a reply. If you can point me to sources that illustrate the allophony, I'd be happy to update it. IceKarmaॐ 08:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeusos1. I saw you added square brackets to some of the Chukchi terms in Chukchi language, i.e. [ɬəɣʔorawətɬʔan] etc. These transcriptions are phonemes, not (allo)phones, which means that they should be /ɬəɣʔorawətɬʔan/. But I don't much like doing the latter in an encyclopaedia, since I don't think it would be clear to somebody who didn't already know that '/' was a bracket, rather than some sound or other. Italics would be the best choice, e.g. ɬəɣʔorawətɬʔan, but that looks horrible because unicode fonts often don't have italic glyphs. My preferences would be:

• go back to the plain form ɬəɣʔorawətɬʔan
• use the correct form /ɬəɣʔorawətɬʔan/

But I don't think we should use the incorrect form [ɬəɣʔorawətɬʔan]. Cheers, --Ngio 06:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're right that /ks/ isn't an affricate--sorry about that. Franz is saying that it's a separate phoneme, though, as far as I can tell. I'll see if I can find a source that's more unequivical. If it is a separate phoneme, though, it should definitely be mentioned somewhere in the article-just not called an "affricate."

Take care, --Red Newt 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/ks/ is never a phoneme. It may be a possible cluster, but I would imagine it's not the only possible one. 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps it's not the only possible cluster, but I imagine there must be some reason for Franz to be treating it as if it were a single phoneme (perhaps it behaves like a phoneme rather than a cluster in morphophonemic alterations, for example). In any case, of course it's a cluster in a phonological sense, but there's nothing that prevents a cluster from being percieved as a single phoneme in some language. A phoneme is a more theoretical thing than a phone is, after all. So I don't see why /ks/, while two separate phones, couldn't be treated by Blackfoot as a single phoneme. Take care, --Red Newt 23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I can think why one would consider /ks/ to be one phoneme is that the latin alphabet has the letter x, while otherwise having letters represent single phonemes. Then, when given the (incorrect) definition of an affricate as a stop + fricative, one is likely to assume that /ks/ is an affricate (I corrected this mistake in a greek phonology page). An affricate is a stop with fricative release and if Franz calls /ks/ an affricate then he isn't much of a phonologist. AEuSoes1 00:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeusoes, I got a question regarding your cleanup of that page. Do you really think that's necessary, or a good idea, to remove the links to the IPA letters? Casual readers may not be familiar with the system, so it might be best to keep them there so people unfamiliar with IPA can get a grip on the pronounciation.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links have an underline that can obscure the IPA characters. In the Interlingua page (and many others like it), the characters were on a table so that if a reader doesn't know what /b/ is they can click on bilabial consonant and they can click on stop consonant. In addition, the page has an IPA warning. AEuSoes1 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...well, neither my FireFox or my Internet Explorer display links with underlines, so I wouldn't know.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for responding so quickly!--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am not sure what is SIL's deal is concerning the number of people who speak a particular language. A handful, that I know of (like Tagalog), of the statistics do not jibe with the Philippines census, the most recent one being in 2000. I don't know what enumeration methods they're using or if they are just guestimating. ¿Quién sabe? Thanks. --Chris S. 05:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Romanian phonology you removed some links to articles on vowels. I definitely consider those links important for the reader who wants to know more about the pronunciation of those vowels.

I saw your argument above, that in some browsers the links are underlined. On one hand I am pretty sure the underlining comes from a setting in that application and is not hardwired, so that can probably be solved. On the other hand, at least in the case of Romanian phonology, the underlining doesn't interfere with other diacritical marks.

Considering the importance of these links in the article, I will put them back. If I missed some other reasons to remove them, please let me know and I'll reconsider. Thanks. — AdiJapan ☎ 05:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take the word bad. The vowel in Farsi is shorter but in English you first open your mouth but end it in a schwa. A lot of English speakers who learned it in their childhood don't notice the second stage that produces this sound notwithstanding their correct replication thereof. Whenever I said bad the way I used to in Farsi, native speaker looked at me as if I had uttered something that wasn't natural to their ears. Later, I started saying bed for bad; this made things a heck of lot worse.

I had no native friends and no one in school ever talked about such nuances. However, one day I came across Pronounce It Perfectly in English (Pronounce It Perfectly in/Book and 3 Audio Cassettes) (Audio Cassette) [3], and finally American Accent Training (American Accent Training) (Audio CD) [4]. My source: The first book has a diagram of the mouth showing the two stages for "æ" as in bad, cat, et cetera.

I live in California.--Patchouli 06:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underlining links is set and reset by users, in their own browser, not in Wikipedia. Until about a year ago (and still in some Wikipedias, like the Spanish one) underlying was permanent at all links. Fortunately this is no longer the case. So if any user complains about links being underlined, tell them to change the respective setting in their browser. I can tell you how this is done in Internet Explorer (although by default there is no forced underlying) and I can also confirm that in Firefox links are only underlined on mouse-over, just as in IE.

So there is no need to affect the functionality of our articles just for the sake of some people who intentionally changed settings in their browsers.

About the strange palatalization marker, yes, it was supposed to be a stress marker. My mistake. In the edit box I only see little boxes, so I must have copied and pasted the wrong thing. Thanks fo telling me. — AdiJapan ☎ 08:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got me wrong: The most common (default) setting in IE is without forced underlining. Do you actually see the links underlined in Wikipedia?!

What you're actually asking is that all links that have letters with diacritics below to be de-linked. I imagine trying to do that in Romanian Wikipedia, where so many words contain ş and ţ. Then why not extend the whole thing to words that contain characters with hooks or lines below the baseline: g, j, p, etc...

Please be sensible. The vast majority of readers don't have the problem you're talking about. Those who do have it must have chosen to force link underlining. — AdiJapan ☎ 16:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny, today all the links in Wikipedia are underlined! I haven't seen this here for about a year... And I very much prefer not having the links underlined.

Okay, I can live with not having the IPA links. Actually in Romanian phonology I think I will insert the links not in the phonetic symbols, but by listing the links with full titles.

You say "the consensus with IPA is to not link it". Can you tell me where the page about such consensus is?

Also you say that phonetic symbols are not usually linked, but look at this table, which appears in all articles about specific consonants:

One more thing, I think I found how to de-underline links. Look at Template:CSS IPA vowel chart, and you will see this: class="nounderlines". — AdiJapan ☎ 17:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new version of that table, with links to the appropriate articles/sections. I inserted it in Romanian phonology.

Oh, by the way, today links in Wikipedia are not underlined. Someone must be playing... — AdiJapan ☎ 06:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Although you maybe are tired of this, you may also be interested. Peter Ladefoged had a comment in Journal of the International Phonetic Association (1990, Vol.2, No.2, pp.24-25) where he argued (following the recent IPA revision) that [h] should be removed from the main consonant chart because it makes [h] appear as a glottal fricative, which he calls a "misnomer". He also disagrees that it should be considered a glottal approximate because it is not glottal but rather is placeless (i.e., unspecified). He recommended that the symbol be called simply "voiceless approximant" and be placed under the "Other symbols" box.

However, see also J. C. Catford's disagreement (pp. 25-26) where he thinks they should stay on the chart for reasons "more phonological and practical than strictly phonetic". He does agree with Ladefoged's phonetic description but notes that /h/ functions as a fricative in certain languages.

Anyway, just some more info & perhaps to convince you a little better that it is ok to classify Lillooet /h/ as an approximant (glide) based on phonological criteria. peace – ishwar  (speak) 19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your comment was an "Aha!" experience. I've been pronouncing that alveolo-palatal [ɕ] sound in Japanese for years and hadn't realized it was the same sound as in my native Romanian!... This says a lot about how big a role the perception plays in phonology.

Now that you pointed out this fact, let me say how I see things:

• /ʃʲ/ is indeed [ɕ], and the same goes for their voiced pairs (/ʒʲ/ → [ʑ]).
• In Romanian, /ʧ/ is always followed by a front vowel (/i/, /e/ or semivowel /j/), so the /ʲ/ doesn't change its already palatal quality. The same for their voiced pairs.
• /h/ has three allophones in Romanian, among which the voiceless palatal fricative [ç], appearing before /i/ and /j/. This is the sound pronounced with /ʲ/. I'm not sure if that's the same with saying it's a voiceless /j/.

I agree with not changing Romanian phonology, especially because we don't have any source to back this up. — AdiJapan ☎ 07:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You seem to be be quite an expert in Russian phonology. I have a word that I'd like to have checked if I got it's phonetical transcription correct. The word is forty-seven or in Russian сорок семь. I read through the various pages on Russian phonology and came up with the almost über-exact form [ˈs̺o̞r̠ək s̺ʲɛ̝mʲ]. Is that correct? — N-true 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you made an edit to GNU. There are some new proposals at Talk:GNU. I thought you might be interested. --Kjoonlee 01:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you're being overly pedantic in changing dialect to rules here. Did you check out any of the references in the article to published work which uses the term "dialects". For example

Vaux, Bert and Andrew Nevins. 2003. Underdetermination in language games: Survey and analysis of Pig Latin dialects. Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Atlanta.

External links Online Survey of Pig Latin Dialects by Bert Vaux and Andrew Nevins with charts of results http://php-dev.imt.uwm.edu/prjs/markj/projects/fll_surveys/piglatin

Or do you argue their usage is incorrect also?62.30.169.183 22:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say their usage is incorrect as well, although I haven't read Vaux and Nevins so if they have some sort of justification of the misuse of the word in their works then I've missed it. definitions of dialect include:

1. a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary and by its use by a group of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially.

pig latin is not a language, and while the differences could be classified as grammar, the differences hardly set anyone apart and certainly not geographically or socially.

1. a provincial, rural, or socially distinct variety of a language that differs from the standard language

pig latin is not a language and the differences are not socially distinct

1. a special variety of a language.

once again, pig latin is not a language

1. a language that is considered part of a group that have a common ancestor.

pig latin is not only not a language, it is an artificial reconstruction and so cannot be grouped with other languages.

1. Jargon or cant

of which, pig latin is neither.

AEuSoes1 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeusoes1,

Around a week ago, I first stumbled across the Russian phonology page, and I found it to be the most helpful page I have ever come across on the subject. However, I see that sometime in the past week or so the page has been updated. I'm really sorry, but I'm very frustrated by this because I find the new version very confusing, less organized, and much more difficult to understand. It makes it much more difficult to learn the phonology this new way, and it seems less accurate than before. I was wondering if you could somehow, if you still had it saved, send me a copy of the old page, before its most recent update. I would be the happiest guy in the world :) My e-mail is [removed for protection] and I am a very new member to wikipedia (just today) so I don't really know anything about how to post things, so e-mail would be the best way to send me the page. Thank you so much for reading this, and I hope you still have the old page! Hammerandanvil 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aeusoes! Thanks for adding IPA to the Reduplication in the Russian language article. I've noted that you requested stress to be added. I'd be glad to help you out (being the native speaker and all), but I am wondering if all of IPA you added is correct. Pronunciation of the Russian words very much depends on the stress, and since you omitted it, some of your IPAfication must be inaccurate. I, unfortunately, am not all that good with IPA as applied to the Russian language to judge what's accurate and what's not. What would be the most convenient way to handle this? I can simply list all Russian words used in the article with stress and have you go through the article again to check whether or not everything is accurate; will that work? Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've just noticed I missed your question at Talk:Reduplication in the Russian language. Feel free to respond there. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering what your reason was for de-linkifying the pronunciation information at Arabic alphabet? (You can reply here.) Ruakh 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put an explanation in my user page. AEuSoes1 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a good explanation, thanks. I think I will relinkify some of the non-obvious ones, though, while taking some sort of anti-underlining measure, if you don't mind. Ruakh 00:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they're not underlined, I'm cool with it. You could always add another column that links to something like voiced pharyngeal fricative and whatnot. AEuSoes1 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is FA Review, on the verge of going into FARC. We wonder whether you're able to help reference the text. Tony 08:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that you say that "letters are not pronounced". What is the correct word to substitute for pronounce/pronunciation when talking about pronunciation of letters?? Georgia guy 01:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a great oen for IPA but the change seems, to my ears, to be off with respect to the second "o". GraemeLeggett 08:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to post messages on the User page rather than the User talk page. Georgia guy 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Shannernanner 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acch! I thought about that after my third removal but I was under the impression that my first edit wasn't a revert. I'll pay better attention next time. AEuSoes1 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -Shannernanner 08:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me. The point of 3RR is to engage in discussion on the talk page rather than in edit summaries, which I have begun doing. AEuSoes1 19:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "harassing" you. You reverted a fourth time within a 24-hour period after having been warned once. -Shannernanner 06:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. Look at the edit times again. I made one error that you already warned me about. Violating the rule is one thing but "coming close" is another. And, considering that you made three reverts within a 20-hour period, the third after warning me, it's sort of hypocritical. I understand where you're coming from, just cool it man. AEuSoes1 07:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second three edit times are "20:04, September 21, 2006;" "00:20, September 22, 2006;" and "19:52, September 22, 2006." That is within a 24-hour period. My violation was an accident, I miscalculated the time, but it was my own fault and so I didn't feel the need to point that out. -Shannernanner 09:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's three edits, not four. Don't tell me I've made 4 edits in 24 hours when I've not. If you're gonna get hung up on a ten-minute miscalculation, don't make any four-hour ones. AEuSoes1 10:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you made four reverts within a 24-hour period. I said you reverted a fourth time within a 24-hour period--you once again violated the three-revert tule. The time doesn't "start over" after the original 24 hours is up, where one can now make three more reverts before again violating the rule. -Shannernanner 10:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it did. "Fourth time within a 24-hour period" means all four were in the 24-hour period. If that's not what you meant then consider a clearer phrase.

This conversation has been fun but if we don't drop it, I swear I'm about to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. AEuSoes1 11:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to explain it again ("more clearly"), or do you want me to "drop it"? -Shannernanner 11:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean now. We're cool. My clock is fixed and one of us is up really early while the other is up really late. AEuSoes1 11:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie. No problem. -Shannernanner 12:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly do you want those stress marks? On every Russian word in the article? Or do you have some specific sections in mind?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. One request, though. If you are going to ask me to do this again in future, could you please not put the stresses in words which you know for sure? I apparently have an incomplete font in my IE, so most of IPA symbols (including the stress mark) look as empty boxes to me in the edit box, so I have to compare what's in the edit box with the a copy of the article to make sure I don't accidentally put the stress mark in twice.

Also, I noticed that in most examples with "-сп+vowel" combinations IPA shows that "с" is soft. Just want to let you know that it's not the case—I, for one, pronounce it hard (in fact, it takes an extra effort for me to pronounce soft "с" in the examples I corrected). I might have missed some, though, so you might want to take a look at this one more time.

Finally, in the word "колонн" the final "-нн" does not sound long.

Hope I've been able to help. Let me know if you need anything else or if you have questions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, man, but you lost me soon after the "Sound Pattern of Russian (1959)" :) I am not a linguist after all, I just speak the language.

I don't speak Moscow dialect, I can tell you that much. Maaaskvaaa-speak does in fact sound very unpleasant and silly to me; so if they palatalize their "с"'s before palatalized "п"'s (I don't quite remember if they do, and don't have a native Muscovite nearby to perform an autopsy on), that must be one of the thousand reasons why. I am originally from the Russian Far East, by the way, if that helps you pinpoint the dialect I am speaking. Sorry that I am not of much help.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I find it incredibly hilarious that you know so much about Russian phonology but don't speak Russian, and that I speak Russian but have no clue about Russian phonology. A perfect team, eh? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link I gave... as well as the ones you provided, lay it out. Do you read the links? Oreskes is a woman. She searched the ISI database for "global climate change" and deleted a handful of articles that didn't actually talk about climate change. Even the Wikipedia article list of scientists opposing global warming consensus states that no scientists have expressed doubt that the Earth is warming. Thicker ice doesn't mean there's more ice when the glaciers are shrinking. I haven't read the study (and I know you haven't) but I believe it has something to do with increased snowfall over the polar caps due to higher precipitation due to warmer temperatures at the lower latitudes. I'm sure the author was angry because the spokesman cited results of the study without qualifying that the author of said study actually came to the opposite conclusion than he was espousing, which is intellectually dishonest at best and more than likely flat out deceptive. Why is saying that climate change will bring undesirable results argumentum ad populum? Or do you mean that mentioning overwhelming consensus in the scientific community? That's actually an appeal to authority and since scientists know what they're talking about and are rigorously peer-reviewed, you're hard-pressed to show that such an appeal is illigitimate.

Nope, I have only read the abstracts of the papers, but saved them for later reading. My "later reading" pile of pdfs and books is getting too big! If you really didn't understand what I meant concerning ad populum, I meant that because there is a majority agreement on AGW, doesn't mean it is the truth. Did I say she was a guy? Hehe. Sorry. I'm sure I mentioned "she" in there too, since I *did* know. Sorry, no conducive input now. Maybe after we read the papers, or something. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)01:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the intonation arrows are important in the IPA transcription of Romanian, because intonation is phonemic. To give just one example, the question Vorbiţi engleza? (Do you speak English?), with an rising intonation, changes its meaning if you pronounce it with a falling intonation and becomes a statement (You speak English.). Also, yes-no questions and wh-questions have different intonations, and I think this too could be interesting for someone who wants to compare Romanian with other languages. Unfortunately at the List of common phrases in various languages only the Romanian and the Japanese sections give information on the intonation. — AdiJapan ☎ 11:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your kind remarks in my page. :-)

I've just noticed that you made a substantial edit to the Uvular consonant page, namely the section on the "Three Uvular Rs". Unfortunately, with all the trimming it's no longer clear which are those three sounds. Perhaps you could take a second look at it. Best regards. FilipeS 22:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]