Jump to content

User talk:Aeusoes1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.4.227.155 (talk) at 22:07, 4 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

IPA

Must you update all my words ?

--84.42.196.104 15:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the pages that you've edited (those on consonants and vowels) have specific table guidelines. I monitor those pages to make sure that they keep with such guidelines. So it has very little to do with you and more to do with those pages. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transliterations

Okay. I wasn't sure why a transcription was given for Chinese and Japanese, but not for Russian, Hindi, Arabic or Greek, so I added it. But I think you're right. I plan to review the example charts for all the other IPA characters in the close future and maybe also to add a few languages here and there. Thanks for telling me. — N-true 15:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verdean Creole phonetics

Hi there, Aeusoes1! I’m sorry to revert your changes in Cape Verdean Creole, but it was necessary. I can even agree with those cool little stuff (like the {{IPA| }} and so on) that you can always insert again, but other things are just wrong:

  1. You have elliminated the [l]. That’s serious!
  2. You have changed the [w] from “labio-velar” to “velar”. A velar approximant is a different sound.
  3. You have put the dentals and the alveolars in the same collumn. They are not the same thing! You can check that in the Santiago dialect some of those consonants are alveolar, and not dental. O. K., you can always say that is a phonetic variation and not different phonemes, but still, the general phoneme in Cape Verdean Creole is dental, that’s why I've chosen to put “dental” in the table. Besides, if the strategy is to join collumns, one should be coherent. In the same way that the dentals and the alveolars were joined, the bilabials and the labiodentals could be put together also, the post-alveolars and the palatals could be put together, and so on. Either we specify or either we simplify!
  4. The tables were meant to show phones rather than phonemes. I can understand why you have put the sounds [r] and [ʁ] between brackets, but among Cape Verdean linguists the phoneme is generally represented by /ʀ/, not by /r/.

I’m not sure if each sound should link to the corresponding article, though. See you!
Ten Islands (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have chosen to simplify rather than specify. Perhaps you want to take a look in the corresponding article in the Portuguese Wikipedia. In the Cape Verdean Creole article I’ve taken the approach of Veiga (Diskrison Strutural di Lingua Kabuverdianu — 1982) in which he has a simplified table (also grouping plosives and affricates). But in the Cape Verdean Creole Phonology article I’ve chosen to take the approach of Tude (Fonética do crioulo cabo-verdiano — 1995) which is much more specified (if I remember correctly, his work is more about phonetics than phonology).
However, I still think that the phoneme /w/ should be grouped with the labials. At least that’s the interpretation of some Cape Verdean Creole schollars.
Ten Islands (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm really not a big fan of putting /w/ with labials because I see the labialization as secondary, but maybe that's my own bias. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

Hey, You seem like an expert on the subject, so I've a question. Anyway that I can self-teach IPA? Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advices (and the quick reply) Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Portuguese

Hi. I see no reason why you couldn't add it to both the Brazilian Portuguese and the Portuguese phonology articles (and perhaps to Portuguese dialects, as well), in the External Links section. You could try to send me an e-mail, though I seem to be having problems with e-mails. I tried to e-mail another Wikipedian several times, but it doesn't seem to have got through... Thanks and happy holidays. FilipeS (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just thought i'd ask

Hey I Don't know you, but somehow I came upon your user page (through reference desk, you answered a question in the language section). I noticed you are an English major. I am a senior in high school and I am writing my college essays. Would be interested in proofreading one of them (prompt: literature work that influenced you)? I would appreciate it, especially since this request is out of the blue. email me [email address removed]

--n1yaNt 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeusoes1, why did you delete Manner of articulation from retroflexes in the Sanskrit article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimov (talkcontribs) 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please look at the first 2 paragraphs of the following page: http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tutorial_wikner/P003.html. It seems to me, it clearly recommends to articulate the retroflexes as apical palatal and apical dental approximants.
Do you think it's not correct?
--Klimov (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... You don't like the source. That I do understand.
I am curious why you don't like the introductory.
Could you recommend a better one that describes in detail the Sanskrit manner of articulation?
Also, why did you just delete the info and didn't change to what you consider to be correct?
--Klimov (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

I'd have merged the other direction. International Phonetic Alphabet for English is actually laid out like an encyclopedia article and is fairly easy to read. IPA chart for English is very "table-y" and has largely been supplanted in its original function by Help:Pronunciation. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 08:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

Dear Aeuoes1,

I saw you had reverted my edition on Spanish orthography article. I think it is not too correct linking articles from other language Wikipedias which are not about exactly the same topic. Spanish ortography are the academical rules for Spanish writing and not the alphabet and pronunciation. In Hungarian Wikipedia, a robot always puts a lot of wrong iw links into my article about Spanish ortography (because in the English version it's wrong) and they are linking to articles about "Spanish Alphabet" (but not Spanish orthography), while for "Spanish Alphabet" we have an own, separated article. That's why I always have to revert robot iw editions on my article in hu-wiki. Could you please help me how to solve the problem, then? Thank you very much in advance and happy new year. --TheMexican (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, let's see what will robots do now. One more pleasure, could you please add the other "Spanish alphabet" iw's to hu:Spanyol ábécé? Thank you. --TheMexican (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we misunderstood each other, the Hungarian Spanish ortography has a part for the alphabet as well, but it has an own "main article", so you needn't double-link to the Hungarian iw :) What I asked you was to put the iw's related to the "Spanish alphabet" into the Hungarian "Spanyol ábécé" article, because I don't remember which they were. I'm sorry for making such trouble. --TheMexican (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ligatures are not standard IPA practice

Is there no phonetic difference then between an affricate consonant and a plosive followed by a fricative? Dan Pelleg (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General American

FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against WIkipedia POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from WIkipedia anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you!