User talk:Luizdl

Welcome!

Hello Luizdl, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Universal Church of the Kingdom of God

Talk:Universal Church of the Kingdom of God Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skip to TOC template

Not for anything, Luizdl, but I notice that you rm'd the Skip to TOC template I recently installed on the Brazil talk page. I've actually installed this template on hundreds of talk pages to aid those editors who already know what all those banners are about and who want to get to the TOC quickly with just a "click" of their mouse. So I'm just curious about why you chose to remove it?
— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 05:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Luizdl, we all make mistakes, and I've made some whoppers in my day. Thank you very much for reinstating the template, and best of everything to you and yours!

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 01:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

Luiz, are you following the discussion about the history section on the article about Brazil? ---Lecen (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read this. But read it carefully.

If the problem was something like "Editor A says that history fact happened in X way according to some sources" and "Editor B says that history fact happened in Y way according to other sources" we could try to find a solution. But that´s not the problem. I have improved the original text by adding reliable sources and removing wrong information. All is in there, as I explained carefully. Opinoso, however, disagrees. To prove his point he used sources and created information that his sources did not tell. In other words, he faked information, once again, damaging Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable enciclopaedia. This is not the first time that he does that. What is happening is not a legitimate disagreement between to parties, but an editor that is faking information to prove his personal opinions. All you have to do is see the links I put it and you will understand. I need you to pick a history version: the one with fake and wrong info or the one that I improved with reliable sources taken from renowned historians. If you don´t believe on me, please read it. --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you don´t need to be an expert in history to help. We are trying to settle the matter in the article about Brazil once and for all. Take a look at the 10 points settlement. I do really recommend you to read carefully the other editor's opinions also. This 10 points method is more simples and faster than having to read the discussion page discussion all over it again. I must also warn you (to be careful) that some of the passages in dispute have already been proved that they have no basis on its own sources (that is, they were fabricated). - --Lecen (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brown in Brazil

Luiz, you must understand first that there is a source in the text that says that Pardo is a multiracial category that includes Cafuzos, Caboclos and Mulattoes. In English, Brown means only someone who is "mulatto". And also, the Aurélio is talking about the colour, not the ethinic category. Read the text first, see the source before undoing it. And if you don't like it for any reason, create a discussion thread. You can not simply erase something that is sourced and that's it. When I made the changes into the history subsection, I was careful to make a long discussion about it, trying to convince everyone one by one before undoing something. Please, be reasonable. I'm counting on you. - --Lecen (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardo means Brown, not multiracial. The multiracial thing is personal theory. Opinoso (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz, the descendants of Whites and Asians are not treated as Pardos. They are usually kept on their Asian categories. Look, just be reasonable. That is all I ask from you. Do not fall under Opinoso's influence. - --Lecen (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to influence anyone. People are intelligent enough to have their own opinions. Opinoso (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz, do whatever you want. Feel free. If you want to believe that 85% of the population of the north and northeast are blacks and 40% of the southeast are black. Well, can't do anything about it. The remaining 15% and 60% must be whites, mullatoes, caboclos and whatever. And well, Pardo must be Brown, after all, they are all blacks. Sorry, man, nothing against you. I am just tired of this Opinoso. Seriously, do as you believe its it the best. I won't discuss it anymore. - --Lecen (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, we use sources here, not personal beliefs. Be carefull with neutrality. Opinoso (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz, about the "Pardo" or "Brown" issue: As you may know, pardo in plain English means "Brown". However, in English a Brown person is someone who is a half-breed of a White and a Black only. In Brazil, Pardo is a much broader category that includes also the Caboclo, Mulatto and Cafuzo people. That is not the only case where a simple translation of a word can happen: in Brazil, "mestiço" is used to refer to any kind of half-breed. In Spanish-America, "mestizo" is used to refer to the White and Indian offsprings. And more: a Pardo in Northern or Northeastern Brazil is almost always a caboclo (with some exceptions such as in Bahia and Maranhão where there are many mulattoes) while a Pardo in Rio de Janeiro will probably be a Mulatto. So, Pardo can not be considered in English Wikipedia simply as "brown", but instead, as "multiracial", as it has many different sub-ethinic groups. I reverted your edit because it was previously sourced. You should had had opened a discussion thread first, before simply changing it. I hope we can settle on this peacefully, because I know that neither you or me are here to "win" or to "fight". Regards, - --Lecen (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen does not use sources. He uses his personal beliefs about the subjects. The "Caboclo majority" in Northeastern Brazil is a theory created by him, not supported by his source, the Barsa. Everybody knows that Northeastern Brazil was a place of African slaves, and their descendants are still there, they did not "disappear". Lecen is trying to re-write the history of Brazil. Opinoso (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz, I can't continue our conversation if there is a third party involved. Please, have some patience, we will talk more about it in an apropriate moment. First, I have to deal with Opinoso. Anyway, don't worry, we are going to settle this matter. Regards, - --Lecen (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz, I hope you do not consider it rude, but what you told me is nothing more than your personal opinion about the matter. Not how experts see it. I am backed by professional in this field, as you can see in here. Read it carefully. You saw my work in the history section. You should know by now that I do a serious work in here. Everything I do is based on the best researchers of each field. --Lecen (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is written Brown everywhere because it was Opinoso who did it. Anyone knows that anything related to ethnics in here he is involved. And all fo them unsourced. Pardo is not the same thing as Brown in English nor Mestiço is the same as Mestizo in Spanish. The first is related to White and Black offsprings only. The second to White and Indian offsprings only. You can not simply translate a word and believe that it has the same meaning. Did you at least bother to read the link I sent you? - --Lecen (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Brazilians

Could you please take a look at this?...

[1] Ninguém (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Brazil

Luizdl, could you please take a look in here and give your opinion about it? Thank you very much. The editor Rahlgd insists on adding information about projects that did not begin to be developed yet and are nothing more than plans. --Lecen (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership in article Brazil

Hello. The article Brazil has several issues, the main one is the fact that it's simply huge and overly detailed. In accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and taking as model other Featured class articles such as Canada, India and Peru as I explained in here. As I made the changes, I explained carefully why and where I made them such as in here.

However, editor Rahlgd reverted all with no explanation at all as it can be seen in here. He is the only one who can edit the article without being reverted. Just see the history log in it. Also, this is not the first time he reverts an edit.

His behavior is clearly ownership. Please, help us. --Lecen (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sobre os ditongos nasais no pt-br.

Olá, Luizdl!

Você poderia me citar alguma fonte onde haja a informação sobre a existência do ditongo nasal / ẽɪ̯̃ / somente em sílaba final?

Vou continuar na minha pesquisa sobre o tema, afinal nosso objetivo é tornar a Wikipédia o mais verossímil possível.

Saudações, caro colega!

Aramaicus (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Você pode observar que em todas as transcrições em nível acadêmico que você achar, o em e en sempre é monotongo em posições não finais, ditongo em posições finais tônicas, e variavelmente monotonga e ditonga em posições finais átonas, como no caso de homem [õmẽ ȷ̃ ~ õmi]. Mas o ditongo /ej/ pode ser nasalizado no Brasil quando antecedido por uma consoante nasal, como em contêiner [cõⁿˈtẽ ȷ̃neɾ], você nunca verá numa transcrição um /ẽ ȷ̃/ em palavras como Embraer, ou pelo menos nunca vi este tipo de transcrição (além da tua) e nem nunca ouvi alguém falar assim.--Luizdl (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Na minha pesquisa até encontrei /ẽ ȷ̃/ em posição não final; mas, nesses caso, ocorre junção de duas palavas numa só, ocorrendo o ditongo nasal no final da primeira palavra (por exemplo: Bencanta, Benfeito, Benfica, benquisto). Sendo assim, a sua trasncrição segue como correta.

Saudações, caro colega!

--Aramaicus (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Itaipu Dam

Hello Luizdl. With regard to your recent edit, I am afraid that the IP is right; Itapiu is obviously no longer the largest hydroelectric dam in the world. The reference which claims that it is, is apparently outdated, as it was retrieved way back in May 2006. You may find additional references and articles on this fact here, here or here. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Itaupu is not the largest in installed generating capacity, but according to what is being said in the article Three Gorges Dam, in the section Total generating capacitythe annual generation of electricity will be of 100 TWh when it be complete, while the annual generation of Itaipu (2009) is 91.6 TWh and of the The Gorges (2009) is 79.4 TWh[2], so the Itaipu is still the dam with higher production of electricity.--Luizdl (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am sorry, I must have missed that part. Thanks for pointing out

. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have bananas (Sí, nosotros tenemos bananas in Portuguese).

Cê num sabe não? No Brasil tem 30 milhões de italianos, 15 milhões de espanhóis, 12 milhões de árabes, 18 milhões de alemães, e pelo visto brasileiro não tem nenhum. Se vc não sabe, a página sobre Spanish Language até faz parte do Projeto Brasil. É a desinformação organizada. Ninguém (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of exorcists

The article List of exorcists has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The criterion for exorcist stated here includes every priest prior to the Second Vatican Council. This is not a notable criterion for a list. A new criterion should be established or the list should be deleted

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Pronunciation of Rio

I don't mind your edits at all; [xiu] is perfectly legitimate. The only minor problem here is that what the articles give now strays a bit further from what is given in the footnoted source. Before, the only difference was that I retained ɾ in preference to Larousse's less precise r, which in practice meant ɾ. But the only reason I'm writing here at all is because your edit summary was phrased as a question. I thought I owed you an answer, which is that Larousse gives [xiw] not only in the context of Rio de Janeiro but also for the common noun rio (and other proper nouns e.g. Rio da Prata [ˌxiwdaˈprata]).

I would point out that, since the articles claim to give "local" pronunciation, what is given by Larousse is better than the great Dicionário Aurélio insofar as the latter (I assume) does not claim (as Larousse does) to follow the speech of Rio de Janeiro in its pronunciations. However, it is pretty difficult to distinguish [iu] and [iw] in practice, so I doubt this is really an issue of dialect. I certainly don't mean to suggest that Cariocas do not (still less, must not) ever pronounce Rio with two syllables! If these considerations change your thinking, feel free to change the articles; otherwise, they are fine (with me) as they are. Cheers, Wareh (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original pronunciation of the word rio is with a hiatus, but this word has a synaeresis tendency in most of Brazil, so both pronunciation are common in Rio, the pronunciation as a diphthong is more common in relaxed pronunciation, it seems that the Larousse shows a pronunciation with synaeresis.--Luizdl (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! Wareh (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IPA for Portuguese and Galician

I see what you mean now. I'd like to see a source for the following information though: "But in Brazil, at final unstressed position, it is an /a/ which raises in complementary distribution, and its height varies among [ə ~ ɐ ~ a] according to the dialect and the speech rate, being [ə] in relaxed pronunciation but generally (and not always) [a] when singing. (e.g. cama may indeed be pronounced [ˈkəmɐ ~ ˈkə̃mɐ] in Brazil)."

From what I've read /ɐ/ in Portugal is higher than /ɐ/ in Brazil, so when it said "Portuguese /ɐ/ is close to [ə]", I thought it was referring to the /ɐ/ in Portugal, as this chart shows. If you look at the Brazilian vowel chart, you can see that /ɐ/ is more open than in Portugal. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's referring to the /a/ at final unstressed position.Luizdl (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cagliari 1981 p. 50 identifies the first "a" in cama as being close to an [ə] too, a bit higher than [ɜ], you can verify downloading the book as pdf at http://cutter.unicamp.br/document/?code=000047333 , must make register, if you don't want to make a register there I uploaded the file at 4shared.com/document/NqmOS7g0/CagliariLuizCarlos_LD.html

About the Barbosa Plínio works (author of Brazilian vowel chart), he consider that BP does not possess phonemic nasal vowels, but according to him, the nasal vowels are sequences of a oral vowel preceded by a consonantal nasal mora which nasalises the vowel, and the others sequences of stressed vowels preceding nasal consonants, according to him, assimilates the nasality in the same process that happens with the nasal mora, and also closes the vowel, the nasal /ɐ̃/ is always central in BP, probably it's for that he did not included this vowel at that chart, but only the /a/ at final unstressed positions. His vision is contested by many linguists who says that BP has two different kind of vowels, the true nasal and the assimilated.

Also, in many southeastern dialects, the stressed "a" preceded by a nasal consonant is not always nasal, but varies between oral and nasal in free variation, the BP is considered to have 7 vowels instead of 8 because this central "a" happens only when preceded a nasal consonant, so it is not phonemic, I would say that it could be phonemic with the pairs rush and rache, but I still not found a source that supports its phonemicity.--Luizdl (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'brigado :-) 208.104.45.20 (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

de nada.--Luizdl (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking pronunciations

Could you check the accuracy of phonetic transcriptions for Maria João Pires (Portuguese) and Ricardo Teixeira (Brazilian)? Thank you! 83.170.111.185 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)M.[reply]

Hm. I see you chose [ʒuˈɐw̃], but that can't be right, can it? There are several issues: if ã is accented, then it can't be [ɐ], can it? Second, if we decide to use [a], then it's [ãw], with the vowel nasalized and not the semivowel, although, yes, some add the tilda above both symbols. Third, is this word monosyllabic? If so, then there is no need for the primary stress symbol and we need to decide whether it's [ʒu̯ãu̯], [ʒu̯ãw] or [ʒwãw]. I guess, if we use the Portuguese phonology as the standard, it should be [ʒwãw]. And then, we must decide, several websites contradict each other on this, whether the Portuguese end it on a [s] or [ʃ]!

I don't know how the diacritic is being rendered in your browser, but the tilde is already over the vowel, although both the vowel and semivowel are nasal, but at Wikipedia talk:IPA for Portuguese it was decided to not use the nasal diacritic over the semivowel for avoid much phonetic detail and for aesthetic reason. About he highness of the vowel, all the 5 nasal vowels in Portuguese has the same highness of the "closed version" of the Portuguese oral vowels. João has two syllables.--Luizdl (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the coda /s/, it is pronounced as [s] in most (but not in everywhere) of Brazil, but in Portugal it is mostly pronunced as [ʃ].--Luizdl (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Botagogo, Santos, Corinthians, etc.

I see we agree on the these pages, but keep getting reverted by Strawberry on Vanilla. I have tried in vain to get a response, but (s)he will not explain the reversions. I'm at a loss for the best way to proceed—I don't want to start a revert war. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

There is a user reverting some of our editions at WP:IPA for Portuguese, could you intervene? Thanks Jɑυмe (xarrades) 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese language

Sim, você está certo. Não é preciso indicar a nasalização fonética.

Antes eu estava a perguntar-me sobre a pronúncia local do termo "português" no Estado de Minas Gerais. Eu não entendo muito bem o senso do parêntese na transcrição [poχ(h)tuˈges]. Poderia me esclarecer isso?

Obrigado. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 02:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Também não entendi o que tentaram transcrever, acredito que quem fez esta transcrição, ou queria informar que varia entre glotal e uvular, ou queria dizer que começa uvular e pode terminar glotal, mas não sei ao certo.--Luizdl (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sim, é ambíguo. Também queria perguntar-lhe outra coisa...

Você sabe, mais ou menos, em quê falas do Brasil é possível a elisão do [ʁ ~ ɾ] final?

Por exemplo; nesta canção, a cantora não pronuncia o <r> no fim das palavras: 'crescer' [kɾeˈse], 'quitar' [kiˈta], 'trazer' [tɾaˈze]... Enquanto noutros casos ocorre sensibilização (principalmente quando a palavra seguinte começa por vogal): 'ficar ao léu' [fiˈkaɾ aʊ̯ ˈlɛʊ̯], 'batalhar o pão' [bataˈʎaɾ ʊ ˈpɐ̃ʊ̯̃].

Parece-me um processo muito interessante. É um fenómeno muito estendido no Brasil, é comum na lírica brasileria? É aceita esta pronúncia? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 13:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sim, esta pronúncia é aceita, e é mais comum em verbos no infinitivo, o que acontece em frases como 'ficar ao léu' [fiˈkaɾ aʊ̯ ˈlɛʊ̯], é um outro processo, chamado de sandhi. Em muitos dialetos brasileiros, o <r> em coda silábica é pronunciado como um <rr>, mas alterna para um tepe quando em final de palavra antecedendo uma palavra iniciada por vogal. Algo semelhante acontece em Portugal também, pois o <s> em coda silábica é um <ch>, mas quando alterna para <s> quando em final de palavra antecedendo uma palavra iniciada por vogal.--Luizdl (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation Request

Could you add the pronunciations for Jaques Morelenbaum, Paula Morelenbaum, Zélia Duncan, Zizi Possi, Zeca Pagodinho, Reynaldo Gianecchini, Cauã Reymond.

How do you pronounce Gilberto Braga and Glória Perez? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.238.215.64 (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally pronounce Gilberto Braga as [ʒiɫˈbɛɾtu ˈbɾaɡɐ], but the word 'Gilberto', is generally pronounced in the region where I live (São Paulo State, 97 km from São Paulo city) as [ʒiwˈbɛɹtu ~ ʒiwˈbɛ˞tu], general Brazilian pronunciation is [ʒiwˈbɛhtu]. I'd pronounce Glória Perez as [ˈɡlɔɾiɐ ˈpɛɾis].--Luizdl (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thank you for the transcriptions and your work on Portuguese on Wikipedia! Wonderful insights, you've been very helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.144.11 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Brazilians say [betʃ] or [bɛtʃ] for the name "Beth"?

[bɛtʃ] --Luizdl (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows RT Edit War (sigh)

Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on Linux.) Tuntable (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in EQG

Moved to Talk:Equatorial Guinea § Portuguese in EQG

– Luizdl ^Talk 03:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Guinea

I realise there is an edit war occurring at this article, and have no intention of contributing to it. I must ask though why you reverted my unrelated edit. Is there a reason for reintroducing this contradiction into the lead, while a different figure appears in the infobox? Fuebaey (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schwa article

My point was not that I don't care about sources or that I'm "proud" about ~not~ speaking your native dialect (it casually happens to be chance; I'm not into any sort of subnationalism, patriotism/parochialism et al – I won't lie, I do like palatalization, I often find other languages really cute most particularly because of the way it's used and I'm of the opinion that it's cool in Portuguese, but I'm far more concerned with the way I speak being officially regarded as substandard or nonexistent when it's commonplace, and I'm not worried about anything other than linguistics), it's just that it seems to me like their point focuses too much on broad transcriptions. Matter-of-factly, they abruptly mention vowels as part of a general overview of phonetics. It's no in-depth thing.

[ə̃] seems like an arbitrary value they chose to describe a range of close allophones of a single phoneme i.e. /ɐ̃/, just like /ɐ/ is the commonplace arbitrary value the academia got for a vowel that might vary from schwa to [a]. Such a broad transcription is acceptable because [ə] has a history as the symbol for /ɨ/ of European Portuguese (which is likely why they too use /ɐ/ for broad transcriptions as well, even if [ɐ] is a tad far from almost any oral vowel of said variant).

They seem to be making the point that this Brazilian nasal vowel is on average higher than the equivalent oral set, which is indeed the case, but I've seen countless other sources giving the [ɜ] value (which fits how English vowels with such values are pronounced, btw; stressed schwa is present in a minority of dialects, and English nurse is really close to the value of /ɐ̃/ /phoneme/ anywhere in Brazil), and I really don't see how people would pronounce such vowels with extremely different heights in that example. Do you get the gist of what I'm saying? I watch TV, I have friends from other parts of Brazil, there is the internet these days, a range of dialects spoken by almost 60 million people wouldn't pass unnoticed to my ears.

The actual cardinal [ɐ] as produced in the German 'er' is not at all the way an average Brazilian from anywhere would pronounce the last vowel of a paroxytone in fast, colloquial, often connected speech, let alone right after its equivalent nasal vowel registering a very closed height. Is it impossible? No. But to say that it's the typical pronunciation is a bit much. I'm not talking about [ɜ] values with a little distance between them, I'm talking about a /mid central vowel/ followed by a /near-open central vowel/. To me it's like someone is telling me that a gaúcho fronteiriço will as a rule be pronouncing gente as [ˈʒentæ] instead of [ˈʒente], and that I must respect it because of norm/experts know better.

I won't revert you or try to bring in sources that conflict with your version (even because I feel like other varieties of Portuguese NEED to be represented here, it'd be unbecoming and a waste of energy), but are you legitimately sure? Also, why do you think people would pretend that Brazilian /oral/ [ə] does not exist, that it's just an off, rare allophone of mighty [ɐ], when it's obviously everywhere, in both of our native dialects? (I'm assuming you're Brazilian, has lived in São Paulo for some time and that you don't speak a "coda /ʁ/" dialect.) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that final unstressed /a/ cannot be pronounced [ə] in "fast, colloquial, often connected speech", but the most common is indeed [ɐ], else it would sound European. The value of [ɐ] is not so far from cardinal [ɜ], and English /ɝ ~ ɜː/ also is higher than cardinal [ɜ], while [ɐ] is the common realization of English /ʌ/ in a number of dialects as GA and RP, that vowel is normally perceived to Brazilians as the closed a, and in many loanword is even pronounced with closed a as in blush, but it is sometimes also perceived as, and even dictionarized with, open a, as in double u (dáblio in BP and dâblio in EP).--Luizdl ^Talk 16:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An OT request: could either of you check the Portuguese entry on voiced bilabial fricative (to be specific, the note)? You probably have access to Mateus & d'Andrade (2000) (I, unfortunately, don't), so it shouldn't be a problem. Peter238 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have that book, but I could find it to you in Google Books at https://books.google.com.br/books?id=Onr9OFylajYC&printsec=frontcover but some pages can be omitted. In page 11, cited in voiced bilabial fricative, has the following footnote.

"As a matter of fact, in northen and central EP dialects, voiced stops may be realized as the correspondent non-strident fricatives, [β], [ð], [ɣ], except in phrase-initial position and after an homorganic non-continuant."

No, I don't have this book either.

As for Luizdl... I don't think [ə] would sound that European. Their nasal /ɐ̃/ is quite different from ours, but to me, the oral /ɐ/ is mostly different when it comes to vowel length (we also don't delete or mute the vowels as often), and the fact that their [ə] is used anywhere, even in a fully oral syllable before the stress, while [ə] to us is confined to final syllable and nasalized pre-stress.

I mean, people who do a lot of vowel reduction to shortened [u] and [i] in pre-tonic contexts don't sound Portuguese, at most people might think that they sound semi-literate because they have been conditioned to regard this form of vowel reduction as less prestigious. In fact, I pronounce [ɜ] more times than [a], and will only pronounce [a ~ ɐ] instead of [ə] in words like cama if I'm singing or speaking emphatically. I can expect people from northeastern or southern Brazil to not use the maximum extent of vowel reduction in the end of a word, but I've always thought São Paulo's /a/ scored values quite similar to mine.

In the case of dáblio, if I remember it right, Brazilian Portuguese had (or still has) this rule that â must be only allowed before nasal consonants in nativized words. This follows our native phonological pattern rather than being arbitrarily decided: in general stressed oral /ɐ/ is not allowed, and people without some knowledge of English might even find it pedantic if someone pronounces loanwords with them with an approximation of the original phoneme, rather than with a spelling pronunciation.

It isn't always the case, though: up generally gets /a/, but surf gets /u/, and word gets /o/. The ONLY exception to date, in my experience, has been curry, but even then my older relatives and most other adults older than 30 insist on [ˈkuʁi ~ ˈkuɾi] or use the dated caril (and the fact that we already have a native word for the concept won't allow a câri nativized form to become official), so we can pretty much assume that exposition to English causes this instance of /ˈCɐC(V)/ (C = non-nasal consonant) as well. As for tupperware [tapa(w)ˈwɛr ~ tapɐ(w)ˈwɛr ~ tɐpɐ(w)ˈwɛr], which never gets a spelling pronunciation in my experience, it's an instance of variation between speakers (idiolect), and I feel like voiceless stops strengthen /a/, while other consonants e.g. /s, z/ would instead help its reduction. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]