Help talk:IPA for Astur-Leonese
|This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- Thanks for the examples.
- Well, as far as I know, Asturian doesn't have nasal vowels,
syllableword-final nasals neutralise into velar allophones. Regarding [ɫ], I've never heard about such realisation in Asturian (or Galician). Do you have a source that proves the existence of nasal vowels and dark l in bable? Jɑυмe (xarrades)
Well, there is little written on asturian phonology, so i only can give you the official grammar (Gramática de la llingua asturiana. 3ed. Uviéu : Academia de la Llingua Asturiana, 2001) that in pg. 24 states asturian vowels. Also I can give you some recordings of speakers where in certain recordings you can hear the dark l and the final nasal consonant. --Saguzar1 (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Gramática de la Llingua Asturiana (2001) mentions Asturian has 5 phonemic vowels, it doesn't mention anything about [ɫ]. IMO, a dark l would sound a bit odd in Galician, Asturian and Leonese (though I am not sceptic about its existence, perhaps a velarised allophone of /l/ could exist near the Portuguese border in Galicia, León, etc., I don't know. However, unluckily we can't add these sounds till we get reliable sources). Jɑυмe (xarrades)
In pg. 24 (copy and paste): - La vocal /a/ realízase [a� ] palatal en hachu, baxa, algaire; [a. ] velar en prau, xeláu; [a] media en falar, casa; [˜a] nasal en mano, mancar. - La vocal /e/ realízase [e. ] zarrada en conceyu, xente; [e� ] abierta en repla, pex; [ö] llabial en fueu, nocéu; [˜e] nasal en mena, neña. - La vocal /i/, pel so llau, presenta pronunciaciones como [i. ] zarrada en diximos, filu; [i�] abierta en esguil, risa; [˜ı] nasal en mina, inda; [j] semiconsonante en pioyu, mieu; [ i �] semivocal en coméi, algaire. - La vocal /o/ pronúnciase [o. ] zarrada en llocu, xostra; [o� ] abierta en xorra, voi; [˜o] nasal en monxa, ónde. - La vocal /u / realízase [u. ] zarrada en camuda, lluria; [u� ] abierta en murnia, turria; [ ˜u] nasal en munchos, punxo; [w] semiconsonante en fueya, güei; [u�] semivocal en pautu, aniciáu. On pg 42: d) [ l�] palatal cuando-y sigue una consonante palatar [ˆc], [y], [ � s], [�n] o [ l�]: colcha, el chinu, el yerbatu, álxebra, el xabón, el ñuedu, mal lladrón. So, you're right, that's not [ɫ]. However, the use of nasal vowels as allophones is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saguzar1 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
By the way,I think ɖ should be included only in Asturian, as its area extends only in Ibias and Degaña, so I think is better having two rows, one for ɖ in Asturian, and another for ʈ͡ʂ, ɖ͡ʐ and t͡s in both Asturian and Leonese.(t͡s being the most common). I would like to do it, but i don't know how to do that.--Saguzar1 (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
1 - I've never heard of nasalized /ɨ/ in Portuguese, or that this sound would be truly [ɨ] in any contemporary Southwestern European language. And my reasoning is that Mirandese has these perceivabable phonetic differences from other Astur-Leonese dialects not because of its singularity but because of its influence from Portuguese.
2 - Similarly, stressed /ɐ/ is quite different from schwa /ɐ/ in European Portuguese (and to a little extent, few dialects of other Portugueses as well), and this is generally accepted in articles about Portuguese that usually respectively related them to /ʌ/ and /ə/ of North American English, and to /ɜː/ and /ə/ of British English, respectively (the reason why I made the distinction here similar to that of WP:IPA for Portuguese and Galician).
3 - I made this distinction with other purposes: I've heard that [x] is merged to /k/ in some or most English dialects, that the North American alveolar thingy is the opposite of the Iberian ones (I don't remember more which one is the flap or the tap) – and that it is also present in other dialects, but in different environments –, that some dialects velarize all their els, including many GA speakers, that as noted above some British and North American English phonemes that most closely relate to their West Iberian equivalents are used in different environments of this same language (but discussing it would be useless as in this case I completely agree that your examples were better than those of mine), as I searched in articles such as English phonology before my edits. Wouldn't it be useful rather than useless?
4 - In the next time me or someone else edit it, there is problem with using another example for dental /d/ instead of 'die'? It does not sound as our 'dái' (imperative 'give') to my years as dai ('big' in Japanese language), but rather more like an affricate, the same happening with /t/ (seriously, I am used to English). Lguipontes (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of parsing our English approximations by dialect. I think it unnecessarily restricts who these guides are able to help to people familiar with multiple dialects. This was the guiding principle behind some of my reverts.
- The closest equivalent to [ɐ] is the /ʌ/ of English, particularly because that sound is centralized compared to cardinal [ʌ] in a lot of English dialects.
- I think the flap/tap distinction is minor enough that we don't need to say "roughly."
- You are right that [x] is not present in all dialects. I've restored the mention of Scottish English
- You say you changed [ɨ] to [ɯ] because you've never heard that it wouldn't be [ɯ]. What does Portuguese have to do with it? That seems kind of strange reasoning. But if it really is the latter, why don't we just transcribe it as such?
- I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about d. What do you think would be a better example? — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- For me that is ok, I didn't know about that. Sounds pretty reasonable, although I think that if Portuguese Wikipedia had a sort of well-organized project on linguistics, the same argument would be made on our language varieties (and according to legend people used to love arguing over that there... -giggles-), and Portuguese and English are sometimes compared in this sense (also BP and AE with most speakers, standard EP and BE with most countries using it). Nevertheless it also depends on what you look on your neighbor, whether your differences or your similarities.
- Some rare English [ʌ], less fronted, sound rather like our [ɔ], a reason why I related it to [ɜ], a central vowel phoneme present in all or the overwhelmingly majority of Englishes, dialectal or idiolectal. While it is true that the more common [ʌ] realization of, to say, duck [ˈdɐk] is close to Portuguese and Brazilian stressed [ɐ], our unstressed [ɐ] is generally closer to a schwa (more in Portugal than in Brazil), and it is indicated in WP:IPA for Portuguese and Galician.
- Because of the traditional transcription of Portuguese [ɯ] led me to believe that this should be the standard for Mirandese too. Also, it was transcribed as [ɨ] before I get here, so I saw this as a minor error.
- Well, the d is pretty simple to understand. Try to listen to the Google Translate's Brazilian woman saying da ameixa, da lâmpada, dã maçã, dé Érica, dê êxtase, di índios, dó Órion, dô original, du urubu, substituting comma plus space by Enter, and then listen the English-speaking one saying da cap, duh hurr, day in May, dair hair, dear near, doctor, door, Florida, dynamics, mantaining the commas but substituting the spaces by Enter. You will note that it has much more "turbulence" (?), to the exception of Florida and dynamics (the best things I thought of), and that it is also stronger in "doctor", with presence in both alveolar stops.
- If you want a simpler word, then door had much less turbulence than die, but I truly don't make any idea if this would apply to all, most or even some English speakers. My turbulence speaking English would be even much greater than usual as I would correct my extremely pronounced accent (most importantly with /ti/ and /di/) with these apparently [ts] and [dz] affricates. Lguipontes (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
@JaumeR: As you can see, I took liberty to cleanup this guide. However, there still are some things that are unclear to me, so I can't fix them (or even decide whether they need fixing or not):
- I believe we should tag the example words with A, E, M, as it's not always obvious whether the example word is Asturian, Extremaduran or Mirandese.
- What do [ˠɸ, ˠx, ˠθ] signify? To me, these seem like some sort of non-standard IPA.
- What does the Extremaduran [ː] (as in abdicar, as well as in admira, ritmo and acto) signify? Lenghtening of the preceding vowel, or maybe the highlighted consonant? Are all four of these Extremaduran words?
- I believe that the formatting of the examples for Extremaduran [ɸː, θː, xː] is wrong, as both ⟨v/b, d, g⟩ and the preceding ⟨s⟩ should be made bold - or am I mistaken?
- What do [ˡ, ʳ] signify? Do we actually need these signs?
- Do we really need to list [ɟʝ] twice?
- Do we really need to list [ɖ, ɖʐ, ʈʂ, ts]?
- Why is [v] listed as a dialectal consonant? Doesn't it occur in all dialects as an allophone of /f/ before voiced consonants?
- Can somebody add missing example words? Peter238 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Peter238:. Thanks for helping. Answers:
- I agree with the tags. I'll add them as soon as I can.
- [ˠɸ, ˠx, ˠθ] are pre-velarised sounds but they don't exist as such in Asturian. Coda ⟨c⟩ /k/ → [ɣ] can be pronounced with a type of dental release by some Asturian and Leonese speakers. Pre-velarisation and pre-glottalization can be found in many contexts in many Spanish and Astur-Leonese speakers.
- [ː] (E) means lengthening of the following consonant, a typical Extremaduran would pronounce those words as: [adːiˈkaˡ ~ aðːiˈkaˡ ~ aðiˈkaˡ], [ãˈmːiɾa], [ˈrĩmːʊ] and [ˈatːʊ] (ʊ represents final o/u neutralisation and stands for a variable sound).
- No because coda ⟨s⟩ is transcribed as [ʰ] (see references for Extremaduran): las vacas [laʰ ˈɸːakaʰ] (or [laʰ ˈβːakaʰ]).
- [ˡ, ʳ] signify a lateral or rhotic release. [ˡ, ʳ] are often dropped, and are not noticed by many speakers. The same occurs with [ʰ].
- I think we do. [ɟʝ] is both an allophone of ⟨y⟩ and a dialectal sound [phoneme?] (spelled ⟨yy⟩). How would you suggest to transcribe this?
- I don't know about all the allophones of <ll>. We could pick one sound and mention the rest in a note if you want. What about the Basque ⟨j⟩?
- The phoneme /v/ (or /β/) is found in Serradilla (Cáceres) and perhaps in other towns.
- I'll try to look for some more examples.
- Would you mind if I recover the note for /f/ : [ɸ], I believe this is a common realisation. — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 21:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, but [ˡ] in [adːiˈkaˡ] clearly does not signify a lateral release, which applies exclusively to consonants. A vowel with a "lateral release" is nothing more than [l] coloured by that vowel, i.e. a consonant, not a vowel. Perhaps in this case, [ˡ] denotes an articulation of [l] without a full alveolar contact?
- I'd say that's too much. Let's move the example word yyegar (but probably not muyyer, which should be in the note) after the examples for /ɟʝ, dʒ, ʒ/ and add a detailed note.
- If we're actually going to use that symbols, they can stay. If not, I don't think they deserve more than a note.
- Ok, but the question is - does it appear in all dialects as an allophone of /f/ before voiced consonants? Because if it does, we should treat it the same as I suggest we treat /ɟʝ/.
- If it's more common than [f], I think we should use the symbol ⟨ɸ⟩ instead of ⟨f⟩, especially if there are no established IPA transcription schemes of these languages out there. You can restore that note if you want, I don't mind. Peter238 (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- The way we treat the dialectal vowels /ɛ, ɔ/ also looks like an overkill. Peter238 (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- No prob :)
- [ˡ] in E stands for a variable sound that is often elided, so does [ʰ, ʱ]. These characters are sometimes used by Iberian linguists.
- Good idea, you can move yyegar
- Yes I agree, I will try to improve the convention and simplify some things
- <ɸ> could be more common in some/many areas, especially in E
- Which allophone of /f/ you meant
- /f/ is either labiodental? or bilabial? (termed "labial"). It becomes voiced before consonants. In Extremaduran it's aspirated in the coda (e.g. difteria). So in Extremaduran (and Southern Peninsular) <ɸ> might occur more often. Extremaduran (like Andalusian) has many lexicalised words with [h] (from initial Latin <f>), and I think it also has a nasalised aspiration. — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 02:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ occur in Galician-Asturian (Eonavian), a transitional dialect, and in some towns in Extremadura. How shall we treat this? — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 02:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. I'll try to be more clear now, I can see why you were confused.
- Oh, that's something different. Still, we can list ⟨ˡ, ʳ⟩ once, and we need to write an appropriate note.
- Ok, but I'm not sure how the corresponding note should sound. Any ideas?
- But we have to be sure about that before switching to transcribing /f/ as /ɸ/.
- All I was talking about is [v]. Does it occur in all dialects before voiced consonants? If so, let's just list it one time, and write an appropriate note that mentions its phonemic status in the dialect of Serradilla, Cáceres.
- I've just taken care of the open-mid vowels, check the article. I might have messed up the example words though...
- I'd do more myself if all of the example words were tagged. Maybe you could do that first and then we'll edit the rest together.
- I think we can list Extremaduran ⟨ʰ⟩ once, and just write a lengthy note about it. Peter238 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- No prob :)
- How could we list them once if most developments don't match?
- I can help a bit with the notes
- Most Asturian and Extremaduran speakers only have 5 phonemic vowels, i don't think the current vowel display shows the reality. The document I provided states Extremaduran has 5 vowels, but in some towns there are instances of open e and o (generally from coda /s/). Your edition is wrong, because there's no etymological /ɛ, ɔ/ from Latin as in Catalan, Portuguese, etc. Eonavian (Galician-Asturian) is an exception I think. But even that, I don't think we should include those sounds in the first box
- /β/ (/v/) is a phoneme and contrasts with /b/, it's not an allophone. I will try to find a reference. — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 05:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- As long as there's an appropriate note, there's no problem, unless it becomes too long (and that may be the case here, I'm not sure).
- It's not wrong, but maybe the notes are wrong. We make use of them on purpose. The column says "vowels", nothing else. There's no need for overcomplications.
- I'm not talking about [v] the main realization of the dialectal /v/ phoneme, but [v] the allophone of /f/ before voiced consonants. Does it occur in all dialects? If so, we can list both [v]'s once and write an appropriate note. Peter238 (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know, not everything is perfect and symmetric all the time. See also Portuguese, it has a duplicate [w] (see mal / mau). I wouldn't worry about these duplicates for now.
- It wasn't right because it seems all speakers use those sounds, and as I said the open and close e/o only occur in very few towns . For real open sounds we should talk about southeastern Peninsular Spanish (some Extremaduran Spanish/castúo speakers and Western Andalusians also use open vowels, especially when singing, see Philips advert by Carmen Sevilla (a Western Andalusian): (Philips - Flamenca yé-yé), but I think these processes are more prominent or developed in the southeast)
- [v] (allophone) (i.e. β) should be [ʱ] in Extremaduran as it also becomes aspirated (afgano [ʱ]). — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 06:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ok good idea
- If Extremaduran /f/ is more often [ɸ], the same occurs with [v], but this is aspirated in the coda. In Serradilla, /v/ is bilabial according to the sources I found. The reason I added /v/ is because some linguists also use this symbol. But i think we should transcribe it as /β/. — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 18:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)