User talk:Aeusoes1/Archive 5

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.

Bilabial nasal

I have a dictionary of (Standard) Arabic with IPA behind each word. As the words in the phonetic tables are given in phonetic transcription ([...]), and my dictionary (Langenscheidt Universal-Wörterbuch Arabisch, 2003) states that the vowel /a/ phonetically changes into [ɒ] in the circumference of any emphatic consonant, I thought I'd include that. The original transcription in that book is [mɒˈŧɒːbix], by the way. My main change was the stress, however, which should be on the long syllable, not on the last. The [χ] is just because I'm fairly sure that /x/ is [χ] in Arabic. I hope that makes some sense. — N-true (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way... a completely unrelated question, but I always wondered how to pronounce your username properly? IPA, please? ;) — N-true (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's indeed a kind of faux-IPA, but it's still pretty close to standard IPA. The only difference are the emphatic phonemes, which are written as ʄ (with only one stroke), đ, ŧ and ƶ. By the way, I always pronounced your name (in my head, only) as [ˌʔaːeːˈoːzʊs], although I probably didn't read it properly at first, but that pronunciation stuck. — N-true (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like that (the metathesis thing) could've happened to me as well... I'm sometimes unsure of English pronunciation, as I'm a native speaker of German. I once talked to a fellow linguist about "Ejectives in the Bezhta language", and I kept pronouncing the word like 'adjectives', so I got her quite confused by that. — N-true (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and my dictionary describes the [ɒ] as "dunkles a wie in Vater, zu o tendierend", while [a] is "helles a wie in Kamm, zu ä tendierend", which just means that <ɒ> is somewhere between [a] and [o] or [ɔ] and <a> is somewhere between [a] and [ɛ]. — N-true (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with that. — N-true (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Titor

I moved the logo findings to the discussion page. You are right to call it too speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onnozele (talk • contribs) 07:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Asking for your cooperation

Hello, I don't want an edit war, I am asking for your cooperation and help in expanding Arabic phonology. I reverted your deletion of my edit and wrote in the talk page. --Atitarev (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ah-ee-oo... what?

So, how is a body supposed to pronounce your user name? —Angr 21:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian phonology

Do we really need a separate Macedonian phonology article when essentially all of the information (apart from a few recent edits) is found in Macedonian language? I see that someone tried to merge them and his edit was reverted. I'm asking why it is we need to have two separate articles, if we really do need them. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Broken template on Hmong language

Sorry to bother you with this, but I'm hoping you might know how to fix the currently broken template at the top of the Hmong language article. Otherwise, do you know who might have a solution? Nposs (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone tried to make a disambiguation page out of the {{language}} redirect which is transcluded in many articles about the languages. I've fixed it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

declination of горбун & and your dictionary entries for ржаветь

• Like this: declination of горбун (actually, nothing unusual, just a common simple declination model). For the female: горбунья.--Imz (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'm very curious to look at your dictionary entries for ржаветь with the wrong stress. Could you perhaps somehow quote them or show them to me? So, keep searching, look into another dictionary! I tell you, the correct stress is the one I restored, confirmed by me and the other native speaker who originally corrected it. (No, I don't want to say that our postings are an authoritative source, but by saying this, I just want to encourage you to search for correct dictionaries.)--Imz (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

conjugation of ржаветь, to encourage you a bit more to look into other dictionaries. That webservice for Russian morphology is made after the works by Zaliznyak on Russian declination and the Grammatical Dictionary of Russian.--Imz (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's a puzzling thing: where did those dictionaries and authors get the other stress from? I don't know the answer yet. Yes, that variation might be present in dialects, your stress might be an out-dated standard Russian. I'm from Moscow, speaking the standrad dialect, I have always stressed it on the 2nd syllable. The Grammatical Dictionary was also aiming at the modern standrad Russian, and it seems, it agrees with me (given that that website carefully replicates the dictionary).--Imz (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I see, I shouldn't have been that categorical about ржавЕть. My Russian orthographic dictionary of 1957 also gives the non-mine stress: ржАветь. Perhaps, this thing is a very recent change in the norm. I should also now be looking for more dictionaries which have already fixated the new stress. So, probably, in the view of the facts that your Oxford and my Russian orthographic dictionaries show the stress that is not accepted by me, and that the site replicating the Grammatical Dictionary shows another stress, two variants should be displayed in the article. (I'm not anymore curious about your dictionary entries quoted by you; now I see such thing might exist in good dictionaries.) --Imz (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You wrote in the regard of the declination of горбун: "I can't really find anything that helps out in this regard. The point of the example is to show alternations between nominative (masculine) and agentive case". You should learn to declinate and conjugate using the information given in the dictionary, if you pretend to make corrections (correcting corrections) which are related in such a deep manner with Russian morphology.--Imz (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian phonology

Hi,

I made some changes in the Russian phonology discussion page (you took part in some of them). Take a look if you're interested. --Atitarev (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of Russian letters

Hi, thanks for your input. I have added some questions in some talk pages you recently edited, please check. We'll get there eventually. --Atitarev (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

help with Burushaski as IE

Hi Aeusoes,

Could you check out this question?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

John Titor

I've alerted Husond to the activities of this anon user. [[[1]]] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of a template redirect

I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

John Titor Article

Hi please stop reverting my edits for John Titor. It constitutes as vandalism. Thank you for your cooperation. 24.63.31.233 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You use that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means. Vandalism is not an edit that you disagree with. It is an edit that shows disruption to either the integrity of the page or to the process of article improvement. If anyone is vandalizing, it is you. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you stop being annoying to everyone here?

Can you stop deleting the comments you do not like? Can you understand this is an encyclopaedia and not a place to promote your propaganda against other people?--Feta (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, what would Jung say? I'm not the one spouting political claptrap in a language related talk page. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your... interesting words

But no, thanks. SamEV (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Question in Wikipedia talk:IPA for Italian

Hello Aeusoes (1? You mean, there are 2?)
Could you please take a look at the question I posted on the page above, and see if you could give me a pointer? I'm trying to complete the proofreading of a horribly translated article and would like to include IPA - but don't know how to handle a particular issue. Thanks! Francesco Campelli (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:IPA for Russian

The page you created and further edited still contains a number of serious errors. I personally am not sure how you can contribute to this subject authoritatively if you don't speak Russian. Wouldn't that be a good idea to involve some professional in both Russian language (preferably native speaker) and IPA, to review the content and fix the problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dp074 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Catalan phonology

Hi Aeusoes1!!! I don't think Catalan language there are these back alveolo-palatal consonants /ɕ/, /ʑ/, /tɕ/ and /dʑ/ they are actually [ʃ], [ʒ], [tʃ] and [dʒ]. You can see it in Grammatic books extracts of both Catalan Language Academies ("Institut d'Estudis Catalans" and "Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua") here: Implementation in Catalan language of Transcription Principles of International Phonetics Association made by IEC and Oral Standard of Valencian made by AVL. I hope this will be corrected because I think that Official Language Academies have more renown than other Studies or Thesis. Bye :) --Pepetps (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a tendency to represent a variety of postalveolar fricatives with <ʃ> and <ʒ>. I've seen it done with the retroflex consonants of Russian and Polish and the alveolo-palatal consonants of Korean and Japanese. The literature I've seen on Catalan varies in the characters it uses and I suspect that this is because the distinction between alveolo-palatal and palato-alveolar is pretty subtle (I really can't hear the difference). Interestingly, Wheeler (2005) uses <ʃ> and <ʒ> while referring to them as alveolo-palatal, suggesting that there may be typographic constraints. Thus, rather than base the use of <ɕ> and <ʑ> on what the IEC, the AVL, or anybody else uses, I found an article by a phonetician (Daniel Recasens) who describes the coronal and palatal consonants in a manner that's more detailed than the symbols indicate, telling me that he's studied it himself using acoustic data. It's possible that there is geographic variation but we'd really want sourcing that describes such variation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi im Michael

aa the Cape Verdean American page suxx now could you check the history and edit a few things love (Questchest (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure what you want me to do. I don't know a whole lot about Cape Verdeans. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

dictionary transcription

Hey, could you check out the collapsed table at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#Proposed US School transcription and see if all the symbols display correctly? I've tested IE and FF on a PC, and they work for me, but it sounds like you might be able to see the schwi. kwami (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Which browser and OS are you using?

Hey, can you see it if I format it like this: ᵻ ? kwami (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I still can't see it. I'm using Internet Explorer 7, Windows XP professional service pack 3 (but I deliberately kept the arial unicode font for service pack 2, which may be relevant). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Andalusian Arabic

I added a substantial section to the Andalusian Arabic article (it's still incomplete. A full description of the dialect will probably be four times as long, once I get around to it. And yes, I'll add sources.) But I'm pretty sure it's riddled with all manner of format and style violations. Help? Szfski (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't too bad. I'll try to keep an eye on the article as you add more information. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IPA here is going to be an issue. The problem with adding IPA to my examples of Andalusian Arabic is that neither I nor any other Arabist alive can be sure enough of the dialect's phonotactics to represent it in something as exact as IPA. What I offer in the article is more or less a transcription of the script used to represent the dialect (with adjustments for such features as can be safely reconstructed, such as compensatory lengthening.) But there are certain assumptions I'd have to make with IPA. For example, the evidence is by no means unambiguous as to how the ق was pronounced. There's evidence to suggest it was /k/, but it seems to have contrasted in such a way as to become /g/ in modern Spanish words borrowed from Arabic (like the name Guzmán, for example.) Likewise, while it's a pretty sure bet that /p/ existed at least as a phoneme in Romance borrowings, it's rather hard to guess whether the Romance substratum also phonemicized the /p/ which is normally found as an allophone of /b/ in native Arabic words before unvoiced dentals (an Indo-Aryan substrate is widely believed to have created the /tʃ/ phoneme in certain Iraqi dialects.)

Moreover, the precise articulation of short vowels is a bit of a crapshoot. We can be pretty sure about the basic distinctions of closed vs open, front vs. back, the raising of /a/ to /æ/ and the leveling of diphthongs. But where word-final short /a/ developed into /ɪ/ and where it became /e/ cannot be proven with absolute certainty.

My point is that I could very easily include an IPA representation of what I think the dialect probably sounded like. But I'm pretty sure that counts as OR, right? The only other option I can think of is to include an IPA representation of everyone's reconstruction, or at least every plausible one. Otherwise, transcription is the best I can offer.Szfski (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. If the sources make such speculations, it's okay to include that. Like if a source speculates that ق may have been voiced because of the way it came into Spanish in loanwords, then including that the source says that would be helpful to readers. Be careful to distinguish between /slashes/ and [brackets], the latter of which being more appropriate when talking about actual pronunciation. After talking about the speculations on pronunciation, a transcription system should work fine throughout the rest of the article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics

Hi, do you have Linguistics on your watchlist? A user is trying to redefine linguistics according to what she wishes it meant, and Garik and I are having difficulty persuading her she's acting against consensus as there are only two of us at the moment. More contributors to the discussion are needed! —Angr 09:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa phonology consonant chart

Before making major changes to components of this article please use the discussion page. There is no reason to eliminate the affricate rows on the consonant chart as it was, those are normally recognized as separate in the cited sources on Ottawa, and of course more generally by phoneticians, and in Wikipedia's own phonetics materials. From the sections above, I see you have a habit of this; a collaborative approach, particularly on a language I assume you are not familiar, would be more productive. Jomeara421 (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

IPA

I was wondering if you could reccomend a system for making IPA or modified IPA characters. I have found Word 2007 to be unequal to the task. Thanks for any advice. Murray F. White (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wondering if I do the auto correct like you have, would I be able to use New Times-Roman with out the same auto correct? I also just found a zip file that was linked to at the bottom of the IPA page here, and wondered what you thought of it or if you had any experience with it. It is from David Montero´s site. Flaquito (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for being so helpful. I think I will use the zipfile, as it will paste into word which I need for writing papers of a mixed nature, and it works here in the sandbox. I need to brush up on my transcriptions by fall. Thanks again. Flaquito (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish dialects and varieties

I have made a suggestion at the talkpage here and would be interested in what you might think if you have the time to take a look. I think the article is disorganized. Thanks.-Flaquito (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Armenian template

Hi Aeusoes. Do you think the browser problem could be solved by using {{unicode}} instead? Because seeing "Armenian]:" isn't very appealing in any browser, if you know what I mean :). BalkanFever 08:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I mistook lang-hy for lang|hy. It should work for everyone now. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know they were different. BalkanFever 01:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary links

Hi, why did you revert my edit? Ok, some of those may not exist, but they may eventually. And that they are not needed, fine, but what’s wrong with having those links? Remember that this is English Wikipedia, so people reading that page probably will not know these Dutch words. H. (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you sort of answered your own question. The words already have translations attached to them, so the links are redundant. Having all foreign words linked is an example of overwikification — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another request for advice.

The article on the Catalan poet Ausiàs March is inexcusably short (and horribly inaccurate to boot). He is to Catalan what Shakespeare is to English or Imru'l Qays to Arabic. The article in Catalan is (unsurprisingly) far more accurate, detailed and informative. I was bracing myself for the dutiful asperity of producing an English translation of the Catalan article to be used as a wholesale replacement for the English one when I realized that the Catalan article, though accurate, is quite poorly sourced and merely includes a bibliography of two books without in-text citations. Should I still translate it, even though it will have to have ref tags after virtually every sentence? Szfski (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think if you translate it but put the general {{refimprove}} at the top, you won't have to tag every sentence. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 14:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ausiàs March has yet to suffer the brunt of my translational wrath, but I did create the formerly nonexistent article on the Euro-Arab poet Adel Karasholi by translating the German article. I'm not sure what needs to be done now to bring the article up to specs. Help? Szfski (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Literary Arabic -> Standard Arabic

Hi, someone has suggested the move. I also support the merge of Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic into one. Not 100% sure if this going to work, though. Please join here. Anatoli (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sesotho grammar and Sesotho parts of speech

Hi.

I don't think it's necessary to merge these two articles. They are both rather long already, they serve as portals to other articles, and the parts of speech are certainly not synonymous with the grammar.

The grammar article broadly defines the language's typology, introduces concepts such as the formatives, and acts as a portal to other, more specific, article. Currently, the only article under the grammar in my chosen hierarchy (Template: Sesotho language) is the parts of speech article, but I, or somebody else, could conceivably create a Sesotho syntax article which would belong under the grammar article, on the same level as the parts of speech article.

Additionally, every article under the grammar article is included in the Sesotho grammar category in addition to the Sesotho language category. Semantically it's consistent.

Finally, the template prominently displayed at the top of almost every Sesotho article (excluding Sesotho calendar, which does not deal with the language's technical structure) links to all the others, and explicitely visually shows the semantic relationships of the articles.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 07:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dutch 'ee' and 'oo'

Hi Aeusous, as for Dutch falling diphthongs ee and oo, I think [ei] and [ou] (the latter of which you put into the Voiceless postalveolar fricative article - are exaggerations. More precisely, these realisations do occur but they are generally considered substandard. For example, they can be heard in a lot of Randstad accents as well in the much-discussed "Poldernederlands". on the other hand, realisations as plain long monophthongs are also substandard: these occur for example in (Standard) Dutch as spoken by those with Low Saxon or Limburgish dialects as native language. The preferred pronunciations are [eⁱ] and [o^u]. Surely [ei] and [ou] are increasingly heard, but they are not true Standard Dutch, just as little as Estuary English is identical to Received Pronunciation.
To my regret I can only cite popular science sources (that is, no academical scientific research), sources I certainly trust but which are unfit to use as reference in a Wikipedia article. Steinbach (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference between [o^u] and [ou]? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Black English"

For "Black English" to redirect to AAVE struck me as stunningly Youessocentric, so I've turned it into a disambig. For this purpose, I thought it better to include E-based creoles (even though I'm well aware that a creole is an independent language). However, there may be a better way to do this. My geography is rusty, my knowledge of skin color (and more importantly popular classifications of "race") is weak, and all in all I might well have failed spectacularly; so do please take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

While I, in my Youessocentricity, have only seen Black English as part of the larger phrase "Black English Vernacular" (another term for AAVE), I question whether it's ever a term for any E-based creoles. Where have you seen, say, Jamaican Creole referred to as "Black English"? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that I have. However, in Britain, I've certainly heard Jamaican basilect and mesolect referred to (by whites, not all of whom were necessarily racist in intent or even using the term in a derogatory way) as "black English". There does seem to be a notion that "Blacks" somehow speak an English that's distinctive in some ways from "standard English" and that is itself somehow coherent. It's a bizarre notion, of course, but since it managed to spawn the concept of "Ebonics" which itself was propounded (a little) by (sometimes rather borderline) academics (before being debunked by level-headed linguists), it's not surprising that this notion is out there among the underinformed. I'm not happy about the disambig page as it stands, and particularly about the introduction to it; please don't hesitate to make radical changes, which would probably be much better informed than mine are. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Black British English"

All of that was prompted by the appearance of a hatnote at AAVE pointing to an article on "Black British English", a concept that I thought I might have heard of, though one sounding very unlikely.

I've just now looked at it for the first time. Uh oh.

I believe that I do have access to books that I presume would discuss "BBE", if any such thing exists. (My own hunch is that it's an arbitrary notion, like "Ginger-haired people's British English"; however, I acknowledge that I don't know about the subject, and I'm open minded.) I just don't have time: "RL" is pressing hard. Could you either take a look, or notify anybody who might add to this intelligently?

My worry is that although the article is harmless as it stands, unless it's informative and sound it's going to be much harder to defend from the attentions of the kind of halfwits that infest the AAVE article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Russian phonology+

Well, if your goal is to make your Russian sound like a foreigner's, you may, of course write/pronounce [ʂɐˈfʲor], [ˈpʲjɛ.sə], [g vdɐˈvʲɛ] and so on, but to me it seems a rather strange goal... But then - to be consistent - you should eradicate all occurrances of [e] in this article (for if it doesn't occur in пьеса and к вдове it simply doesn't exist in Russian. --Al Silonov 23:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Creole language

Hi. I reverted your partial revert to my change at Creole language. In fact I agree with you that the author links are (or may be) relevant. I removed only the second and third links to the same author in the section. The guidelines (WP:MOSLINK) advise linking a relevant term on its first occurrence in the article, permit it in the first occurrence in a section, and forbid it in the second link in the section. I haven't even attempted to remove links that were the first in the section but not in the article (where the guidelines allow either linking or unlinking), but only where the guidelines require unlinking.

I may have given the wrong impression with my edit summary; my apologies if that was the case.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

affricates

Hi Aeusoes1,

I just reverted your replacement of the ligatures in Chimakuan and Nuxalk. Languages in this area distinguish affricates from homorganic stop-fricative sequences, so we need something in the transcription to distinguish them. Either ligatures or a tie bar would work. kwami (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought: if you're gonna use tie bars on the replacements, you might want to do that with all affricates, like tl and qx. I'll take care of the rest of the Salish languages in a couple hours. kwami (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Romanian /oa/

It must be my fault, because I don't see the difference between a diphthong and a semivowel+vowel sequence (in whichever order). In Romanian dictionaries and other works, a diphthong is actually defined as being such a sequence. So either this difference is something rather new in linguistics, or there are two separate points of view on what a diphthong is. Maybe you could give me a reference where I can read about this.

"They both occur exclusively in stressed syllables" --- This is simply wrong, at least according to my understanding of a diphthong. Words having /ea/ and /oa/ in unstressed syllables are indeed relatively rare, but they do exist: dumneavoastră, dumnealor, noaptea, floarea, poansonatoare, croazea, about 100-200 words beginning with prea- (e. g. preaplin, preacurat) and so on. If, however, the diphthong is defined as being necessarily able to alternate with a monophthong, then all these examples (including also doar) are surely wrong, but then again why impose the condition of alternation capability? Why don't English diphthongs alternate with monophtongs? I can't even find one single example where they do.

Anyway, since we should rely exclusively on sources, I rephrased that sentence to mention that the apparent exceptions may be ignored according to Ioana Chiţoran. Personally I don't understand exactly what is happening there. — AdiJapan 03:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

AAVE

Your irritation is understandable, but I think your latest response in the talk page is unnecessarily harsh and likely to be inflammatory (and if so, likely to lead to a greater waste of your own time). I'd rather not reply to it myself but I suggest that you pop an "AGF" pill (however bitter), wash it down with a coffee, and revisit and edit your own response quickly and in an amicable direction.

(For the next couple of weeks, I fear I'll be too busy to involve myself in any AAVE or related dispute. I really hope that none arises.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Catalan phonology, dialectal variation

Hi Aeusoes1!

In the dialectal variation section of the article Catalan phonology, it seems that you wrote incorrectly the differentiating traits of Eastern and Western dialects.

You say:

Wheeler (2005) distinguishes two major dialect groups, Western dialects and Eastern ones; the latter of which only allow [i], [ə], and [u] to appear in unstressed syllables and include North Catalan, Central Catalan, Balearic, and Alguerese. Western dialects, which allow any vowel in unstressed syllables, include northern and western Catalan, and Valencian.

To my understanding, [i] and [u] are allowed in stressed syllables both in Western and Eastern dialects: mica, música. (I'm a native Eastern Catalan speaker, from Girona.)

The best differentiating trait is the appearance of [e], [o], and [a] in unstressed syllables in Western dialect, as it is stated in the Wovels section.

Thank you for your attention,

Toni

Jamaican Patois question

I'm from the North of England, near the english-scottish border, and we retract the word Our to Wah i was wondering if you know if this happens in Patois? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IPA help

Hello, I found your name near the top of Category:User ipa and thought you might be able to help me out. I've been reading some of the various articles, help pages, and guidlines on using IPA with the intent of adding a pronunciation into an article, but really not having much success in understanding it. Perhaps you could change the simple text pronunciation in Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, specifically, the pronunciation of the acronym MCMAP (the last line of the lead paragraph). Specifically, the syllables break down as "mick" (much like Micky Mouse) and "map" (like the name of the common navigational chart). Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RP

Thanks for the clarification. Thegryseone (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

IPA

Okay, User:Spacevezon^talk 08:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Signature

I don't think your signature is written in ipa.68.148.149.184 (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of it is. Ƶ§œš¹ isn't IPA (it's just random gibberish) but the rest of it, which links to my talk page, is an IPA rendition of "I'm friendly." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Welsh

With all courtesy, why did you remove the information on Welsh sounds? I can't see how this information could be anything other than beneficial. Or should it belong in another article? Mark J (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if my edit summary wasn't clear. The information you put wasn't about Welsh sounds but Welsh letters. The distinction is slight, but meaningful. Check out Welsh alphabet to see if you can't include it there somehow. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously

Ok ok, I can read edit summaries as well. I know the claims in the table are incorrect. I correct them and source my edit. You just revert and revert and revert without expressing yourself on the question itself. How can one ever correct mistakes or misquotes when one is not allowed to bring forward alternative sources? That is an academical study of the Meertens Instituut, an authority in language issues. At least you could leave the sound file and explain yourself on the talk page! --Hooiwind (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for "heads-up" re: Hard and soft C/G articles

Thanks, Aeusoes1, for comments left on my Talk page regarding your major edits/revisions of the Hard and soft C and Hard and soft G articles. As a kind explanation, I did see major revisions of the Hard and soft C article a few days ago, but much more modest revisions (at that time) to the Hard and soft G article. When I made the recent not-too-gargantuan changes to the latter article, I didn't know if you were still interested in major edits to it. But, thanks for letting me know that you are/were. WP sometimes gets flak for being too "Americentric," which is why I made the one semi-revert, but was all okay with further edits to said section made by others. (The other revert of mine involving the "Russian phonology" subsection in the Hard and soft G article was only made due to seeing something that looked like it got "accedentially chopped off" as opposed to philosophical disagreement with your edit of the section, but I think you eventually caught that :) ).

I do thnk, however, that there may well still be value, in the form of external documents and links, to readers having access to much of the deleted information regarding alternative spelling conventions and how the lack of an English-language letter which consistently has a hard-g sound makes for a messier orthographic situation (for "g") than when we want to represent the hard-c or "k" sound. In the spirit of being bold but in the co-spirit of good-faith article improvement, let me quietly mull that one over :-)

Thanks again; I appreciate your efforts to make the aforementioned articles more digestible to WP readers. —Catdude (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NORML

I've edited again reference to Kellogg's. Sorry for not being clear the first time. The Vanno poll referenced by Business Insider is ridiculous and I'm not sure how a periodical picked it up. If you go to Vanno's poll of Kellogg's reputation, http://vanno.com/company/kellogg?page=1 (sorry, registration required), you'll see the silliness of it all. Vanno posts news stories and then assesses a negative content or a positive one. Then people vote whether they agree or not. Well, one of the index stories that was posted was by the Huffington Post. Then the Huffington Post turned around and wrote another story about how people agreed with their story in an online voting website, except they don't mention that one of the posted index articles was by... The Huffington Post. This is like saying Joe Schmoe kills kittens, and then turning around and claiming that "people have been saying Joe Schmoe kills kittens". I hate this type of dissembling and fraud. Oh yeah... how many people have voted on this so far? 112. Great. Put two college fraternities together and I have a social movement. Idiotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.186.213 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)