User talk:Aeusoes1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

From article about constructs to article about term[edit]

I don't doubt that this edit of yours to Ebonics was well-intended, but somebody who's skimreading the latter and wants to know about the word now has to click on "Ebonics" in order to find this material. The edit has made the link to an article about the word a lot less conspicuous. (Maybe it was just because I was sleepy, but anyway I didn't notice the link myself when I happened to look at Ebonics a couple of hours ago.) I understand that there was something of an edit war going on at the time; perhaps the annoyance slightly distracted you. Could you perhaps consider tweaking the Ebonics (non-) article to make the link easier to find? -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I can whip up a change to address that. Do you think the gay disambiguation page that served as inspiration is equally confusing? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]

I have to say that I do find that article rather odd. But first, "Ebonics". Currently, it's

Ebonics was originally coined to refer to the language of the African Diaspora.

How about a simple change to the following?

The word Ebonics was originally coined to refer to the language of the African Diaspora.

And on to Gay (disambiguation); currently:

Gay originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" but since the 1960s (by reapprobation) has most commonly referred to a male (and later also female) whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex.

I fear that "reapprobation" is going to mystify more people than it will help; this aside, I might have:

Gay originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" but since the 1960s (by reapprobation) has most commonly referred to a male (and later also female) whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex; see Gay.

Incidentally, if one clicks through to the latter one's given such nuggets as:

At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay.").

Interesting implication there that "rubbish" is an adjective; this minor matter aside, is it simply a use, or is it a connotation (which I'd expect would go with a denotation)? And if "some parts of the world" and "the Anglosphere" have the same referent, why use both; and if they don't, how do their referents differ? But alas my paying job beckons. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

PS on what I kind of called an edit war: Here's the perp; I am not particularly surprised to see the way in which the "contributions" stopped. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you discussing article changes with related WikiProjects?[edit]

Hi, Aeusoes1,

Are you asking other Wikipedians with backgrounds in linguistics, especially Wikipedians with backgrounds in Chinese (like me) about your many changes to articles about languages spoken in China? I see you have a statement on your user page about the importance of reliable sources. So I wonder what sources suggest treating (for example) Hakka as a "dialect of Chinese" rather than as a language? And so on. The changes I'm seeing recently from your keyboard to many articles about languages spoken in China would be good to check with relevant WikiProjects. Have you asked for other editors' opinions on these issues? Do you have a comprehensive source about Chinese dialectology or classification of languages spoken in China at hand as you edit? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've brought it up at the Chinese Wikiproject. I've also researched the matter for contributions I made a short while ago at Chinese language and varieties of Chinese; the process involved the input of a few other editors and came at the tail end of a failed move request that brought up the issue of neutrality on the language/dialect question: it has long been agreed that e.g. Hakka should be referred to as a "variety" of Chinese, rather than a language or dialect, since sources are not in complete agreement on the matter. As I have already told you, this is the nature of my NPOV changes regarding Chinese. I repeat: I am not changing language to dialect.
Anyway, at this point, I am mostly just changing links to avoid redirects. For example, since Hakka language redirects to Hakka Chinese, changing a link from the former avoids redirects. While changing links just to avoid redirects is generally proscribed, in this case it's being done in the process of identifying further POV language. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply here and on my user talk page. I'll review the previous discussion on the Varieties of Chinese talk page, which I have looked at already. There seems to be a severe paucity of speakers of Chinese (any variety) there. Meanwhile, I've been gathering sources, which I will post that talk page. I agree that you are doing important clean-up work by checking how other articles wikify to the terms under discussion. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voiceless palatal fricative may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Voiceless labio-velar approximant may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | {{lang|got|[[Gothic alphabet|𐍃𐌰𐌹𐍈𐌰]]}}/{{lang|got|''[ai'''ƕ'''a''}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of important note.[edit]

That note exists there to let readers know that that using /f/ for th sounds is proscribed and nonstandard. Tharthan (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought that was already obvious. I don't see any standard accent listed there. Peter238 (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The other thing is that the use of that phoneme in that way is common in infants and small children, hence why that is mentioned.
Plenty of people consider Estuary English a fairly standard dialect of English, and if th-fronting is entering that dialect, then perceptively it might be reckoned by some that th-fronting is standard. Tharthan (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The note rubbed me the wrong way and your elaboration of its importance makes me feel more confident that removal was warranted. In addition to the heavy-handed implication that th-fronting is akin to the speech of infants, stressing the non-standard nature delves too far into prescriptive grammar, which we are not in the business of doing in linguistics articles. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, it IS akin to the speech of infants. And in most English dialects of the world, it is limited to the speech of infants. Implying that it is anything more than a rare, nonstandard occurrence outside of Cockney and the like would be lying. For most English speaking people, it is associated with the speech of infants who have yet to learn how to pronounce "th". It is absolutely nonstandard.
Perhaps one day, the entire world with speak like that and there will be no "th" dental sounds. But until that day, it remains nothing more than a nonstandard speech quirk that is recognised as such in most English speaking dialects. Tharthan (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at descriptive grammar. Your characterization of th-fronting goes against the core thinking of linguistics that prestige given to certain varieties is social, rather than objective. You are also likely inaccurate factually in your assessment of its distribution, though we would need sources to verify that. I'm sure you don't mean to be offensive in calling nonstandard speech features infantile baby-talk, but it certainly can be construed that way, especially in the notes column where there isn't room for nuance. Because your assessments are incorrect in theory, in fact, and in manner, that note has no place there. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It goes in the opposite direction as well. If we try to imply that th-fronting is a part of standard speech, we would be lying. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with noting that it is typically found in the speech of infants, as (again) in most places that is where it has been noted. And no, I'm not saying that nonstandard speech is baby-talk. What I am saying is that th-fronting is well known to be a typical feature of infantile English speaker speech, and that that, rather than its appearance in Cockney English, is something people are more familiar with and can understand. The notes should be clarifying things to the reader, so that they don't leave the page confused about what they just read. The note does just that.
I should also point out that Cockney English changed "v"s to "w"s in the 17th and 18th centuries, if I do recall correctly. That feature was parodied in a popular form of Pennsylvanian English at that time. However, save for Bermudan English, that feature died out and never became a standard feature of the language. To speak quite frankly, Cockney English seems to have new innovations to the language every century or so. We can't go around claiming that Cockney English's latest, newest, most happening thing is anywhere near standard. Tharthan (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is no implication that it is part of standard speech. The second column in the table clarifies where it appears. Many of the example tables of different sounds outline non-standard or dialectal sounds. It would be inappropriate and irrelevant to mark every non-standard feature as non-standard.
And, like I said, I understand that you're not saying that th-fronting is intrinsically infantile, but there isn't room on that table to provide the nuance you need to not strongly imply that. Moreover, you would need a reference to not only claim that it is not normally found outside of Cockney (which, again, is not true) but that it is a common feature of children still in the early process of English acquisition. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You can find references galore that point out that it is a common feature in the speech of infants. If you insist upon removing the note again and again I will go and find a source for that but it is very easy to find plenty of sources that show that.
Also "it would be inappropriate and irrelevant to mark every non-standard feature as non-standard"? No it wouldn't. Why would you think that. If something is non-standard it needs to be marked as non-standard, lest it give the impression that it isn't non-standard. What are you saying? Tharthan (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to ask you to bother finding a reliable source that backs up that claim because of the other problems I outlined. These are supposed to be brief notes. If, for example, it is stated somewhere that something is a feature of AAVE, California English, or Estuary English, it doesn't need to be explicitly stated that it's not part of Standard English. This is particularly true for that notes column. The importance you are placing on marking what is and is not standard English (which itself is a problematic myth, since there is no one single standard pronunciation of English) is characteristic of prescriptivism, which doesn't have a place in linguistics articles. It's actually an NPOV issue, meaning that presenting prescriptivist ideas anywhere at Wikipedia should be done as an indication of what prescriptivists favor, rather than an endorsement of what is and is not proper or correct. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I will accept your compromise, but understand that the fact that we have had the same th-sounds since Proto-Germanic shows what the correct pronunciations of those sounds are. The standard pronunciations of those sounds are the ones that have always been known to correspond to those sounds. Tharthan (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not my edit. I still dispute its inclusion. Also, while it's irrelevant to the current discussion, you're not quite right on your historical phonology. Proto-Germanic did have dental fricatives, but their phonemicity and incidence has changed over time. See Pronunciation of English th#History of the English phonemes for the details. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but English has kept both dental fricatives till the present day. It even restored some where they had temporarily gone away ("father" is a good example). Tharthan (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
To say that English has "kept" them is an oversimplification. Going with your father example, the word had an intervocalic [d] from the West Germanic period up to Middle English. But this is irrelevant. We're talking about is, not ought, and you're trying to turn one into the other. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glottal stop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uh-oh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Portuguese-based Creoles[edit]

Sorry for the late answer. Besides beeing very busy, the access to the internet in Cape Verde may be difficult.

I am preparing my argumentation regarding the edits of Pedro. I generaly assume a good-faith regarding other people's edits but in the case of Pedro I seriously doubt his intentions. See you later!

Ten Islands (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way...[edit]

That is a filter that I have on my computer that made those censorship changes to the Norfolk dialect page. I have it on because I have grown tired of next to no one watching their own mouths, so I have to watch it for them, as they have no filter upon what they say.

I sometimes forget to turn it off when editing Wikipedia. My bad. Tharthan (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, makes sense. No worries. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Close back unrounded vowel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese phonology. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bulgarian phonology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dzerzhinsky. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Dutch accent in English[edit]

If you're interested in writing about that, you can use Collins & Mees (2003) as a source. Cheers. Peter238 (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Catalan[edit]

Hey I've just responded to your text on IPA for Catalan. Regards. — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 01:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyperforeignism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raj. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 October[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Aeusoes1. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Is it OK for pronunciation symbols to be Original Research?. Thank you. ----mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Need a guideline about pronunciation of foreign words[edit]

Hi Aeusoes1, I am referring to your answer to Alex2006's question. The question was how to act with Italian words pronunciation inserted in articles. You said that, simply, we have to refer to the famous "Help:IPA for Italian", where there are all the indications to give the correct pronunciation needed, and it is sufficient to cite it if there is a dispute about a word. Well, if the standard "syntax" is used, the "Help:IPA for Italian" is automatically cited in the pronunciation: [itaˈljaːno]. That being so, unless there is a dispute about what is written in "Help:IPA for Italian", it should be sufficient to use the standard syntax to add (or modify, if wrong) the pronunciation of a word so that the Wikilink is present. It is not necessary to cite each time an external source: our Wiki is already a guidebook for that, isn't it? Dropping the debate around when it is necessary to insert an Italian word pronunciation and when it is not, I would like to ask only if what I have written so far is right. I need this answer to ask a question about an issue regarding an article containing an Italian pronunciation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.68.233 (talkcontribs)

You are right that we don't need to cite every pronunciation. Though there may be cases when a citation is called for. Our IPA for Italian page gives all the indications on how to represent Italian pronunciation and, insofar as Italian orthography is transparent (that is, the spelling-to-pronunciation is consistent), it can be sufficient. But there are exceptions to this transparency. If the spelling is ambiguous, a call for citations is appropriate. Another case might be where someone asserts that the pronunciation is different than the spelling would suggest. I would say that the burden of proof lies with those who believe a particular Italian word is pronounced in a way that is inconsistent with normal pronunciation rules.
What is the article in question? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, quick reply :-) I could not answer earlier: the spelling-pronunciation is "Pittura infamante". It is very simple, just [pitˈtuːra iɱfaˈmante], there is no ambiguity. The issue is about the [ɱ] symbol: the pronunciation inserted at the beginning had [n] (dental) instead of [ɱ] (labiodental), but it is uncorrect: because a nasal preceding a labiodental consonant ([f]/[v]) is naturally pronounced as a labiodental too, because "Help:IPA for Italian" confirms it, because of this example and this reference about Italian. Other articles containing an Italian word with the sequence "nf" or "nv" are written with [ɱ] without problems. In that article, instead, there is a registered user who keeps on restoring the previous, wrong pronunciation. A friend of mine, who asked for my help and whom I am helping by calling on you, has tried correcting it in last days, but he has always been reverted, even when he added the requested sources in the summary because "Help:IPA for Italian" and the other article are Wiki articles and they cannot be considered as sources. This sounds fairly crazy both because, as you said, there is no need to provide further sources and because the sources for Italian pronunciation are already present in "Help:IPA for Italian" and the other page. I think that was made a giant out of a microbe, the issue is even too simple to resolve, but neither I am a registered user nor my friend is, and we can do nothing if the user who goes on reverting is convinced that he is right and we are wrong... Are we right, aren't we? If we are, may you adjust the issue for us, please? Just by intervening in the article edits to rectify the pronunciation and saying in the summary that [ɱ] is correct without the need to cite new references, if it is so. Thank you.
PS: my IP is dynamic, so it is not the same as yesterday, but it is me.
PPS: I have just had a look, it looks like the pronunciation written now is the correct one, maybe you will not need to intervene any more unless one of the registered users restarts undoing the correct edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.18.187 (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: Icarus_of_old, the registered user I told you about, has again replaced the labiodental (correct) [ɱ] with the dental (uncorrect) [n]. Could you please restore the right pronunciation and elucidate that it is he the one who is mistaking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.25.221 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help! I did not know that the correct symbol was [m], are you sure about that? I have read that the nasal in the sequences "nf" and "nv" is always [ɱ], but if you are sure I will trust you. Thanks from my friend too for resolving the issue :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.89 (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You are right phonetically, but the IPA transcriptions we provide on Wikipedia pages for Italian don't incorporate that. It makes it a little less precise but a little more readable to a general audience. I'll keep tabs on the page. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Does it mean that if a user such as that icarus makes an edit you can see it? Very well! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.89 (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I have also gone through all the pages that link to IPA for Italian and changed the instances of ɱ and n to m when they come before f or v. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, if they were all uncorrect you were right correcting them. If I ever need help in similar situations may I ask here again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.89 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes you may. If it's an Italian pronunciation issue, you may even take it to Help talk:IPA for Italian. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Grazie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.89 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hallo, I would like to clarify my point. Being Italian, I have on my watch page a couple of hundreds od words of Italian origin. now, for reasons that I don't understand, since a couple of weeks have started many edit wars among ips and several users which, apparently in good faith, are inserting the Italian pronunciation on these article. Personally I am not interested in taking part to these edit wars, but I am very interested in avoiding edit wars in articles that I am watching. That's why I am now removing altogether the pronunciation each time that I see someone changing it. This derives from the opinion which I asked on the manual of style. If you don't agree with what has been suggested there, please continue the thread there, until a consensus ha been reached: the only place to discuss this stuff is the manual of style discussion page or the help page for Italian pronunciation, not the talk page of Tizio or Caio. Thanks. P.S. I don't know if you are Italian, but consider that in Italy there are several regional varieties of Italian, whose pronunciation rules often differs: this is another reason to give, at least in some cases, a reference for the "right" pronunciation. Alex2006 (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Need a guideline about pronunciation of foreign words[edit]

Hi Aeusoes1, I am here again to ask for your opinion and advice about a different matter, that is the insertion of the phonetic spellings (IPAs) of foreign origin words in English. Not just Italian words, words can be borrowed from any languages, but their pronunciation must be quite simple (Russian: "vodka"), not as "zabaglione" or "bolognese" which normally need it. Should we always add the original language phonetic transcription? May we add it but it is not necessary (and if we add it is better to put it in a specific section such as "Etymology" instead of the first line)? Or must not we ever add the original pronunciation of a common foreign word? Thank you.

This is where common sense can help you. If you think readers might not know how to pronounce the word, include it. Different editors have different answers for this. I've seen IPA transcriptions of George Bush. Etymology sections make more sense if they go beyond pronunciation, but they are also permitted. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I was interested in this mainly because I would like to add the Italian pronunciation to 2 or 3 English words, and one of these is "Mafia". In the section "Etymology" is written: "The word "mafia" originated in Sicily". Do you think I could modify it in the following way? "The word "mafia" ([ˈmaːfja]) originated in Sicily". Below that paragraph there are the possible etymologies from Arabic, I think it is the best place to place (lol) an IPA. Do you agree? If you do, may you say it also in the "Mafia" talk page, please? There is a "discussion" with just me and another user stalled since two days, and we agree, but a veteran Wikipedian's opinion too would be useful, so far nobody joined... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.49.249 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Hello. We could use your help on Help talk:IPA for Astur-Leonese. Peter238 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Flamsteed designation"[edit]

Hi. The problem is that 55 Cancri, for example, is not the name of the star. It is simply its designation in Flamsteed's catalogue. (The same is true of Bayer designations.) The star is unnamed, which is why the IAU is proposing to give it a name in its current public consultation. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let's say it's debatable then! :) In that spirit, I've modified 55 Cancri slightly. Are you content? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Cool! I'll remodify the articles - but thanks for the offer! - though maybe not all today! :) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your "recent" edits to the Sesotho grammar pages[edit]

Hey, Aeuseos1.

Thanks for these edits (removing the ill-thought-out hover shenanigans for IPA transcriptions).

I do need to point out an unfortunate error in your procedure, though. It would appear that whatever mechanism you were using, was also removing no break spaces in the IPA transcriptions? This has messed up quite a sizeable chunk of my transcriptions, unfortunately.

See this diff, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sotho_parts_of_speech&diff=680935801&oldid=679003686

I can't remember why I used no break spaces there (maybe it was some Unicode issue, or an issue with a browser, I can't remember) but the procedure has unfortunately rendered a large chunk of the thousands of IPA transcriptions completely incorrect when it comes to phonological word division.

Sotho deficient verbs is another page where the transcriptions of the example are completely stuffed.

Your thoughts?

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 16:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I see what you mean. I can't say the change was accidental, but removing the   instead of replacing it with a simple space was definitely a goof on my part. It sounds like a simple fix, albeit a tiresome one unless you can think of a quick way to put them back. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't think of anything quicker than reverting the changes and starting again, if that's possible. Tebello TheWHAT!!??

Portuguese phonology[edit]

Hello Aeusoes1, a question arose about the Symbol 〈ⁿ〉 which you inserted with the table at Nasal vowels. Sadly, the reference to http://www.experimentalprosodybrazil.org/BarbosaAlbano.pdf is now dead, so I'm wondering if you can answer the question. — Sebastian 18:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Near-close central vowels[edit]

Hi. On near-close central unrounded vowel, we write that "The third edition of the OED adopted an unofficial extension of the IPA, ⟨⟩, that is a conflation of ⟨ɪ⟩ and ⟨ɨ⟩, and represents either [ɪ̈] or free variation between [ɪ] and [ə]." The same applies to near-close central rounded vowel. My question is: does the OED really use these symbols to denote near-close central vowels? AFAIK, they don't, but I don't own that dictionary (and [1] doesn't even use those symbols).

If we want to list examples of works that use the symbols ⟨⟩ and ⟨ᵿ⟩ for vowels that are actually near-close central, it's Jones & Ward (1969) for the former and Krech et al. (2009) for the latter.

Therefore, I'm wondering whether our notes on Help:IPA for English, saying that "Many speakers freely alternate between a reduced [ɪ̈] and a reduced [ə]" and "Many speakers freely alternate between a reduced [ʊ̈] and a reduced [ə]. Many speakers freely alternate between a reduced [ʊ̈] and a reduced [ə]" are just our OR. Peter238 (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, could you take a look at near-close vowel? The grammar might be a bit off in one or two sentences, but I'm not sure. Peter238 (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of tags[edit]

Information icon Please do not insert template onto pages for no reason, such as, for example, reverting the removal o a template which is not necessary or incorrect. It is not constructive to put false messages into articles by doing such a thing or to make articles more difficult to read or to make up other editors' time unnecessarily by having that page on any automatic lists that the template causes which will then cause those editors to have to click and look at several extra articles which do not have the mentioned problem because you have inserted the template on those articles.   GodOfNonTyranny 18:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The response means that obviously if a notice box was removed then the notice box is either not applicable, is no longer applicable, or is unnecessary, and telling someone not to remove one is a bad way to clutter up Wikipedia and make it more difficult to use and edit because you say anything written should stay forever even when it's wrong or unneeded such as a box stating there are no references when there are references.  GodOfNonTyranny 13:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Syntactic Gemination[edit]

Hello there. I see that some time ago you participated in a discussion about IPA for Italian language, talking about the use of an asterisk to indicate the syntactic gemination at the end of words and nouns (and in the end it was decided unanimously that such symbol shouldn't have been used). You wrote: "Why couldn't we just show the actual gemination if it occurs in our transcription? It would be like somehow marking French transcriptions with the final consonant that is normally elided except in cases of liaison.". I fully agree with your argument. Is this still your opinion? If you think that the asterisk is superfluous or may even confuse readers and that it'd be better just to show the double consonant when the gemination actually happens ('il Po superiore' = /il'possuperi'ore/ but 'Po' = /po/ not /po*/), would you mind taking your opinion in a new discussion? Let me know! 90.183.44.252 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is still my opinion. IPA for Italian has already been changed to reflect this consensus. Is there another discussion in which this has come up? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's on the Wikitionary. The asterisks were inserted in the IPA spelling of Italian words and names by the same user who did it here, IvanScrooge98, without asking for consensus to do it. Since local admins say that they can't be just removed, having been there for a long time, a consensus is needed and there's a new discussion in the Beer parlour: [2]. So far nobody supported the use of the asterisks, but one more opinion would be helpful and is welcomed. Even if I've seen that you have hardly ever edited the dictionary, you can join the discussion if you wish.
90.183.44.252 (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

14 Words[edit]

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

88 Precepts

Because the beauty of the White Ausryan woman must not perish from the earth.

This is a community banned editor using proxies to edit and evade their ban. I hadn't noticed how racist he was. 11:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talkcontribs)
Kinda looks like they were hacked. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Witchcraft in Cameroon[edit]

Hello Aeusoes1. Back in 2010 the redirect was added to “Djambe[3] because of it being a term used in some parts of Africa to refer to witchcraft. Any chance you might have a reference we could add so “Djambe” may appear under ‘’Witchcraft-By region-Africa”, as suggested by MichiHenning [4] ? I will look for a reference in the meantime. Thank you Tortillovsky (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your prompt reply. [5] Tortillovsky (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Aeusoes1, sorry to bother. In reference to the terms for “witchcraft” used in Africa (and the source you kindly provided), what I’ve been able to find so far, is that of the term suwa’ye, which is in Kuranko language and which is used in Sierra Leone (“Ethnographic Sorcery” West, 2007 p.24). The original redirect indicates that the term djambe is used in Cameroon though; this I haven’t been able to spot. I understand that Harry G. West was referencing Michael Jackson (anthropologist) (1989). Could it be that the term is used in “Paths Towards a Clearing” instead? Would you take a look at what I wrote[6] to User:MichiHenning? Thanks, Tortillovsky (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for for your attention and for providing the information for the book. Tortillovsky (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Aeusoes1, I added the reference to the article[7]. Cheers. Tortillovsky (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Theresa May#Pronunciation[edit]

As the above-mentioned discussion could use some more input, I'm inviting all the active members of the phonetics project to participate. Ardalazzagal (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Stalker[edit]

English is not your native language, yet you are stalking people on English wikpedia? I am sorry, you are not stalking. You are the wikipedia police? Can I have your badge number please? HeinrichMueller (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like to make an accusation, you can do so at the administrator's noticeboard. Sarcasm will get you nowhere here. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Spanish America[edit]

Hello, Aeusoes1. This is regarding your recent edit of Spanish Phonology. "Spanish America" is indeed a thing. See data at "Requested move 2 August 2015" under Talk at Hispanic America. I've come to realize that, in Wikipedia, it's a losing battle to try to replace every instance of "Latin America" with "Spanish America" in statements like "Seseo is used throughout Latin America", but it still jars me when I think of the millions of non-Spanish-speakers in Brazil. I realize that, in Wikipedia, it is also a losing battle to insist on the _usual_ term "Spanish America" in place of the ambiguous term "Hispanic America". Wikipedia has chosen the latter term in spite of the supporting data at the above link, "Requested_move_2_August_2015". Kotabatubara (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As I suspected, they are two different things with overlapping meaning. Spanish America also includes parts of the United States. I understand your jarred feeling, but as long as we're making it clear that we're talking about Spanish-language speakers, it should be understood that Portuguese speakers are excluded from that. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Aeusoes1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Pitjantjatjara[edit]

A recent edit of yours to Pitjantjatjara removed the peripheral and apical (see coronal) groupings from the consonant table; while I understand the motivations behind this (likely consistency), peripheral consonants and coronal consonants are both used as groupings in Australian linguistics for reasons you can see in the linked articles. Auvon (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The linked articles don't provide the rationale, but I did a little digging and found it. I'm not convinced. I'm not intending on a broad campaign of removing "peripheral" from consonant charts across Wikipedia, but I do think they are poorly motivated. Linguistic subdisciplines have all kinds of categorizations like this, but this doesn't necessarily justify upsetting the logic of an IPA consonant chart. Either way, the organization is based on the source that is cited, as well as typical IPA conventions, if that's what's necessary to keep the format as I have changed it. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi, I found you through IPA for Polish talk page. I've just added a Polish pronunciation of this person's name to the article. Just wanted to make sure I've done it correctly, if not could you please fix it. I'd really appreciate that. ArturSik (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

n̩ - nasal n?[edit]

Hi,

I've got a phonetics question and I thought you might know the answer. It's about the ...t_n combination in English as in mountain, Clinton, mutiny, and button. 1) What do you call this IPA symbol: n̩ and 2) Where can I find info on it in Wikipedia? I tell my English students the last syllable of "button" is a glottal stop and a nasal n, but I think the French and Lusophones might disagree with me. Thanks! DBlomgren (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hello Aeusoes1, Thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your hard work in the area of language studies, and your 33,000+ edits and 280+ pages created help to make Wikipedia a veritable treasure trove. Thanks, by contributor 2know4power (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

Template:Dental[edit]

I just saw your reversion of my edit on the Dental template. My problem was not with the description of the dental stop, but the use of the word 'actually.' It's a written tic, used for emphasis when unneeded, like 'really' in spoken English, and its deletion is almost always no loss to the meaning of a sentence. (As you can also tell, it's one of my pet peeves.) But I also clearly see your point about the incorrect or imprecise use of dental.

Do you think the sentence can be rephrased to 'Note that most stops and liquids described as dental are not properly termed, and should be called denti-alveolar,' or something similar?

Ira Ira Leviton (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I know the feeling. I spent some time removing "term used to describe" from Wikipedia. As was the case with my own campaign, there are instances where "actually" is the best pick and I think this may be one of them. Calling a denti-alveolar consonant dental isn't necessarily inaccurate or improper. It might be a bit imprecise, which is why "actually" works IMHO. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 00:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:LQ[edit]

It seems that you are not really "familiar with MOS:LQ", in particular, this fragment:

If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside.

The text where you revert my edit quotes only a fragment of a sentence, so the period (even if it was present immediately after that fragment in the source) should not be included in the quotation. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken about the quote. Here is the full sentence from the source:

Misspelling is made to substitute for mispronunciation: i.e. it is suggested that the speaker is at the level of ignorance where one misspells in this fashion, hence mispronounces as well.

I hope this puts to rest the issue for you. Next time, I recommend you either actually check the source in question or, if you are unable, ask another editor, such as the one who included the material. I will leave you to restore the proper place of the punctuation in this case. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I had actually checked the source and saw that only a fragment of that sentence is quoted, the fragment that you have emphasized in boldface (without the period, by the way). If the situation with the period is still not clear, try to think whether quoting "to substitute for mispronunciation" should include the colon or not. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're saying. I think we interpret "fragment" differently here. I did a little digging to see what, exactly, is meant by "fragment" since it isn't altogether clear if it is a literary fragment (or "incomplete sentence") or something a little less well-defined but maybe commonsense (which is how I interpret it). In the process, I found this discussion from last fall that, in part, was intended to clarify this issue. Nobody came to any agreement, which means (AFAIK) the de facto policy is that it's up to the discretion of the individual editor.
Per MOS:STYLEVAR, this means you would need a clear and compelling reason to change from one style to another. Do you have such a reason? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
As I understand, "quotation is a single word or fragment" is the opposite of "quotation is a full sentence" (meaning a sentence in the source, not "grammatically complete"). Anyway, the quoted fragment is not complete in both senses.
I haven't read the "box" in the referred MOS discussion, but my overall impression from the rest is that more or less everybody agreed on "include what is important". So, for example,

Does it end with "as well." or "as well..."?

should include the final punctuation of the quoted sentence, since it is important. In your case, we do not care whether the original sentence ended after "as well" or not. I say "we" because you have not emphasized the period in your quote above. From another perspective, imagine that the sentence in the article had some continuation:

It suggests that a character "would use a vulgar pronunciation if there were one" and "is at the level of ignorance where one misspells in this fashion, hence mispronounces as well", according to Bolinger.

I hope, we agree that it should not include the period:

It suggests that a character "would use a vulgar pronunciation if there were one" and "is at the level of ignorance where one misspells in this fashion, hence mispronounces as well.", according to Bolinger.

(By the way, "...there were one" also has some final punctuation in the source, so if you insist on writing "...as well.", then you should also write "there were one.'", otherwise there is no logic.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I pretty much disagree with everything you've just said. I do care if the sentence ends in "as well", since that conveys important meaning in the sentence. Where I place the bold tags should in no way construe whether I think the period is important or not, especially given what I've said in this discussion. The sentence continuing as in your example would be appropriate, but then that would not be the terminal punctuation of the sentence also being in the quotation (the rule laid out at MOS:LQ) because you've changed the sentence. If a quote terminates in a pre-period word, but the grammatical context of the sentence containing the quote doesn't require a period there, you can omit the period. That is both common sense, and in no way construes your stance regarding the issue that you and I (and, yes, people in that thread) disagree on.
You and I can go back and forth on policy all we want, but it's clear the policymakers have not made a definitive choice on the matter. I, again, ask you. Do you have a clear and compelling reason to change from one style to another? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 13:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I think, you've got it backwards. The idea of logical punctuation is that the material inside the quotation marks does not depend on the enclosing sentence (but some punctuation of the enclosing sentence can be omitted in some cases). That is, ... "...as well." and "...as well.", according to... are either both correct or both wrong (in other words, if somebody else is going to rewrite that sentence, they should be able to reuse that quotation without any modifications). If you have English-speaking friends who were not imprinted by the American style, try discussing this issue with them, it should be really obvious for them.
And regarding the "compelling reason", I do not "change from one style to another", but just make it consistent with MOS:LQ. It seems that you have missed the "full sentence" requirement there. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, there's clearly an ambiguity in the guidelines in this regard. You can argue with me till you're blue in the face, but even if you persuade me to your side, there is still unclear wording in the guidelines. If you want to argue with me about there being a dispute, I'm not interested. If you want to take the conversation further and actually resolve the issue so that editors have clarity (even if clarity is to say that it's a stylistic choice), you can bring it up again at the MOS talk page and we'll go from there. If that's what you choose to do, feel free to ping me. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
if                                                                    -- check the 1st case
  the quotation is a full sentence                                    -- false
  and
  the quotation coincides with the end of the sentence containing it  -- true
then                                                                  -- false and true = false, so go to else
  place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark
else if                                                               -- check the 2nd case
  the quotation is a single word                                      -- false
  or
  the quotation is a fragment                                         -- true
then                                                                  -- false or true = true, so use this case
  place the terminal punctuation outside
end
Where do you see an ambiguity? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Where it says "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material". — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
"Include only if present" = "do not include if not present". It does not say "always include when" (or "include if and only if"), so this statement puts a restriction but does not give a definite answer in this case, thus we need to read further, and then we can find the statement that does provide a definite answer (shown above). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
"If the quotation is a full sentence" doesn't mean "only if the quotation is a full sentence." My patience with you is wearing thin. This is the third time I've directed you to the relevant talk page. Either start a discussion there or drop it. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on cleaning up Savitar page[edit]

Hi! I saw you'd shortened the long description of the TV villain Savitar on Savitar (comics). Your change was undone by User:LightandDark2000, who greatly expanded that material. I also tried to cut it down (to your proposed version) but he immediately reverted the change. I started a discussion on He talk page, would you like to join in? It's at Talk:Savitar_(comics)#Arrowverse.2FTV_sections:_Too_long.3F. Thanks much! — Narsil (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your edit in the Creole entry...[edit]

Hi! You cleaned up an edit I did on the Creole page for my Linguistics class. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:1008:ED51:94B5:CE7:86EE (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. We're all in this to work together! — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Linking to Spanish WP[edit]

I think that an exception should be made here. Someone with absolutely no knowledge of Spanish would probably not be reading the article at all. I don’t think it makes sense to translate the Spanish text. The link is doing good not harm. deisenbe (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely disagree, @Deisenbe: Someone can be interested in Spanish orthography without being proficient in it. Indeed, I wouldn't count myself as proficient enough to read without a translation dictionary and I've made some pretty serious contributions to Spanish linguistics articles. If the content is reliable and well-sourced, then it does indeed make sense to translate. And, as I already said, providing links to Spanish-language content where readers expect English is disruptive to their experience. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Swedish IPA Edit[edit]

Hello,

You recently reverted an edit I made on the Swedish IPA Wiki page. My edit provided an English-language approximation to the 'sj' sound in Swedish, being similar to the 'wh' sound (in what, where, when) in most Scottish accents. This is far more relevant an approximation than the German one already presented (and which I did not delete). Unless you are able to provide a reason as to why this approximation should not be included on the IPA table, I should be very grateful if you would revert the page back to the edit I contributed.

Many thanks, Johnxsmith (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi John. The sound in Swedish represented by ⟨sj⟩ cannot be fairly described as similar to the sound represented by ⟨wh⟩ in Scottish English. Our article on sj-sound indicates that there is dialectal representation in this regard, but none of them is the sound of what. It is possible this is a dialectal sound, but the format you have attempted to put this information in would be misleading to readers.
In the International Phonetic Alphabet, the sound of Scottish ⟨wh⟩ is represented as [ʍ]. This is described phonetically in a number of ways, but it's best to think of it as a voiceless w. This means that there is some constriction in the back of the throat or velum, as well as lip rounding. That is not the sound of German Bach (which is a velar or uvular fricative with no rounding) and, if we were to put Scottish ⟨wh⟩ next to German ⟨ch⟩ as you have done, we would be committing an error by implying they are the same.
There is already an explanatory note denoting the dialectal variation of the sj-sound and I wouldn't mind a rewrite of that, perhaps even with a "no English approximation" or "varies" in the approximation column for that sound.— Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit on Kurdish phonology article[edit]

Hello. I wondered why you moved the "v" phoneme to the labial voiced fricative spot, when it is a voiced labiodental fricative? It would have made more sense if you had moved the voiceless labiodental fricative - I've tried moving it myself, but can't make it work without getting the Voiceless dental fricative moved. If this makes sense. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I know, it's a little tricky. I think we should treat f and v the same way on the table. If the θ weren't in the way, then we could have both of them in the labial and dental column. Since we couldn't, I figured the labial column alone would be fine.
We might be able to simplify the consonant and vowel tables. I'll see if later on I can't whip something up, but feel free to revert per wp:brd if it's problematic. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Aeusoes1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Incorrect transcriptions[edit]

The first one (Circassia) I just copied the transcription from here, and I will admit that I was completely oblivious on the second one (Stavropol). Won't happen again. Sorry. Undead Organism (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Bakhsh[edit]

Can you see if you can answer my question at Talk:Bakhsh? I've been trying to years, but no one's checked on this question. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

IPA Italian[edit]

I'm by no means an expert in linguistics, nor a native speaker of Italian, but as far as I can see about the discussion of ɱ is mostly a back and forth between you, who is against it and User:Trovatore, who was for it. It also didn't seem there was ever a consensus to exclude ɱ; is there one? If not, I don't see why we shouldn't include a valid letter. On Wikipedia, as you know, we try to write technical articles as simply as possible for the average reader, but here I don't think that's an issue, because the entire IPA alphabet may be a "WTF moment" for someone who's never seen it — it isn't our job to teach it to them, but at least supply them with all the information with no holes. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I pointed you to the talk page discussion so you could see the points that were brought up. The decision to exclude ɱ extends even beyond that particular discussion and the general agreement (for example, in the Spanish IPA guide) is that it's not necessary and potentially confusing. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aeusoes1, I'd like to ask for your help: user Johanna-Hypatia is continuing inserting a wrong IPA for an Italian name. The name is "Helle Busacca", whose surname prounciation he keeps transcribing as [buˈsakka] with /s/ even if its correct pronunciation is with /z/ (see); he claims that, since in his home town they pronounce it with /s/ it has to be transcribed like that despite the standard pronunciation... Do you understand this claim is absolutely senseless, don't you? If we accept this idea, then every single Italian name belonging to people born out of Florence or Tuscany mustn't be transcribed in the standard Italian pronunciation but in the local pronunciation. This would be absurd. Please, since you're a veteran user and you're more expert about phonetic issues than him, may you join our discussion in his talk page and tell us your opinion? Thank you very much! Tenunz (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says it's pronounced with a /z/? The video used as a source has a clear [s] pronunciation. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I've already typed it: here (the DOP is perhaps the most authoritative source about Italian orthography and pronunciation, even if it doesn't use the International Phonetic Alphabet but a particular alphabet thought for Italians (see)); you can also hear the correct pronunciation of "Busacca" at that URL, and this should be enough to fix this doubt, in my humble opinion... Tenunz (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC) P.S.: the issue has been fixed :-)

source for the Dutch section on Non-native pronunciations of English[edit]

Would it be alright to use an overarching source for Non-native_pronunciations_of_English#Dutch through the addition of sfn|Collins|Mees|2003|p=285-291 at the start? I'm not very experienced at sourcing.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

For someone who's not very experienced at sourcing, you've basically done 90% of the work, so don't sell yourself short. If we weren't open to adding to this list with other sources, that would be a fine solution. But if others want to add to the list from different sources, it would start to get confusing unless we itemize the citations.
Replacing all the question marked page ranges with 285-291 could also work, though I wouldn't worry about that. I'm going to continue going through and tweaking the wording and presentation, but letting me know the specific page range you looked at has been very helpful, so thank you. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)