User talk:Freelance Intellectual

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

Welcome!

Hello, Freelance Intellectual, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Little context in Synaptic knob[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Synaptic knob, by Purgatory Fubar, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Synaptic knob is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Synaptic knob, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Synaptic knob itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sichuanese[edit]

Hi! Thank you a lot for improving the English quality of the two arcticles I wrote. (^___^)

However, I doubt that you put a "unreliable sources" template in the article, because most of the resource I cited is from Chinese academic journals, papers or books. And the rest is from some Chinese newspaper. --本本一世 (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any research about Sichuanese done outside China, in fact, most research is done by scholars in Sichuan or Chongqing. When I searched for something English about Sichuanese once, I was quite shocked that many people believe Sichuanese is just an accent, and compare it with American English.
The variety of Mandarin, especially the great gap between Northern Mandarin and Southern Mandarin (Southwestern and Jianghuai), may have not yet couse the attention of English-speaking scholars, although Southern Mandarin is quite endangered now and may be completely northernized in the future. --本本一世 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

labial-dental[edit]

Quote from your edit summary:

Labial-dental is not labio-dental. The former is doubly articulated ("dental" here meaning a kind of alveolar with the tongue near the top teeth), while the latter is singly articulated ("dental" here meaning using the bottom teeth))

Okay, I can't quite follow this. Do you mean Yele w is [ʋ͡ð̞] (or maybe [β̞͡ð̞])? Also, I don't know what the 'bottom teeth' are about: labiodental is with the lower lip against the upper teeth (though dentolabial has these switched: the upper lip against the lower teeth). --JorisvS (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, very sorry, I explained wrongly! I didn't mean "bottom teeth" at all - labiodental is with the bottom LIP against the TOP teeth, as you correctly said. (Is it possible to edit the summary of an edit?) My point was that labiodental is singly articulated. I believe your second suggestion is correct (since it's bilabial), and I'm assuming you're using the lowering diacritic to indicate that it's more of an approximant than a fricative. Now, I have to add that I don't actually speak this language myself (and haven't even heard it, actually); this is only what I understand from what I've read. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
No, unfortunately edit summaries cannot be edited. Whether you speak the language or not is(, fortunately,) not very relevant, only what the sources tell us. So, can you cite the things you've read? It would be great if you can, as we could then just fix the text (in any case it needs some fixing) and say Yele w is [β̞͡ð̞] and use a proper reference and then everything will be better. (Also, note that [β̞͡ð̞] is best described as "bilabial–dental".) --JorisvS (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "bilabial" would be more accurate than merely "labial", but most of the literature simply uses "labial", presumably since labiodental co-articulated consonants are rare (although not non-existant, e.g. "r" in some varieties of English, including my own, actually). This isn't just true for "labial-dental" - you often see "labial-velar" instead of "bilabial-velar", and so on. The only source I've read which is specific about this sound is the SIL phonological data already cited in the article. It lists "w" as a "voiced labial-dental approximant". Notably, it's listed outside of the main table of consonants (which includes an empty labiodental column), presumably since it's doubly articulated. Now, I admit that I am inferring the details of the articulation based on other facts I know about the language (e.g. chapter 10 of "The Sounds of the World's Languages" (Ladefoged and Maddieson), which goes into some detail about its plosives and nasals), but a bilabial-dental would fit much more neatly into the rest of the phonological structure than a labiodental would, since there are bilabial-dental plosives and nasals, but no labiodentals. I suppose we could check Henderson's "The Phonology and Grammar of Yele", if you're still in doubt. I don't have a copy of this myself, but I suppose I could make a visit to the library at some point.
I think that could be a good idea. The info on the doubly articulated consonants is sketchy and, above all, quite messy (just look at the symbols in the approximant row). Using proper IPA accompanied by good (inline) references would be good here. Also, I'd say the prose describing the doubly articulated consonants would be much improved if it's more explicit than it currently is. Given the language's unique phonology precision would be important. --JorisvS (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I've finally had time to find Henderson's book, and it describes Yeli-Dnye as having four basic places of articulation (bilabial, dental, (post-)alveolar, and velar), and three co-articulated places of articulation (bilabial-dental, bilabial-alveolar, and bilabial-velar). These last three are referred to as "simultaneous bilabial closure" (SBC). These can then be modified by palatalisation and labialisation, and the stops can be prenasalised or nasally released. This much agrees with the article. Including all attested variants, he lists 56 different stops, 12 nasals, 2 "semi-vowels", and 5 "non-nasal continuants". [w] is listed as a bilabial semi-vowel (and *not* dental + SBC), which suggests that a stricter IPA transcription should be [β̞]. However, this seems to directly contradict the SIL report - which is doubly strange since that was supposedly checked by Henderson! In any case, [w] should be either [β̞] or [β̞͡ð̞], and definitely not [ʋ]. Perhaps we should note this uncertainty in the article. And about the approximants and fricatives listed in the article - Henderson lists 7 of the 9 given, not mentioning [β] or [j͡w]. He labels [w] and [j] as semi-vowels, and the other five as non-nasal continuants. So at least 7 of the 9 are correct - the other two, I don't know. In fact, [j͡w] would only make sense using a non-standard reading of [w] (otherwise it would be a triple articulation!), perhaps [β̞], as Henderson seems to use it in his book. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If he describes it as a "bilabial semi-vowel", then it sounds like [β̞] should be used (maybe add a note that Henderson uses [w], but that his description is bilabial). Do I understand you correctly that Henderson doesn't list the bilabial fricative in our table, but does list a "bilabial [w]" and a fricative [βʲ]? [j͡w] doesn't make much sense, and if our sources don't list it, I'd say it is better to remove it. --JorisvS (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You do understand me correctly, but the those two consonants he doesn't list can be inferred from the SIL report (assuming that the article is using [j͡w] to mean [j͡β̞]). I'm tempted to side with the data in Henderson's book, simply because it's more thoroughly backed up with examples, but of course I don't know. Given the obvious contradictions, I think it would be best to rewrite the article using the analysis in Henderson's book (with a stricter IPA transcription), and note where the SIL report differs - although of course we could equally do the reverse. What do you think? Freelance Intellectual (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean exactly when you say "can be inferred from the SIL report"? --JorisvS (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
By that I mean this section of the report:

All consonants except / n̪ n ɣ w y / can be palatalized. Labialization can accompany bilabial and velar consonants except / β ɣ w /. Bilabial plosives and nasals can be palatalized and labialized simultaneously. Plosives can also be prenasalized or nasally released, but not both at the same time. Non-bilabial consonants except /ɣ/ can be articulated with or without simultaneous bilabial closure. All these are interpreted as suprasegmentals.

This implies that [β] can be palatalised to produce [βʲ], and [j] can be articulated with simultaneous bilabial closure to produce [j͡β̞]. I am assuming that by /y/, they mean /j/. However, I've now also noticed that in other places, the article doesn't agree with the SIL report. As I said before, I would suggest rewriting it to match Henderson's book.Freelance Intellectual (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then I think that the article could be rewritten to match Henderson's book (with the IPA corrected), but that the info from the SIL report should be mentioned where relevant. Though, it just struck me.. how big would the difference between [βʲ] and [j͡β̞] be? --JorisvS (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rhinelandic regiolect may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited High German consonant shift, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ripuarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)