User talk:Peter238

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

R in Dutch[edit]

So, I found this thesis on the R in Dutch. I think you might be interested and it has data we can use at Dutch phonology pages etc. Here it is: http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/306415Gati123 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks! — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 21:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Gati123: Next week I'll try to add a complete list of possible realizations of Dutch /r/ to Dutch phonology. I'll use a couple of different sources, including the one you gave me. nl:Uitspraak van de r in het Nederlands features an extremely interesting (and, unfortunately, unsourced) statement: "Er is ook nog een lateraal fricatieve velaire r, waarbij het schurende geluid komt van lucht die langs de zijkant van de tong ontsnapt; deze r begint meestal met een tikje, ook geproduceerd langs de zijkant van de tong." Maybe you'd be able to dig up a Dutch source which talks about it. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Great! I'll dig for information and I have already asked the user who added the 'lateraal fricatieve velaire' r if (s)he has a source. If you want any more help, just ask! Gati123 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I got a response from that user: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Atalanta#lateraal_fricatieve_velaire_r_in_het_Nederlands (at the dutch wikipedia). She hasn't got a source to prove it. Her verification is that she herself has that r. An educated philologist has checked the page and hasn't complained about that r. But as there is no source I think it's better to not use it. I will search for more sources! Hope this helps Gati123 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It does, thanks! — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi again it's been a while (I spent a month in Sweden for work) I read the thesis another time so let me know if you need any help with it Gati123 (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, thanks. Peter238 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

German language discussion[edit]

Hallo,
Wir brauchen weitere Nutzer, welche sich an dieser Diskussion beteiligen!
We need further users, who participate in this discussion! --37ophiuchi (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I can't really contribute to it, so it'd be better if I stayed away from it. Thanks for the invitation though! Peter238 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem :) Perhaps I can solicit your input on this matter? --37ophiuchi (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, done. Peter238 (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Cleanup Barnstar Hires.png The Cleanup Barnstar
I'm giving you a barnstar for your excellent work on my noob article Hallingmål-Valdris, you really deserve it! –– ♫ Mara/Freya ♫ 10:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't that much work, but thanks! Peter238 (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Superscript IPA letters[edit]

Hi Peter,

Can you tell if I missed anything in the table at secondary articulation? I thought I remembered superscript ç and ɫ, but I'm not finding them. — kwami (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Try Unicode subscripts and superscripts#Other superscript and subscript characters. You'll probably find superscript ç, but not the velarized alveolar lateral. Peter238 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Oh, I can see why that's not the best advice, as you've just edited that article. In that case, maybe this will do? I used that site when I used Fedora, it's pretty good. Peter238 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, can't find anything else. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Retroflex[edit]

If you think there is no doubt that retroflex "actually means" only subapical (on whatever grounds you have for dismissing the many sources in which no such restriction is applied), then some modification is required to the retroflex consonant article to make that clear. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added something to the lead of the retroflex article (based on the content of that article), but it does seem that the "retroflex must be subapical" view is only a minority one, so we shouldn't write as if it were universally held. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@W. P. Uzer: No problem. I'll try to dig up the sources in the next couple of days. Peter238 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)