User talk:Srtª PiriLimPomPom

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


Hello. Please use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made and note that the terminological conventions that are employed in a Wikipedia article should generally be the ones most common in the English language, as you would find them in reliable sources. [1] Please refrain from using the IPA notation in a non-standard way (capital letters and tildes do not constitute standard usage). [2]Omnipaedista (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This is because 1. Brazilian Portuguese's phoneme /S/ (I can prove our linguistic academy uses this notation with sources, but it had nothing to do with the content of the article in question) cannot be properly described as either /s/ or /ʃ/ (it can also be [z], [ɕ], [ʑ], [ʒ], [h], [ɦ] and phonemic zero) 2. pronunciation in Brazil would need to be verbose for me to indicate just a sole (but important) vowel reduction dialectal variation, and I felt such formality as unnecessary. Ugh, really, you undid my edits to turn them again to incorrect/incomplete information, instead of telling yourself whatever allophone you felt more prevalent, standard or important (what I can't do myself). Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
My objection is that you used a phonemic convention in a phonetic transcription. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Re. 'European?' in labiodental approximant[edit]

I thought it likely that the University of Porto's corpus might not carry BP samples. The labiodental approximant might very well occur in BP, but we shouldn't claim it does (be it implicitly) unless we can verify it. — Lfdder (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I take it that my pronunciation of the example I put there in a vocaroo file wouldn't count (yes, my v feels "aspirated" rather than voiced-f in malva and louvo). They didn't have BP samples. Sucks, the example [ɐtiʋiˈðad̥ʃ] would very well be a possible carioca pronunciation (it is a perfectly normal stress-timed male one) if not for the absence of palatalization in the "ti" (Rio de Janeiro is the only state where ~100% of people affricate-palatalize ti and di), so we can't even have the illusion that it might be from an immigrant. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I do actually live with a Carioca, so I might just ask him to say it for me....for science. — Lfdder (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
"The world is like an egg"... To me the most interesting part of that source was the reported addition of [ə̯] to monophthongs, especially after /e/ and /o/. Other Brazilians stereotype us as doing it in many places (hell, a sound file I gave people was said to contain it terribly clearly, but I couldn't hear - I was not presented to IPA yet at the time, though, they said it was "oar" and "éar"), but I only have a very slight perception of it as such (I distinguish mas from mais phonetically, but I don't have a short monophthong in the first one either). Now that it seems to be a slight areal feature of northern Portugal I'm very confident that it indeed exists and we inherited it from them. This endless linguistic Portuguese heritage is fun, I never stop learning things. :) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage: User:Srtª PiriLimPomPom[edit]

Hello there. I just wanted to send you a friendly note about your User page. It is intended for basic information about yourself or your Wikimedia-related activities. A lot of leeway is allowed in personalizing your user page, but it seems a lot like a fake article or essay about your point of view. I'm wondering if you could move it to a subpage? Please don't be offended. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really sorry! I was supposed to do something like this, but was in a bit of a rush so postponed it, and then completely forgot about its existence. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Don't be one bit sorry. :) I'm sorry to be a bother. If you like, you can paste the following to your userpage. They are nice sandboxes -- a good place to hammer out things that will eventually become part of the encyclopedia.
==My sandboxes==
*[[User:Srtª PiriLimPomPom/Sandbox1|Sandbox1]]
*[[User:Srtª PiriLimPomPom/Sandbox2|Sandbox2]]
*[[User:Srtª PiriLimPomPom/Sandbox3|Sandbox3]]
If there is anything you ever need or have any questions, please ask. Thank you, and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


I left a reply at my userpage. AbelM7 (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


I reverted your edit not because I don't agree. Straight men do sometimes enjoy Yaoi but putting a citation tag where you did suggest gay men don't. Why not add straight men to the sentence rather than challenging that gay men also enjoy it.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your point, also I already thought that too. I'm just not really sure if the English phrase I used is grammatically okay. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Brazilian Sign Language shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-native pronunciations of English, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liaison (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, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. JustBerry (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@JustBerry: What are you even talking about? Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@Srtª PiriLimPomPom: Without a doubt, you had engaged in an edit war. I was just warning you to stop to save you from trouble. --JustBerry (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@JustBerry: I'm pretty confident it's not a edit war if you revert consensus for lack of reliable sources, and tries to resolve it in the talk page. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian Portuguese[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you added information about Brazilian Portuguese speakers at Non-native pronunciations of English. Most of it was good, but there was one source that I saw didn't actually back up the claim (it was talking about Portuguese pronunciation, not how Portuguese speakers pronounce English). I can understand the logic of using this as a source, because second-language transfer leads to a lot of the characteristics of ESL speech. However, it would be original research to make this sort of inference.

I bring this up because I was wondering if another claim you added about vowels being pronounced with breathy voice was using this same logic. I'm unable to access the book cited, an introductory textbook called "Iniciação à Fonética e à Fonologia." If you still have access to this work, do you think you could you tell me if the source in question is talking about Portuguese or if it's talking about ESL speakers? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 21:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: Yes, it's about Portuguese specifically, given how I found the sources on ESL speakers somewhat limited. No issue about removing the unsourced bits. :) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pilaf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supreme (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, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Esclarecendo o que a fonte diz[edit]

Olá tudo bem? Eu observei uma edição sua em special:diff/677225695 com sumário dizendo How is "produced in the middle of the hard palate" not evidence for such?, eu vou respeitar a tua edição, no entanto eu gostaria de clarificar o que aquela dissertação de mestrado diz.

Aquela dissertação de mestrado que você citou, na página 18, diz que a articulação daqueles dois fonemas que ela chama de alveopalatais é a fricção que ocorre na parte medial do palato duro, conforme descrito na referência que ela usou, de autoria de sua professora orientadora (CRISTÓFARO-SILVA, 2001, p. 32) e pode-se baixar uma cópia neste link.

Tal fonte descreve a articulação desta forma:

  • Alveopalatal (ou pós-alveolares): O articulador ativo é a parte anterior da língua (15) e o articulador passivo é a parte medial do palato duro (8). Exemplos: tia, dia (no dialeto carioca), chá, já.
  • Palatal: O articulador ativo é a parte média da língua (16) e o articulador passivo é a parte final do palato duro (8). Exemplos: banha, palha.

Como eu lhe disse, eu vou respeitar a sua edição, eu passei aqui na sua PDU apenas para avisar que a sua própria fonte diz que o ponto de articulação dos fonemas /ch/ e /j/ e dos fonemas /nh/ /lh/ não é o mesmo, e também que em nenhuma parte da referência diz que há alguma coarticulação dorso-alveolar.

Até mais e boas contribuições.--Luizdl Talk 01:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Muito obrigad mesmo assim. E honestamente, ainda assim eu não sei se essa diferenciação está simplesmente seguindo a norma, respeitando as pesquisas realizadas quanto ao português europeu (que possui alofonia consonantal bem diferente da nossa - especialmente quanto à resistência a palatalizações que no português brasileiro podem ser traçadas a influência de línguas principalmente do tronco tupi[-guarani?], e em menor degrau de outros troncos linguísticos ameríndios), ou se vem de pesquisas próprias.
Hoje se sabe que na realidade o nh e o lh não são palatais (e que o /nosso/ nh na maioria das vezes sequer é uma pausa), e sim alvéolo-palatais, mas os descrevemos e notamos como palatais por convenção. Igualmente, tenho dúvidas se nós simplesmente não mantemos a transcrição das sibilantes e africadas como [simplesmente] pós-alveolares por convenção. Descobriu-se que o catalão possui sibilantes e africadas alvéolo-palatais, e acho que já li sobre esse também ser o caso de certas línguas e certos dialetos do norte da Itália.
Adicionalmente, não posso baixar a cópia pois não estou usando meu computador (este também está apresentando problemas e eu tenho receios). Meu computador caiu no chão e teve seu HD comprometido, então é provável que eu não possa achar a fonte adicional que eu colocaria no artigo sobre as vogais que você também reverteu. Antes disso, eu havia perdido meu histórico por causa de uma burrice que fiz no meu Chrome tentando consertar um problema (e por isso mesmo, não adicionei essa fonte secundária depois)... Basicamente havia outro PDF onde afirma-se que "o português brasileiro está centralizando /i/, /u/ e /a/" (você inclusive adicionou informação sobre isso em Portuguese phonology, no caso do português europeu), mas não dava detalhes sobre a qualidade vocálica, então eu realmente não tenho nada de conclusivo e prefiro deixar por isso mesmo. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Vou me prolongar quanto aos meus sentimentos pessoais sobre a questão:
Tenho esperança que uma maior atenção seria dada a essa alofonia no caso do Brasil, pois eu realmente produzo todos como alvéolo-palatais (sempre mais palatalizado que em francês/alemão/inglês/neerlandês/italiano padrão/espanhol padrão/etc., e às vezes tão palatalizado quanto em japonês - um /i/ surdo depois do 'sh' deles soa como a coda mais marcada do meu registro), e percebo a maioria dos falantes de meu dialeto nativo (carioca) fazer o mesmo; eu acho que as pessoas do Brasil norte-oriental (onde o erre gutural na coda predomina sobre o alveolar ou o retroflexo) que consistentemente palatalizam t/d (à exceção de raros empréstimos, na pronúncia cuidadosa, como T-shirt) como os fluminenses - penso em mineiros (dialetos belo-horizontino, zona-da-mata e montanhês), baianos e capixabas - não palatalizam menos que nós no x/ch, j/g, t e d, embora obviamente não dê para notar com consistência porque o coda /S/ é o que mais chama a atenção (já vi falantes de outros dialetos descreverem o alofone marcado como próximo a um "xi" rápido, em tom jocoso).
Onde o /S/ pós-alveolar ocorre em outros dialetos, creio que o que eu percebo como alvéolo-palatal predomina, inclusive pela forma como muitos falantes misturam ele com o "ti" e o "di" - não tenho evidência pra isso, mas pra mim é perceptível que essa assimilação fica mais fácil conforme o degrau de palatalização se acentua. Além disso, já li (de uma fonte ligeiramente questionável que não realmente entrou em muitos detalhes sobre fonologia pra quem é entendido, há de se admitir, e que está perdida nas profundezas dos meus posts do Facebook) que originalmente o português falado no Brasil central era mais palatalizado do que o de hoje, com /S/ alveolar laminal e /t/ e /d/ que não palatalizam/africam tendo sido mudanças posteriores originárias de ondas de migração vindas do sul e de outros países, e do prestígio da variedade paulista. Isso faz sentido, se a gente considerar que a palatalização do t/d provavelmente se irradiou a partir do Sudeste, e que no norte de Portugal as sibilantes ápico-alveolares estão estabelecidas há muito tempo (talvez sendo herança de línguas pré-latinas); no Nordeste, essa influência pode ter causado o /S/ pós-alveolar típico de certos contextos.
Então me pergunto se esta forma ainda a ser investigada (alvéolo-palatal) não seja na realidade a pronúncia brasileira conservadora, originária da nossa transição das línguas gerais para o português. Por isso mesmo, eu sinto que é uma peça importante do nosso quebra-cabeça dialetal sendo negligenciada. Inclusive porque uma das fontes que eu usei desafiam a noção de que os cariocas só começaram a "chiar" com a chegada da Corte Portuguesa. Ora, se os cariocas "chiam" desde antes, o fazemos por quais outras influências? E por que seria algo restrito a tão poucos dialetos, quando encontram-se rincões aqui e ali com palatalização da /S/ sem conexão com imigração portuguesa posterior ao século 18? Se os cariocas palatalizam mais que outros brasileiros (não apenas em mais contextos, como também supostamente produzindo consoantes mais palatalizadas), será que não seria uma resistência a uma onda /despalatalizante/ do passado, onde formas menos marcadas de palatalização deram lugar a uma pronúncia mais prestigiosa?
Se o coletivo desses estudos pretende-se a representar um retrato do português brasileiro como um todo, deveria haver uma investigação maior sobre alofonias mais obscuras, e não apenas processos fonológicos conhecidos e muito perceptíveis. Inclusive porque um traço que pode ser influenciado por ameríndios acaba sendo compreendido como sendo puramente herança europeia, e isso possui desdobramentos que vão além do entendimento dos dialetos e suas características fonético-fonológicas (ex.: o traço conservador nativo ser posto como um 'vício de linguagem' intrusivo - no caso "cacoete por estrangeirismo" -, e o traço inovativo como o que é realmente correto e ideal - tema comum na imposição de padrões à língua portuguesa do Brasil). Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Eu acredito que você possa pronunciar mesmo deste jeito, embora eu ache estranho. Eu abri novamente a fonte pra procurar saber o que a autora quer dizer com "parte anterior da língua (15)" e "parte média da língua (16)". Na página 30, a autora mostra através de uma figura que ambos são dorsais (assim como as vogais [i] e [ɨ]), o que é estranho, pois daria a entender que o que ela chama de alveopalatal é, na verdade, uma fricativa dorso-palatal. No entanto, neste caso ela não fala nada a respeito de uma possível coarticulação laminal, que seria o que você se refere. Em algumas línguas, como a japonesa, existe distinção entre uma fricativa dorso-palatal, escrita com a letra ひ, e uma fricativa coarticulada, com articulações laminais e dorsais, escrita com a letra し.--Luizdl Talk 13:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Me refiro ao som do kana し (particularmente antes de uma palavra com /t/ que faça o /i/ sair surdo, em japonês), em palavras como xícara, chuva, esplêndido e fosco (ou os exemplos que usei nos artigos alvéolo-palatais, com a exceção de que minha palatalização é consistente).
O kana ひ seria mais próximo de riqueza, quando uso [h] ou [x] (tenho preferência por sons uvulares como [ʁ] e [ʀ], particularmente em sílaba átona e/ou antes de [i]), e mesmo assim não é sempre tão palatalizado quanto a versão japonesa (por exemplo, o som será bem mais próximo a [x], se eu falar devagar ou com vigor). Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(Pardon me if I don't understand the issue, but I'll try to answer anyway:) the fact that some source claims that a sibilant is "produced in the middle of the hard palate" is not necessarily an evidence of it being alveolo-palatal. The only (or at least the main) difference between palato-alveolars and alveolo-palatals is the amount of rising of the dorsum towards the hard palate. Plus, palato-alveolars are also sometimes labelled alveolo-palatal (Daniel Jones used that label to describe English palato-alveolars in at least one book), perhaps due to idiosyncratic vocabulary of some of the scholars.

My very limited experience with Brazilian Portuguese tells me that alveolo-palatals might very well be possible realizations of /ʃ, ʒ, t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ/, but I have no idea how widespread they are. I've certainly heard alveolo-palatals in European Portuguese, especially in coda. Peter238 (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what we were talking about. In my opinion, sources describe them as just palato-alveolar for convention, the same convention that leads to alveolo-palatal lateral and nasal being described as palatal, and mid central values all being transcribed under /ɐ/. That is also why I added sources that indicate that their palatalization as something further than that of Standard Italian, and that it is a place of articulation shared with our /ʎ/ and occlusive /ɲ/.
It is obvious that these allophones are a big thing, because it's hardly unnoticeable that the overwhelming majority of people in my region use it (most noticeably in coda), and other Brazilian dialects (I'm thinking coda /ʁ/ ones, as opposed to southern and western coda /ɾ/ dialects) most definitely present alveolo-palatal values for /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ (it's a bit harder to distinguish the affricates), particularly if they're produced by a person who palatalizes /t/, /d/ and /n/ before /i/.
In fact, it is hard for me to learn to accurately produce the English palato-alveolars, particularly [ʃ]. At times, either I arch my tongue as customary and it comes out too palatalized (alveolo-palatal in some manner), or I can't help but feel like I'm producing [sʲ], in the case of the position used to produce English /r/ – it's a very delicate in-between, in order to not get something too lisp-like. It is less foreign than producing a retroflex, but still it's definitely not a part of my native allophone inventary. A carioca accent with a coda [ʃ] instead of [ɕ] would certainly appear remarkable (albeit not to the point that I could describe it as "off"). I think alveolo-palatals sound (and feel) "wetter" or "fuller" in the mouth. Our pronunciation of the word "show", as compared to its original English, uses a decidedly different consonant.
This person speaks a coda /ɾ/ dialect (with a register characterized by higher palatalization, in comparison to e.g. most of Paraná), but their post-alveolar consonants sound alveolo-palatal to me (though their pronunciation of otite, at 1:56, as well as unstressed final -te and -de – primeiramente, at 0:27, sounds more of strident rather than the more common "wet" –, is noticeably less palatalized than mine would be):
It's rare for "coda /ʁ/" dialect-speaking Brazilians to use consonants less palatalizing than the ones used in the video above. I'd also say that alveolo-palatal production is not at all weird /anywhere/ out of southern Brazil, even in São Paulo and Mato Grosso (either original or do Sul). Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Srtª PiriLimPomPom. 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)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in the University of Minnesota[edit]

I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen Weiwensg (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Cerrado has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. - Takeaway (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Which ones? Most of my additions included material that was on the page before the copyvio and I mostly did not add sources. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You have again added new content that had been taken ad verbatim from . - Takeaway (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced information[edit]

Hi Srtª PiriLimPomPom. Please stop adding unreferenced material. I see that you have made quite a few edits where you added large sections of text that in accordance with Wikipedia rules constitute original research and personal opinion. I would also like to ask what your experience/ working knowledge is of the IPA. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I fully understand the IPA to the exception of tones, clicks and a few of the combining diacritics (though I will look up what they mean if I see them). I have looked up a lot of research in this account and in my former one to expand the coverage of Brazilian Portuguese phonological diversity.
Generally English Wikipedia has a smaller coverage of details of everything surrounding Latin America (I've seen more discussion of Indian and Singaporean laws here than I've seen Brazilian ones in many articles), and Portuguese phonology varies widely according to a vastness of territories that face different levels of socioeconomic development and inequality leading to sociolinguistic gaps within a same region, focus of academic interest, relationship with languages formerly spoken or concurrently spoken in a given territory (it took Wikipedia some time to acknowledge that people produce coda /l/ as [l] along the border with Uruguay, for example), etc. etc. and there's not enough beautiful-looking academic research on all petty details that should be covered, such as the fact that in some regions of Brazil people really do have super-velarized or otherwise very dark ells (compare Rio de Janeiro lindo to Pernambuco lindo).
Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo have an informal ongoing dispute to have their local accents established as the standard form, and when Wikipedia establishes that it's substandard for pororoca and perereca to be pronounced with vowel harmony due to what São Paulo-based linguistic consensus states, even though an overly close-mid pronunciation in all pre-stressed positions would sound weird in over half of Brazil, this actually makes it kind of biased. I wish we could have some Recasens type to come and prove to people that Brazilian pre-stressed e and o usually aren't either sort of cardinal IPA vowel, that our post-alveolar consonants tend to be alveolo-palatal even though there is variation and to track down our ar phonemes which span all over the spectrum, but not everything can be nice.
Otherwise I don't know what you're referring to. None of my additions should come across as particularly controversial when it comes to a pluricontinental language spoken in places of vastly different demographic formations. And when asked to do so I can generally go and find a source, e.g. when I was the one to state that we geminate the semivowels [j] and [w] in the syllable boundaries. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's start with the second issue - "when asked to do so I can generally go and find a source". Itdoes not work like that. When you add information, you have to add the reliable source that supports/ backs up what you are saying, otherwise it is nothing more than your opinion/ original research. The fact that you think that "None of my additions should come across as particularly controversial" does not mean they are exempt from the obligation of being backed up by sources.
On the IPA issue, you have just said above that there are miryad differences in Brazilian Portuguese, and about specific diferences between regions etc. So, when you add IPA information or change existing information, on what are you basing these edits? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I often make two separate transcriptions, the version with less vowel reduction, less vowel harmony, more close-mid allophones, the coda tap, less palatalization of coda |S| when it should apply for São Paulo, southern Brazil and center-western Brazil, the version with more vowel reduction, more vowel harmony, more open-mid allophobes, the coda hard r and more palatalization of coda |S| when it should apply (e.g. estilo) for Rio de Janeiro, Espírito Santo, Minas Gerais, Federal District, northeastern Brazil and northern Brazil. When it's something about Rio de Janeiro in specific I add coda [ʃ] in general in the alternative pronunciation. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
So, what you are saying, is that you make up these transcriptons, based solely on your personal experiences (in some cases on your own pronunciation, from what I read in some of your replies to earlier questions from other editors. Which means that we are in fact speaking of original research. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you suggest? A São Paulo-centric pronunciation guide? Also, that's the general case of anyone adding an IPA transcription of a Portuguese word, our phonology has a lot of exceptions. No one can prove which words are meant to have pre-stressed [e] or [ɛ], for example, as both of those forms are found in any Portuguese dialect. Or in which positions vowel reduction is the rule even in the standard form, such as [i] for the e in pelica or [u] in formiga. IPA transcriptions of Portuguese by default will be what you define as "OR". Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
IPA transcriptions of Portuguese by default will be what you define as "OR". - that's absolutely not true. There are dictionaries that provide IPA for Portuguese words (there's at least one in which multiple dialects are covered, it's online but I forgot its name), which is precisely what we're looking for. You might want to look up what OR means, see WP:OR. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Then people can provide reasoning for disagreement with my transcriptions if they point to those sources. Sadly, there is no specific dictionary for Northeastern Brazilian pronunciations as far as I am aware, so this would make them biased in the direction of São Paulo/transcriptions that align more closely with the written form and cardinal IPA vowel values, even though these might often be inaccurate. Brazil has a lot of issues with linguistic prescriptivism and regional cultural imperialism, as you might already know. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depends on how you look at it) anyone can remove original research from Wikipedia for any reason. If they say that they're removing OR, it is on you to provide the source. That's how it works.
Ok, but you said it yourself that there are two Brazilian pronunciation standards: the Sao Paulo one and the Rio de Janeiro one. As far as I know, neither of these cities are located in the Northeast. Why would we want to transcribe that variant then?
The problem that you describe in the last sentence cannot be solved by adding original research to Wikipedia. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Brazilian dialects are cut alongside a northeastern half vs a southwestern one. Rio de Janeiro is found in the northeastern half, which means that we possess a more liberal degree of vowel harmony and reduction. The only point in which adding two distinct BP pronunciations doesn't help any when trying to be inclusive is whether to insert [s] or [z] before /ʁ/, which is far more idiolectal (I often have a conservative [ʀ ~ ʁ] where almost everyone has already shifted in the direction of [x] or even [h] – so [iʑʁɜˈæ̝ʊ̯] is it for me, with /izʁɐˈɛw/ as a standard transcription, but most Brazilians would pronounce something closer to /isʁaˈɛw/ instead)... The issue with dictionaries based on Rio de Janeiro pronunciation is that some people adopt less vowel harmony and reduction because they believe it to be more "correct" even though that is not how we pronounce things in daily life. Vowel reduction in particular often disappears in careful pronunciation in pre-stressed positions.
In my humble opinion, WP:IGNORE definitely applies here. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that explains it. Thanks.
You see, you write all this but then provide no source whatsoever for your claims. Even if I were to take your word for it (and I don't - I have no way of verifying that), that's still not good enough for Wikipedia. I'm not even a phonetician or a linguist. And I'm just curious... why would you write [æ̝] instead of [ɛ]? That's an incredibly narrow transcription that's normally not needed.
It doesn't, because most of what you do here is sharing your personal experiences, which makes you appear not credible (regardless of your actual knowledge). That's the problem. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I can provide sources for Rio de Janeiro's phonetic shift from uvular to velar and now glottal, which obviously should not be true for everyone. The voiced vs voiceless coda is because of Iberian coda fricative assimilation of sound (see Spanish [v] and [z] in afgano and isla). The [ɜ] is the actual Brazilian Portuguese value for the /ɐ̃/ range, which I use for pre-stressed /a ~ ɐ/ too in connected speech (final /ɐ/ has real schwa, often short and devoiced). Finally, the /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ are lowered in stressed position, and closer to the cardinal IPA range in pre-stressed position if vowel harmony takes place. Otherwise, I have pre-stressed mid vowels. It's not important, but if somebody did actual research on that, we wouldn't have this conversation now, since it could then be established that BP is in fact not divided in a dominant e-o south and a marginal ɛ-ɔ north divided by a neat line. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That said, I wouldn't include the values between [ ] in Wikipedia, just the / / ones. The main issue here is that / / sometimes is |E| and |O| (close-mid, mid, open-mid), just like it can be |S| (alveolar, palato-alveolar, alveolo-palatal, debuccalized, deleted), or |R| (every remotely constrictive non-blowey/non-hissing sound the human mouth is capable of producing + trills), so placing a definite IPA value is arbitrary. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
We can use [e, o] for the unstressed ⟨e, o⟩ that have variable height and perhaps add a note to Help:IPA/Portuguese (again, once you find a source for that). When it comes to the rhotic issue, I think that we're already using [ʁ] in a very liberal manner. Either way, there are sources out there that do provide phonetic transcriptions. Don't forget that there are levels of narrowness to phonetic transcriptions, so depending on how narrow your transcription is there may be hardly anything definitive about it. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Srtª PiriLimPomPom, this is my last stab at this, then I am dropping this ball. You reply with lengthy responses to whatever issue is being raised but you simply do not address the central issue here: sources. You go on about the difficulty of finding sources, but nowhere do you explain where you find the information on which you base your transcriptions. Through discussions hereinabove, it it now clear that you 'create' these based on a set of 'guidelines' that you have made up for yourself. What I find troubling is that in one case you go to the extent of using a source, but applying your own interpretation and so changing the values provided in the source, because you don't agree with those. You do admit — directly or indirectly — in discussions here and elsewhere, that because of scarceness of sources you resort to making such modifications. All that I am intersted in is to know that the next time I come across an edit by you that 1.) you used relaible sources; 2.) you faithfully reflected what the source says, without adapting it to compensate for regional differences. in short, I do not want to have to suspect WP:OR at every turn. I look forward to engaging with you going forward. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that you reverted an edit saying that the usual pronunciation for "Você está bom?" in Brazil is "Cê tá bom?". This is the kind of OR that I gladly IGNORE because it's an established fact. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:TRUTH. That kind of reasoning would be fine if Wikipedia were your personal blog. And as I wrote above - you shouldn't argue with editors who remove your OR from articles. It's disruptive and serves no purpose, because admins will side with them every single time. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Policy vs essay, though. I wouldn't involve myself in edit wars, obviously. After all, I'm still a WikiSloth. Should another editor try to bring admins into this? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That's what causes the deficit of editors in the Portuguese Wikipedia in the first place, and the reason why it lags behind others in content by years. English Wikipedia wins exactly because it is more lax with verifiability. By now it should be obvious that I'm relatively right on my assessments, and that people can look up confirmation for what I report here should they be the ones who do research. After all, this is a collaborative project. We'd still be stale over the alveolo-palatal consonants if you and that other Brazilian editor didn't look up deep into it. (I have issues with paywalls and finding specific academic papers – it should be obvious by now that even when I do source things, I leave a rough-looking foreign language PDF at best as opposite to the neat stuff you do.) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Should another editor try to bring admins into this? - What for? Nothing is happening yet, we're just talking. You won't hear anything new by the way, everything relevant has been already said.
That's what causes the deficit of editors in the Portuguese Wikipedia in the first place, and the reason why it lags behind others in content by years. English Wikipedia wins exactly because it is more lax with verifiability. - These are very brave claims to make. Unfortunately, they all sound incorrect to me. And don't say it like being lax with verifiability is a good thing. Give me a break, man. How many thousands of editors have misinterpreted sources and then cited them on Wikipedia anyway? How many hundreds of trolls have lied about what a certain source (typically an offline one) claims? Go read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G-Zay/Archive and User:Sjones23/G-Zay#Editing_behaviour. G-Zay is a notorious troll who has lied multiple times about claims in sources he cited (and more than that, obviously). Don't you think there's enough of a problem with verifying sourced statements on WP (no matter the actual intention of editors who misrepresent what their sources say)? So no, being lax with verifiability is a very bad thing.
By now it should be obvious that I'm relatively right on my assessments - No, it's not obvious at all. I have no idea whether what you say is correct. I've already said that (see above).
and that people can look up confirmation for what I report here should they be the ones who do research. - No, that's not how it works and we've already said it. You do the research if you want to add something to a certain article or simply don't add it. You can ask someone else to do the research for you so that when you add content it'll be sourced, but you also need to be specific about what it is that you need. Hardly anyone will go through dozens of books or articles for you (unless they're in an exceptionally good mood), but someone might already be aware of a source that discusses the issue you're interested in. So it doesn't hurt to ask, but you also need to do something.
[3], [4], [5], [6] and [7] are your best bets for finding papers (the last one has obvious limitations though). There are hundreds of papers that are seemingly hidden behind paywalls that are actually legally available for free. You can also go to your local library, grab a few books and take notes. Choose whatever suits you. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
> library
I'm a hikikomori and a high school dropout living in a place of relative environmental racism. Have been like this for 7 years due to money, mental health/chronic illness and bureaucracy reasons. Vestibular usually requires a competitive level of knowledge in Math, Physics and Chemistry, so when I had to leave the federal technical school (I passed in a previous entrance exam), and went to the state school system of Rio de Janeiro, it felt like my days were pointless since I was being the class genius while dealing with extremely flimsy content. There's more to it but I'd gather personal problems shouldn't be discussed here.
Also, I didn't hint any of you would tag any admins. But for crying out loud, we are discussing very simple things here. Why would people doubt simple claims over vowel reduction, vowel harmony and open-mid allophones in Brazilian Portuguese? You make it sound like I'm claiming pt-br has click sounds or tones. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry you have to go through that. The websites I linked to are still a valid option for you, though. I'd also add, it's pretty good for older books (but be careful: those books may not be the best sources, so cite them with caution). Also, try googling things like this: KEYWORD type:pdf. Google is not a dedicated warez search engine but you may still find illegal files from time to time using it, so be careful with that.
Neither did I, I said admins wouldn't bring anything new to the table.
I'll speak for myself: I doubt them because I can't WP:VERIFY that they're true. This is Wikipedia, not a church. Nobody should expect me to take things on faith, especially given the fact that you're very likely to get about 5%-20% of your analysis wrong if you're not an experienced phonetician (and even they themselves argue about some stuff, phonetics is a science that is still too much subjectivity-based). I know this myself - the deeper I delve into this stuff, the less sure of my skills I am. Now, how will I know what it is that you got wrong? I won't, and even you won't until you catch yourself. We don't want to play that Russian roulette, but you're welcome to start writing a blog if that's your thing.
Sorry man, but you can't talk your way around WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, however harsh this may sound. If you wanted to know reasons for which we can't include OR in articles, they're above. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is one thing for which I have extremely low tolerance is when people make vague statements about what someone else has done in the hope of somehow making as if they are the ones in the wrong by decontextualising. So, no, I did not revert "an edit saying that the usual pronunciation for "Você está bom?" in Brazil is "Cê tá bom?"." I reverted more than that. In future, if you ever refer to anything that anyone has done or said, please provide a dif. That way, people can see exactly what is being discussed.

For the record, the text that I removed was this:

"Note that in Brazil and certain parts of Portuguese-speaking Africa, as well as in the equivalents to this verb found in Portuguese creole languages, the es- before all estar derivates is generally omitted in all colloquial speech, so that está is generally pronounced tá (e.g. Você está bom? [ˈse ˈta ˈbõ] "How are you? (m.)"). This is slightly substandard, but has ubiquitous use."

You can't just throw stuff out there like confetti on a bride, just because you happen to have that information at hand. That is trivia. It would be far more informative to present — with sources — how Portuguese retains both the /e/ and the /s/ in words such as "escriba", "escola", estudar"; whereas French dropped the /s/ and the Germanic languages dropped the /e/. The "estar" --> "tar" change is related to that. And I removed it for a number of reasons:

  • source? Oh, I forgot, silly me! This is the kind of OR that you gladly IGNORE because it's an established fact
  • "certain parts of Portuguese-speaking Africa" - which? where?
  • "in the equivalents to this verb found in Portuguese creole languages" - which? examples?
  • the same is true for Portugal
  • WP:Undue - the amount of explaining required to put in context does not warrant citing it.

And I am done here. It is now only up to you to review your participation in the project. I do not get the feeling that you are taking any of this seriously. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Cape Verdean Creole comes to mind, with their tâ being very grammatically central. Also, if the same is true in Portugal, then it should be obvious that it happens in Africa, but I was not sure about the phenomenon being widespread in Portugal.
But that is besides the point. You were the one to come into my profile out of the blue in what was perhaps out first interaction. You've almost caused me an anxiety attack because I have a serious issue with authority figures or more respectable members of a community who pose as people just doing their job but who really want to be nitpicky for unknown secondary reasons.
I tried to look up which of my edits was so out of place as to merit this kind of attempt of intervention and it was all I could find. Something that can be summed up as undue. In an article that was full of equally undue stuff, which you have also removed. It's not out of context. We were primarily discussing bad analysis of how Brazilian Portuguese works. Elision, vowel reduction, palatalization. A bad edit concerning *this* is what should make you concerned about my apparent responsibility with the project. If you don't have an example of a blatant example of bad IPA that would never be possible in Brazilian Portuguese then this is just about process and strict following of local rules of conduct. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
You're completely misrepresenting what he did. He didn't come here 'out of the blue' nor was he 'nitpicky for unknown secondary reasons' (how can you say that after all the explanations we gave you?!). The rules we're talking about are not 'local rules of conduct', they're one of the WP:PILLARS of Wikipedia which you can see on every single Wikipedia (I challenge you to find a version which doesn't have them). There's nothing local about them, they're fundamental to every Wikipedia there is.
If you don't have an example of a blatant example of bad IPA that would never be possible in Brazilian Portuguese - How many times this needs to be said? I'll say it the final time: do not add content other editors can't WP:VERIFY. You do not get to force us to take things on faith. Nobody wants it and it's against the rules of Wikipedia. Got it?
You can't expect your edits to go unchallenged. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't this a classic example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT?! Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

IPA for Mirandense for the word/ name "douro"/ "Douro"[edit]

Hi. Please see my call for comments here. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Do not reinstate material removed for not having sources[edit]

The fact that the rest of the article has no sources is no excuse. Please read WP:SEWAGE and WP:OSE. And as you might have noticed, I have added a template to that effect. The article is in that state because people like you have for years been adding bucket loads of OR in articles away from the main spotlights. You are not the chief culprit in this case, but are a major contributor of OR content in quite a few other articles. In articles with a higher visibility and more involvement from other editors this sort of thing would have been stopped a long time ago. And you have been reminded of this quite a few times. Every edit has to conform to the five pillars, not to feeble excuses that the article is already bad enough. Don't pollute the pond. Finally, edit summaries are not a substitute for sources, so it is not the place to claim the validity of your edit. One last word — I have seen that when you want, especially yo prove a point, you are quite adept at finding brilliant sources. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)