Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Use of obsolete diacritic for protruded vowels

In some phonetics articles we are currently using the pre-Kiel diacritic for labilization ⟨◌̫⟩ for protrusion, as in ⟨y̫⟩ for the close front protruded vowel. Is this something that is actually practiced in modern literature? If such literature exists, we should cite it in those articles because the diacritic is deprecated. Otherwise it's OR and we should stop using it and replace it with the current diacritic for labialization or "more rounded"—or whatever they actually use, for that matter. Those articles apparently avoid use of the current labialization diacritic for protrusion because it "could be misread as a diphthong", but that seems like another OR/SYNTH in and of itself. Nardog (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: Riad's The Phonology of Swedish, Kristoffersen's The Phonology of Norwegian, and Engstrand's "Swedish" IPA sketch -- the post Kiel sources in that article -- all don't bother with an IPA diacritic for protrusion; they just discuss the protrusion in words. It seems the use of ⟨◌̫⟩ was introduced in this [1] edit by Kwamikagami. Perhaps they wish to comment on the matter. Umimmak (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ladefoged uses ⟨◌̫⟩ for simple labialization, without the velar component. Since he was president of the IPA, and continued using this well after the Kiel convention, I figured that was a pretty good source.

'More rounded' would not be appropriate because this isn't about the amount of rounding, but the kind. ⟨ʷ⟩ wouldn't really work because of the implication of velarization, which these vowels don't have. I don't know what other diacritic would be available.

⟨ʷ⟩ and ⟨ᵝ⟩ are very likely to be read as off-glides. (Superscripting the off-glide is a common way to write diphthongs.) That's not a problem for Swedish, where they are off-glides, but is a problem for e.g. Japanese. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: So do you know of any source using ⟨◌̫⟩ to denote vowel protrusion? Nardog (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I only remember L using it for consonants, but it's the same thing: w-like rounding without velarization. It's the only accurate transcription I can think of for front vowels. Though it might should be on i rather than y -- I think some authors make a distinction between putting the diacritic on a rounded or unrounded vowel letter, but I don't remember what.

The problem with trying to copy what's used in the lit is that there really isn't anything. The IPA does not support this distinction, which means that there are only ad hoc solutions. Some of the attempts to transcribe Japanese u in IPA are so opaque as to be useless -- there's no way you would understand what they were trying to convey if you didn't already know the phonetics.

One convention often proves useful is the very old but unofficial (though recently made official in the extIPA, at least for affricates) of superscripting one IPA letter to 'flavor' another. That's the logic behind using ⟨ᵝ⟩ for Japanese u. But that doesn't help us with the front vowels. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I know ⟨ʷ, ᵝ⟩ could be read as offglides, but that doesn't by itself make a good reason not to use ⟨ʷ⟩, which denotes sheer labialization in current IPA, for protrusion (not to mention the use of superscript symbols to denote "shades of sounds" is no longer explicitly recommended). I also don't understand why the "more rounded" diacritic wouldn't be appropriate. See Okada's illustration of Japanese in the Handbook, for example, who uses ⟨u̜, ɯ̹⟩ to narrowly transcribe Japanese /u/. The introduction to the Handbook also says, "[u̜] indicates a vowel like cardinal [u] but with a lip position further from the 'rounded' end of the 'spread-rounded' continuum than implied by the cardinal symbol" (p. 16). Isn't compression in the middle of this continuum?

IPA isn't capable of representing everything, but certainly we on Wikipedia shouldn't be the ones coming up with ad hoc solutions? That's the very definition of OR. We need to find and report what ad hoc solutions linguists have come up with and written in reliable sources, and, failing that, we just use prose. Nardog (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

At least one phoneticist colleague of mine, who studied under Ladefoged, describes ⟨ʷ⟩ as labio-velarization. Ladefoged himself distinguished ⟨ʷ⟩ from sheer labialization, which he indicated with ⟨◌̫⟩ in Sounds of the World's Languages. We could use ⟨ʷ⟩ and explain in words that we don't really mean ⟨ʷ⟩. That's a common enough approach in the lit, since it's irresponsible to use the IPA without explaining what you mean by it, and if you're going to explain anyway, you might as well redefine the IPA to be what you want it to be. But here on WP, where we can't count on our readers having a firm understanding of phonetics (they're likely reading these articles because they don't already know the topics, after all), or to understand that when we redefine IPA symbols to mean something other than what the IPA defines them as, that doesn't mean that our definitions are official, even if we have RS's to back them up. I think we should avoid using the IPA inaccurately as best we can.

Okada's transcription of Japanese /u/ is gibberish. 'More rounded' and 'less rounded' do not mean pursed or compressed. Okada effectively set up a scale of pursed > compressed > spread, but that does not agree with phonetic descriptions. For compressed vowels, [œ] is less rounded than [ø] is less rounded than [y], and for pursed vowels, [ɔ] is less rounded than [o] is less rounded than [u], but that has nothing to do with the kind of rounding. I've seen for example ⟨ɒ̹⟩ for the Persian low back vowel, and it meant just what it implied -- the vowel was more rounded than expected for cardinal 'ɒ', closer to what is typical of [o]. Okada tried to force a square peg in a round hole because, since he was writing for the Handbook, he was restricted to the official symbol set, but it really didn't fit. If you're thinking that publishing it in the IPA Handbook makes it okay, there are all sorts of inaccurate and confusing transcriptions in the Handbook, such as using ⟨c, ɟ⟩ for affricates. Okada resorted to available diacritics for something not covered by the available diacritics. It's like transcribing a dental click as ⟨tsꜜ⟩ -- sure, if the IPA had no letters for clicks that could get your point across, but it would be potentially confusing to someone who used ⟨ꜜ⟩ the way it was intended.

PS. Re. my comment above, I suspect an author might distinguish between [ɯᵝ] for a purely vertically compressed vowel and [uᵝ] for one that also had lateral compression. I don't know what the difference between [y̫] and [i̫] (or [yʷ] and [iʷ]) might be. Maybe protruded compressed vs simple protrusion? There's some wiggle room, but of course it's always helpful when an author explains what they mean. — kwami (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The only time Ladefoged & Maddieson use the obsolete diacritic as far as I can find is on page 358, where they employ ⟨◌̫⟩ to symbolize alveolar fricatives accompanied by "simple labialization" in Shona because it contrasts [s, z], [s̫, z̫], [sw, zw], and [s̫w, z̫w]. Throughout the rest of the book they use ⟨ʷ⟩ to denote "labialization", which may or may not involve simultaneous velarization, and whether that occurs in each case is intentionally left ambiguous (p. 356). So they clearly use ⟨◌̫⟩ only when a distinction between labiovelarization and simple labialization is called for. But we're talking about vowels. ⟨ʷ⟩ is never ambiguous when used to modify a vowel because otherwise it would indicate backing or raising.

If we used ⟨ʷ⟩, we would be explaining in words that we do mean ⟨ʷ⟩ as defined in the IPA chart. I don't know how a layreader who doesn't understand the flexibility of the IPA would be more confused if we used an IPA symbol as defined in the current IPA chart and explained that we use the symbol as defined by the IPA and not in the way some other people use it than if we used a symbol that was dropped from the official IPA 30 years ago, especially when even we haven't found a case of that symbol being used the same way (for vowel protrusion) outside Wikipedia. @Kbb2 and Aeusoes1: Maybe you can chime in? Am I off-base here? Nardog (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: I don't think that I have sufficient knowledge to participate in this discussion. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suspect that the parsing between labialized and labiovelar is not going to be very common, even if Ladefoged's usage makes it semi-official. I wouldn't mind using ⟨ʷ⟩ for both unless we need to do otherwise. If we do need to do otherwise, it would be a good idea to explicitly indicate to readers how we are using the symbols so no one is misled. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but the value of ⟨ʷ⟩ is rather tangential here. What do you think we should represent protruded vowels with? Nardog (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking ⟨ʷ⟩ is fine. In cases where we need to contrast protruded and labiovelarized, I don't think it's that big a deal to use ⟨◌̫⟩, even if it is outdated. But I don't have a strong opinion either way. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Conservative (language) that I just relisted. Any opinion you may have about the request would be greatly appreciated! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  14:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for IPA

Hi please could someone enter the "IPA" for the german word "Hügelkultur", currently another editor has written (pronounced “hoogle-culture”) which is correct but looks unencyclopedic. Many thanks if you can help. Regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be guessing at the precise IPA, but I know "hoogle-culture" is not right. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a sample pronunciation. It is close, but I'd hit that first vowel a little more forward: Hügelkultur pronunciation in German Mind that the person speaking purports to be a German Male and I am not a native German. I have been speaking German since childhood, but with an Alemannic German accent. Best wishes, LiPollis (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I really don't know much about pronounciations, but since this is a "loan word", when using the term in context of english, would it not be pronounced "hoogle" culture (as culture is normally pronounced in english)? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It 'would' but the exact realisation would vary by English dialect a whole lot, especially given that they're interpreting a word that looks non-English, even with regards to the number of syllables as well as the realisation of the phones. I don't know if there's some precedent for this here on wiki (I'm new), but I feel it's reasonable to let English speakers approximate whatever feels correct. Of course, a pronunciation along the lines of what you've orthographically approximated would be the most true to the German, ie. with that many syllables, a long rounded vowel, etc., but you'd have to favour a specific dialect like GenAm, Estuary or RP and 'guessing' what the majority would interpret it as, if you want IPA, all of which feels like a lot of guesswork. I personally dislike orthophone (?) approximations along the lines of 'hOO-gal-cul-tja' because they seem more confusing than clarifactory. LingNerd007 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@LingNerd007: We use what we call a diaphonemic representation system, which is essentially a compromise between Received Pronunciation and General American, for general English pronunciations, which is set out in Help:IPA/English. Providing an English approximation for foreign words is proscribed; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Nardog (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: Thank you for the pointers - and, very interesting read on diaphonology. Never came up in my reading (yet) or degree. I feel like there's a lot I may have to learn about in-house rules, so I'll do some browsing when I get time. LingNerd007 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Misspelling?

Hi, the terms "organisation", "organised", "organiser", is misspelled for "organization", "organized", "organizer"? Thank's, --Eumolpo (πῶς λέγεις; = how do you say it?) 10:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Those are not misspellings. See MOS:ENGVAR and, in particular, WP:ISE. Umimmak (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Categorization of works arising from corpus linguistics

If anyone has any opinons about categorization, there a question on Talk:A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language about whether books like this should be in Category:Corpus linguistics, a subcategory, or what. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Global Language Monitor"

I'd always thought that the "Global Language Monitor" was a bit of a joke to anyone who actually applied a reasonably educated and informed brain to matters of language; but I notice that Wikipedia's article about it solemnly reproduces lists it has "released" of the "Top" this or that. Are these of encyclopedic value?

(For those of you who haven't heard of "GLM", Ben Zimmer has provided a good introduction.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Expert attention requested at Noam Chomsky

Hi all. The article on Chomsky is undergoing a good article review. An editor there has requested expert attention on the Linguistic theory section. Feel free to leave comments on the talk page. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

IPA request: "RUB-us TRI-color"

Hi, I'm starting to work on the article: Rubus tricolor. I have a source that gives the pronunciation as "RUB-us TRI-color".[2]

How would one format this in terms of the International Phonetic Alphabet? Many thanks in advance, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Its English pronunciation is /ˈrubəs ˈtraɪˌkʌlər/, but I’m not sure that’s even necessary for this article. Umimmak (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel the "syllable stress" would not be intuitive for readers? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose if you think that will be useful; I just don’t think I’ve seen I’ve seen too many pronunciations for scientific binomials. Also note I inconsistently used /./ to mark syllable boundaries and it’s probably more common to not mark them at all so I since removed it. Umimmak (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Correction: it's /ˈruːbəs ˈtraɪkʌlər/. ⟨u⟩ is used for an unstressed-only vowel on Help:IPA/English, there's no secondary stress (⟨ʌ⟩ already denotes a full vowel regardless of whether it's stressed) and the last two sounds of the surname should be written ⟨ər⟩, not ⟨ə|r⟩ (see MOS:RHOTIC).

As for the inclusion of this transcription in rubus tricolor, I think I'm for it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

How do we know the first vowel is GOOSE, not STRUT? Nardog (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"RUB" does suggest STRUT, especially because "rub" is an actual English word. In that case the correct IPA would be /ˈrʌbəs ˈtraɪkʌlər/. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if these articles will help in this: Botanical_Latin#English_pronunciation and Syllable stress of Botanical Latin. I think the first vowel ("RUB") is as in GOOSE. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is another source which gives the pronunciation of a plant from the same genus, as "ROO - bus".[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely GOOSE, see, e.g., Merriam-Webster [4] or the OED [5]. Umimmak (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responses. Kind regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

• Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
• From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
• Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"[...] the five principles by which grammaticalization can be detected while it is taking place (according to Paul Hopper)"

Each of the principles referred to in the quote I used as the heading currently has its own article. The quote itself is from De-categorialization (quite the nonasyllabic mouthful, that), which links to the other four. Each of them consist, basically, of that set of cross-links, a single-sentence definition, and a quote. They've been around for a decade, and haven't got anywhere. The only one with meaningful incoming links is Specialization (linguistics), which is linked to from English compound and Hyponymy and hypernymy, and in both cases I'm not convinced it's really the intended target.

In short, I'm thinking they should probably be turned into subsections of a common or existing article. Grammaticalization#Views on grammaticalization mentions them (fourth item from the top), which is how I found them in the first place, so that would be one option - but perhaps not the ideal one, as it might give the appearance of undue weight to one particular model.

So, yeah, I'mma leave this in your capable hands. :)

- 2A02:560:428E:8E00:6C33:7283:360A:16F (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Kirshenbaum‎

I have begun a discussion at Talk:Kirshenbaum because following the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirshenbaum and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 29 discussions a redirect has been created which seems to me not consistent with the results of those discussions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Burmese placeless nasal

Our Burmese IPA transcriptions seem a little too opaque in regards to the representation of the Burmese nasal consonant that varies phonetically depending on context. Currently, a capital ⟨N⟩ is used, which seems confusing to me. It's been brought up at Help talk:IPA/Burmese#Too misleading with too little discussion for me to feel comfortable acting on it. At Talk:Burmese phonology, I've had a little bit of commentary from Mahagaja (talk · contribs), who seems to be behind the choice, but I'm not convinced. I hesitate to start an RfC, so any input from our community of Wikipedia linguists at Help talk:IPA/Burmese would be appreciated. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Nehme

Hi, can anyone with reasonable Levantine Arabic phonetic knowledge confirm that نعمة‎ (Nehme) is pronounced [ˈnæʕme]? Thanks in advance. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the correspondence between Arabic alphabet ع and Latin alphabet "h"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why نعمة‎ has been transliterated as Nehme to be honest. Without considering "Nehme", in you opinion is [ˈnæʕme] the correct Levantine Arabic (more specifically, Lebanese Arabic) pronunciation of نعمة‎? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I've found this video of someone pronouncing نعمة‎ ("Maya Nehme") at 1:37. Also here at 0:05 ("Peter Nehme") and here right at the beginning ("Eliana Nehme"). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Danish 'soft d'

I believe that the Danish 'soft d' (I can't find the name commonly used by linguists but on Wikipedia it's named Voiced velarized laminal alveolar approximant) should have its own article on Wikipedia. Right now the phoneme is mentioned in Voiced dental fricative in a misplaced manner. I'm not strong on Danish phonology, so I'm a bit hesitant from creating a page for it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî: It's listed on alveolar and postalveolar approximants. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter Matthews

Unfortunately, Peter Hugoe Matthews is just a name to me -- er, no, he isn't even that; though I would recognize Peter Matthews (linguist). And while a glance at the stub about him might suggest that it has one reference, in reality it has none. Though various gnomes and bots have tinkered with it, the stub has essentially snoozed for over a decade. Anyone here know anything about the man? -- Hoary (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Anna Maria Di Sciullo

Similarly, Anna Maria Di Sciullo is eminent, and eminently encyclopedia-worthy; but her article is an unsourced CV. Anyone here up to the task of turning it into something decent? -- Hoary (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Familiar with English Word-Formation?

I was wondering if anyone was familiar with Laurie Bauer's English Word-Formation and wanted to help expand the article. It's currently up for deletion and I've done as much as I can to flesh the article out from the initial few sentences it was, but it needs more work from someone who has actually read this. I'm also stuck with what little I can find in paywall previews, which also poses an issue. If anyone wants to help build the article up that would be wonderful. I think that notability has already been established in the AfD so what really needs to be done here is to expand it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Pirhayati, you launched this article when it had a total of one (1) sentence. You created the article on Bauer's book Morphological Productivity; this currently has a total of one (1) sentence. (I imagine that a PROD or AfD for it is coming soon.) You launched the article on The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology (a book cowritten by Bauer) when it had a total of one (1) sentence. You redlinked Bauer's Rethinking Morphology. Instead of creating a one-sentence stub on Rethinking Morphology (or anything else), how about turning the article Morphological Productivity into something worthwhile? -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll expand them in a week. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Two weeks have gone by, Ali Pirhayati. During this period, you've found time to make dozens of edits. The article The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology now has two sentences, but one of them is merely about publication. The article Morphological Productivity has one sentence. -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I added a synopsis to Morphological Productivity for now. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest

The RfC located here may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Latinx

Could use more eyes. I'm trying to make the lede readable, accessible, and understandable. It's an already-confusing, neologism. A passionate editor is insisting on edit-warring to add comparisons to multiple languages in the second part of the lead, not all of which may apply, in exactly the order and presentation form they want. The article, and especially these sections, could really use input from those used to making linguistics accessible to the average reader. I'm really not interested in edit-warring with this person, but I don't think they're helping. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

IPA/Lebanese Arabic

Hi, could someone please create the page Help:IPA/Lebanese Arabic, along with the template {{IPA-apc}}? Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Created {{IPA-apc}} as a future IPA template. Creating the corresponding key would require being quite familiar with the language and its phonology, so, if you are, perhaps start with copying one of the existing keys for Arabic varieties (Egyptian, Hejazi, Tunisian) and adapting it to Lebanese Arabic. Nardog (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not an expert on phonology or on the correct symbology. However, an article called Lebanese Arabic exists with various tables for the pronunciation of sounds, so I imagine that the information is there. I would create Help:IPA/Lebanese Arabic myself, but I'm afraid of messing something up. I'm not requesting it to be done ASAP, but still I feel it would be nice to add Lebanese Arabic to the IPA tables. Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to merge four articles into two

Hello. Last year we successfully merged near-front vowel with front vowel and near-back vowel with back vowel. I want to expand upon that (now implemented) proposition: let's merge near-open vowel with open vowel and near-close vowel with close vowel:

• Pairs of the former type are hardly ever contrastive. In German, /ɐ/ is an unstressed-only vowel and speakers are unable to distinguish it from the ordinary short /a/, which suggests that the two vowels are not in real contrast (even if they were, the former can be safely regarded to be an open-mid vowel, like the long lax /ɛː/). Plus, /ɐ/ can just as convincingly be analyzed as /ər/. In Slovene, /ɐ/ (usually transcribed /ʌ/) can contrast with the open central /a/. This may be the only language in which that is the case, but I think that Slovene /ʌ/ can be safely regarded as an open-mid vowel. The Weert dialect of Limburgish is sometimes claimed to feature five phonemic vowel heights, with /iː/, /eː/, /ɛː/, /æː/ and /aː/ being genuine front vowels, but /eː/ is a phonetic diphthong [eə] and /aː/ is front-central, rather than purely front (Verhoeven (2007) analyzes /aː/ in the Hamont dialect, which has a similar vowel inventory, as a central vowel and considers Hamont Limburgish to feature four phonemic heights).
• And so are pairs of the latter type. Danish doesn't feature phonemic near-close vowels - their [e̝ː] (conventionally written ⟨eː⟩) is phonemically close-mid, [eː] (conventionally written ⟨ɛː⟩) is phonemically open-mid and [ɛː] (conventionally written ⟨æː⟩) is a phonemic open front vowel that contrasts with the open central [äː] (conventionally written ⟨ɑː⟩), which is phonemically open back. Sotho and some other languages spoken in Africa may indeed feature genuine close/near-close/close-mid triplets, but they seem to only be front unrounded and back rounded.
• Many of the near-close vowels (especially [ɪ] and [ʊ]) are phonemically close, just as [æ] is often phonemically open.
• Near-open vowel is a completely unsourced article, whereas close vowel has only one source. By merging near-open vowel with open vowel and near-close vowel with close vowel we'd improve sourcing by doing almost nothing extra (the bit about German and Slovene would, of course, have to be added manually).

So: is Sotho, some other African languages and Slovene enough to keep those articles? IMO no. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Phonemicity is all well and good, but these are phonetic articles. The better question, at least for me, is can we still cover all of the relevant information in just two articles instead of four? I think we can and I also think it's better to contain that information into fewer places so that we don't needlessly spread out the related bits of knowledge. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: what is your brief and neutral statement? It's too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle correctly, so nothing is showing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics apart from a link. But in any case, RfC is not for merge requests, for which a separate process exists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I've removed the RfC tag, thanks. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What the hell? Some languages, such as English ;), contrast [ʊ] against [u]. Obviously near-close vowel may not be merged, especially if near-back vowel redirects to “back vowel”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: English /ʊ/ is a checked vowel, whereas /u/ is a free vowel and may be subject to diphthongization. This isn't a case of a near-close vowel contrasting with a close one but of a lax-tense contrast among close back vowels. I'm not aware of any English dialect that'd feature phonemic near-close vowels like Sotho. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

When a speaker pronounces both “fool” and “full” as /ful/, we can’t hear whether the vowel is “free” or “checked” if vowel length distinction is erased too. The back/near-back distinction alone is not phonemical… the close/near-close distinction alone is not phonemical… but, whenever all three are gone, how can Kbb2 tell which qualities of the three are not essential? Why namely lax/tense is important whereas close/near-close is not? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: Hardly any dialect differentiates the phonetic backness of /ʊ/ vs. /u/ as near-back vs. back. You're mistaking the official IPA descriptions of the symbols ⟨ʊ⟩ and ⟨u⟩ with the English phonemes /ʊ/ and /u/ which have a number of their own allophones.

The free-checked (and, to a lesser extent, lax-tense) distinction isn't something you "hear", it's a type of phonological differentiation of vowels. In English, /ʊ/ differs from /u/ in a number of ways:

- /u/ is most often slightly (or more than slightly) diphthongized, whereas /ʊ/ is produced with the tongue slightly lowered (it can be as low as close-mid, so it's not necessarily near-close) and the lips not-quite-so-rounded as is the case with /u/.

- There may be some additional difference in backness involved, but not of the near-back vs. back type. It could be central /u/ vs. near-back /ʊ/, central /u/ vs. back /ʊ/, front /u/ vs. (near-)back /ʊ/ etc.

The full-fool merger is a lax-tense neutralization before /l/, yes. But it's not necessarily phonemic. In cockney, for instance, "full" is often neutralized with "fool" as [foʊ], but "fuller" is pronounced [ˈfʊlɐ] (phonemically /ˈfʊlə/) and "fooling" [ˈfʊʉlɪn] (phonemically /ˈfulɪŋ/). I wouldn't consider that a phonemic neutralization.

Also, don't forget that some dialects of English (RP, Australian) feature phonemic vowel length. In those dialects, /ʊ/ is the short counterpart of /u/ (typically written /uː/ or /ʉː/). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the categories "near-close" and "near-open" could be relevant here. The fact the IPA and some linguists have used the concepts is enough to discuss them on Wikipedia. The question is whether they deserve their own articles in view of WP:N—and I concur with the proposal, we might as well merge them with Close vowel and Open vowel. Nardog (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, if there aren't any objections I'll merge them in the next few days. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Can Kbb2 explain why should near-close vowel be merged namely to “close” not to “close-mid vowel”? Why should near-open vowel be merged namely to “open” not to “open-mid vowel”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: That's no problem:

The IPA used to consider ⟨i, y, u⟩ as best substitutes for ⟨ɪ, ʏ, ʊ⟩ whenever using the latter wasn't needed.

In English, German, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish, etc. ⟨ɪ, ʏ, ʊ⟩ represent phonological lax close vowels (phonemic or allophonic).

⟨ɪ, ʏ, ʊ⟩ do not represent sounds but a range of sounds in IPA ([ɪ] can be near-close front, near-close near-front or close-mid near-front, [ʏ] near-close near-front or close-mid near-front and [ʊ] near-close back, near-close near-back and close-mid near-back), but the close-mid realizations seem to be rarer than the near-close ones. The canonical values of ⟨ɪ, ʏ, ʊ⟩ (near-close near-front, ditto and near-close near-back) seem to be predominant.

⟨æ⟩ represents a phonological open vowel in all languages I'm aware of. The near-open variants of vowels transcribed with ⟨ɛ⟩ are usually transcribed with, well, ⟨ɛ⟩, which is a correct transcription (if we were to ignore ⟨æ⟩ as a non-cardinal symbol, the near-open front unrounded vowel could be transcribed with either ⟨ɛ⟩ or ⟨a⟩. I imagine that the older IPA practice was to prefer the latter).

⟨ɐ⟩ is usually treated as an open vowel in English, Danish, German, Luxembourgish, Slovene etc. In German dialectology this vowel is referred to as the a-schwa, among other names. Native speakers of German are usually unable to distinguish it from their open central /a/.

The articles about [ɶ], [ɑ] and [ɒ] already cover open and near-open vowels. I don't think that anyone would expect a separate article for them or for them to be moved to the articles about [œ], [ʌ] and [ɔ]. This is another proof that near-open is more of a type of an open vowel, rather than an open-mid one. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Why don't we merge all these articles into just Vowel height and Vowel backness? These articles are bound to be stubs forever, while Vowel height and Vowel backness, despite being redirects, already receive quite a few incoming links and would make nice counterparts to Roundedness, filling the gaps in the concepts used to classify vowels. That would also make it easier to explain or introduce related phenomena like chain shifts. Nardog (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: That's probably a better solution. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

[ɪ] needs attention

(Split from one of the discussions above - Kbb2)

As a related note: we see where [ɪ] points currently. At near-close front unrounded vowel #Features one can read: Its vowel backness is front, which means the tongue is positioned as far forward as possible blah blah blah (note that articles about rounded vowels have a disclaimer that “rounded front vowels are often centralized, which means that often they are in fact near-front”). Is Kbb2 aware that, in Ukrainian, /ɪ/ denotes something rather central (definitely not front)? And what do we currently see in Help:IPA/Ukrainian, indeed? Not a good thing, and IMHO fixing mistakes has higher priority than mergist stuff. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: Near-close front unrounded vowel covers three varieties of [ɪ]: near-close near-front, near-close front and close-mid near-front. See the lede. As far as the "features" section is concerned, it probably does need fixing. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better for the article to revert to near-close near-front unrounded vowel then? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: It would, but for a different reason. See below. (By the way, "front" doesn't mean "fully front" but "more front than back" [rather than between fully front and fully back, which would be "central"). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, if “more front than back” (but not necessarily front sensu stricto), then “… the tongue is positioned as far forward as possible in the mouth without creating a constriction …” is a lie. Perhaps some parameter for {{front vowel}} should disable that “as possible”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Can Nardog report about recent changes in {{Front_vowel}} and {{Back_vowel}}? I made them to accept an option, whereas Nardog undone it. Is the parameter for switching not necessary anymore and why namely? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: I didn't undo it, I just made them display simply "positioned forward/back in the mouth" instead of "as forward/back as possible" regardless. I made similar edits to {{Close vowel}} and {{Open vowel}} as well. The templates described cardinal vowels, which are merely reference points. Vowels actually spoken in languages, such as those listed in the articles that use the templates, are rarely made with such peripheral configurations, which would be at odds with language's general tendency to minimize required effort. Nardog (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Language for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Language until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

IPA for how to pronounce Adut Akech?

Hi friends. I asked this at the Reference Desk, but the team there is drawing a blank so I thought of asking here. Can anyone help with a sourced IPA for Adut Akech's name? It would be especially relevant in this article since there is a mention of her Australian teacher being unable to pronounce her name. Thank you, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Although the newscasters and interviewers I found called her with the first name rhyming with boot, her own pronunciation clearly rhymes with foot. I couldn't find a source where she enunciates her last name, but the stress certainly seems to fall on the second syllable. Nardog (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (How weird an Australian couldn't pronounce that.) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:English language for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:English language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Concluded. From the discussion: "The result of the discussion was: delete." --Thnidu (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Challenging IvanScrooge98 in the area of IPA transcriptions of Germanic languages

There's a thread on Administrators' Noticeboard regarding IvanScrooge98's contributions in the area of IPA transcriptions of Germanic languages. You might want to take a look at it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Comparative tables of sample words

There are articles dedicated to language families which display tables comparing sample words in different languages of the language family (for instance, see Eastern Romance languages). Do members of this project think that editors are required to verify the list of compared words with references to reliable sources about the language family, or can we freely choose the words to be compared (and we should only verify the proper form in each language with a reference to a dictionary)? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC) (I also raised this question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. Borsoka (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC))

There is no clear line. WP:V states it is "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" that requires citations. Of course there being citations is always absolutely better than no citations, but just because something isn't cited doesn't mean it's categorically unacceptable. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not required but ideally these examples should be coming from some published source. I know that some families and areas have comprehensive tables of swadesh lists (Tryon published a really good one for Vanuatuan languages that was 400 pages long and covered around 200 languages) which can be drawn from and would be preferable to constructing our own. Nardog is spot on; while citations would be nice, unless there's a dispute about whether a word is actually part of that language or a dispute about what the transcription or phonemic analysis should be, I don't think a citation is required. It goes without saying that any entry on these tables should be verifiable in a dictionary of the language so unless there's some reason that isn't the case or there is some dispute or complex argument being made, I don't see a lack of citations for words as a huge problem for verifiability. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog:, @Wugapodes:, thank you for your above comments. My main concern is that if we can freely choose the words to be compared (namely, without verifying the selection of those specific words), we are engaged in original research. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think these tables of cognates should be coming from published sources, not just synthesized from individual dictionaries of particular languages. The latter feels a bit too much like OR to me. Umimmak (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned about OR in this instance. We don't need to cite obvious information like the fact that English house and German haus are cognates. In many cases these correspondences do not take an expert to decipher, and in the cases where that correspondence is not obvious it should either be cited by the person adding it or if it is not cited then removed or tagged with {{citation needed}}. There's nothing wrong with constructing our own tables since juxtaposition is not original research. If a particular row or entry in a table is disputed, then there should be a citation to a reliable source which states those entries are cognates, but I see no reason why our tables must be taken wholesale from a source. To some degree, having all of our comparative tables be copied from published sources may lead to plagiarism or copyright violations as it could constitute extensive quotation from a non-freely licensed text. Essentially, if you (or anyone) comes across a correspondence set you find suspect, handle it like you would any other unsourced claim: tag or remove the specific claim that is suspicious. But I don't think we need to enforce anything more stringent on tables as a whole. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That English house and haus are cognates is definitely not SKYBLUE information. Even if it seems obvious, relying on OR intuition to identify cognates lends itself to all sorts of misstatements (due to false friends, etc.) that we should be relying on experts to confirm.

It's also a poor practice to preemptively put a citation needed tag on content that you yourself are putting up. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The cn tag thing was poor phrasing on my part. I've revised it. Still mulling over your first statement. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes, in support of Aeusoes1's first statement, I submit that your reply,

the fact that English house and German haus are cognates. In many cases these correspondences do not take an expert to decipher,

is irrelevant to the counterevidentiary facts that

the English word dog and the Mbabaram word dog have exactly the same meaning and very similar pronunciations, but by complete coincidence. Likewise, English much and Spanish mucho which came by their similar meanings via completely different Proto-Indo-European roots. [Quoting False cognate]

Much – mucho is as "obvious" a cognate pair as house – Haus, and as wrong as the latter pair is correct. (I assumed the "obvious" for many years before learning otherwise, despite my PhD in linguistics!) As aeusoes1 says, this is not a case of "obvious information" like "the sky is blue". The color of the sky is directly accessible to our senses; the cognate relationship of Haus and house is not. --Thnidu (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

(Thanks for the ping, I had forgotten about this thread) Yeah you're both obviously correct :) I've struck that part, but still don't think our tables need to be taken wholesale as long as there's a reliable source that verifies the set are cognates and not false friends. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes On that we agree. Each cognate relationship we assert must be cited to a reliable source, and there's certainly no harm in mixing data from different reliable sources in a single table. --Thnidu (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Frenemy, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Unmerge all of the vowel articles

There are a lot of vowels, and as a person who uses them, find it unhelpful when they're merged away! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.181.239 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

We might be able to make these articles better without unmerging them. What is it that you're looking for that was in the separate articles that is currently missing from the merged ones? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

We've never had separate articles for all of the vowels. I oppose this; in fact, we're gonna merge more articles as that's the current consensus. Please don't confuse cardinal vowels for vowels used in human's languages. They're not the same thing. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Then how about having a redirect for each vowel to the appropriate (sub)section of the appropriate article? That way we should be able to handle as many vowels as anyone wants. --Thnidu (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that what we already do? Do you have any specific examples of pages which are not made to redirect to the respective sections of existing articles? Nardog (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: No, I don't. I don't recall seeing in this discussion any mention of what I proposed. I admit, though, that I could easily have overlooked it. --Thnidu (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This merging by mass deletion perpetrated by @Kbb2: mostly, is resulting in a lot of info being lost. The examples from various languages of the vowels he's deleted, he hasn't added to a section under the "merged" vowel's articles. --Orenwatson (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Orenwatson: No list in those articles is meant to be exhaustive. We're not required to list any particular language and the tables should be short enough (40 dialects [not languages] is absolutely enough) as to be readable (I therefore strongly oppose blindly merging the tables). Plus, it should be our priority to list the main allophones of phonemes (e.g. the Bulgarian mid back unrounded vowel), rather than mere positional allophones that occur in some obscure dialect, not least when they're in free variation with other allophones.

Please don't mistake close-mid back unrounded vowel for Bulgarian phonology or any other similar article. In scholarly publications it's most usual to list one to three examples of a vowel that's closest to any given cardinal vowel. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolute enoughness, readability, or main allophones are not criteria for deleting information on Wikipedia. Instead, our criteria are verifiability, NPOV, and NOR. While there was consensus for merging the vowel articles, there was no consensus, let alone discussion, for deleting information. I am going to review the mergers and I will add again the information that has been deleted. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 05:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: This is just another chapter of your silly little private war with me. Obvious attempts at vengeance are obvious. I haven't performed half of the mergers, by the way. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing personal about it. You have removed well-sourced material from Wikipedia without prior discussion. Please do not do this. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: I guess WP:COMMONSENSE is alien to you. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the undiscussed removal of examples was hasty and premature. You'd be absolutely in the right restoring them, per WP:BRD. Nardog (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe it's important information to know which languages of the world have a given sound in them. --Orenwatson (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I've performed an initial cleanup of your reverts. We don't list more than one example of a vowel/consonant per dialect in other articles, so those shouldn't be an exception to that rule (or a de-facto rule, an unwritten one). Having said that, I have more concerns regarding your reverts and I'll list them shortly. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: Please stop your deletions. You are basing your deletions on a rule “one example per dialect”. Is there any justification for that rule? Has it been discussed? Is there consensus? All I can see is that three editors here have voiced their reservations against your deletions, yet you just ignore us and continue with your deletions. Unless you can show us a solid justification, I will revert your continued deletions. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: There is an implicit consensus for that because nobody has challenged it. Check other articles. If you want to establish a new consensus, discuss it here. I'm strongly against listing more than one example per dialect. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There is an explicit consensus hashed out by numerous editors over several months. You can see this laid out here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: That's even better. I remember that subpage of yours, yes. Thanks for reminding us of it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at some of the edits, it seems as though the disagreement between Kbb2 and mach is more about how exhaustive the tables should be. I don't think there is an established explicit consensus on this question. At some point, I personally added an enormous body of examples at close front unrounded vowel and this seemed to have opened up a floodgate of adding as many examples as possible. But I tend to side with Kbb2 in that the tables should be illustrative, rather than exhaustive, per WP:IINFO. Thus, even if information is cited to reliable sources, it doesn't mean we have to put it in.

It's worth having a conversation about and achieving some sort of consensus on the principles by which we choose what to include and what not to. But mach, please tone it down a notch. Your comments and edit summaries are coming off as shrill and unnecessarily antagonistic and that's not helping the project. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To me this pertains to the raison d'être of those occurrence tables. They should be "illustrative", sure, but of what? Should we list languages readers are likely to be more familiar with so they can have an appreciation of what the sound is, or should we cover a diverse set of languages so we can illustrate the distribution of the sound? Currently I'm ambivalent, but it might be a good idea to lean towards one or the other depending on the sound's prevalence.

I'd say the same thing you said about Mach to Kbb2. Nardog (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Aeusoes1 for the link to User:Aeusoes1/Phone tables. It seems rather indeterminate as to whether or not Kbb2’s deletions are justified, since it shows we have previously allowed more than one example when languages have different instances of a sound.

Now when a language has two (or more) different instances of a sound, I think that is interesting and notable information. It shows how some languages systematically make subtle differentiations, whether or not the sounds are phonemes (e.g. Maastrichtian [leːf] vs. [bɛ̝t])[6] or allophones (e.g. Northern Welsh [pɨ̞mp] vs. [ɬɨːn]).[7] There have been numerous examples of allophones in the various sound article lists for many years. I do not see why merging two sound articles should result in deleting information we have kept for many years (how about that for an implicit consensus?), especially when no such deletions were mentioned when discussing the mergers.

I believe there is no practical criterion by which we can limit the number of languages on these lists. How could we possibly determine whether or not a language is noteworthy enough? Over all, the sound occurrence lists have a relatively high quality. None of the Wikipedia:Listcruft criteria seem to apply. The list items are thoroughly sourced. I suspect the only real problem with these lists is that we misrepresent many of the sources by using different signs from the ones used in them, but that is another question. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 18:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous langauges edit-a-thon suggestions

Hi everyone! L235 and I are running an edit-a-thon focusing on indigenous languages to celebrate the UN International Year of Indigenous Languages. Since many editors in this wikiproject work in that area, it would be a huge help to get suggestions on what articles need the most attention, especially for things new editors could help out with like adding examples or information from well known but hard to access sources. There's a section on the event page where you can suggest articles for improvement. Thanks! Wug·a·po·des​ 20:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks - is this still running? FIGHTERSOVIET wpedia (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Help in identifying a postalveolar fricative

Requesting help from the phonetics people out there. So, I've got the following description (with the text elsewhere making it clear the sound is a sibilant):

the tip of the tongue slightly touches the lower teeth, the blade appears to touch the upper teeth, and the front together with a part of the middle of the tongue is raised towards the hard palate.

It's actually labelled as "palato-alveolar", though I'm not sure if this meant what it means now (the text, published in 1963, is probably unchanged since the time it was written at the end of the 1930s), and when I try to replicate the pronunciation what comes out sounds to my non-trained ears more like [ɕ]. Any thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It's likely [ɕ], since [ʃ] usually doesn't contact the lower teeth. What's the source text? Wug·a·po·des​ 23:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The source text, as in which work the extract came from? That's:

Bahri, Hardev (1963). Lahndi Phonetics : with special reference to Awáṇkárí. Allahabad: Bharati Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

– Uanfala (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Page Edit Proposal: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/British_Association_for_Applied_Linguistics

Hi WikiProject Linguistics team.

First of all, conflict of interest statement, I am the Media Coordinator on the Executive Committee of this organization.

We'd like to update the main text of the following Wikipedia page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/British_Association_for_Applied_Linguistics

A number of the details are out of date and we'd like to add more information about what our organization does. Would anyone be able to help me do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baalmediacoordinator (talk • contribs) 05:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles with links to DAB pages

I have collected a batch of articles with language- and linguistics-related links to DAB pages which would benefit from expert attention. Search for 'disam' in read mode, and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, post {{done}} here.

• Accusative case  Done — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comparison of Japanese and Korean  Done
• Dagaare language  Done
• Great Vowel Shift  Done
• Hendiatris  Done
• Jukunoid languages  Done
• Kula language  Done
• List of Indigenous Australian group names  Done
• Logical form (linguistics)  Done
• Nheengatu  Done — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Nupoid languages  Done
• Ru (kana)  Done
• West Chadic languages  Done

Not all may be solvable, but every little helps. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Last ones done. I moved the Ngewin dab per primary use, and left an overt link to Middle Japanese per that source. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of chorisepala

Currently, I have a dispute with User:Gderrin about the etymology of the botanical epithet chorisepala. Gderrin writes:

• The specific epithet (chorisepala) is derived from the Greek choru meaning "separate" or "free" and -sepalus meaning "-sepalled".

I can not seem to convince Gderrin that Greek words usually do not end on -us (except for υ-stems in Greek (and with subsequent transliteration of -υς with -us), but -sepalus can not be a υ-stem) and the -us-ending is clearly a marker for being a Latin or a Latinized form. Moreover, I can not find any evidence yet in Greek lexica that choru would be a Greek word for "separate" or "free". It it a typo, or is it a uncommon transliteration of the Greek genitive χώρου (= "of space")? The specific source (Sharr, 2019) that he is using seems to err on a number of occasions (like stating that leprosus is Greek, despite the Latin suffix -osus). Wimpus (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I do know that Late Latin leprosus is ultimately derived from Greek λεπρός (with the addition of the Latin suffix -osus) and that New Latin sepalum is probably influenced, according to Stearn's Botanical Latin, by Greek σκέπη, but that does not make leprosus nor -sepalus Greek, but merely Greek-derived. Wimpus (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• Here's what the OED says,

chori-

(kɔərɪ)

before a vowel choris- (kɔərɪs),

a. Gr. χῶρι, χωρίς asunder, apart: used in botanical terms, as choripetalous (-ˈpɛtələs), a., having separate petals = polypetalous; chorisantherous (-ˈænθərəs) a., having separate anthers; chorisepalous (-ˈsɛpələs) a., having separate sepals; = polysepalous.

1880 Gray Struct. Bot. vi. §5. 244 Choripetalous is‥the most fitting name for a corolla the petals of which are separate.

— kwami (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. This indicates that the first part is derived from "Gr. χῶρι, χωρίς" and not from "Gr. choru", that can not be found in Greek dictionaries. I do think that User:Gderrin would still be convinced that the first part is from "Gr. choru". Wimpus (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether they're convinced is irrelevant, unless they can provide a better source. The OED entry is old, but dates from a time when lexicographers knew their Classics. It's not likely to be like the etymology of 'dog', where there may be new hypotheses, or of non-European words, where the OED tends to be sloppy. Greko-Latin technical terms are consciously designed, and we often have records. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rename of article regarding origins of Hungarian

Your feedback would be welcome at a discussion about renaming the very awkwardly titled, Obsolete theories of the Hungarian language relations. I've created a discussion at the TP, which is not an official RM because a rename seems uncontroversial to me, but more eyeballs would be welcome at the discussion to discuss alternate titles. Please add your thoughts at Talk:Obsolete theories of the Hungarian language relations#Title rename. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Definition of 'Language'

Contributors to this WikiProject may be interested in discussion at Talk:Language#Definition of 'Language'. I think changing the definition warrants input from more editors, but unfortunately don't have time to add much to the discussion right now. Cnilep (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Reichenau Glosses

Hey guys,

This is an article I wrote about Romance Linguistics. I'm wondering if you guys have any feedback on it, for example what needs to be improved?

Cheers, --Excelsius (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(well, it's not entirely my work, but this is what it looked like before I touched it... yikes!)

Do we only include "good" examples in phonetic sounds' occurrence tables?

Kwamikagami has been removing several examples from the occurrence table at Dental and alveolar taps and flaps on the grounds that they are not "good examples". According to them, Languages where a sound might be [ɾ] or might be [ɺ], or might be [ɾ] but might be a misanalyzed [r], are not good illustrations. I had never heard of this idea and I want know (or establish) the consensus on this. To me if the sound is in free variation or complementary distribution with other sound(s) that's all the more reason to include it because that illustrates the phonological status and relations with other sounds that sound can have.

(Pinging @Kbb2, Wugapodes, J. 'mach' wust, and Aeusoes1: as we've touched on similar points in #We probably have too many vowel articles and #Unmerge all of the vowel articles above.) Nardog (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the point of these articles is to illustrate prototypical (i.e., IPA) sounds. Rather like cardinal vowels. That gives the reader a baseline comparison when reading about a particular phonology. If our illustrations are an incoherent mishmash, then they don't serve the reader well. And when a sound is common in the world, we can afford to be picky about the examples we choose.

If someone adds a language with only a trill to the flap article because they misread the source or don't know the difference, then yes, of course we need to remove it. In this particular case, what Nardog is actually objecting to is the removal of Japanese. Japanese /ɾ~ɺ/ is undefined for centrality. It therefor is not a good example of [ɾ], and IMO should not be included, because we have so many good illustrations. We need to cut off the thousands of possible illustrations somewhere, so why not cut off the bad ones?

(Japanese /ɾ~ɺ/ is not a good example of [ɺ] either, but for that sound we can't afford to be so picky. There are few well-known languages that would be good illustrations for [ɺ].) — kwami (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The examples should be to the benefit of the reader in the first place, and not just to the benefit of having an article that is as broad as possible (especially in the case of common sounds). For this reason I believe it makes sense to primarily keep proto-typical (and well-sourced) examples, such as—in the case of [ɾ]—Spanish (where it has phonemic status), or old-school RP and Korean (where it appears as an allophone in well-defined contexts). Potentially ambiguous examples, including the iconic not-really-R-like [ɾ~ɺ] in Japanese might be in effect more confusing than helpful to a non-specialist reader who is familiar with Japanese. –Austronesier (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Because a table is designed to steamroll over nuance, it makes sense that we stick to clearer examples. I think kwami's wording in the other thread sums it up pretty well: Languages that almost invariably have [ɾ] as the realization, like Arabic, are good examples. Languages where a sound might be [ɾ] or might be [ɺ], or might be [ɾ] but might be a misanalyzed [r], are not good illustrations.

As I said in the previous discussions, article prose could help us out here. We would be doing a disservice to our readers to not even mention Japanese at the [ɾ] article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but that more general info might be even better placed in the main flap consonant article, along with one-contact trills. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think our discussions about what is or is not a “good” example are pointless. The criterion should be relevant sources. When a relevant source deems an [ɾ] allophone important enough to be mentioned, then it should be important enough for us. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 06:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@mach: What makes a source "relevant"? (I only know of "reliable sources", which are a necessary criterion for inclusion, but not a sufficient one.) Introducing the criterion of "relevance" is just as arbitrary as the criterion of a "good" (= illustrative) example, unless we discuss and finally agree about how we want to define it.

@Ƶ§œš¹: Agree, the prose part should be more inclusive and is a good place to mention more ambiguous examples and the potential (range-wise) overlap with similar sounds. –Austronesier (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I actually like mach's idea of "relevant sources", so I want to take it up and make a suggestion possible cut-offs. In the first place, I would eliminate all entries with sources which do not specifically deal with phonetics. General descriptive studies always have a phonetics/phonology section, but most field linguists and other descriptive linguists are certainly trained, but not specialized in phonetics. So in most cases we can expect accurate descriptions, but shouldn't exclude the possibility of close hits. Personal anecdote: I collected data in the field about an understudied language, and in the process of analysis decided that one of the allophones of /l/ is a retroflex lateral flap, because I thought that this would adeqautely describe what I heard, and what I produced myself to imitate it (correctly, according to my quite critical informants). Eventually, I had the oppurtunity to publish a short sketch of that language: my sketch was peer-reviewed, it passed, and now the world has a source about another retroflex lateral flap in a natural language. I am still pretty sure about my phonetic instinct, but frankly I would feel awkward if quoted in a phonetic overview article.

I would also exclude broad phonological studies which deal with phonetic details only in passing, for the same reasons. Not all phonologists are reliable phoneticians.

That leaves general phonetic sources, and also those specialized in indivdual languages. –Austronesier (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I can see merit in preferring phonetic sources, but I don't know if it would be a good idea to keep such a high bar in all circumstances. If we consider this a matter of degrees of confidence, with phonetic sources at the top and broader linguistic sources under that, it might be a good idea to in general accept either while preferring the former. We would only exclude an example lacking the former if there is reason to doubt it, such as with rare sounds or contradictory sourcing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW, the reason I started paring down this particular article is that I was looking for an example of a dental tap, and saw that the one example we had was suspect. So, question, are there any languages with dental taps? — kwami (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

There are some mentions of dental taps in a number of general descriptive sources, but I also have found one mention in a phonetics textbook, viz. Rogers (2000), The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics, p. 221: "Spanish contrasts a dental tap with a dental trill". This bold statement contradicts most sources that I know, which all describe an alveolar tap and an alveolar trill in Spanish. –Austronesier (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hindustani

Recent massive rewrite per the POV that Hindustani is extinct. The editor is confusing the official language under the British Raj (essentially Urdu) with the topic of the article, which is the language that MS Hindi and MS Urdu are standardized forms of. I don't remember who was in the discussion the last time this came up, so I'm mentioning it here. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages

I have collected another batch of articles with linguistics-related links to DAB pages where expert help would be welcome. Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{d" in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

• Egyptian language  Done
• Gallaecian language  Done
• List of Indo-European languages  Not done see RfD
• Tape language
• Ukrainian grammar  Done

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Tape, I'm not sure what the article means by 'labiovelar consonants' and will need to check out the cited source from the library to disambiguate. If someone can figure out the answer before next week, feel free to. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access, but the consonant chart has two m's. I suspect the first should have a tilde. The columns should also be defined, if you can look that up at the same time. And repeated confusion of the word "letter" with "phoneme", though any of us could clean that up. — kwami (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

New article Theory of language

I can't tell how much of this is original research (most seems reasonable) or whether this article should exist at all (should it be merged into another linguistics article?): Theory of language. Can someone take a look? Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

A tough one. I'd want to hear other editor's thoughts. An overview of schools of linguistic thought such as structural linguistics and Systemic functional linguistics would be a wonderful addition, but I'm not sure how best to align this page with that scope. Pinging @Kbb2, Nardog, J. 'mach' wust, Aeusoes1, and Kwamikagami: since you all've been active recently. Thoughts? — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Austronesier: too. — kwami (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I created the page to serve as a main article for Philosophy_of_language#Nature_of_language as well as a corresponding section in linguistics. I think it is quite basic knowledge. What is it that surprises you? I mean, can you not imagine that people have actually thought of what language is? In fact, there's quite a bit of the same discussion in language, too. I think the problem was that I wrote the article first with a few sources, and then started gradually adding more. So, maybe it just somehow came out of the blue. However, the fact will never change that theory of language, or the question of "what is language?", will always be a fundamental question in linguistics and philosophy of language. So merge it with... what? I'm actually quite curious to know which part of it you find so strange, to improve the article. Anyway, next time I add a new page I suppose I'll start with a stub. Weidorje (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)