User talk:Mr KEBAB/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Swedish and Norwegian vowel rounding + Swedish /kʲ/

Hi, I just wanted to ask you if you know about any of these. With the Swedish and Norwegian vowels, they say that there is some rounding articulation of it, yet, I don't seem to understand when the rounded vowels are used. It seems to contradict (such as Swedish /œ/ can be written narrowly as [œ̝] or [ɘ̞ᵝ], with the latter showing roundness. Secondly, when is ⟨k⟩ pronounced with the palatal /kʲ/? Not explained anywhere in the Swedish phonology section. Thanks if you know anything. — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 22:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: As far as your second question is concerned, see [1]. Let me know if you can't access relevant pages. Swedish/Norwegian rounded vowels are virtually always transcribed with the simple IPA symbols ⟨ʏ, y, ɵ, ʉ, ʊ, u, ø, œ, o, ɔ⟩ (the exact choice varies from scholar to scholar, many papers on Norwegian use only ⟨y, ʉ, u, ø, ɔ⟩ and that's the transcription I introduced on Wikipedia). [ɘ̞ᵝ] is one of the ways you can narrowly transcribe the phonetic quality of the Swedish /ɵ/. It tells you that it has a 'compressed' rounding, as opposed to the more usual 'protruded' rounding. Central and back vowels are most typically protruded in world's languages, whereas front vowels are most typically compressed.

Remember that [ɘ̞ᵝ] and similar symbols are not IPA-approved, so don't expect to read about them in the Handbook of the IPA. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but damn, the consonant chapters are hidden out in the preview. However, for the second question, are you saying that it can be transcribed in both ways ([œ̝] or [ɘ̞ᵝ])? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 23:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Also I found this which is older, but a lot less exhaustive — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 00:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: So try this version instead. It's better that you see this yourself and make a screenshot of whatever you think is relevant instead of seeing 2-3 sentences that I'd copy-paste here.

I'm not conflating /œ/ with /ɵ/, even though some speakers merge them. What I said was that you can transcribe /ɵ/ as [ɘ̞ᵝ] in narrow transcription.

Thanks, but I'm already aware of that book. We cite it on Swedish phonology. You're right, it's very old. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Did the preview work? I'm not sure what your lack of response means. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately it didn't also, I just forgot to reply back. Sorry :-( — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 00:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: This is from page 46: [2]. Bear in mind that his /ɑ/ covers both the short central/front and the long back variants. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello again...

Over the past week I've been making a spelling-to-phoneme conversion on Lithuanian, based on my own research and Wikipedia. Just wanted to ask you what you thought about it, any corrections or suggestions would also be very welcome. — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 11:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

PS I gotta tell you my interests on linguistics are very unpredictable and eclectic, so don't be surprised if I started to focus on another language all of a sudden. — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 11:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: I've never researched into it, so I wouldn't know. I know much less about Lithuanian than what you can read on WP. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't want to misconstrue my behavior as inability to take criticism. It's just that I wasn't the only one to take issue with what happened (besides, this was a rough day to me in several different social media, since I'm a part of communities full of ideology cliques in which simple mistakes and misunderstood interpersonal attitudes become reasons to frame someone as bad): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARui_Gabriel_Correia&type=revision&diff=800410548&oldid=797707027 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APedroPVZ&type=revision&diff=800391513&oldid=800343448 Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Srtª PiriLimPomPom: Apology accepted. I saw that, and it's Pedro who's in the wrong there. I mean... his reasoning is very similar to yours, it's just that his behavior is more aggressive. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Srtª PiriLimPomPom. I don't know what you are trying to pull here, but I should advise yo that the Arbitration Committee has passed rules on casting aspersions, under the banner of personal attacks and harassment. Not only that, this is a deliberate attempt to draw in the other editor, in the believe that he is monitoring my edits, just like you did, hoping that he will join your cause and gang up against me. I am sure that he has more sense than that. Either way, these are two very serious violations that can get you blocked. I will allow you a while to ponder after which I will seek the advice of an admin. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for setting the record straight, Mr KEBAB. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I actually did take a brief look at your edits last night and learned about your issues with Pedro that way. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no cause here. I accept Mr KEBAB's points and those of yours as well. I just am not comfortable with you. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Near-close near-back rounded vowel

Hi Mr KEBAB. Weird how things happen. I am always curious when I see "suggested publications" on social media to find out whose photo they are ripping off to promote a no doubt nefarious commercial swindel. One such photo led me to a similar photo of Cara Delevingne. Quickly scrolled down to see what she has done and saw Die Antwoord, which really surprised me. Clicked on Die Antwoord and saw the same "IPA: [ʊ]" sound that I saw days ago at Miranda do Douro, which is where we 'met'. Curiouser and curiouser, with apologies to Lewis Carroll. And just when I thought it could not possibly get any more freaky, lo and behold!, the IPA: [ʊ] was introduced by you. Sir N. Dippity sure works in strange ways. Ceylon and thanks for all the tea, have a great week. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: I did that per Lass (1987), who transcribes it [öə] (which is almost exactly the same thing). A more recent work, Wissing (2017) suggests that [uə] or maybe even [uœ] may be a better narrow transcription. I must admit that I've never seen such a strangely written diphthong like [uœ] (and [yœ] for what we now write [ɪø] on Wikipedia). Have a great week too. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, [ɪø] looks pretty strange too. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It is just getting weirder! Prof Daan (D.P.) Wissing was my Linguists professor at Potchefstroom University! Amazing guy. Thoroughly enjoyed his classes. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Think I've earned some time off. You also! Good job, thanks for bringing your observation up at Talk:Snoop Dogg. General Ization ^Talk 04:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: Thanks, you've done a good job too. Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Per [3], at least 1079 pages were affected. General Ization ^Talk 04:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)