User talk:Munkitty Tunkitty
|
IPA transcriptions
[edit]Hi. I see you've added a lot of IPA transcriptions, which is appreciated, but be mindful to use broad (non-regional) transcriptions for English. Also, Wikipedia doesn't need pronunciations for common and obvious-to-pronounce English words (i.e. fish and chips). That's what Wiktionary is for. Use WP:IPA for English as a guideline. — ʀoyoтϵ 06:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Another thing. Use one of the IPA templates ({{IPA}}, {{IPA-en}}, {{pron-en}}, etc., depending on the circumstance) for any IPA formatted text. And remember that the long vowel symbol (ː) is a triangular colon, and different from :. — ʀoyoтϵ 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Happy to help. Phonology is a complicated and sometimes messy topic. It's important to remember that a transcription system like the IPA is at best formal and approximate description of how language is actually pronounced.
What you're hearing in "scone" isn't a /g/, i.e. a voiced velar plosive, but rather a voiceless, but unaspirated, plosive. English voiceless stops, broadly transcribed /p, t, k/, are aspirated in most positions, such as in the onset of stressed syllables, e.g. in "pit", "tit", "kit", and so in narrower transcriptions these are more accurately written [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ]. However, after a sibilant such as /s/, they are not aspirated, though they are still voiceless: compare [spaɪk] "spike" with [pʰaɪk] "pike".
It's actually not uncommon for English speakers to confuse unaspirated voiceless consonants with voiced ones, because voice and aspiration are both distinguishing features of English plosives. This differs from, say, French, in which voice is the only contrasting feature of the plosives, or Icelandic, in which aspiration is the only contrast. Alternatively, some languages, such as Thai, contrast voiced, voiceless aspirated, and voiceless unaspirated plosives. Some have even more distinctions. Wikipedia has some decent linguistics articles, as you're probably aware; I recommend reading about voice, phonation, and voice onset time if you want to get a better picture of the issue.
Since phonology is complex and subject to different interpretations, conventions are established so everyone stays on the same page. When editing, we follow the conventions of Wikipedia which are established (and outlined at WP:IPA for English) to provide broad transcriptions that can be understood by as many Anglophones as possible. That way speakers of non-rhotic dialects like RP can drop their r's, while American and Irish speakers will still know where to put them; likewise those with the cot-caught merger can ignore the vowels they don't use, while those of us without it still know when to use them. The use of broad transcriptions is also why "scone" is written /skoʊn/ while "cone" is still just /koʊn/ (rather than [kʰoʊn]).
Hope that elucidates a few points. As a side note, don't forget to sign your messages, preferably with ~~~~. — ʀoyoтϵ 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Jonathon Stern for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jonathon Stern is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Stern until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hatchens (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)