User talk:Peter238/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Peter238, for the period September 2015.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Retroflex

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

I've added something to the lead of the retroflex article (based on the content of that article), but it does seem that the "retroflex must be subapical" view is only a minority one, so we shouldn't write as if it were universally held. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@W. P. Uzer: No problem. I'll try to dig up the sources in the next couple of days. Peter238 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@W. P. Uzer: Yeah, can't find anything else besides the SOWL. I'll let you know if that changes. Peter238 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

“þö”

We need to find another example for this sound in the article open-mid central rounded vowel. “Þö” is not a word in Icelandic. Maxí (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Peter238 (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Rhoticity in English shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@JJMC89: you need to review these edits, as it is not an edit war. I'm simply cleaning up after an uncooperative, annoying troll that wants to have his (wrong) way at all costs. Peter238 (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits. The IP makes the original change. Every edit the IP has made since then has been to revert to that same version. You have reverted the IP and added a source each time. Starting here you change "even" to "nowadays many" for all reverts thereafter. It doesn't matter who is right, it is still edit warring unless the reverts fall under one of the exemptions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@JJMC89: there's one more thing: the original change is a reference falsification (Wells's statements are stronger), and therefore a vandalism. Peter238 (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I am no troll. The statement in the article is not only patently wrong on the face of it - you simply can't justify saying all RP speakers intrude the /r/, individual speech patterns vary, but it also isn't consistent with the source cited. I've asked for the quote from the source to justify the statement and none has/can be provided. And yes, I edit warred - and yes, peter, who I'm sure is just as well-intentioned and stubborn (apparently) as I am, did it first. Not to even mention the arrogance and personal attacks, which don't bother me anyway. None of which is any defense, I realize. It's pretty clear peter and I aren't likely to come to a consensus. I think I've made my point pretty clear. My problem with the sentence is merely that it makes the blanket statement that Xes do Y - e.g. "Black men kill." Or "Whites steal." You can say "many Xes do Y", or even "most Xes do Y", but not "All Xes do Y". Which is grammatically equivalent to saying "Xes do Y". If such blatantly false statements are to be included, they should be a quote from the RS, not a paraphrase by a wikiauthor. I would welcome additional input on the substance of this debate. I think this boils down to loose/incorrect semantics. Kind Regards to all. 2602:306:CD22:4E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE90:CB17 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think if you actually look at the current version of the sentence you've been edit warring about, you'll see it clearly talks about many RP speakers (an understatement IMO), so it certainly isn't a blanket statement of the kind you allege it to be. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC

Yes, I see that. He slipped it in on me, lol.... You're right; I'm now good that sentence. Thanks Uzer. Glad we could find common ground peter, I know you're only trying to accurately reflect the RS. Perhaps my rewording was not as strong as the RS, it was never my intention to waterdown the RS. Kind Regards to all... 2602:306:CD22:4E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE90:CB17 (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I also should've played that better, but I simply didn't know that "Xes do Y" means "All Xes do Y". Either way, the problem has been solved, but I'll follow W. P. Uzer's suggestion and see if according to these sources, "many" is still not a watered down statement. And apologies for calling you a troll, it's just that your initial behaviour looked a lot like trolling from my perspective. Peter238 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Protip

Sometimes, trolls feed on expressions of frustration. Let's keep our cool and leave our comments and edit summaries so bland that the anon doesn't feel like they are successfully frustrating anyone. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not the first time I got pissed off at an anon, so you're probably right. Thanks. Peter238 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Fingre

It is true that /ər/ is phonetically [ɐ] in the singular "finger", but in the plural "fingre", in distinct speech, it is feŋʁɐ with a distinct uvular R.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Peter238 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

enquête

File:Enquête Qc.oga

Hello, this pronunciation is [ˈɑ̃kʲɛɪ̯t] or [ˈɑ̃kʲæɪ̯t]? 138.229.19.73 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

[ˈɑ̃kʲæɪ̯t], maybe with some centralization of the onset [ˈɑ̃kʲæ̈ɪ̯t], but I'm not sure. Peter238 (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

File:FR-Hiver (Gaspésie).ogg

[ivɛːʁ̥] or [iveɪ̯ʁ̥]? 199.59.77.114 (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The former, but slightly raised [iˈvɛ̝ːʁ̥]. I can't really hear any offglide, and the second vowel is noticeably closer to cardinal [ɛ] than [e], i.e. more open-mid than close-mid. Peter238 (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Secondaire Qc.oga

Do you hear [ˈsœɡõdɐɛ̯ʁ̥] with a diphthong ? Fête Phung (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear [ˈsœɡõdɐˑɛ̯̆ʁ̥], with a slightly diphthongized last vowel. But I could be wrong. Peter238 (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Vietnamese phonology

You did an error on Vietnamese phonology, because the English wiktionary has an error for the Vietnamese tones, xin is really pronounced with a mid tone, [˧˧], I've already heard it, please check the Vietnamese Wiktionary: https://vi.wiktionary.org/wiki/xin Fête Phung (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. AFAICS, many Vietnamese entries on English Wiktionary have wrong IPA, and I'm not even talking about tones. The Hồ Chí Minh pronunciation of xin should be between brackets, not slashes, because [ɨ̞] is merely an allophone of /i/ before /t/ and /n/. To fix the tones on Wiktionary, one would need to fix the vi-pron template. Peter238 (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

dziękuję

File:Pl-dziękuję.ogg

Cześć Peter238, this pronunciation is [d͡ʑɛŋˈkujɛ] or [d͡ʑɛŋˈkuɪ̯ɛ] ? Fête Phung (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. /j/ does sound a bit lax... IMO, you could transcribe it either way. Peter238 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

pêche

File:Pêche Qc.ogg

It's transcribe [paɛ̯ʃ] in French Wiktionnaire, but I really heard [pae̯ʃ], there was a user deleted my editing. Fête Phung (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The second element is definitely not open-mid, but either mid or close-mid (I'm not sure which one). If it's mid, both [aɛ̯] and [ae̯] are correct transcriptions. If it's close-mid, only [ae̯] is correct in narrow transcription. Peter238 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't want to correct it in Wiktionnaire? Fête Phung (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said, there may be nothing to correct. Even if the second element is actually close-mid, they may still transcribe it [aɛ̯] because of their conventions (which I don't know - I don't speak a word of French). You should talk to admins of the French Wiktionary, maybe you'll convince them. Peter238 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm blocked in Wiktionnaire, so I don't know who can edit it. Fête Phung (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't speak French, so don't count on me. Peter238 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

behaviour

File:En-us-behaviour.ogg

[biˈheɪvjoɹ], this pronunciation is wrong? Fête Phung (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is wrong - the last vowel should be a schwa. I'll try to replace that recording. Peter238 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Peter238 (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The new recording is a female voice? Fête Phung (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. If the older recording is still there, try restarting your computer. Peter238 (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The new recording is not your voice? Fête Phung (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm neither a female nor a native speaker of English, so no. Peter238 (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

pêche

Hello Peter, I'm blocked in Wiktionnaire, I don't know who can change [paɛ̯ʃ] into [pae̯ʃ]. In fact, although you don't know French, but you have the right to edit it, you can do a favour for me, I'm SURE that it's [pae̯ʃ] ! Fête Phung (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Quebec French phonology#Diphthongization reads as follows: [ɛː] → [aɪ̯] ~ [æɪ̯]; [aɛ̯] ~ [æɛ̯] before /ʁ/; [ɛɪ̯] (unstressed), as in fête [faɪ̯t] ~ [fæɪ̯t], Eng. "party"; père [paɛ̯ʁ] ~ [pæɛ̯ʁ], Eng. "father"; fêter [fɛɪ̯te], Eng. "celebrate". So they transcribe it [aɪ̯ ~ æɪ̯], rather than [ae̯] or [aɛ̯]. The thing is, that section is unsourced. If you can find a reliable source to back up the information at Quebec French phonology#Diphthongization, I can go to the French Wiktionary and ask them to change that transcription. Peter238 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/ressources/bibliotheque/sociolinguistique/etude6_compl.pdf

I saw [aɛ̯] ~ [ae̯] ~ [ai̯] in that source. Fête Phung (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, what's the page? Peter238 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The page 21. Fête Phung (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's [aɛ̯ ~ ae̯ ~ ai̯], just as you said. Unless that source clearly states that [aɛ̯] is the least common diphthong, it wouldn't really make sense to ask them to change that transcription, since [aɛ̯] is just as correct as the other two symbols. Thanks for the book though! Peter238 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Pêche Qc.ogg

This man REALLY pronounces [pae̯ʃ], so you should transcribe as this man pronounces. Fête Phung (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

[e̯] in your transcription can be either close-mid or mid. In the latter case, [ɛ̯] is just as accurate, because there's no dedicated symbol for the mid front unrounded vowel in the IPA, which is written either ⟨e̞⟩ (lowered ⟨e⟩) or ⟨ɛ̝⟩ (raised ⟨ɛ⟩). We agree that the second vowel is not open-mid, but how do you know that it's close-mid, not mid? I don't know that, to my ears it could be either one of those. Peter238 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

When I listen attentively, it sounds like [paɛ̯e̯ʃ] or [paɛ̯ʲʃ]. Fête Phung (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Either way, there's no reason to change [aɛ̯] to [ae̯] if we're not completely sure that the second element is close-mid, and I am not. Peter238 (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

File:FR-Tempête (Gaspésie).ogg

This one, it's [ˈtãpæe̯t] ? Fête Phung (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd transcribe it [ˈtãpæi̯t], because the second element of that diphthong is noticeably tense. Peter238 (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not sure about [æ] - it may be closer to [ɐ] or [ä], but I'm not completely sure. Peter238 (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Fr-hiver-fr CA.ogg

It's almost [iˈvæɛ̯ʁ̥] ? Fête Phung (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't hear any diphthongization. I'd say it's simply [iˈvæːʁ̥], with a long monophthong. Peter238 (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Treize Qc.ogg

This one is clearly [tʁ̥aɛ̯zᵊ]? Fête Phung (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're looking for an example of [aɛ̯] in Quebec French, you've just found it. I'd transcribe it [ˈtxaɛ̯zə̆] in narrow transcription. The rhotic sounds velar rather than uvular, and the second element of the diphthong sounds very close to cardinal [ɛ]. ⟨ə̆⟩ (⟨ə⟩ with the 'extra short' diacritic) is the official IPA equivalent of ⟨ᵊ⟩. Peter238 (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

tête

File:FRQC-tête.ogg

This one is [tæi̯t]? Fête Phung (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's either [tæ̈i̯t] or [tɐi̯t], but not [tæi̯t]. Peter238 (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Now, I consider that pêche is pronounced [paɛ̯ʲʃ], the [ɛ] is present, I don't think it's necessary to edit it. Fête Phung (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean that it's a quick triphthong [aɛi]? I disagree. I clearly hear a diphthong with a (close-)mid offset [aɛ̝ ~ ae]. Peter238 (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe [pɐe̯ʃ]? Fête Phung (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To my ears, it's [päɛ̝ʃ ~ päeʃ] in narrow transcription, rather than [pɐɛ̝ʃ ~ pɐeʃ]. Peter238 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Ancêtre Qc.oga

This one is surely [ˈɑ̃sɐe̯tχ]. Fête Phung (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagreed - I'd transcribe it [ɑ̃sæ̈e̯tx] (I'm not sure about the stress, but it's not phonemic in French). The onset is more front than central, and the rhotic, once again, sounds more velar than uvular. Peter238 (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Fr-ver-ca-Montréal.ogg

Do you hear [vɐ̆ɛχ]? Fête Phung (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, [væɛ̝ʁ̥] or [væeʁ̥]. The first element of the diphthong sounds front, the second element mid or close-mid, and the rhotic sounds only partially devoiced. Peter238 (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Vert QF.ogg

This one is [vɑɛ̈ʁ̥]? Fête Phung (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say [väɛ̯ʁ̥]. The second element does sound open-mid to me, but I'm not sure whether it's centralized or not. Peter238 (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Neige Qc.ogg

[näɪ̯ʒ] or [nɐɪ̯ʒ]? Fête Phung (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, it sounds more like the latter than like the former, so I'd say it's [nɐɪ̯ʒ]. Peter238 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Ar-مهم.ogg

This one is [muˈhɪm] or [moˈhɪm]? Fête Phung (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The first vowel is either [ʊ] or [o], but not [u]. I'm not sure about its quality, because it's too short. In addition, [h] sounds voiced [ɦ]. It's either [mʊˈɦɪm] or [moˈɦɪm]. Peter238 (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Arabic

File:Ar-ثلج.ogg

[θæ̈lʒ] or [θɛ̈lʒ]? Fête Phung (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Either [θɛlʒ] or [θɛ̈lʒ]. The vowel is open-mid front, but I'm not sure whether it's centralized or not. The [l] sounds a bit prolonged and somewhat palatalized, so a narrow transcription [θɛlʲˑʒ ~ θɛ̈lʲˑʒ] would be, IMO, even more suitable. Peter238 (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

http://zh.forvo.com/word/lủng/

This is [lʊŋ˩˥] or [lo̞ŋ˩˥]? Fête Phung (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear [lɔʊ̯̃˩˥ ~ lɒʊ̯̃˩˥] (not sure whether it's [ɔ] or [ɒ]), but I could be wrong. Peter238 (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, what I transcribed as [ʊ̯̃] could be more velar than labial. I'd say a better transcription would be [lɔɰ̃ʷ˩˥ ~ lɒɰ̃ʷ˩˥]. Peter238 (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Ar-سعيد.ogg

[sæ.ˈiːd̥] or [sæi̯d̥] ? Fête Phung (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The former, but with a somewhat centralized first vowel and a weak onglide before the second vowel, so [sæ̈ˈɪ̯̆iːd̥]. Peter238 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Tweants dialect

Hi. The term puut is distinctly Grönnings (Tuut tuut tuut, Helder doet z’n patat in ‘n puut^[1]). In Tweants, that's called a Toet'n patat. Good goan, Kleuske (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Hi. I just reintroduced the word that was used as an example of the /y/ phoneme. I don't speak a word of Tweants. I'll remove that word from the table, but it'd be nice if you put another word instead. Also, you could translate the words slouw and éénlöastig. Peter238 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Quebec French

Qc-baleine.ogg

[baˈlæ̃ĩnᵊ], right? Fête Phung (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear [baˈlɛ̃ɪ̯̃n], with an open-mid onset of the diphthong and no schwa after /n/, but I could be wrong. Peter238 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:FR-Poêle à bois (Gaspésie).ogg

The first syllable is short, is it [ˈpwæɪ̯l‿a bwɔ] ? Fête Phung (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear [ˈpwæːl‿a‿bwɔ], with a monophthong. To me, [ɔ] sounds weakly rounded and possibly somewhat lowered. I'd transcribe it [ɔ̜] (or [ɔ̜˕] / [ɒ̜˔], if it's indeed lowered) in narrow transcription. Peter238 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Fr-terre-ca-Montréal.ogg

[tɛ̈ɜ̯ʁ̥] or [tæ̈ɜ̯ʁ̥] ? Fête Phung (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear [tæɛ̯̈ʁ̥]. [ɛ̯̈] is a mid vowel [ɛ̝̈], not open-mid [ɛ̈]. It does sound somewhat centralized, yes. Peter238 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Fr-hiver-fr CA.ogg

When you're listening attentively, do you hear [ʔivæ̈œ̯ʁ̥] ? Fête Phung (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't hear a diphthong, let alone a diphthong that ends in a rounded vowel. I hear [ʔiˈvæːʁ̥], with a long monophthong. I already told you that, yesterday I think. Peter238 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But I hear [ʔivæ̈ɛ̈ʁ̥]. Fête Phung (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Peter238 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the diphthong is not clear. Fête Phung (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be so narrow that you can barely hear its second element. Either way, I hear a long monophthong and that's it. Peter238 (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Peut-être.ogg

So, this one is [pəˈtae̯t] or [pəˈtaɛ̯t]? Fête Phung (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear [pəˈtɐe̯t], with [ɐ] and [e̯]. Peter238 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ver

File:Fr-ver-ca-Montréal.ogg

I think it's [væ̆ɛ̈ːʁ̥], there is a extra-short [æ̆], have you heard it? Fête Phung (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never listened to that file until you put it here, if that's what you're asking. I hear simply [væɛ̯ʁ̥], with a narrow front diphthong. Peter238 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Qc-baleine.ogg

I've heard an extremely short vowel at the end, maybe [baˈlɛ̃ĩn̩ᵊ], if it's not [ᵊ], it's what ? Fête Phung (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a very short, barely noticeable schwa after [n]. My mistake. Peter238 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi Peter, I was fixing up the dab and thought it was just one song to start with. He may be notable, but as a BLP it looks like it needs at least a couple of WP:RS then the article can be saved. (and I believe I have to inform you of the PRODs, and it gives me no other option anyhow) Widefox; talk 18:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. That's what I thought, that it's some kind of WP policy. Anyway, you should ask the guys on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music for reliable sources for Martin Roth (DJ). They should come up with something. I don't have anything better than what's already in the article. Peter238 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm just fixing some dabs right now. It's worth checking WP:BURDEN. Regards Widefox; talk 18:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to provide reliable sources, I asked you to ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music (which appears to be pretty much dead) to provide sources, and that's something different than WP:BURDEN (which I'm aware of) describes. You don't want to do that - fine, that's your choice. I already said that I won't improve that article because I don't really know how to, and I have other things to do. Peter238 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Khmer vowels

I recently deleted a vowel chart from the Khmer language page; it was based on a source that did not actually have a chart (and which seems to have used impressionistic language to describe the vowels. Rather than nominate the image itself for deletion, though, I think we can use this source to replace it with an accurate account of Khmer vowels. What do you think? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious that there should be no unsourced vowel charts on Wikipedia. Your source is pretty recent (1998), so I don't see any problem with using it. I can make the formant charts, if that's what you're asking. Peter238 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removing the previous chart, but it looks to me as if this source concerns a dialect which is explicitly distinguished from Standard Khmer (and for Standard Khmer simply refers to Huffman, who is the source we already have). Maybe @WilliamThweatt: will be able to shed some light. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as the Wayland source, I am familiar with it (and Ms. Wayland's work in general). It purportedly describes a non-standard dialect of Khmer referred to as "Battambang Khmer" although no such dialect really exists. There are at least two dialects ("accents" is a better term as the difference is merely in the pronunciation of a very few vowels, not lexicon or grammar) to be found in Battambang. The source you suggest, judging by her description, seems to be describing a rural accent from the west of the province. What's more, it was only based on the speech of a single informant "from Battambang...who has been living in the United States for 10 years" (pg 45). Not very thorough, the differences she observed could have been unique to that speaker (his own idiolect), or the result of being exposed to American English for 10 years, etc. No disrespect intended, but Ms. Wayland hasn't published anything substantial on Khmer, the longest work I could find was a ~20 page paper that was supposition about the loss of /r/ in Phnom Penh Khmer. And, as W.P. Uzer points out, when she refers to "Standard Khmer", she is simply referencing Huffman. In fact, practically every source on Khmer after Huffman, uses Huffman's analysis for Standard Khmer. Wayland's paper is interesting, but not valid for use in describing the vowels of Standard Khmer. There's no sense in reinventing the wheel, Huffman has done the work already...might as well use it.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, WilliaimThweatt. I can see the issues with using Wayland's work, particularly the small number of informants. We can keep looking for additional sources that use formant values or formant charts. But the image that I removed is not, strictly speaking, Huffman. It is a guess of formant values based on descriptions Huffman makes. In that sense, Huffman has not "done the work already." — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here we go.[2][3] — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Of course. By "done the work already", I was referring to his analysis of Standard Khmer, but I understand the confusion. The currently cited Huffman work indeed does not have a formant chart, but I'm sure at least one of his more scholarly papers does, although I can't find any that are available online. Other possible sources are Jenner or Jacob but there is the similar problem of not being accessible online. Also maybe Ferlus (1992) "Essai de phonétique historique du khmer", as I recall it's comprehensive, builds on the earlier works and should be available online.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, Woźnica. I haven't read that particular study (yet), but seems solid at first glance.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The second one specifically describes the Western Khmer dialect (Chanthaburi Khmer) of the Khmer native to Eastern Central Thailand and adjacent areas of Cambodia in the Cardamom mountains. It is the dialect that is arguably the most distant from Modern Standard Khmer.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 23:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The first one (Woznica) certainly looks interesting and something we could cite, but it's about vowel duration, not formants. In fact I don't think there's anything wrong with constructing a vowel chart based on descriptions rather than measurements, as long as it's based faithfully on what the source says, and the caption says something like "....based on..." and "...approximate..." if necessary. That's not to say we have to have a vowel chart in that position, though. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're right about Woznica. But there definitely is something wrong with creating a formant chart not based on actual formant values. It would mislead the reader into believing those are the actual values of the vowels in question when we would have no idea if that's true. There would be no benefit to lying like that and several disadvantages. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 07:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a wide perception (among either general readers or specialist linguists) that IPA-style vowel charts are necessarily formant charts. And if there might be, then the fact that a particular chart is not formant-based could just be noted in the caption. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a nasty assumption. They are, indeed, formant charts. Anything less would be a lie, plain and simple. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@W. P. Uzer: The vast majority of the vowel trapeziums are auditory charts, not formant charts. They're made by trained phoneticians using both their ears and formant values, but I'm not sure how often the latter are used. Peter238 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought, but User:Aeusoes1 seems to have a different opinion. Regardless, I don't see how it can be considered a lie if we explicitly state on what basis a particular chart is constructed. Even a rough chart can be of help to some people in visualizing the general structure of a language's vowel system, so as long as its level of roughness is indicated, I don't see any problem in using such. Perhaps using a table rather than an actual trapezium would be better? W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a table would be much better. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean a table like this one? No problem, but tell me which source I should use (unless there's no consensus). I'm still confused about that. Peter238 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we both (I think) meant a table like the one that Aeusoes has already created. We don't seem to have a source with any formants for Standard Khmer. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Hit me up when you find one. Peter238 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

taupe

File:Fr-taupe-ca-Montréal.ogg

Hi Peter, this pronunciation is [to̞ːp] or [to̞ʊ̯p]? Fête Phung (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear [tɔ̝ːp]. The vowel is a somewhat raised cardinal [ɔ] and definitely a long monophthong, rather than a diphthong. Peter238 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

About my revert

Apologies for reverting your talk page. It was part mistake - but perhaps you should be seeking resolution with the editor instead of telling him to 'knock himself out'. Please don't make personal attacks against other editors. If you have any questions, let me know thanks. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 11:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@NottNott: Please read this definition of 'knock yourself out', which is not a personal attack. Plus, when I'm reverting on my talk page, that case is either solved, I can't solve it or I don't want to spend my time solving it. Do more research before giving me advices, thanks. Peter238 (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw you revise your comment in my edit queue. I wasn't going to respond at first - but I hope you can understand where I was coming from now. Removing a deletion template from a talk page with that sort of edit summary was pretty dubious, that's all. As a native speaker, 'knock yourself out' is pretty much an expression for 'have as much as you want' or 'feel free', but in the context of removing that template it didn't make sense and if anything seemed negative. Hope I cleared that up. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 14:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

'Feel free (to delete that article)' is exactly what I meant, yes. Peter238 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No offense taken. Users can remove notifications from their page of course. My feeling is Peter238 would prefer to not be notified, and frustrated replies result. But we've been over this...(as said) it's automatic and I believe must be done anyhow. Widefox; talk 17:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you have to notify me. That's why I'm trying to react neutrally. Peter238 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[d͡ɮ]

Hi. If you can find an instance of [d͡ɮ], that would be helpful. In all the Athabaskan and Wakashan languages I was able to check, dl was either voiceless or had an approximant release. Sandawe is closer to palatal. It occurs allophonically in Nguni (after nasals), I believe, but it would be nice if we could come up with a language that had a phonemic distinction. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I can try, but don't hope for much :P Do you have sources for Xhosa and Zulu? Peter238 (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Voiced alveolar approximant

Hi Peter, this is the voiced alveolar approximant, how I should transcribe it? Fête Phung (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The official IPA symbol for the voiced alveolar approximant is ⟨ɹ⟩. If you want to specify that it is laminal, use ⟨ɹ̻⟩. Peter238 (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This audio is an approximant z. Fête Phung (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a sibilant approximant, if that's what you're asking. Only a fricative can be sibilant. Back to the recording... yes, I can hear some friction, so a better name for this consonant is "voiced alveolar non-sibilant fricative". The appropriate IPA symbol for this kind of consonant is any of these three: ⟨ð̠, ð͇, ɹ̝⟩. Peter238 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not [ð̠], it's a weak [z]. Fête Phung (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Then transcribe it [z̞]. Peter238 (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)