User talk:Peter238/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Question

Hi, I have to explain, and a question for you: I wanted to see if registered users were able to see edits on Wiki pages without checking one by one, that's why I explicitly undid that edit of yours. Since I'm thinking to register myself as a new user, may you please tell me how registered users can become aware of any edits on page X? I know that logs exist, but that page doesn't appear in your logs, so there must be something different. If there's, I'd like to use it to control edits made by a certain IP, which always changes, belonging to an Italian whom I call "mafioso" because he doesn't allow anyone to touch "his" pages, even if edits are correct ([1]). Thank you, and sorry for reverting your edit to test this! (you can post your answer here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.203.26.154 (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. In short: the best choice for you is to bookmark e.g. [2] and regularly check on him, which you can do without an account. If he has a dynamic IP, there's not much you can do.

You could expect him/her to use the "revert" button, because only then do you receive any notification (see [3] for details). Or, you could click the empty star next to the "View history" button (it turns blue when you click it), which makes you follow that specific page. To see the edits made to the pages you follow, click "Watchlist", which is next to "Contributions" link. If you can't see such an option, you have to register to use it.

Also, don't edit war without sources (even when you do have them it may not be the best idea). Always try to link to the specific entry in DiPI Online, DOP or, even better, both. Remember about WP:V and WP:NOR, which are two (out of three) of our core content policies. Peter238 (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness, I've understood now what to do with that IP.

I'm writing using a proxy because an admin has blocked my IP range when I reported a user who had broken the 3RR after I stopped reverting at my 3rd rv, but on his opinion I'm as guilty as him even if I respected that rule... Crazy! Please, I'm asking you just not to block also my current IP, I can edit nothing without it and I'll stop immediately using it when my range is unblocked again.

Thanks! 159.203.26.154 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2015

No problem, but I'm the wrong person to ask that. I'm not an admin. Also, see WP:EVASION, and think about whether you even want to talk to admins before your block is over. Peter238 (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Zurigo

Hallo Peter,
I saw that you reinserted the gemination sign into the Italian pronunciation of Zurich. If you have time and lust, could you please explain to me (or maybe give me an online resource) the reason why this sign is necessary in this case? The gemination takes place if there are words before the word in question, but not in each case. Is it maybe used to signal that this phenomenon can happen? Sorry for my ignorance, but I am Italian and, as Roman, I am particularly interested, since northern Italians pretend that the doubling is a mistake. :-) Thanks a lot, Alex2006 (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello.

- The way I understand the syntactic gemination phenomenon, is that at least in the RAI accent, it is both mandatory and irregular, unlike e.g. lenition in Spanish, which is only mandatory, unless you're speaking extremely clearly (so not normally the case). For instance, Zurigo in Canton Zurigo and Distretto di Zurigo would always be pronounced [ddzuˈriːɡo], as long as the preceding word is pronounced without a pause (e.g. not Canton... Zurigo and Distretto di... Zurigo, in which case the only possible pronunciation is [dzuˈriːɡo] (which, AFAIK, is also mandatory in isolation (Zurigo)).

- Both of the online pronunciation dictionaries of Italian that I'm aware of (that is DiPI and DOP - I linked to example entries) do mark the syntactic gemination (the first one with ⟨*⟩), the second one with ⟨⁺⟩). As you can see, the example word sciame behaves the same as Zurigo as far as the syntactic gemination is concerned.

- Help:IPA for Italian doesn't say that we mark the syntactic gemination only in some cases. If the IP guy (or, rather, hundreds of the IP guys / one guy with a dynamic IP that's been annoying me and IvanScrooge98 for two or three months already) were actually interested in addressing this issue (I don't think it's an issue by the way), he would go to Help talk:IPA for Italian and started a debate. All of the transcriptions that link to Help:IPA for Italian must use the symbols that are present there, and that includes the syntactic gemination. Otherwise, what would be the point of that guide? Peter238 (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Pete, thanks for the very exhaustive explanation! You are right, I tried with "zuzzurellone" (which, btw, is the very last word of the Italian language), and the * is there too. Being Italian, I have many articles about Italy on my watch list: I'll help you to get rid of the Ips (possibly of northern Italian origin :-)). A friend of mine has been until some months ago speaker at RAI-GR1, and teaches "Dizione" at the university: I will ask him to give me a lesson about this subject.  :-) Thanks again and ciao Alex2006 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Maybe you could even record it and show it to the IP guys, lol. Peter238 (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This would be a good idea, although each one living north of the Po would never accept my version as real Italian...Each time that I am talking at the phone with someone of them, after a couple of words they say: "But you come from Rome!". I am doomed... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah... it's like an RP speaker trying to correct an Australian, or something along those lines. "Screw you" would be the immediate answer :P Peter238 (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think Standard Italian /dz/, /ts/, /ʃ/ and /ɲ/ are instances of syntactic gemination. Rather this is purely phonological gemination, without reference to syntax, morphology or the lexicon: These phonemes are always geminated between vowels (including /j/ and /w/, that are often analysed as /i/ and /u/), otherwise they are simple and short. This is quite an easy (and exceptionless) rule compared to the rules of syntactic gemination, which latter make reference to individual items of the lexicon. LiliCharlie (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention /ʎ/, which is treated the same. LiliCharlie (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That may be one of the analyses in Distretto di Zurigo but not in Canton Zurigo, which also has a long /dz/ due to the syntactic gemination (at least that's what the pronunciation dictionaries say). Peter238 (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I was unable to find entries for “Canton Zurigo” in any of the pronunciation dictionaries, but I have read several of Canepari’s descriptions of Standard Italian pronunciation (and regional ones). Word initial ⟨*⟩ means that the following consonant is “auto-geminate” after a vowel, and nowhere else. The rule is NOT gemination after [-obstruent] or similar. LiliCharlie (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Could you add that information to syntactic gemination (with a source)? As of now, there's no explicit mention of it. Peter238 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above I don’t think word intial ⟨*⟩ before /dz/, /ts/, /ʃ/, /ɲ/ and /ʎ/ is an instance of syntactic gemination, only word final ⟨*⟩ is. LiliCharlie (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So Canepari uses ⟨*⟩ for two different things? Peter238 (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In his dictionaries and word lists, yes: initial ⟨*⟩ for the five consonants that I called “auto-geminate” above (but when I looked it up Canepari’s English term was “self-geminant”) — and for syntactic gemination that he calles co-gemination, which can affect any consonant and is determined by certain preceding final-stress, mono- or bisyllabic words in certain constructions; these words are marked with a final ⟨*⟩. The article syntactic gemination only mentions the latter (“after words of certain categories”), which seems correct. LiliCharlie (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Wilson

File:Fr-Wilson (Avignon).ogg

[wilˈsʌn] or [wilˈsɔ̜n] ? Fête Phung (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No idea, could be either of those. Peter238 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

File:FRQC-kilomètre.oga

[ɚ̃ ˈkʰilɔ̜mæi̯tʁ̥], right? Fête Phung (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

[ɚ̃ ˈkʰilɔmæɪ̯tʁ̥], I'm not sure about the rounding of /ɔ/ - maybe it is, as you say, weakly rounded [ɔ̜]. Peter238 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Ancêtre Qc.oga

Do you barely hear [ˈɑ̃sˁɐɪ̯tχ] with an emphatic s? Fête Phung (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Peter238 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe [ˈɑ̃s̩ɐɪ̯tχ] with a syllabic s. Fête Phung (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That's an even stranger idea. Peter238 (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe [ˈɑ̃sɰɐɪ̯tχ]? Fête Phung (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No. I hear a plain [s]. Peter238 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You hear as a normal [s]? There is nothing after [s]? Fête Phung (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what I said. Peter238 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Qc-fête.oga

This one is [fɑɪ̯t]? Fête Phung (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Peter238 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Yue-男人.ogg

This is clearly a male voice? Fête Phung (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Peter238 (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

voice

File:FR-Tempête (Gaspésie).ogg

Peter, are you sure that it's a male voice? Fête Phung (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's how it sounds. Peter238 (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's a unisex voice? Fête Phung (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Peter238 (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Fr-cégep-ca-Montréal.ogg

So, this one is a unisex voice? Fête Phung (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how a unisex voice sounds. To me, the person on the recording seems to have a female voice. Peter238 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Fr-printemps-fr CA.ogg

And this one is a male voice or female voice? Fête Phung (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Male. Peter238 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

fête (again)

File:Qc-fête.oga

Hi Peter, if you listen carefully, you hear [fäɪ̯t] or [fɑɪ̯t]? Fête Phung (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I already answered this question. Peter238 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You've heard as the same thing of last time. For me, I feel that the diphthong is not obvious. Fête Phung (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I said "[p]robably, yes.", which means the same as what you say (that I'm not sure). Peter238 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Tête qc.ogg

This one, [täɪ̯t] or [tɑɪ̯t]? Fête Phung (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

[täɪ̯t]. Peter238 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Qc-p't-être.ogg

[ptäɪ̯tχ] or [ptɑɪ̯tχ]? Fête Phung (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably [ptäɪ̯tχ]. Peter238 (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Romanesco

Hallo Peter,
I noticed your edits on the Romanesco (my mother dialect :-)) article (which is in terrible state), and I reinstated it with a source (Ravaro, the best Italian-Romanesco Dictionary until now, which has an introduction describing the language's properties). Ravaro describes this phenomenon as "weakening of double 'r'". I left the previous description "absence of geminated [r]): I hope that the meaning is the same... Anyway, this section needs an expansion: I could do it if someone like you is willing to control my additions, since I am not a linguist, and I don't know the English terminology. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can try, no problem. I added the article to my watchlist. Peter238 (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

信

• http://fr.forvo.com/search/%E4%BF%A1/yue/

Hi Peter, do you hear [sɔ̆n] ? Fête Phung (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's [sɵn˧] according to Wiktionary, but I hear something more like [sɔ̽n˧] (i.e. the vowel is slightly lower and more back than close-mid central). Peter238 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The vowel is very short? Fête Phung (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to have a normal length. Peter238 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

IPA for Danish

Hi,

which inconsistency?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. What I meant is that we have a general category for the IPA guides, and I don't think we need a more specific way of sorting them (but other users might disagree; you should take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics and ask other members). The inconsistency I was talking about is that even if we want to group the guides based on the language family the language in question belongs to, we should do so with each and every one of them. What's not so good about that is that we would have quite a few categories with just one or two guides in them, which doesn't seem to be really useful. Peter238 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Castel Sant'Angelo

Hi Peter238, I need to ask you a favour. There's a little mistake in an Italian IPA on a protected article which I can't edit. The page is this. The error is the position of the stress: it's [kasˈtɛl] but it should be [kaˈstɛl]. The correct Italian syllabication is ca-stel(-lo) and it's the one used elsewhere (see here). I can provide you also an external source: [4]. May you please move the stress to the correct position? I'm asking you because you're one of the admins who intervened in the Italian IPA help page and you seemed skilled about IPAs. Thank you if you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.101.99.101 (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin (see WP:LA), but no problem. Peter238 (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! And thank you :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.101.99.101 (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Organization of English phonological history articles

Hi, I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the organization of these articles. I don't like the way they're split into "high front vowels", "high back vowels" etc. Many of the changes discussed involve movement across these arbitrary borders, particularly in the case of mid vowels, where it's sometimes not even clear on which side of the border they should lie. As a result we end up often repeating ourselves, and sometimes letting certain things through the cracks; and the titles of the articles are obscure phrases (not anything that anyone would ever search for) that don't even very accurately reflect the article content. That said, I don't have any especially bright ideas as to how best to remedy the situation. Have you? W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to think of some and will get back to you. Peter238 (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)