User talk:Strabismus

44

Hello, Strabismus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Khoikhoi 07:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Strabismus,

it's nice to come across someone else improving our coverage of the somewhat lesser known languages. Judging from the fact that you were welcomed by Khoikhoi only one week ago, you've managed to go relatively unnoticed in your first months here, but now with your edits to Khoisan languages you are flooding my watchlist. Thanks for your contributions, and keep up the good work!

Oh, and I just thought you might be interested in Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias. Cheers, — mark ✎ 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Korean Romanization

Hi Strabismus,

I have reverted your recent, extensive changes to Korean language. I can see that you have worked very hard and carefully on this, but you don't appear to have discussed this on the Talk:Korean language page. I have never seen the system of using dots to mark syllable boundaries in Korean, and WP generally prefers to stick with well-established orthography systems. The Korean page has been around for a good while, edited by a lot of people who know what they are talking about. We have enough difficulty bouncing back and forth between Wade-Giles and McCune-Reischauer without contending with altogether new systems.

Please consult Talk:Korean language, and bring up your orthography if you wish it to be considered for future use in Korean language. --Rschmertz 06:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

미스터 셔메쓰, the system of using dots to mark syllable boundaries was entirely my idea; which is why you (or anyone else for that matter) have/has heard of it. I use this system when transliterating Korean as it helps to distinguish where one syllable ends and another begins. I don't use apostrophes, as they're too ambiguous, nor do I use hyphens, since they take up too much space. The idea of using dots to distinguish syllables anywhere, however, is not my idea, of course: they are employed in (thorough) IPA transcriptions and in the analysis of (poly-)synthetic/non-isolating languages. And Korean, being an entirely syllabic language, is most clearly read (by means other than the han.gŭl itself) with some indication of syllabic division. Otherwise, how is one to distinguish certain syllabic ambiguities such as: hangul? One would naturally ask "Well, is it hang+ul or han+gul?" The same question would arise when transcribing from Roman to hangul: 「항울」 or 「한굴」? Now, anyone who knows enough about Korean to be writing in it would obviously know that the latter is the correct spelling. But there are many people who don't read/know Korean and, consequently, have no clue about syllabification/segmentation. Who cares about them?? Well, certainly we should, what with our NPOV policy and concern for making things understandible by anyone (with some exceptions, though). If there is no indication of syllabic division, then correct interpretation is almost impossible. But, as I have no jurisprudence in the matter, I risk making my point in vain.

Two corrections: 1) I did not "work very hard and carefully on" the orthographic rectifications I made yesterday. Anybody could have done that. But thanks for the compliment and 2) If you thought that those changes were "extensive", then I am disappointed in you. There were literally hundreds of other changes I could have made but decided not to because a) I was too busy working on other things, b) I am aware of how (over-)sensitive Netizens can be and that they value their views and opinions more than the air they breathe (if that is in fact what they breathe) and c) of fear that I might incur the wrath of some ruthless administrator who has been given privileges that all but a webmaster should have. I'm now glad I barely touched the article.

Oh, BTW, when you reverted my changes, did you simply revert them all in one fell swoop or did you revert what needed to be reverted and leave the rest as it was? I ask this because there were some typos I corrected which had probably been there for a while and if you elected to do the former those typos are now back in place. But, on second thought, they might fit in with the rest of the article…—Strabismus 19:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice try at my name; unfortunately, my name is completely unhangulizable. In my four years in Korea, I believe I met only one Korean who could pronounce my name correctly, even with the [ts] sound at the end (that seemed to be the most difficult of the 5 things that are difficult about my 4-phoneme, single-syllable surname). When a gun was put to my head, I usually went with something like 시머츠 (bear in mind, this English speaker rhymes his last name with "hurts").

Your system is indeed pretty clear, and I am well aware of the ambiguities that can arise when Roman letters are strung together. But the system is unusual, and jarring at first. It is one thing to add a new section or make a bunch of spelling and grammar fixes that no one could argue with, but in introducing a new spelling system (new as far as any maintaner of Korean is concerned), you are changing a standard, and this is something that should not be done unilaterally.

I reverted your changes wholesale. They predominantly concerned your respelling, and it would have been too much work for a night to go through and cull out the ones that had their own merits. At least, it would have been a lot of work for me ;-). Other fixes you made can be pulled back in later. Now, if you were to go to Talk:Korean language and make your case for the dot-syllabification, and if others liked the idea, then it would be a simple matter to revert it right back to where you left it. --Rschmertz 08:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Subscripted text

I saw your recent edit to Antihistamines, how did you enter those subscripted numbers into wikipedia (rather than html markup of ^X) ? David Ruben ^Talk 23:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you know about the superscript numbers ¹, ², and ³, which are part of the basic Latin set and are included in most simple typefaces.

They are located at:

number    hex         decimal
       ¹        00B9        ¹
       ²        00B2        ²
       ³        00B3        ³

The superscript numbers for 0, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are located at:

number    hex         decimal
       ⁰        2070        ⁰
       ⁴        2074        ⁴
       ⁵        2075        ⁵
       ⁶        2076        ⁶
       ⁷        2077        ⁷
       ⁸        2078        ⁸
       ⁹        2079        ⁹

And the subscript numbers for 0-9 are located at:

number    hex         decimal
       ₀        2080        ₀
       ₁        2081        ₁
       ₂        2082        ₂
       ₃        2083        ₃
       ₄        2084        ₄
       ₅        2085        ₅
       ₆        2086        ₆
       ₇        2087        ₇
       ₈        2088        ₈
       ₉        2089        ₉

I changed the ₁, ₂… numbers in the “Antihistamines” article because there were already characters for that purpose which didn't need to be html'ed and they also don't affect the line spacing by “pushing” the text up or down. e.g., ^{pushed up}normal_{pushed down}
If you highlight that text with your cursor, the higlighting will appear zigzagged like: ▀▪▄. In addition, the precomposed super- and subscripted numbers are a bit smaller and look much nicer in text like: H₂O, ²³⁸U, Pb²⁺, etc. There are also precomposed characters for most of the often-used metric units such as: ℃, ℉, ℔, ㎝, ㎠, ㎜, ㎟, ㎞, ㎢, ㎏, ㎍, ㏄, ㎐, ㎑, etc.; which really saves alot of typing and text formatting and (again) looks much nicer. Anyway, I prefer using the precomposed characters because: a) they look nice, b) they can't be confused for other text and c) well … that's what they're there for!
PS-I hope that answers your question! ☺—Strabismus 02:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Phrases

Hey, I believe that your edits in Common phrases in various languages was in good faith, I just know that the the edits to the languages I do know the phonology of (namely English and Russian) were not good at all. Maybe you can justify your edits. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The phonologies of English and Russian are presented exactly as I have always known them. Please explain exactly what you mean by "not good at all".—Strabismus 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[¹]Well, if you're too shy to take a look at General American, Australian English and Russian phonology, I can point out a few things that prompted my revert.

[²]The diphthong of the Australian word I is {{IPA|[ɑe]], that is going from a low back vowel to a close-mid front unrounded vowel. You represent it as [ay], going from a low front vowel to a high front rounded vowel.

[³]The diphthong in Australian don't begins with a very central vowel commonly transcribed as [ə] (although close to the cardinal point for [ɐ]) and moves to a very high central vowel, not a front one.

[⁴]You notate the second element of GA /ai/ as the close high vowel rather than the near-close high vowel when all phonetic analyses do the latter.

[⁵]While the GA vowel /o/ can be monophthongized, it is more often diphthongized and is close-mid, and the "more rounding" diacritic seems excessive and unsupported.

[⁶]As far as I understand, Most dialects of English, including RP, there is no voiceless /w/. In GA this is somewhat optional but it is much more likely to be absent.

[⁷]Russian has no palatal nasal and no palatal lateral, they are palatalized.

[⁸]Russian /o/ and /a/ are reduced to central vowels in the unstressed position and certainly not "extra rounded"

[⁹]Your use of this < ̢> diacritic parallels the notation of palatalization in Russian phonetics and so I'm assuming that you are simply unfamiliar with the IPA as it is used now. Palatalization is depicted with a superscript j.

[¹⁰]Russian palatalized /l/ is not velarized. Some analyses of Russian show it to contrast velarization and palatalization.

[¹¹]ки denotes /kʲi/, not /kji/. Even if it did denote that, phonetically it would be [kʲjɪ] as consonants are almost always palatalized before /j/

[¹²]/e/ preceding a palatalized consonant is close-mid, not mid or open-mid.

[¹³]My depiction of vowel reduction in "Как вас зовут" is a bit less supported. I did it because I assumed there to be no pausing between the words and so the phrase would act as a phonological word. I could be wrong about it though.

[¹⁴]I suppose I may have been dramatic when I said your representations were "not good at all." It was really your changes that I find objectionable. If you could provide a source for your changes or the reason for why you have the conception you do of these two (and the others I suppose, but I speak with less authority with them) I might understand a little more. Russian I'm more open to because my sources are pretty old but you've got a steep uphill battle with Australian. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 10:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finally replying…

[¹] I'm not too shy and I certainly wasn't born yesterday. I have been working with the IPA for several years now and am quite aware of the hackneyed transcriptions that people insist on retaining.

[²] The diphthong… which I included was based on my overall assumption of an even-paced Sydney accent. I know that this excludes quite alot of other specific Austral-angloparlant areas, but I can assure you that my representation was not that of an exaggerated Strine. I guess I should point out here that my transcriptions of common speech are almost entirely phonetic as opposed to phonemic, which is how yours apparently seem to be. Most languages are chock-full of articulatory irregularities which occur in everyday speech. These include apocope, sandhi, coarticulation, etc. At any rate, my choice of replacing /ɑe/ with /ay/ was, again, phonemically based. Incidentally, I separate each syllable within polysyllabic words by means of a period, as this provides proper phonetic division and limits the content between to a single syllable, as with /ay/, spoken at a normal pace. I find /ɑe/ a bit of a stretch for AuEn “I”, from all the accents I've heard.

[³] Again, this perhaps depends on one's idea of a "standard" Australian accent. Gender, believe it or not, can often effect what is commonly considered phatically proper for which people.

[⁴] I have never heard a first-generation American (without a speech defect) say /aɪ/ when using the first person singular pronoun, it's too posh. Again, bear in mind that this is a single syllable we are dealing with here. The two vowels which make up the syllable /ai/ are to be spoken in one fell swoop, that is, not held.

[⁵] Nature abhors a vacuum, and speakers of General American abhor ending syllables with a near close-mid unrounded vowel. I, myself, am a first-generation American. I am much more familiar with General American than most Americans. Indeed, there are actually several different standards of General American for the many different fields of usage, not to mention the importance of the form of address and the audience thereof.

[⁶] I pronounce my wh's with a /ʍ/ as do most people I encounter and I don't live in a cave, a slum, a trailer home, or any other abode which may find itself unconducive or impedient to clearly-spoken English. Tell me, where are you from? If you're from America, you may be disappointed to hear that you are using “shift-made English”. If you're from elsewhere, then please relize that you still have quite alot to learn, should see that as a great opportunity, and should definitely not give up just yet.

[⁷] You have just repeated yourself in the same sentence. As there is no voiceless counterpart to the palatal approximant, viz. /j/, palatal consonants are such that they are either intervocalic or morphophonemic. With the former, an occurrence can sometimes "seem" to form the coda of a syllable (typically at the end of a word), when it is in fact brachysyllabic: /C¹V.C²ə̆/ where C² is the palatised consonant. With the latter, an occurrence can sometimes "seem" to form the onset of a subsequent syllable, when it is in fact attached to the preceding consonant: thus, /an.ja/ can occur, as can /a.ɲa/, but not */an.ʲa/, as the palatal modifier /ʲ/ is not modifying at all but beginning the second syllable, in which case it should be written /an.ja/. But spoken quickly and isochronically (i.e., without lengthening the /n/ or either of the enclosing vowels), it will usually come out as /a.ɲa/. Just as a consonant is palatised it becomes transitional, as the mouth (spec. tongue) has thereby moved from the preceding point of articulation. In this way, one cannot speak of a "palatal release", per se. Therefore, Russian does have a palatal nasal and palatal lateral, along with the plain alveolars.

[⁸] The diacritic I used called specifically for a less rounded not more rounded articulation (e.g., /◌̜/ = l.r. — /◌̹/ = m.r.). The Russian "akáne" is not easy to explain historically. It definitely does set Russian phonology apart a bit from other Slavic languages. However, I have yet to hear an actual Russian say /da svi.ˈda.ɲɪ/ or anything like that. Pretonic 〈о〉 in Russian is shortened and is much closer to /ɔ̜/ than it is to /a/. Furthermore, the short /a/ would need to be properly marked as /ă/, so as to indicate extreme brevity. At any rate, this Russian〈о〉is somewhat less open and central than a fullblown /a/. It is a subtle distinction if you were actually to hear it.

[⁹] I am well aware of how the IPA is used today. I am also aware of the fact that several of the symbols I use in my transcriptions have become deprecated by the IPAssoc. The depiction of palatisation can vary from transcriber to transcriber. It is largely a matter of habit. I prefer to use /◌̢/ because it doesn't get in the way of adjacent glyphs. It also emphasises the unity of the articulation and is less likely to be pronounced separately from the consonantal host.

[¹⁰] My depiction of a Russian〈л〉which has undergone palatisation is simply done via a /ʎ/ which is not velarised: for which the symbol used would be /ʟ/. Russian〈ль〉is transcribed as /ʎ/ and〈л〉as /ɫ/. The same is done for Belarusian, and a common romanisation uses the symbol〈ł〉to indicate a normal Belarusian 〈л〉.

[¹¹] Actually, not only would it not be /kji/ (which was my bad!), it would be really be /c/, which is a palatal /k/. Moreover, I have some reservations about multiple palatals (successive palatals /jj/); however, palatals can be held: /jːV/ and/or divided /◌j.j◌/. Remember consonantal transition.

[¹²] If it is tonic it might. Otherwise, it depends on the word and/or the surrounding phonemes, dialectal differences aside. Internal sandhi can occasionally result in the vowel preceding a palatal consonant featuring an off-glide: Italian "legno" is often pronounced /ˈleĭ.ɲo/, cf. "lento" /ˈlen.to/. Of course this could vary from region to region.

[¹³] To my knowledge, it has usually born the rhythmic pattern of "hip hip hooray!", though sometimes with less pause between the words, depending perhaps on how much knowledge of (spoken) Russian the speaker presumes the listener possesses.

[¹⁴] Maybe I don't know Australian English as well as you, and that is very likely if you are a native of Australia. Again, I was presenting a simple typical Australian dialect, but I've mostly heard that kind of "outback" accent. And don't worry, I'm not simply going by that "Crocodile Dundee" accent that many people believe all Australians have! Anyway, I do stick with almost all of the corrections I made to those "common phrases" entries, after all, this is what I do, so I'm not trying give anyone a bumsteer or pull a swiftie so don't chuck a berko at me, mate! ;-) Cheers!—Strabismus 19:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[¹]The Australian vowels in Australian English have a vowel chart derived from formant analysis; the wh pronunciation even has a map with isoglosses Wine-whine merger. I'm from California and I don't claim to speak GA (you can look at my user page and see my userboxes if you'd like).

[²]You are at odds with Ledafoged and many editors of Wikipedia if you believe there is no difference between a palatal nasal and a palatalized nasal. The superscript <j> denotes palatalization and, as you say, denotes no phonetic lengthening of the consonant it modiefies.

[³]You might want to check with the International Phonetic Alphabet page and see if the diacritics show up accurately on your browser. They don't all show up right on mine and I have to go and make sure I've got it right. Whether it's more rounding or less rounding, Sound Pattern of Russian by Halle (as well as other sources) clearly state that Standard Russian (which is the Russian that we depict here at Wikipedia) features Akanye. And while you're at the IPA page, brush up on the most current manner in which transcription is made. We have standards at Wikipedia that include the more modernized depictions of palatalization and if you'd like to change that you'll need to meet a consensus. I agree that Russian 〈л〉is velarized (not velar) but I don't necessarily want to get into minute details. I'm sure there may be good changes in some of your editing of the page but it was much too difficult for me to fish them out.

[⁴]Anyway, if you do this sort of thing for a living I'm sure you've published some things and you can certainly back up a few of your claims. However, your specific style of transcription is something that you can't really source. Editors are not their own sources. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

דו פֿאַנגסט שױן אָן

[¹] Listen, dude, uh, like… As I said, I know how the IPA works and I am all too familiar with modern hackneyed IPA usages. I don't need no stinkin' help from no chart! With the advent of the Internet, people may have increased their reading input but are still somewhat lacking in their listening skills. As a result, people often use what IPA conventions look fashionable, when, in fact, that is not what the IPA for: there is a specific field for that art of expression.

[²] I couldn't care less what Degofadel or any other individuals think about palatisation. What I said was self-explanatory and is really not worth arguing about.

[³] No, I might not. I know what the dicritics stand for, so just get that into your skull! I am pretty familiar with how Russian works: I've read it, I've heard it, I've written it, I've spoken it—The list goes on, but, surely you get the point by now… And the diacritics show up just fine on my browser.

[⁴] I'm gonna say this once: I don't need your second-hand advice, so don't bother replying to this; I don't know what your problem is, but I would like you to stop your kibbutzing and now, ya dig? It's that simple. There's no use arguing with a fool and you've done nothing but insult my intelligence, but I can forgive you. Just get off my back. Please! So don't stink up my talk page any longer now, ya hear? Maybe someday you'll understand the different things I have tried (yet failed) to show you. Don't give up. Homo doctus in se divitias semper habet.

Прощай и желаю скорое восстановление для вас!—Strabismus 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia rejects original research, we are obliged to stick with what you consider "hackneyed IPA usages[¹]". If you feel the traditional[²a] transcriptions of RP, Russian, or anything else are inaccurate, Wikipedia isn't the place to advocate new[²b] ones. It is, however, a place to remain civil[³]; do not call other editors fools[⁴] or refer to their comments as "stinking up your talk page[⁵]". —Angr 08:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[¹] I don't consider all Wikipedia IPA usages to be hackneyed. In fact, some of the articles feature immaculate transcriptions. I just think that people often rely on undiplomatic practices which often result in the transcriptions appearing similar to the actual spellings of the words. e.g., /noˈvɛmbɛr/ vs. /no.ˈvɪm.bɝ/, and the like.

Most of the transcriptions I corrected on the Phrases page were, in all honesty, not traditional[²a], and consequently I felt obliged (as a linguist) to replace them with new[²b], albeit correct (proper, traditional, etc.) ones.

Remember the Be Bold policy! I am an exceptionally bold person, although I don't like confrontations and I do prefer to remain civil[³].

If anyone was likely to be called a fool[⁴], it was I. Apparently, my point hadn't gotten through and perhaps I was just blowing hot air (or ink, as the case may be). But, I (for one) certainly do understand my point(s). I have a very dry sense of humour and say alot of outlandish things, usually to entertain others, please adopt a sense of humour if you haven't already, it makes thinks much more enjoyable! No hard feelings. I truly do not mean any undue offense. And it is really stoic pontifical chop-logic attitudes that stink[⁵]. Happy holidays! :-) —Strabismus 17:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ewe

The name of Ewe language in native orthography is actually Eʋegbe, not Ɛʋɛgbɛ. — mark ✎ 10:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry 'bout that! Y'know I was actually wondering about that, I had seen other people spell it «Eʋegbe» and, to be honest, I don't remember where I had originally seen «Ɛʋɛgbɛ». It may have been a misprint or it may have been someone's attempt to make the name look more "æsthetic", more "round", etc. Thanks for pointing that out!—Strabismus 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not an uncommon misspelling. The interwikilinks to ee used to say Ɛʋɛgbɛ, maybe that's where you got it. — mark ✎ 08:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindi grammar

Thanks for syllabification of IPA transcription in Hindi grammar page, but there were also numerous mistakes which I reverted. You must know that Hindi /r/ is the alveolar trill, not an alveolar flap. Also, Hindi /g/ is simple voiced velar plosive, whicle you have been trying to make it a fricative or something. In case you haven't noticed, the trabnscription is phonemic, since it is inside slashes, hence there was no need of looking for the "correct" variety of /r/ at all.Cygnus_hansa 04:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

नमस्ते, श्रीमान सौमी! Thank you for thanking me! My apologies, please, for my Hindi r's. But as for my g's, no apology is necessary: the correct transcription for a voiced velar plosive has, from my experience, always been /ɡ/ and not /g/. It may seem a trifling matter, but, when in Rome… (so to speak). As per your last comment/sentence: all practical transcriptions of interactive vociferations should, by dint of valour, be phonemic, of this I am aware (hence my inclusion of the preceding main clause). I'm glad to see that others are using the "slash" method for their transcriptions, as opposed to the somewhat cumbrous "bracket" method, which has a more parenthetical effect, typographically. Personally, I liken the slashes to those as used in parsing poetry (viz., The grand old Duke of York / He had ten thousand men…). Whereas the brackets are best used when presenting things singly (viz., [я], [い], [♬], etc.), much like presenting something inside a box. Anyways, thanks for your comments!—Strabismus 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in my browser (Firefox/Windows), your symbol for voiced velar plosive always gets displayed as "gamma"--the fricative. That was my main concern.Cygnus_hansa 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? That's very strange! The symbol I use for the VVP is located at U+0261 which ought to be displayed as a lowercase [g] but without the curlicues at the bottom, much like a sans-serif lowercase [g], almost resembling a [9]. The "gamma" is, of course, located at U+03B3, but the correct character for a voiced velar fricative is at U+0263. So, to recap, here are the three characters given side by side for comparison.

U+0261 / U+0263 / U+03B3
VVP / VVF / gamma
ɡ / ɣ / γ

The middle character ought to appear somewhat like a lowercase [v] with a loop below it. However, if the first and last characters appear the same (that is, if [ɡ] and [γ] look identical), there may be an encoding bug with your browser, although I don't understand how or why. One last time: ¹[ɡγ] ²[γɡ]. Do the contents of both ¹ and ² appear the same and in the same order? If so, you should make sure you have installed Unicode IPA fonts on your computer, which, if you haven't already, might account for the mysterious "gamma" displayings. Best of luck and, again, thanks for your comments.—Strabismus 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the given box (non-edit proper page), the [g] looks ok, but in Edit Box, it looks like a big capital Y.Cygnus_hansa 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm… Here's what I enter and here's what I see: when I enter Unicode codepoint 0261 I get ɡ, and here's the html code for that &#x261;. In my previous comment, the boxes ought to consist of this data:

¹[ɡγ] &#B2;[γą]

which, when resolved in my browser, appears like:

¹[ɡγ] ²[γɡ]

Notice also, that the codes I have been mentioning are in hex value and not decimal value. If you would like to try out these and any other codes, I urge you to visit this Unicode code conversion page. It's the best I've seen so far. Once again, I do hope you get this all figured out! I know how frustrating things can get with computers!—Strabismus 19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ligatures

If you'd like to make a distinction between an affricate and a stop + fricative cluster, you should use the tie bar <͡> as in t͡s. It looks a little funny on I.E. but it's otherwise accurate. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if it's a true affricate, i.e., a stop released as/with a fricative. E.g., /ˈfætso/ (fatso) vs. /ˈpiʦə/ (pizza). (Granted, the former more often than not comes out as /ˈfæt̚ˑso̽/ in GA, but we're dealing with communal phonologies which are best presented by broad transcriptions.) To me, [t͡s] looks unnecessary, unless you're representing a language which has a [Xt͡sX]/[Xt.sX] distinction.—Strabismus (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that, for example, Polish makes a stop + fricative/affricate distinction (such as with wieczny 'eternal' vs wietrzny 'windy'). There are a number of common ways of representing affricates, including ligatures, superscripts (p^f) and the tie bar. I'm pretty sure that ligatures are no longer standard IPA, and I'm not a big fan of superscripts when it comes to affricates, which is why I'm recommending the tie bar. But I agree that making a graphical distinction between "true affricates" and stop + fricative clusters is usually unnecessary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The IPA have withdrawn certain ligatures (e.g., [ʦ]), but it seems that certain typefaces actually graphically "lig" the two elements of a digraph together. I don't know if your fonts have that feature (there are many which don't; e.g., Gentium), but in some of them in the digraph [ʦ] the [t] and the [s] actually appear joined at the bottom so that it appears as though the two elements have been kerned. I believe this is what the IPA have withdrawn. In other words, the two elements of a digraphical affricate don't necessarily need to be written as a single symbol. Personally, I just use the preset glyphs Unicode have provided for IPA use. I must also admit that I use the syllabic period ([.]) when I'm doing transcriptions, as it provides a better understanding of segmental phonology, But there are a good many folk who don't use it, unfortunately. So, for them, the tie bar becomes a bare necessity. This I can understand. Otherwise, how is one to know when one syllable ends and another begins? (There are a few exceptions, as with Japanese and languages which have innate vowel-final syllabicity.) Nevertheless, the language illustrations in the IPA Handbook don't seem to use the tie bars regularly (in many cases, at all). Yoruba is another language which has phonemes that are dual and often written with tie bars. (However, I've heard a bit of Yoruba and [k͡p] doesn't seem like an accurate enough transcription for the sound of what is in Yoruba orthography [p]. To me, it sounds more like [ƙpʼ] with the mouth closed at [ƙ] and the pʼ being the "popping" sound. But maybe that's just me…) Yet, there are some extremely complex articulations (as with Ubykh, many Khoisan languages, etc.) which would look downright hideous if joined with a tie bar, since the tie bar at Hex:0361 generally only spans two glyphs. At any rate, I think the tie bar should only be used where misunderstanding would otherwise occur.—Strabismus (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. My only point was that, when there is the potential for a misunderstanding that, rather than the monographical representation that you use the tie bar. I only mentioned this because I noticed that you've changed a few articles with [ts] to [ʦ] and so forth. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chios

Actually Chios is pronounced Hios, with no C sound at all, thus the alternative transliteration. It is spelled Chios because it is spelled with Chi (Χ) which is transliterated "Ch". Would you be able to help me correct that in accordance with IPA? I have no experience with that alphabet. Brando130 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Chios, according to tradition as well as practically all reputable sources, is pronounced (in English) /ˈkaɪɑs/ and not /ˈhaɪɑs/ or /ˈχaɪɑs/. The Greek letter Chi (Χχ), when pronounced in English is always /kaɪ/. If this seems odd just remember the pronunciation of [ch] in words like "chaos", "chemotherapy", "chiropractic", "chlorophyll", "cholera", "choreography", "Christ", "chrome", "chronology", "chrysanthemum", and "chyme"; all of Greek origin and all pronounced with a hard [k] sound. The phonology of the English language definitely sticks out like a sore thumb against that of most other European languages, where "chaos" is pronounced /ˈhaɔs/, /ˈxaɔs/, /ˈχaɔs/, etc., and rarely (if ever) /ˈkaɔs/, and definitely never /ˈkeɪɑs/ as it is in English. Your unfamiliarity with these things is likely the key to this misunderstanding. BTW, if you know of an actual source that gives the English pronunciation of "Chios" with a [h] or [x] or [χ] sound, it must be old indeed: Greek "ch" [Χχ], in English is invariably pronounced [k].—Strabismus (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rowan County, Kentucky

I am interested in your source for the pronunciation [roˈæn] for Rowan County, Kentucky. In my experience (WP:OR alert!), it was pronounced ['raʊən] locally. I don't have a recording of this, though. Michael Slone (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No original research, honest! According to Kenyon & Knott, the name Rowan as a toponym in Kentucky and North Carolina is pronounced /ɹoˈæn/. Note also the difference between an alveolar trill ([r]) and an alveolar approximant ([ɹ]). Please observe this distinction in your transcriptions. At any rate, if and when you do acquire a source/recording supporting the pronunciation /ˈɹaʊən/, you may change the pronunciation given in the first paragraph of Rowan County, Kentucky, but please cite your reference(s).—Strabismus (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend to collapse the alveolar trill and alveolar approximant. In my haste, I copied and edited the transcription appearing in the article (which, I take it, is not in IPA?). Michael Slone (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my bad. Sorry! I've since fixed it. And yes pronunciations at WP are (to be) given in the IPA. Incidentally, the source I was referring to is (to my knowledge) still in print; A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English. Of course, there are other sources as well, but that particular work is the one written by J.S. Kenyon & T.A. Knott.—Strabismus (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If it would be useful, I probably have hours of recordings which occasionally have some RCHS teachers pronouncing it. They pronounced it like "brown" but without the b. I think it might not be wise to assume that every place in Kentucky named Rowan is pronounced the same way, and am pretty sure it would be unwise to do this as a general rule for Kentucky place names. JackSchmidt (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But we're dealing with Rowan County here. So, if the teachers and even high-schoolers (let's not leave them out of the picture!) pronounce the name of their county as rhyming with "brown bounty", then I think it would be safe to change it (the pronunciation entry in the article) accordingly. Very likely the pronunciation has changed or differs from that of /ɹoˈæn/, as concerns Rowan County pronunciation. After all, we're representing how the word is pronounced and not how it should be pronounced, at least locally.—Strabismus (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Myopia, Strabismus

I enjoy your name. Ran across your pages via "Spica". I wonder if you are familiar with the old comic strip, King Aroo. He ruled the Kingdom of Myopia, which extended as far as the myopic eye could see.

By the way, your user page has on it: "This user has a sense of humour and shows in on their (sic) userpage." Tut, Tut (a non royal tut). No Spica da Englees? Antecedent of "their" needs to be plural. Fun anyway Carrionluggage (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a bummer that English possesses no neuter third-person singular pronoun… Everytime I use "they" for "he" or "she", "them" for "him" or "her", or "their" for "his" or "her", I feel at unease. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind just saying "it" as a non-gender specific inclusive. But I'm sure alot of people would object to being called "it". Also, this would tend to complicate many long-running idioms, e.g., "It stinks in here!" — "Who stinks in here?"; "Hey, Bob!" — "What is it?" — "Y'mean, who is it?"; and so on. However, I occasionally prefer to be statistically neuter; by that I mean not bringing my gender into the issue. This is mainly for sake of non-biased correspondence and poll-taking, if that makes sense. Anyway, thanks for the compliment!—Strabismus (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Gimme danger (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. I'll keep that in mind. I simply didn't want to be flooding peoples' watchlists every time I added a single link. Now you keep THAT in mind!

Seriously, thank you for pointing that out. It's been a habit of mine and I didn't consider such edits as that MAJOR. ☺—Strabismus (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understand your reasoning. I worry about vandals or spammers marking their edits as minor to get past normal safeguards. It's easier to catch and punish that sort of behavior when the minor edit function is clearly defined among "lawful" editors. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep.—Strabismus (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)