User talk:Tacit Murky

Welcome!

Hello, Tacit Murky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! extransit (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian alphabet

You're still confusing phonemes with allophones. You're saying that "Unyotted /e/ cannot appear without preceding palatalization, so only / ʲe/ is correct." - that's not true, e.g. "это" is phonemically /ˈeto/ (or /ˈeta/ - an analysis which I prefer). There's no phonemic /e-ɛ/ contrast in Russian, they're allophones of one phoneme. But you're right that the more open allophone is written with a different letter (э). Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so should I say «Unyotted «Е» (or |е| ?) referring to a letter instead? Despite no phonemic contrast, there is a clear phonetic one, as Russian native can surely distinguish between vowel sounds in a «сэр»—«сер» pair even after omitting initial consonant. Tacit Murky (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "phonetic contrast" you're talking about is "this sounds different", not "this sounds different and distinguishes meanings of words" (i.e. more or less the layman definition of "phonemic contrast"). The phonemic contrast in «сэр»—«сер» is not between vowels, but between the softness of the first consonant, which (in «сер») causes the following vowel to be realized as true-mid (also called simply "mid") [e̞] (or [ɛ̝], if you want to transcribe it that way). If /e/ is surrounded with soft consonants, or when it is followed by a soft consonant (unless /e/ is word-initial), then it is realized as close-mid [e].

Word-initial /e/ is realized as open-mid [ɛ], which is the same realization as the one found between hard consonants (as in «сэр»). Because of that, you can't ommit «с» and preserve the allophonic difference in vowel height, as stressed word-initial /e/ is always open-mid [ɛ]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are frequent editor of Russian phonology. This article carefully uses words like «vowel letter» (as opposed to other «vowels») and mentions that in «Russian pedagogy … the term phoneme is not used». This may have some complications in explanations (like for me). Meanwhile, I've found a lot of stuff apparently outdated, imprecise or oversimplified. But I cannot be sure. Should I make my proposals in a local Talk page? Tacit Murky (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your response seems to be a little off-topic.

No, that's not what the article says. It says "The most popular view among linguists (and that taken up in this article) is that of the Moscow school, though Russian pedagogy has typically taught that there are six vowels (the term phoneme is not used)." The "view of the Moscow school" is that there are five phonemes: /i, u, e, o, a/, whereas [ɨ] is not a phoneme (/ɨ/), but a mere allophone of /i/, whereas "has typically taught" does not equal "has always taught". I'm not sure why you're misrepresenting that sentence.

Searching for "vowel letter" on Russian phonology also gives zero results, so not only is that term not used "carefully", it is not used at all...

Of course, nobody can forbid you from using any talk page according to its purpose, so don't ever ask me that question again ;) However:

- What I said is clearly, for the most part, not outdated. In "Russian" (Journal of the Phonetic Association, 2015, authors: Yanushevskaya & Buncic) it is said that: "Similarly, the /e/ vowel is more retracted and centralised in the context of the non-palatalised consonants, e.g. šest [ʃɛ̠st] 'pole', and is realised as front in the context of the palatalised consonants, where it is also more close, e.g. čestʹ [t͡ʃʲesʲtʲ] 'honour'." In this case, "in the context of (non-)palatalised consonants" means "between (non-)palatalised consonants". On their vowel chart, they state that the typical "neutral" quality of Russian /e/ is more or less between that in čestʹ and that in šest, i.e. true-mid [e̞].

- Please don't bother making that proposal without reliable sources on the table, as you'd be wasting your time. Nobody will exchange sourced information just because you're asking them to do so - especially if you're going to tell us e.g. that the soft-hard consonantal contrast is not phonemic in Russian, which is a very unusual analysis.

I'll probably make my own proposal myself over the next few hours. It won't, however, be about vowels. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misrepresenting sentences, but (remembering my schooling days about Russian) I can't find a «phoneme» in there; one of the teachers stated that she was a proponent of SPb (Leningrad) linguistics school, when we were arguing about transcription of «Щ». And no «phoneme» was mentioned.

Sorry, I've mixed up phrase sources. «Vowel letter» is in the table footer of Russian alphabet article, where there is also a link to «Phonology». By „outdated“ I didn't mean your statements in particular (I find them pretty clear), but certain parts of a Phonology article.

Of course, «soft-hard consonantal contrast» is phonemic, which is proven by a „morphological fact“ that preserving hardness or softness of a consonant in a Slavic language group (and, probably, in others) is more important, than that of the following vowel, when constructing a word with a stem and affixes. But my proposals will be of a different kind. Tacit Murky (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Prihodko (February 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mach61 was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Prihodko and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mach61 (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tacit Murky! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mach61 (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Prihodko (March 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheBritinator was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Marginally improved, still needs work.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Prihodko and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheBritinator (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Prihodko has been accepted

Mark Prihodko, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mach61 00:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]