Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics. 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 10

←

Archive 12

→

Nasal allophones inconsistency/incoherence in some Help:IPA pages

Hello, I'm here in the Linguistics talk to point out a little problem in some Help:IPA pages and to submit a request to Wikipedians who're experts in linguistics. The subject is the different dealing with 2 nasal allophones of /n/ or /m/ in Italian language and a few minor languages or dialects related to Italian. The phonemes I'm talking about are [ŋ] and [ɱ]. Both of them are just allophones of a nasal before a velar ([k] [g]) and a labiodental ([f] [v]). Both of them don't exist in Italian but before those sounds. But in the Help:IPA pages the first has his own place in the phoneme list while the second is wrongly transcribed as [m] with just a note in parentheses saying that for simplicity ⟨m⟩ is used instead. I think this is a nonsense: which one do we want between simplicity and accuracy? Personally I'd rather accuracy (i.e. both [ŋ] and [ɱ] in the list), but if simplicity is preferred let's make simplicity then (i.e. neither [ŋ] nor [ɱ] but just [n] or [m] with explanatory notes)... Let's just make a choice! Leaving the list as it is now, with the correct phoneme (allophone before velar) [ŋ] but without the phoneme (allophone before labiodental) [ɱ], is absolutely senseless. There're languages where [ŋ] has his own phonemic value while [ɱ] hasn't (a lot) and languages where [ɱ] has his own phonemic value while [ŋ] hasn't (a few); in these cases such a distinguishment could be justified. But the case of Italian is different, both lack of an intrinsic phonemic value and can exist just as allophones of [n] or [m] before certain consonants. So: why don't we choose consistency/coherence and make a definitive choice between simplicity and accuracy? I hope lots of you will reply to this discussion, and if any of you wanted to contact me in private use my talk page (I've registered this account to be easily contacted). Iuscaogdan (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length (e.g. Spanish, Italian) and a part of the justification is that /ŋ/ is a phoneme in many languages, including English, while no language has a phonemic /ɱ/. [ɱ] would thus be akin to using a dental diacritic for Spanish stops. Even if it is more phonetically accurate, there's a balance between detail and accessibility that we are trying to strike. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. But if the [ŋ] in Italian is just a "transparent" allophonic shift of [n] before a velar or labiodental, like [ɱ] is of [m] in the same positions, then there's not a phonemic rationale for using [ŋ] for Italian any more than there is for using [ɱ]. Iuscaogdan's right that it's unnecessarily and possibly confusingly inconsistent. As with Help:IPA for English, we need not try to capture every tiny nuance of pronunciation, especially since it will vary by dialect (including in Italian and the various related dialects and/or languages of the region, however one prefers to classify them), especially if the reader's own brain is going to perform the velarization of the nasal on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs)

You've got it slightly wrong. [ɱ] is an allophone of /n/ (or, if you'd like, an archiphoneme /◌̃/ unspecified for place of articulation), not of /m/. The phonemicity rationale is more specifically for English speakers. Unless someone is a speaker of Italian, a reader won't have the kind of intrinsic understanding of a language's phonology, so the phonemicity of a sound is something we don't really consider.

Also, the (English-speaking) reader's brain will not necessarily automatically velarize the nasal before a velar, since English doesn't have the automatic nasal assimilation that Italian and Spanish do.

There isn't a confusing inconsistency between how we treat the assimilation process between the two environments. We are already indicating that there is assimilation going on by changing /◌̃/ to [m]. We're just not parsing the distinction between [m] and [ɱ] because that wouldn't be a meaningful distinction to anyone. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Also Spanish has the same allophonic issue? I'm not expert enough of Spanish phonology, but if it's as for Italian then Help:IPA for Spanish has the same problem as Italian and those other dialects (while other Latin languages and dialects, as far as I know, nasalise the previous vowel instead of pronouncing a nasal consonant). Well, the point is: this distinguishment is totally arbitrary. We aren't sources ourselves, and since no source exists reporting such a distinguishment in the representation of [ŋ] and [ɱ] (either they always use /n/ like phonetic Italian vocabularies do, or they use both [ŋ] and [ɱ]) this is an arbitrary decision taken by one or a few more users. I don't even understand this hostility for [ɱ]. This isn't a little simplification such as using [n] in place of [n̪], or [tʃ] in place of [t͡ʃ], or [ss] in place of [sː] (these are examples of balance between detail and accessibility). This is using a wrong symbol representing a different phoneme (bilabial nasal in place of labiodental nasal) just because tht symbol is considered..."difficult"? With all the "difficult" symbols existing in the IPA? Then why don't we do it also for [β] by replacing it with [b] since it's its allophone when preceded by vowel or not nasal consonant, or even with [v] since it's a quite similar phoneme? Come on, this should be an encyclopedy! If [ɱ] is really unacceptable, and I don't think so at all, then also [ŋ] should receive the same treatment as they behaves the same way, in Italian and in half a dozen of other languages... If a note is enough for explaining the replacing of [ɱ] with [m] then it should be enough also for replacing [ŋ] with [n]. Iuscaogdan (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This insistence that we treat [ŋ] and [ɱ] the same isn't convincing to me. I've explained how they're different and that difference can justify different treatment. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

In English. A language where [ŋ] has its own phonemic value, to distinguish for example "sin" from "sing", while [ɱ] hasn't. In Italian, Spanish and some others [ŋ] has no phonemic value exactly like [ɱ], so different treatment isn't justified at all. Iuscaogdan (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually you "don't" treat [ŋ] and [ɱ] the same currently. Logic "does" suggest to do it. A different treatment can be justified just in a personal opinion based on a personal reasoning. But this is a world encyclopedy, not a personal blog. Such an instrument should be based on relevant sources instead of on personal opinions and reasonings. No source suggests to treat [ŋ] as a separate phoneme no matter what and [ɱ] just when it's phonemic. It's a personal opinion, legitimate but personal. Indeed no objective arguments have been brought in support of this opinion, just a personal reasoning which isn't an objective argument. I don't think it's so difficult to understand. However I'd like to hear the opinion of other Wikipedian linguists, so far one agrees with me and another one doesn't; unfortunately one of this talk playgoers whom I'd tried pinging preferred asking admins to investigate me for sockpuppetry than replying, and after I was confirmed to be clean he just disappeared. If I didn't know any better I'd think that both changes to old conventions and new users proposing them aren't exactly seen eye to eye by some of the more veteran Wikipedians... But I'll assume good faith instead and keep hoping for an agreed solution. Iuscaogdan (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Incredible, I can't literally believe it... Nar_shameonyou_dog has asked again admins to investigate me for sockpuppetry (without even notifying me)! Since last friday, when I was confirmed to be clean, I haven't made any more edits, but he wants me out of this project, one way or another. Can you believe it? If I didn't know any better I'd think I'm in some kind of candid camera, or in a social experiment: instead it's just a matter of bad faith about me. I was wrong to assume good faith, this last clear ostracising attempt in order to get rid of me is the smoking gun I was so wrong about his good faith... Anyway, so far there're 2 users agreeing about the use of both [ŋ] and [ɱ] or none of them and just 1 disagreeing; since nobody else joined the discussion, the only user opposing the restoring of consistency/coherence in these Help:IPA pages will have to accept the new consensus. Iuscaogdan (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: 2 vs. 1 is hardly a clear consensus.

[ŋ] isn't phonemic in either Spanish or Italian. It's an allophone of /n/, just like [ɱ], [n̪] and [n̠]. The last two appear before dental and postalveolar consonants, respectively. Why haven't you brought them up? If we can transcribe them broadly with ⟨n⟩ then we can also transcribe the bilabial and labiodental nasals with ⟨m⟩. An alternative transcription of [ɱ] is ⟨m̪⟩ (⟨m⟩ with a dental diacritic). If ⟨n⟩ can cover alveolar, dental and postalveolar nasals depending on the context then ⟨m⟩ can cover bilabial and labiodental nasals depending on the context.

There are more broad transcription features in these guides, such as ⟨a⟩ for what is an open central vowel [ä] or ⟨t, d⟩ for dental stops which are more narrowly transcribed as [t̪, d̪]. I think you're being a bit picky. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Kbb2, it's what I'm trying to say. Why has [ŋ] got a special treatment if he works exactly as [ɱ] in Spanish, Italian and the others I've said? It's all right to transcribe [ŋ] as [n] if it's all right to transcribe [ɱ] as [m] too. There's no valid reason to keep the narrow transcription for the nasal velar allophone and a random broad transcription for the nasal labiodental allophone. We should choose one kind of transcription and apply it to both phonemes in such languages. Iuscaogdan (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: I'm saying something different. I'm saying that there's no reason to insist on using ⟨ɱ⟩ for the labiodental nasal if the dental and postalveolar nasals are transcribed with ⟨n⟩, same as the main allophone of /n/ which is alveolar in both Spanish and Italian. We can transcribe the labiodental nasal the same as [m] while keeping [ŋ] distinct. The rationale for that has been described above by Aeusoes1 and I largely agree with him, although I wouldn't protest if we decided to transcribe the labiodental nasal with a separate symbol after all. Consider me to be mostly neutral. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Although on second thought, insisting on using ⟨m⟩ may lead to comical/forced pronunciations with a bilabial nasal (worse: an elongated bilabial nasal) before labiodental fricatives, which would probably sound non-native. What are your thoughts on that @Aeusoes1, Nardog, and SMcCandlish:? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand well. Well, you're right again, infact I didn't open this discussion to get users to "insert [ɱ] in the phoneme list", I did it to "obtain consistency/coherence in the choice of the breadth of phonetic transcriptions". Do we want to use a narrow transcrption? Let's use both [ŋ] and [ɱ] (and the even narrower transcriptions you said) then! Do we want to use a broad transcription? Let's do it for both the velar and the labiodental (and the other) nasals then! The reason why I didn't talk about [n̪] and [n̠] is because they're actually even more narrow, because they aren't simply symbols of the IPA symbol list but are symbols modified with diacritics for the narrowest transcription possible. I could be wrong but I think that the phonetic values of [ŋ] and [ɱ] are the same as (for example) [β] and [ʃ] and not the same as [n̪] and [n̠]... Anyway, we can decide to use even these transcriptions, or not to use "any" of the narrow transcriptions listed here. But on your opinion is there a "valid" reason to treat the sole [ŋ] in a different way from all the others? I already know the other users' opinions: Aeusoes1 thinks that such a "privilege" is all right, SMcCandlish thinks like me that it's wrong, Nar_shameonyou_dog thinks I'm a disruptive vandal sockpuppet that admins should block or something like that. Iuscaogdan (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: I think you nailed it there. The fact the IPA provides a dedicated symbol for a labiodental nasal is almost a coincidence. If we really wanted to be consistent, it wouldn't make sense if we didn't also use e.g. ⟨n̠⟩ before [tʃ, dʒ]. To focus on ⟨ɱ⟩ is arbitrary. Nardog (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Err... "The fact the IPA provides a dedicated symbol for a labiodental nasal is almost a coincidence."... Source? Yourself? You and consequently your opinion aren't sources. Let's talk about facts. Example: if we transcribe the linguolabial stops with [t̼] and [d̼] in a language, then we have to transcribe the linguolabial nasal with [n̼] too; if we transcribe the stops with [t] and [d], then we transcribe the nasal with [n] too. Clear enough? Now: if we transcribe Spanish and Italian velar nasal (allophone before [k] and [g]) with its narrow transcription [ŋ], then we have to transcribe the labiodental nasal (allophone before [f] and [v]) with its narrow transcription [ɱ] too; if we transcribe the velar with a broad transcription such as [n] (or [m]), then we have to transcribe the labiodental as [m] (or [n]) too. Nobody is focusing on [ɱ] here, perhaps who decided in the past to transcribe the labiodental nasal with the symbol [m] made a choice of inconsistency/incoherence by focusing on [ŋ] which has to be privileged for some reasons... Kbb2 said well: using a bilabial nasal before a labiodental consonant (and at the same time a velar nasal before velar consonants) could confuse the readers. But if we decide to use broad transcriptions, I'll agree to use [n] before velar consonants too. Iuscaogdan (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Because the symbol was added 60 years before it was reported to be distinctive in the Kukuya dialect of Teke despite the IPA's phonemic principle.[1] And it is still the only language a labiodental nasal has been reported to be distinctive in. Nardog (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You do know that the IPA Chart isn't static but has been modified a lot of times since it was created, don't you? Nowadays is better than before, more precise and accurate. Nowadays it contains symbol [ɱ] too which is used not only for its phonetic value in Kukuya and Teke but also as an allophone of /n/ before labiodental consonants. What could be a "valid" (I underline this adjective again) reason not to use it while using [ŋ] in languages where they're both mere allophones of /n/ before specific consonants? Iuscaogdan (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan and Nardog: Apparently a long [ɱː] (presumably contrastive with bilabial [mː]) can be the realization of /nv/ in some Sicilian dialects - see Help:IPA/Sicilian. There's no source for that statement though, and there's room for improvement for that guide. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you nailed it there. In Sicilian (one of the minor languages or dialects I've spoken about at the beginning) we would currently transcribe "anveci" (instead) as [amˈmɛtʃi] with a completely wrong transcription because the correct one should be [aɱˈɱɛtʃi]... Thank you for pointing that out! Iuscaogdan (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: How would you comment on the possible confusion of [ɱ] with [m] in pronunciation? I think pronunciations such as [amˑˈfiβjo] for anfibio would sound rather obviously non-native (as would a forceful [m] for a labiodental allophone of /n/ in English or any other language). There's no similar problem with the dental/alveolar/postalveolar nasals as they have very similar coronal articulation. Bilabial and labiodental nasals, on the other hand, have more differing articulations which may lead to forceful (elongated) bilabial pronunciations where a short labiodental one is called for as that's the assimilated form (the unassimilated form is alveolar). Now I'm not sure whether using ⟨m⟩ for both sounds is the best idea. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

But how many people know what ⟨ɱ⟩ stands for, and how many people actually use it? If there's enough literature using ⟨ɱ⟩ for Italian or Spanish in IPA transcriptions, I can get behind. If not, I think it'll just confuse readers. Nardog (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: Good question, which I'll try to answer (if others won't beat me to it). Another question is: who transcribes the labiodental nasal with ⟨m⟩ when it's an allophone of /n/? Because I think that nobody does, except us.

Other languages which would make use of this symbol are Catalan and Dutch, which have nasal assimilation rules that are very similar to Spanish (at least Dutch does, I'm not 100% sure about Catalan). In German and Danish, on the other hand, the articulation is more variable and so ⟨n⟩ is overall a better transcription in those cases. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, ⟨n⟩ is another option and if literature prefers it, so should we. Nardog (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In Dutch, German and Danish (I don't know about Catalan) [ŋ] has an intrinsic phonemic value, so we couldn't even chose to transcribe it with another symbol with an intrinsic phonemic value such as [n]. Instead, [ɱ] has just a phonetic value like in Spanish and Italian because it's a nasal allophone before labiodental consonants. In these cases, it isn't pointless to treat these phonemes in different ways: we can choose to use either narrow or broad transcription for [ɱ], while [ŋ] "must" be transcribed this way. As you see we're talking about a different issue regarding a few languages. Iuscaogdan (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: There are phonemic analyses of German and Danish that analyze [ŋ] to be phonemically /nɡ/. Remember that it's often the case that there's not one correct way to analyze the phonemic structure of a language. Rather, the analysis depends on who's doing it.

Anyway, I'd like to narrow the scope of this discussion back to just the labiodental nasal. Using ⟨ɱ⟩ in German and presumably also Danish (though I'm not sure about the latter) is not the best idea because nasal assimilation in these languages (or at least in German) is a more variable phenomenon than in Dutch. Not to mention the fact that not a single pronunciation dictionary of German uses the symbol ⟨ɱ⟩ in their normal transcriptions. This is perhaps to increase readability for those native speakers that don't do the schwa assimilation in words like offen ([ˈɔfn̩] in prescriptive Standard German but more often [ˈɔfɱ̍] in normal spoken Standard German of Germany and Austria) and pronounce them as [ˈɔfən] instead. This happens in Switzerland, Luxembourg and I think that it also occurs in Belgium and parts of Germany itself. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Also for the reasons you said we shouldn't use [ɱ] in Dutch, German and Danish, you're right. We should use it in Spanish and Italian as long as we use [ŋ], we could use a broader transcrpition for the labiodental if we do it also for the velar. Let's not get off the topic. Iuscaogdan (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: Only in German and Danish. In Dutch we should do that and I'll explain later why.

I can't comment on this condition we could use a broader transcrpition for the labiodental if we do it also for the velar as I don't fully understand where you're coming from. I'm working on finding sources to back up the possible addition of ⟨ɱ⟩ to some of our guides. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? Where do I come from? Or where do my considerations come from? Please focus on the matter: in these few languages, where both [ŋ] and [ɱ] aren't phonemic, why are we use the narrow phonetic transcription for [ŋ] but the broad phonetic transcription for [ɱ]? Do you know any "valid" reason for such a choice in such languages? Iuscaogdan (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: See the definition no. 5.

What is looking for sources if not focusing on the matter? Your questions have already been answered by Aeusoes1. You should ask him for clarification if anything he said wasn't clear enough to you. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to mock me. I come from [iˈtaːlja] if this is what you need to know. Thanks for looking for sources! They musn't be about English (such sources would probably be using [ŋ] but not [ɱ] for the same reason I've explained for Dutch, German and Danish) but about the languages whose help pages have this inconsistency/incoherence. I've found an example in a pair of Italian dictionaries using IPA: [2] [3]. Both of them treat [ŋ] and [ɱ] in the same way: broad transcription, replaced by [n]. The Enciclopedia Treccani, instead, uses the narrow transcription for all its examples in the "Enciclopedia dell'Italiano" (sometimes examples also concern Italian dialects or minor languages): [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. In both cases there's no distinction in the treatment for [ŋ] and [ɱ]. This is what I managed to find out. I've spent a lot of time today for this issue, I have to do other things and I don't know how soon I'll be able to join back the discussion. Iuscaogdan (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: Apologies for the misunderstanding and possible offense. By "where you're coming from" I meant "what caused you to think the way you do" - again, see the fifth definition here.

Thanks for the links, they are useful. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no problems for the misunderstanding (in that page there's also this example: "My parents came from Italy.")! What caused me to think the way I do (about my "we could use a broader transcrpition for the labiodental if we do it also for the velar") is that I'm not interested in which type of transcription (narrow or broad) is used in the encyclopedy but rather in the consistency of such a choice. Either narrow in both cases, or broad in both cases. Reading Italian IPA transcriptions such as, for example, [ˌuŋ komˈflitto] makes me turn my nose up as if it was [ˌun koɱˈflitto], it's an inaccuracy I'd like to be fixed, and coherence would just improve Wikipedia. I hope I've answered your question. And... One more thing: the new request to admins to check me again was declined, but they found out that IPA editor himself was one of the already blocked socks! Very interesting, what he's done in the few days of his existence was done only to create confusion and quarrels among normal users, right? Somebody should learn to discern better between constructive and destructive users and edits... Iuscaogdan (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog and Iuscaogdan: This is from the Handbook of the IPA alone:

Croatian (which presumably extends to all four standards of Serbo-Croatian) uses [ɱ] as an allophone of /m/ before labiodentals
Czech uses [ɱ] as an optional allophone of /m/ and /n/ before labiodentals
Galician uses [ɱ] as an allophone of /n/ before labiodentals
Persian uses [ɱ] as an allophone of /m/ before labiodentals
Slovene uses [ɱ] as an allophone of /m/ and /n/ before labiodentals

To me, this means that ⟨ɱ⟩ can be safely ignored in transcriptions of Serbo-Croatian, Czech and Persian since pronunciations with the bilabial [m] would sound perfectly native - unless there are other sources which say that [ɱ] can also occur as a usual allophone of /n/ before labiodentals.

In the case of Galician and Slovene, IMO we should probably use the symbol - unless, again, there are sources that say something different than the Handbook. AFAICS it doesn't mention the labiodental nasal in the cases of Catalan and Dutch. This is rather strange as these languages have patterns of nasal assimilation that are very similar to Spanish. Wheeler (2005:168) mentions that the labiodental nasal appears in contexts similar to the Spanish ones so we probably should list it in Help:IPA/Catalan (unless I'm missing something).

As far as Dutch is concerned, I think that my memory has failed me. Verhoeven (2005:244) says that [ɱ] occurs only as an allophone of /m/ before labiodentals, whereas Collins & Mees (2003:78) say that the labiodental pronunciation of /m, n/ before labiodentals is a mere possibility (although on pages 214 and 215 they list a number of other assimilations, so [ɱ] may actually be a pretty normal realization). Gussenhoven (1999) doesn't even discuss it. I'm gonna ping @Rua: in case she knows something more. The online dictionary woorden.org doesn't use the symbol, but Uitspraakwoordenboek written by Heemskerk & Zonneveld does. It might be one of the very few pronunciation dictionaries (or dictionaries in general) that use ⟨ɱ⟩ in their transcriptions. According to Gussenhoven (2007) that's a mistake as this assimilation is confined to fast speech (although I'm sure that there are numerous examples of it occuring in normal speech, just as in Spanish and Italian).

In Spanish, the assimilation of /n/ to the following labiodental is mandatory, at least in the Standard European variety (Martínez Celdrán, Fernández Planas & Carrera Sabaté (2003:258)). The same claim is true of Mexico City Spanish (Avelino (2018:224)). In any case, we can safely use the symbol ⟨ɱ⟩ since this sound appears only in contexts in which /m/ and /n/ are neutralized.

In Italian, the assimilation of both /m/ and /n/ to [ɱ] is categorical, also when external sandhi processes are involved (as in in vetta) (Bertinetto & Loporcaro (2005:134–135)).

In the case of Urban East Norwegian (and likely also other Norwegian dialects) Kristoffersen (2000:319–327) says that /m/ is often labiodental before labiodentals, but /n/ is only possibly assimilated to [ɱ] in that position. It's probably best not to transcribe it then.

None of these sources use ⟨m⟩ for the labiodental nasal. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In my own Dutch speech, as far as I can tell, both /m/ and /n/ are realised as bilabial before a bilabial consonant, and as labiodental before a labiodental consonant. So the distinction between the phonemes disappears altogether. But I can't say if this is the same for all varieties of Dutch. Rua (mew) 13:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a lot of information, Kbb2, thanks for your research. But I think I haven't understood exactly your thesis derived from such information. My proposal was about Italian and some other languages, where neither [ŋ] nor [ɱ] have a phonemic value because they exist only as allophones of a nasal before certain consonants, and it was the following: "let's use either both [ŋ] and [ɱ] or none of them but let's not leave the current scheme with [ŋ] and [m]". What's your proposal based on such new information? Perhaps I may agree. Iuscaogdan (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: I focused only on whether we should add ⟨ɱ⟩ based on the articulatory difference between it and the bilabial [m] and on whether the alveolar/dental /n/ is also assimilated to [ɱ] before labiodental consonants. I haven't taken the velar nasal into any consideration. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So your considerations aren't exactly related to my point, but since, if I didn't mistake your information, Italian and Spanish are among the languages where we should use [ɱ], I agree with your conclusions (also about the other languages). Iuscaogdan (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: Only because I don't buy that we shouldn't use ⟨ŋ⟩ when we don't use ⟨ɱ⟩. My point is that using ⟨m⟩ instead of ⟨ɱ⟩ may lead to strange pronunciations and that no source I'm aware of writes ⟨m⟩ instead of ⟨ɱ⟩ when the labiodental nasal is an allophone of /n/. If it's just an allophone of /m/ then we can safely write it with ⟨m⟩. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Then it's a good thing that we agree on this conclusion even if we star from different points. Out of curiosity, would you say the same if in place of [ɱ] your sources had said the same for [ŋ]? Iuscaogdan (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: I'm familiar with one instance where someone was confused by the symbol ⟨ɱ⟩ despite our page describing it and a thread of other editors trying to explain it. But this might be atypical. I suspect as long as we have a good English approximation, we can avoid confusing most readers. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That's what Help:IPA pages exist for. I'm afraid readers would be more confused by a bilabial nasal before labiodental consonants. Iuscaogdan (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

By "confused" I'm talking about readers literally wondering what sound the symbol is supposed to convey. There's no way that this would happen with ⟨m⟩. Based on context, it sounds like you're talking about the chance that readers will pronounce Italian words with a bilabial nasal before a labiodental consonant, which is a fairly low-stakes risk. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Should a reader be confused by the labiodental nasal symbol, he would click the IPA transcription and be moved to the Help:IPA page where he'll find an example such as a"n"fibio and a note. Iuscaogdan (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I said. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

So, if we use [ŋ] before [k] and [g] and [ɱ] before [f] and [v], should a reader be confused by the labiodental nasal symbol ([ɱ]), for example in [aɱˈfiːbjo], he would click the IPA transcription and be moved to the Help:IPA page where he'll find an example and a note. If that's what you said why are e still discussing? We agree, let's add [ɱ] to the symbols list where [ŋ] has already its own place! Iuscaogdan (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You can't completely avoid confusion. But if we were to include ⟨ɱ⟩ in transcriptions, what you describe would be the best way to go about it. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Using the most correct phonetic symbol for the nasal allophone before velar consonants and a less accurate symbol for the nasal allophone before labiodental consonant does create confusion. If you think it's all right to write a note explaining the improper use of [m] then why would don't you think the same about inserting directly the symbol [ɱ] in the phonemes list be? I can't really believe you think the second solutions would be more confusing than the first! Iuscaogdan (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm dubious about your assessment of what is more and less confusing, but neither of us have anything to go by except my one anecdote. It's probably not significantly more confusing one way or another. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Then let's not talk any more about confusion. If I had to say something to go by I'd report the fact that both in Italian and Spanish Help:IPA talk pages there were users who raised questions about the properness of the choice to transcribe [ɱ] as [m]. Iuscaogdan (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: What about a possible epenthetic [p] between [m] (i.e. an [ɱ] which would then turn into [m] before [p]) and [f]? Voiceless labiodental affricate and voiced labiodental affricate report the existence of such a phenomenon only in some central-south dialects of Italian, which presumably doesn't even mean Standard Italian. The amount of languages I've mentioned in my list is much longer. I'd imagine that English speakers wouldn't insert epenthetic bilabial stops after [ɱ] that occurs immediately before a stressed syllable that starts with labiodental fricative, but what about words like Dutch aanvang [ˈaːɱvɑŋ] (perhaps there are even better examples)? The fact that ⟨ɱ⟩ isn't a common IPA symbol shouldn't be the deciding factor for not including it in our guides. ⟨ɵ⟩ is fairly rare, yet we use it on Help:IPA/Swedish and Help:IPA/Cantonese; there's also a good reason to use it on Help:IPA/Dutch instead of ⟨ʏ⟩ (though I won't get into it here). Transcriptions of the Upper Saxon dialect of German need that symbol and also ⟨ɞ⟩.

On Help:IPA/Danish, we use ⟨ɶ⟩ which I'm sure has lead to confusion of many readers (not to mention the confusion when you see that ⟨ɑ, a, æ, ɛ, e⟩ actually mean [a, æ, ɛ, e, ɪ]). Surely there are other examples of rare symbols that we use.

Also, I'm not sure if the risk of mistaking ⟨m⟩ for a bilabial nasal before /f, v/ is that low. As I said - when it occurs as an allophone of /n/, the reader risks sounding strange or even non-native if they overpronounce the nasal as bilabial. A pronunciation with [n] would just sound a bit pedantic but not non-native. Then again, there's the question of consistency. If we were to write the labiodental nasal with ⟨n⟩ when it's an allophone of /n/ and with ⟨m⟩ when it's an allophone of /m/, why write ⟨ŋ⟩ with a separate symbol? Assimilation is assimilation and these processes aren't separate from each other.

I've literally seen no source that writes the labiodental nasal the way we do (when it's an allophone of /n/). I understand that this isn't a case of a major OR, but still. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I quote Kbb2. Iuscaogdan (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that the risk itself was low. Rather, the risk is low stakes in the sense that, even if it were to happen, it wouldn't be particularly marked mispronunciation. An exception would be if the bilabial nasal is preserved with an epenthetic [p] or [b], but I suspect that there will be risk of this even if we use ⟨ɱ⟩ because of the level of linguistic sophistication for lay readers is going to be relatively low.

I don't think anyone has argued that ⟨ɱ⟩ shouldn't be used because it's a rare symbol. Rather, the issue is that almost no language makes a phonemic contrast between [ɱ] and [m]. Transcribing [ɱ] as [m] is thus considerably less marked than transcribing [ŋ] as [n], which many languages (including English) contrast phonemically. That's also why it's different from ⟨ɵ⟩ and ⟨ɞ⟩. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That "transcribing [ɱ] as [m] is thus considerably less marked than transcribing [ŋ] as [n]" is (read carefully) "a_personal_though_legitimate_opinion_of_yours". No source, I underline, no source asserts what you assert (that [ɱ] can be transcribed as [m]), neither for the reasons you've exposed nor for any others. Have you understood this? Do you agree with me this is true? If you haven't understood or if you don't agree, just tell me which point you haven't understood or you don't agree with and we'll talk about it better. Currently you're the only one who's firmly opposing my proposal to make the transcription of nasal allophones coherent for Italian and those other languages (talking about that, you've never answered to my assertion about extreme Southern dialects like Sicilian where it's possible to find [ɱɱ] + vowel which would currently be transcribed as [mm] + vowel). There's no "rational" reason (tell me one, if I'm wrong, tell me one) to transcribe [ɱ] as [m] and at the same time [ŋ] as [ŋ] "in a language where both [ɱ] and [ŋ] can't exist but as allophones of /n/ (or /m/) before certain consonants which they assimilate to". Do you prefere a broad transcription? Do it both for [ɱ] ([m] or [n]) and for [ŋ] ([n] or [m]). Do you prefere a narrow transcription? Do it both for [ɱ] ([ɱ]) and for [ŋ] ([ŋ]). I repeat: no "rational" reason to transcribe the first as [ɱ] and the second as [ŋ]. Your assertions "most languages don't make phonemic contrasts between [ɱ] and [m]", "readers would be more cunfused seeing a rarely used symbol such as [ɱ] than the symbol of the bilabial nasal before a labiodental consonant", "distinguishing [m] and allophonic [ɱ] is meaningless to anyone while distinguishing [n] and allophonic [ŋ] is meaningful to anyone" aren't "rational" (objective) reasons supported by sources but just your personal (subjective) considerations denied by sources (see above my examples to Kbb2, the Enciclopedia Treccani and the phonetic transcriptions in Italian dictionaries, both treating [ŋ] and [ɱ] in the same way, either specifying both symbols or replacing them both with /n/). I'm done, your honour. I can't wait to read your reply and continue discussing about this with you and the others. Iuscaogdan (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit grating to hear you repeatedly call people irrational and subjective just because you disagree with them. I've explained the difference between [ɱ] and [ŋ] and your response has been to ignore this difference, focus on one manner in which they are similar, and then tell me I'm irrational/illogical for thinking they're in any way different. You're also creating a false binary between "broad" and "narrow" and acting like one must choose between using ⟨ɱ⟩ in our transcriptions or not using ⟨ŋ⟩. I reject that binary. ⟨ɱ⟩ is a slightly more narrow transcription than ⟨m⟩, but ⟨m⟩ is more narrow than ⟨n⟩. It's only slightly less precise and it's not clear that anything important is lost any more than transcribing Spanish dental stops without diacritics.

I don't know enough about Sicilian to know how different "extreme Southern dialects" are from the dialect we transcribe at Help:IPA/Sicilian, but we generally link transcriptions to Help:IPA (which does explain ⟨ɱ⟩) when they are for dialects with sounds not explained in the language-specific charts. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

About Sicilian, I've used the expression "extreme Southern dialects" to include not just Sicilian (spoken in Sicily) but also a few other dialects in the heel and the bow of the peninsula with the same phenomenon; anyway, why should we complicate our lives (and the readers') with a dedicated note in all those Help:IPA page when we could just include the symbol [ɱ] in such pages lists next to [ŋ]? About the rest, first of all I've never called you nor anyone else "irrational" or "illogic", and I've called your considerations "subjective" as they aren't based on sources (mine are, thus objective) (sources disproving your considerations, what's more), please don't feel offended for that. The difference between [ŋ] and [ɱ], in your opinion, is that (correct me if I'm wrong please) [ŋ] isn't merely allophonic in different languages so it has its own phonemic value in such languages, while [ɱ] is just allophonic in most languages and just rarely it has its own phonemic value in a language, am I right? This is true, but this is just a quantitative distinction, not qualitative, and more it's a distinction based on a personal yardstick. Who are "we" to decide on our own that [ŋ] deserves to be transcribed exactly like that "always" while [ɱ] just when it isn't a mere allophone? Who are we to decide ourselves where to draw a line? Are we noted scholars? Are we sources oursevles? No. In fact the sources I've brought about Italian and other minor languages related to Italian don't make any distinguishment in the use of [ŋ] and [ɱ], as I've explained twice. The "binary" you're talking about is just coherence: you want to use the most accurate transcription for the velar nasal "no matter what", and at the same time you want to use a less accurate transcription for the labiodantal nasal "every time it's allophonic". Do you really think this is reasonable? You may think that not using diacritics in Spanish is equally unreasonable: in that case I'll repeat that I have nothing against using also the diacritics for a completely accurate transcription, but also that diacritics are precisely "diacritics", glyphs added to letters in order to modify the basic meaning of specific letters. The [n̪] symbol is a more precise version of [n], while [ŋ] isn't a more precise version of [n] and [ɱ] isn't a more precise version of [m] but totally different phonemes, you can't put [n̪] on a par with [ŋ] or [ɱ] if anyone is thinking about that. Come on... Iuscaogdan (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: The [n̪] symbol is a more precise version of [n], while [ŋ] isn't a more precise version of [n] and [ɱ] isn't a more precise version of [m] but totally different phonemes, you can't put [n̪] on a par with [ŋ] or [ɱ] if anyone is thinking about that. Come on... Neither Italian nor Spanish contrast dental and alveolar consonants (they can be grouped together), just as they don't contrast bilabial and labiodental consonants which can be grouped together as labial. Actually, the dental [n̪] is as different from the alveolar [n] as the labiodental [ɱ] is from the bilabial [m]. It does make sense to treat them the same. At the same time though, I still support using a separate ⟨ɱ⟩ symbol so consider this message to be pretty much a case of me playing a devil's advocate. I consider both approaches to be more or less valid. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, now I've understood what you mean. Bilabials and labiodentals are both "labials" as palatals and velars are both "dorsals". This has sense. My argument instead was based on the IPA chart where [ŋ] and [ɱ] have their own places in the consonants list while symbols such as [n̪] are grouped in the diacritics list: the first are, let's say, "standard" while the second are "subsidiary" (so the diacritics over the symbols may also be omitted). But I have to admit that I'm not as well-versed as my interlocutors in this subject. However, I'm glad you support the use of [ɱ] for the allophonic labiodental in the languages I've proposed. Iuscaogdan (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: why should we complicate our lives (and the readers') with a dedicated note in all those Help:IPA page when we could just include the symbol...? Because it's one fewer symbol for the reader to learn.

I've called your considerations "subjective" as they aren't based on sources (mine are, thus objective) This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're explicitly saying that your opinion is objective. Opinions are always inherently subjective. That you point to some sources doesn't suddenly make your opinion not an opinion. You've made your case and I'm not convinced.

Who are we to decide ourselves where to draw a line? We are the people determining the conventions for Wikipedia transcriptions. We have a lay readership to consider that many sources that use ⟨ɱ⟩ don't because they are for a specialized audience. We get to decide for ourselves because no one else is in our particular position. This doesn't mean that we don't consider what sources say and do but we don't need to be firmly rooted in sources and we can make our own conventions if we decide that it suits our purposes.

The "binary" you're talking about is just coherence I deny that using ⟨ɱ⟩ instead of ⟨m⟩ makes our transcriptions any more coherent, no matter how you define "coherent" in this context. If you mean that we be consistent in the level of detail, then I repeat that the community has agreed that we should avoid excessive detail. Using ⟨ɱ⟩ would be more consistent with an excessively narrow transcription than with the level of detail we're trying to go for. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"Because it's one fewer symbol for the reader to learn." Who decides it? You? Nobody else here is pushing for continuing using [m] in place of [ɱ]. If I were the only one wishing the symbol [ɧ] was removed by Help:IPA pages because it's one fewer symbol for the reader to learn should we replace it by a note as for [ɱ] because I think so? Seriously? "This is exactly what I'm talking about..." Well... You say the Sun turns around the Earth because you see it every day; I say the Earth turns around the Sun because scientists have written so in their reports (i.e. there're scientific evidences). For you my opinion isn't objective or yours isn't subjective. Got it. Please... No source justifies your considerations about the different treatment undergone by [ŋ] and [ɱ] when both allophonic; the sources I've brought about Italian prove scholars consider [ŋ] and [ɱ] in the same way (and in my same way). "We are the people determining the conventions for Wikipedia transcriptions..." All right, but... First, "we", not "you", are the people determining etc... Second, we shouldn't base conventions on our (Aeusoes1's and Iuscaogdan's) personal liking but, when and where possible, on external sources (Enciclopedia Treccani and so on). Third, again, it isn't about using or not using [ɱ], it's about using a wrong (less accurate, as you say) [m] in place of [ɱ] and at the same time [ŋ]; I do believe that in English transcriptions of English words and names [ŋ] is used and [ɱ] isn't, but we're talking about Italian, Spanish and the others I've said where writing [ŋ] isn't more senseful than writing [ɱ] (in fact sources about Italian don't make any distinguishments in their treatment). "I deny that using ⟨ɱ⟩ instead of ⟨m⟩ makes our transcriptions any more coherent, no matter how you define "coherent" in this context." Again (again), the consistency/coherence isn't about using [ɱ] in place of [m] at all (of course it isn't!), but about either using both [ɱ] and [ŋ] or replacing them both by [m] and [n]. It's just "you" who don't consider their different treatment inconsistent/coherent, the other users who expressed their opinion about this issue said that [ɱ] should be used in the cases I've proposed to use it (along with [ŋ] obviously), not to talk about the sources I've brought. Is using [ɱ] in Italian and Spanish transcriptions too detailed? Very well: let's replace it with [m] and let's replace [ŋ] with [n]! I'd agree if you accept this broad solution. But, if we don't think that transcribing the allophonic [ŋ] in Italian is excessively detailed, we'll have no problems in transcribing the allophonic [ɱ] too. You're the only one who wants to keep the narrow [ŋ] and the broad [m] in these languages, even sources don't justify this distinguishment. For the last time (let's hope). Iuscaogdan (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the sense that we're talking in circles here. Most of your points I've already responded to.

Nobody else here is pushing for continuing using [m] in place of [ɱ] We as a community decide it. It can be as arbitrary or logical as we'd like. As a member of this community, I'd think that my stance matters, particularly as we have a policy of consensus rather than majoritarian decisionmaking.

If I were the only one wishing the symbol [ɧ] was removed by Help:IPA pages because it's one fewer symbol for the reader to learn should we replace it by a note That's something we could do for Swedish, which is the only language it's used for and is extremely imprecise phonetically. You would need to get a consensus to change that, since there's already a pre-existing consensus to keep it. Because you're new, you might not be aware of how this all works, so take a look at WP:CONSENSUS if you need to.

Very well: let's replace it with [m] and let's replace [ŋ] with [n] Again, the phonetic imprecision of using ⟨n⟩ for a velar nasal is much greater than using ⟨m⟩ for a labiodental nasal. ⟨m⟩ is not broad or phonemic. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, actually I'm not seeing all this "community consensus". Probably there was in the past, in the present talk there's no more. But most important: are you talking about a "community consensus" in "not using the symbol [ɱ] at all" or just in "not using it for language X"? Because it's hard for me to believe that there have been discussions about this matter for every single Help:IPA page, even harder than believing that one big discussion just about crossing out [ɱ] from all Help:IPA pages was held in a big project page like this. However, currently there's no (longer) "we as a community", you have to admit that you're the only one who's speaking totally in favour of the previous consensus you're talking about, users older than me think that [ɱ] should or could be used anyway (as well as [ŋ]), albeit for reasons different from mine. I'd like both [ŋ] and [ɱ] to be listed together in the Help:IPA pages I've said, or both of them to be replaced by a "simpler" symbol, since they're both only allophonic in such languages (if there're other languages where this happens, I'd like this solution to be adopted for them too). Perhaps you're right about the fact that, phonetically, there's more "distance" between [ŋ] and [n] than between [ɱ] and [m] if we compare them in the IPA Chart. Nevertheless, there's no source using [m] in place of [ɱ], all the sources where [ɱ] is replaced use [n] instead, which is as "improper" as replacing [ŋ] with [n]. That's why the solution I prefer is [ŋ] and [ɱ] although [n] and [m] are all right for me. Iuscaogdan (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: Hmm, perhaps I overestimated the wrongness of the bilabial pronunciation. I won't press the issue anymore, though I hope that my research will help in future discussions about the labiodental nasal. Maybe someone will come up with better arguments than me. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not caring much which symbols are used, as long as we're consistent (i.e., stop implying that n and m are treated radically differently in this language when they are not). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

As long we're consistent, right? If we were, since there isn't a phonemic rationale for using [ŋ] any more than there's for using [ɱ] for Italian, we'd use either both [ŋ] and [ɱ] or none of them for Italian (and the other minor languages or dialects). If this is what you meant I agree with you. Iuscaogdan (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: We're not using phonemic transcription in the case of Italian (in fact, AFAIK, we're not using it in the case of all languages except English). If we were, we couldn't transcribe vowel length and perhaps some of the non-native consonants (the phonemicity of which may be questionable, at least in some cases). AFAIK syntactic gemination would also have to be omitted. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

All you've said is right. Since we're using phonetic transcriptions in the case of Italian, why are we transcribing only the allophone [ŋ] "phonetically" (i.e. with its exact IPA symbol) while we're transcribing the allophone [ɱ] "phonemically" (i.e. with a symbol actually representing a different phoneme but making no real difference to Italians' ears)? All I'm asking for is consistency. Iuscaogdan (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong there. Using ⟨m⟩ in this context is not phonemic. Both ⟨m⟩ and ⟨ɱ⟩ are phonetic. Both are narrow. The latter is slightly more narrow than the former. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but either I've undersood absolutely nothing about IPA or you're wrong there. [m] and [ɱ] are different symbols representing different phonemes both included in the IPA consonants list (exactly as [n] and [ŋ]). [n̪] is slightly more narrow than [n] (because it's included in a different table containing basic symbols plus diacritics) but the same can't be said for [ɱ] and [m] or we could say it also for, let's see, [β] and [b] (or [v]), or [ʃ] (or [θ]) and [s]. But I might have wrongly used the terms "phonemic" and "phonetic" in my last comment, that's true. Iuscaogdan (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iuscaogdan: You're somehow conflating the lack of a separate symbol for a dental nasal in the IPA with it being a less legitimate consonant than a labiodental nasal. This is absolutely not the case. The fact that you need to use a diacritic to indicate the dentalness of [n̪] doesn't make it any less legitimate than a labiodental nasal. In fact, there are more languages which contrast dental and alveolar nasals than there are ones that contrast bilabial and labiodental nasals. It was proposed that the symbol ⟨ɱ⟩ be deprecated at the Kiel Convention (and from then on replaced with ⟨m̪⟩, an ⟨m⟩ with a dental diacritic) but the proposal was defeated.

Also, the IPA chart isn't a chart of phonemes but of phones (sounds). Phonemes are abstract, language-specific entities. Not to mention that any given scholar is prone to analyze the exact phonemic structure of any given language in a slightly different manner (or not - it depends). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know anything about what you've explained. Then I'm taking back my affirmation about [n̪]. Thanks for your clarification. Iuscaogdan (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Help:IPA pages to which the labiodental nasal should be added

A week has passed an nobody had anything to add. So, can we say that, except one participant, we agree to include the symbol [ɱ] in the list of the languages I've said? Iuscaogdan (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the treatment should depend on whether we are indicating phonemes (with / /) or phones (with [ ]). If using phonemes, then of course only use symbols that represent actual phonemes. If showing subphonemic details, then use [ɱ] and [ŋ] as necessary. I'm not making any particular statement on whether phonemes or phones should be indicated. Rua (mew) 18:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

While I don't think it's inconsistent to use ⟨[m]⟩, enough people are in support of using ⟨[ɱ]⟩ that it seems like it's generally accepted by editors that we ought to use ⟨[ɱ]⟩ if it's warranted. The most obvious cases are Spanish, Italian, and Slovene, but there could be more. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

All right then, if there're no problems we can check which other languagues have both [ŋ] and [ɱ] as mere phonetic allophones of nasals. Italian and the related dialects (Sicilian, Corsican, Neapolitan, Emilian-Romagnol, Sardinian, Lombard) are the ones I was sure about since the beginning, in addition to them also Spanish was said to have the same feature. I've checked by myself just now and found the following languages too: Czech, Hungarian, Romanian (and Slovene that you added). Are they right for you? I've also seen that, for the previous languages, the links to the related Help:IPA pages containing a labiodental nasal allophone aren't many, there won't be much work to do anyway. Iuscaogdan (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There might even be a way to automate the process. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Except Italian, the pages with IPA transcriptions in other languages to modify are about 20 if I've checked correctly. But before that the Help:IPA pages have to be updated. If nobody has any objections I could try updating one of these pages, for example Spanish, and if it's set well I or somebody else can do the same with the other pages listed above. Iuscaogdan (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you can see all the Italian ones in my recent edit history (specifically here: [12]) — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Tonight or tomorrow I'm starting with the Spanish Help:IPA page. Iuscaogdan (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1 and Iuscaogdan: But do we want to use ⟨ɱ⟩ for languages that use this allophone for both /n/ and /m/ or also just /m/? I'd use it only for the former. I disagree with adding the symbol to the guides for Czech, Hungarian and Romanian until we check reputable sources for confirmation. We shouldn't rush this, especially given the fact that the Handbook of the IPA says that only /m/ becomes labiodental before labiodental fricatives in Czech.

However, we can add the symbol to Help:IPA/Slovak (per the JIPA article about Slovak) and we also should add it to Help:IPA/Catalan and Help:IPA/Slovene (which I can take care of).

Iuscaogdan, you should also remember that you should go through all the articles that use ⟨m⟩ instead of ⟨ɱ⟩ in Spanish transcriptions and change these instances to ⟨ɱ⟩. There should be no discrepancies between the guide and transcriptions, and the guide should be the last to be changed. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If we want to restrict ourselves to just when we have verification, that's fine, but I don't see why it's necessary to restrict to just when [ɱ] is an allophone of all nasals, rather than just /m/. Also, why do we need to wait until we've changed the pages before we change the chart. If anything, it should be the opposite. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: Both sound logical (so we should use ⟨ɱ⟩ on Help:IPA/Czech, Help:IPA/Norwegian, Help:IPA/Persian and Help:IPA/Serbo-Croatian - in all of these it's an allophone of /m/). I've reverted myself on Help:IPA/Spanish. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have preferences about using [ɱ] for languages where it's only an allophone of /n/ and /m/ or just of /m/, as long as in such languages [ŋ] is only an allophone of /n/ too. I agree with you about waiting and checking any possible sources about Czech, Hungarian and Romanian (I've added these languages because they have both [ŋ] and [ɱ] as mere allophones, according to what I've read in Wikipedia) before editing their pages too. For Slovene and Slovak I have no objections, but for Catalan I have one (in fact I've removed it from my list after checking better): [ŋ] is phonemic, for example in "banc" ([baŋ]) and "Samaranch" ([səməˈɾaŋ]), so [ŋ] must occur in Catalan phonemes list, while [ɱ] is just phonetic, it exists just as an allophone of /n/ (or /m/) before [f]; this is a different case from Spanish and Italian where both [ŋ] and [ɱ] exist only as allophones. I edited the page Help:IPA/Spanish this morning, I well know there're also Spanish IPAs to edit in several pages and I'll take care of it (if my edit isn't challenged by anobody) when I have enough time, unfortunately in these days I'm a bit busy but before the end of the week I'm going to fix it and to do the same for Italian and the related dialects, please have just a little patience. Iuscaogdan (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would need to restrict it to languages where the velar nasal isn't phonemic. Phonemicity of other nasals isn't really a factor here. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Because the topic was "Nasal allophones inconsistency/incoherence in some Help:IPA pages", not "Let's add the labiodental nasal in every Help:IPA page". In languages where [ŋ] is phonemic, such as English, I agree with you that [ɱ] is a futile hyper-specification. But, since actually there's no real inconsistency/incoherence in indicating [ɱ] also in languages where [ŋ] is already indicated, and I'm quite busy at the moment, I won't insist if you want to add it also in Catalan, Norwegian and Persian (clearly, if there're sources testifying the existence of the labiodental nasal before labiodental consonants in such languages). Iuscaogdan (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think what the consensus here is that ⟨ɱ⟩ is not completely off the table for these language guides. Your belief that it should only be for cases when a language doesn't have a phonemic velar nasal is not something anyone has agreed to. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I said that I won't oppose the decision to include the phonetic [ɱ] where there's already phonemic [ŋ] (if there're sources testifying that). My aim was including it where both of them were allophones (Italian language and dialects, plus Spanish). The same for [ŋ] and [ɱ] goes for [N], for example, the fact is that I'd seen this inconsistency just in the previous languages which included just the previous allophones. You're free to add the labiodental nasal symbol in other lists as this won't cause further incoherence. Iuscaogdan (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll try to do more research myself and will post its results here. Although I agree with Aeusoes that we shouldn't consider the phonemicity of other nasals in this case. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There weren't so many pages to edit for Spanish... I've also fixed some minor IPA errors, but I have an off-topic doubt: for names from Latin America should we use the same criteria as for Castillan Spanish or should we change it? I think we should keep following the Help:IPA/Spanish indications, unless we specify that a certain pronunciation refers to Latin American Spanish. Iuscaogdan (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty much how we've got it set up. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Since nobody has challenged the changes to Help:IPA/Spanish, I'm doing the same for the Italian help page. Iuscaogdan (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Māori vowels

Forgive me if this is not the right place for this. The Māori language and Māori phonology articles do not agree on the realizations of /a/ and /aː/, and the latter is missing most of the realizations found in the former article. They also disagree on the diphthongs found in the language. I do not have access to the sole source of the latter article, so I am unable to verify which information is correct. Perhaps someone here does and can make the appropriate corrections? Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

They don't quite contradict, since the phonology page is talking about phonemes and the language article is talking about phonetic detail, but I can see how it would be confusing. If you feel up to it, I'd say you should edit one of the articles to present the information that's at both articles and see if anyone objects or alters your synthesis. Once you get to a stable version of this presentation, transfer it over to the other article so that they more transparently agree with each other. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: Sure, will do. Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There has been an unscourced report of the death of Wallace Chafe - please help me get a good RS for this

Anyone at UC Santa Barbara? The Linguistics department had no info when I called but it is early. The report was from an anonymous editor whose only edit was that Chafe died February 3, 2019. If anyone can help me find a reliable source to link to in the article to support the assertation of his death as a fact, I would be truly grateful. I am a former student. I went somewhat away from Linguistics for a time to concentrate on my career in film development but I never left the field completely. LiPollis (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I can find nothing on the web, or on social media for that matter, to indicate that he has died. If it is true we will have to wait for an announcement. In the meantime it seems a good time to improve his article whether the news is true or not. Thanks for your recent efforts in this area. Beorhtwulf (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. If indeed, he passed away on Sunday, February 3rd, I would not expect to see anything official or even informal until the end of the week. I have sent an email to both the former Chair of Linguistics at UCSB and the current Chair. I was told that Matt Gordon, the former Chair, is/was a friend of Chafe's. I hesitate to start contacting his close friends and colleagues in the event that this hasty posting was a mistake. It is not uncommon for well-known individuals to have false death reports. I am shocked by how small his article is compared to his influence and broad, ground-breaking work in many areas of Linguistics. I would suggest that his own autobiographical essay is a wonderful treasure trove of information, which can be found here - SEARCHING FOR MEANING IN LANGUAGE A MEMOIR by Wallace Chafe which was previously published in the journal Historiographia Linguistica 29: 245-261 (2002). I have never been able to find a Reliable source for his marriage to Marianne Mithun, so I have left that out. What's weird is I was still studying with them after the date often given and yet nobody ever referred to them as husband and wife although it was obvious to us all that they are/were a couple. About a year and change later, they left SUNYA for good for Santa Barbara and it never occurred to me to ask them about it. That IS the kind of information usually included in Biographies on Wikipedia but not for Academics so I have just left that alone. If you find some items of interest in his memoir, feel free to add them in. Also I would love for there to be a section on the Pear Film and The Pear Stories. The Pear Film is on Youtube but not attributed to him. I know we don't generally link to Youtube, however, Chafe made the film available to any future researchers after he moved on to other areas and, indeed, a number of books have been written about it. The Pear Stories likely deserve their own article. Thanks again and feel free to leave me message on my tTalk Page, if you prefer. LiPollis (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeshivish

The above article might benefit from having a voice recording to clarify what the tone is, and how the words are used. For example, the article states: “Yeshivish may use a "chanting intonation" for reading and discussing Jewish texts. A number of other distinctive intonations are also used: for instance, a high-falling pitch boundary for a dramatic point.” Having encountered this socialect in real life, I understand what that means, but others might not. I don’t know how to add such a recording, or whether doing so would even be appropriate, I am simply bringing this to your attention.

Also, a merge discussion is taking place about the above article, and you may want to participate.

Thanks — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

TERF

Hello. At Talk:TERF#The lead and two pieces in the responses section, we are discussing whether or not there are WP:Neutral (specifically WP:WIKIVOICE) issues with the lead of the article, and if there are issues with a section lower in the article. Regarding the lead, one concern is application of the term "TERF." Umimmak, Æµ§œš¹, Nardog, Kwamikagami, Hoary, Matthew Ferguson 57, and others, do you mind giving your opinions on the article's talk page? 98.162.170.103 (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Striking comments by CU-blocked block evader Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'd never heard of "TERF" till mere seconds ago, Talk:TERF is a dismayingly long wall of text, and there are only so many waking hours in the day; so count me out. -- Hoary (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned on that talk, this seems much more like an WP:NPOVN matter. Admittedly I've only roughly skimmed it, but I fail to see how the dispute pertains to linguistics. I'm pinging さえぼー just to notify her though. Nardog (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The lead isn't neutral, but no-one seriously expects such articles to be neutral since they are typically squatted over by activist types with extremist positions. It's not worth the drama... Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nardog presumably because linguists would be familiar with literature about what constitutes a slur and would have sources that aren’t just about how “gender critical” people don’t like being called TERFs. But a word can be negative without being a slur; people generally don’t like being called words like transphobe or bigot, but that doesn’t make those words a slur either. Umimmak (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hoary, Nardog, Matthew Ferguson and Umimmak, thanks for responding. I've now taken the issues to RfCs. The first one is at Talk:TERF#Should the lead be changed back to its previous incarnation?. The second one is below that. Maybe one of you are willing to comment in one or both of the RfCs since they present the issues cleanly? I brought the issues to this project because this project has experience dealing with word articles and how to present their definitions and any disputes that may concern the topic. Also, in one part of the article, there is talk about linguists Christopher David and Elin McCready. Umimmak, my concern isn't that "TERF" is or isn't a slur, although I have questioned the inclusion of linguists Christopher David and Elin McCready commenting on what makes a slur. My concern is labeling everyone who has been called a TERF or every view that has been called a TERF viewpoint transphobic when what is transphobic varies. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

See this at WP:ANI. -- Hoary (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Propose merger

I have proposed merging Nonstandard dialect into Standard language. Discussion is at Talk:Standard language#Propose merger. Comments are welcome there. Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

edupedia.pl

The article Usus, which is in the scope of this WikiProject, cites what appears to be a Polish-language wiki, edupedia.pl. I do not read Polish, but I recognize the word 'Edytuj' (edit) on clickable buttons. Could someone who reads Polish verify whether the source seems reliable? Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Lexical Integrity Hypothesis

Hello,

Over the next 4 weeks, we are going to develop content on the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis stub. Any advice is welcome, and thank you in advance for your patience as we learn to navigate and understand the conventions of wikipedia.

Sammobee (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sammobee: I'd just note to make sure you consistently do edit summaries, first of all. And check out Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Writing better articles, and links therein. Specifically on Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, note that there is also a stub for Lexicalist hypothesis; you might want to consider merging them? Umimmak (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Umimmak: Thank you for all the pointers! I will be sure to read those. I also did not know about the Lexicalist page. I will talk to my group about merging it. Sammobee (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects

I've just nominated that article for deletion. See the AfD page for details. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing IPAs

I have a question. When an IPA of any language is inserted in a page, does it have to be sourced in that page? For example, does the name Daniel, which is not only English but also French and German, have to have a source for its French and German pronunciations [danjɛl] and [ˈdaːni̯ɛl]? Personally I do not think so because sources are already included in the related Help:IPA/French and Help:IPA German articles. Adding them to a certain IPA would means having to add them to all IPAs, or to establish a criterium for the IPAs which have to be sourced unlike the others. But there is no need for that as long as the sources are already included in the related IPA guides. I would like to hear your opinion, I do not want to edit pages in a way or in another before knowing which is the correct answer. What do you think about it? Thanks in advance for replying! — Precedingunsigned comment added by Ivkovic Nicholas (talk • contribs)

Pronunciation is subject to the same standards as all other information. So if the pronunciation is there without a citation and someone challenges it, it can be removed. But this would be a source that indicates the pronunciation of that specific word, not of the language in general. It's not very common for there to be much scrutiny on the pronunciation of individual words. If you don't anticipate that kind of challenge, you shouldn't worry too much about finding a source.

The IPA help pages are a way for us to have a consistent manner of presenting what that pronunciation is. This manner is ultimately an in-house style and doesn't need to be sourced, though it should be based on sourcing to balance both phonetic accuracy and trends in the relevant literature. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand. There is no need to add a source as long as the pronunciation is not challenged. But usually sources for whatever pronunciation in a certain language are included in the Help:IPA/Language pages. For example, for German we have 5 sources in the bibliography of Standard German and 6 sources in the bibliography of Alemannic German. There is no need to repeat one or more of these sources for a certain name or for all the names in German, it is just a useless repetition. I could understand they should be added in case not all the sources agree, so that it is indicated the one taken as source for that particular pronunciation, specially if a certain pronunciation is continuously challenged. But normally, for a German name as Merkel or a French name as Voltaire, there is no doubt, no challenge, so no source is added. If a user started adding one or more sources for every German name and surname is would be a mess, do you concur?--Ivkovic Nicholas (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There's also a phonology page on the language in question that has that information. But let's use Voltaire as an example. French phonology, and Help:IPA/French, and French orthography will tell you what sounds are in French and how they correspond to orthographic representations. So we can reasonably deduct that the French pronunciation is [vɔltɛːʁ])], in as much as French has a transparent orthography. Native speakers of French also have some credibility in confirming this. But if there's any doubt, we should only need one source to back up a pronunciation of Voltaire by a source that gives the French pronunciation of Voltaire.

The issue gets thornier when multiple sources disagree, but most of the time one will be enough. If someone started adding a source for each German pronunciation, I don't think it would be a mess. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

My opinion about this is different. In Help:IPA/French, German and all the other languages there are sources indicated for each of those pages. These sources may be either digital or papery, but they always include the IPAs of most names. For German, for example, there is Duden ([13]). At page 306 you can see the IPA for "Deutschland". Is there any need to add the Duden as source for German pronunciation of "Deutschland" in the article about Germany? No, in fact it is not there. Duden is already cited in the Help:IPA article. If a user, like me, decides to insert the same source in all articles including German IPAs his edits will be noted and reverted and maybe he will be blocked, isn't it? And there is one more thing I have just noticed thanks to my example: not always the source added next to an IPA reports exactly the IPA as it is written, because our Help:IPA/Language articles have their own conventions, so in these cases the source would even be "false" because it would report a different IPA than the shown IPA (Duden's "Deutschland" has a symbol ɪ̯, ours has a symbol ʏ, for example). That is why, in my humble opinion, except particular cases the IPAs in articles should not have further sources added next to them.--Ivkovic Nicholas (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If a user, like me, decides to insert the same source in all articles including German IPAs his edits will be noted and reverted and maybe he will be blocked, isn't it? No, absolutely not. This is actually a more correct way of editing/inserting IPAs into the articles and it makes them less likely to be challenged by other editors. While we don't need to source every IPA (although a minority of editors insist on doing so), a list of sources in any given Help:IPA/XXX guide is not an actual substitution for a source in any given article. See WP:RS.

The IPAs should agree with our guides. To write [ɔʏ] for what Duden writes [ɔɪ̯] isn't a reference falsification but rather presenting the same information in a different manner. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think what he's implying is indiscriminately adding the exact same source next to every single German IPA notation across articles without verifying the integrity between the source and the notation. Such a user would indeed be immediately noted and blocked. Nardog (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he is.--Ivkovic Nicholas (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not really think the same way you do about this, not at all, but I have been answered twice in the same way, so I will consider your answers the answer I was looking for. To me it seems absurd overall that a source added next to an IPA can show a different IPA, it would be more senseful adding a note in the Help:IPA/Language next to the source explaining the nature of the differences of the phonetic transcriptions. But if you, expert users, say this is all right I will trust you. The original reason I have asked this question is because there was a blocked LTA sockpuppeteer who had added dozens of IPA identical sources mainly for German and French but also Spanish, Italian, Polish and many other languages, in some cases his edits were reverted but not all of them and I wanted to know if it was possible to go on reverting him or not. I think I will have to leave them alone, even if by such kind of users.--Ivkovic Nicholas (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell us who that was? Neither Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Full nor Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Page_2 are of much help. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake, it was not LTA but just sockpuppeting. It was Miaowmiaowmew. Some of his edits have been reverted ([14]), that is why I thought it was correct removing this kind of useless source additions--Ivkovic Nicholas (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

IPA is no different from prose. Each symbol encodes a certain phonetic/phonological value given by context. We conform pronunciation notations found in external sources to our guides just like we paraphrase information found in external sources except in direct quotes.

Sources on IPA guides are not there to substantiate each individual word in the language. They substantiate the inventory and phonological processes of the language described on the guide. If the language in question has a rather phonemic orthography, verification is unlikely to be needed. But when it comes to a language like English, the pronunciation of, say, Chiwetel Ejiofor is never going to be found anywhere in any of the sources on Help:IPA/English or on English phonology, so a source that verifies the pronunciation of that particular name would be needed.

One more thing: The pages in the Help namespace are not "articles" and do not receive the same scrutiny as the pages (or "articles") in the main namespace do. Nardog (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose you still think that the edits I have talked about have to be left even if they consist just in "indiscriminately adding the exact same source next to every single German IPA notation across articles without verifying the integrity between the source and the notation" by a blocked sockpuppet. There is no problem for me, I just wanted to be sure, we can close the topic.--Ivkovic Nicholas (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand how you got to that conclusion. I never said anything about specific edits. I'm sure the edits that are staying are not reverted just because no one has found a problem with them. Someone might have checked them and found them to be legitimate, or (more likely) no one has gone through the edits. So if you have time and are so inclined, feel free to go through them. Leave the citation if it agrees with the transcription, correct the transcription if the source disagrees (but using the conventions of the respective keys, not copying from the source verbatim), and remove the citation if the source doesn't provide a transcription for the word in the first place. Nardog (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's some more context about Miaowmiaowmew: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1001#Questions about a low profile edit war. Nardog (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your explaination! I did not understand before, I think I will try dealing with his edits and take care of the edits which deserve to be removed later, or maybe ask some of the users who have already reverted them to help me with this... Feel free to tell me I am doing something wrong in case I do.--Ivkovic Nicholas (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages

I have collected another batch of articles with links to DAB pages on linguistics-related topics, where expert assitance would be welcome. Search for 'disam' in read mode and '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

Differential argument marking --- isn't this more a question about the target of the redirect Semantic role? – Uanfala (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Done Yes, I don't see how 'semantic role' is ambiguous. Rd'd to thematic relation. — kwami (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Guarani dialects Done Umimmak (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Domesticated plants and animals of Austronesia Done — kwami (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Semitic languages Done — kwami (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Minimal pair
- I believe @RoachPeter:'s book (the reference for the tone minimal pair for Kono) is referring to the Kono language spoken in Sierra Leone. Other works of his which refer to Kono explicitly say Kono spoken in Sierra Leone (e.g., [15]), and he was the advisor to Morie Komba Manyeh whose 1983 dissertation [16] was on the Kono spoken in Sierra Leone. Manyeh's dissertation has an appendix of CVV words which has būū 'horn – for blowing' (but I'm not able to confirm the article's _buu 'to be cross'). It might be worth picking a different example of a tone minimal pair though: the words kɔ́ɔ́ 'to mature' and kɔ̀ɔ̀ 'rice' are mentioned by both Roach (in another book) and Manyeh, and Roach explicitly says this pair is from Kono (Sierra leone). I'm gonna be bold and choose to switch the example since the sources are clearer. Done Umimmak (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Ligbi language Done Umimmak (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Katuic languages Done — kwami (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Vocabulary development Done Umimmak (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like that's all of them. — kwami (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)