User talk:Peter238/Archive 2

Dear sir...

How does one distinguish between /ʌ/ and /ə/? My dialect uses /ʌ/ (or perhaps more likelily /ɐ/) for Standard English /ʌ/, /ə/ and /ɒ/ (whilst my /ɔ/ is either /ɔə/ or [an actual] /ɒː/).

As such, I am confused as to what the distinction between /ʌ/ and /ə/ is supposed to be. I am well aware that there is a distinction, but I'm not sure what it is supposed to be.

Does it have to do with /ʌ/ being used for "u" words, whilst /ə/ is used for "a", "o" or "e(r)" words?

That's the only thing that I could possibly think of. I notice when I say "luck", I am slightly upwards, whilst when I say "love", I am slightly downwards. But other than that I do not reckon any difference. Perhaps I make a subconscious difference, but not a conscious one? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. This issue is fairly complex, but I'll try to answer you anyway. There a couple of things to understand:

- It is crucial to first understand the terms phoneme, allophone and lexical set, otherwise my words won't make sense.

- STRUT-COMMA merger, which means that the phonemes /ʌ/ and /ə/ merge into one phoneme (usually written /ə/, but in this case it's pointless to argue which symbol is the better one.) Accents with this merger include Wales (or at least a large part of it), and some accents from central and south-western England. Beyond the UK and Ireland, it is also found in the US (See Wells (1982:480-481).)

- (OT, has nothing to do with the STRUT vowel, but it's worth noting): There's also KIT-COMMA merger, which is possible (and AFAIK widespread) in New Zealand English. It works the same as above, except that it is /ɪ/ which merges with /ə/. This merged vowel is usually realized as a central vowel, something in the range of [ɘ ~ ə].

- Remember that the STRUT-COMMA merger does not exist in Received Pronunciation, Australian English and New Zealand English. Accents without the foot-strut split also don't have the STRUT-COMMA merger, as words that contain the STRUT vowel in RP are pronounced in non-foot-strut-split accents either with the FOOT vowel /ʊ/ or (in case of some words, such as one, won, but that may depend on the exact accent) the LOT vowel /ɒ/.

- In STRUT-COMMA-distinguishing accents, COMMA belongs only to the weak vowel system (i.e. it is always unstressed), regardless of the phonetic realization of it. STRUT, on the other hand, may be either stressed or unstressed, and can never be the last sound of the word. That doesn't mean that open [ɜ ~ ɐ] don't occur word-finally, but rather than when they do occur, they are phonetic realizations of the COMMA vowel, not the STRUT vowel. Read this for a more thorough explanation.

- In STRUT-COMMA-distinguishing accents, STRUT most often maintains a consistent quality (most often [ɐ], or similar), while COMMA in all accents is variable [ɘ ~ ə ~ ɜ], with the most open variants usually occurring word-finally. Often it is also shorter than STRUT, though maybe not so much when they're both unstressed. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 15:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a bit of a mouth position difference with the "u" in "strut" and the "a" in "comma" for me, although it is very slight. I didn't even notice it until now. The "u" of "strut" has my mouth pointed more upwards, whilst the "a" of comma has my mouth pointed more downwards.

Note, however that the "o" of "comma" has a similar vowel for me, as I mentioned earlier.

I suppose I should be more clear:

"Luck" and "lock" are homophones for me, to put it in the best way that I can explain. They are merged towards a vowel that is the same as, or very similar to, the one that we are currently discussing.

I also have a separate /ɨ/ vowel for words like "roses". Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the COMMA vowel "in all accents is variable [ɘ ~ ə ~ ɜ], with the most open variants usually occurring word-finally." The quality of the vowel in the word comma may be similar to the usual value of /ʌ/ in many accents without the STRUT-COMMA merger. The thing is, the phoneme /ʌ/ can't end a word, but, as written above, the phoneme /ə/ in this position can phonetically be open-mid [ɜ]. This is why understanding what phoneme, allophone and phonetic realization mean is so important.

So you have a STRUT-FATHER merger? Interesting, but that would need to be confirmed, e.g. with Praat. I'm not really familiar with it, so I couldn't help with it.

We were discussing two vowels, namely /ʌ/ and /ə/. Which one are you referring to? — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I never had a father-bother merger, so I couldn't possibly have had a strut-father merger. It's just that [ɐ] (or something like it) is the actual realisation of /ɒ/ in my dialect. I suppose you could call it a "strut-bother" merger.

That's the thing, I'm not sure, because /ʌ/ and /ə/ are (as far as I can tell) the same sound for me, save perhaps a slight difference (as mentioned earlier). One thing that I have noticed is that the exact realisation of either of those sounds seems to be dependant on a few factors that I just can't reckon. Usually, they are both an /ɐ/-like sound, but sometimes, they are an /ɵ/-like sound instead (i.e. backwards is /bækwɵdz/), and other times they border on /ɨ/. It's all very confusing.

Do you have any idea why this may be? Is this what you meant when you said that the sound variates freely? That it has many allophones?

Is it the fact that schwa is a semi-universal "soft sound", i.e. a catch-all replacer for an unstressed vowel? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the vowel output of the STRUT-COMMA merger has a similar range of allophones as COMMA has in accents without this merger.

In accents without the STRUT-COMMA merger, /ə/ is a part of the weak vowel system, which can be only unstressed. Apart from /ə/, it contains /i/ (as in HAPPY) and /u/ (as in INFLUENCE.) AFAIK, other vowels can be either stressed or unstressed. See weak vowel merger though. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm hovering around, don't mind me. But I'm going to add that weak vowel merger link to the English language article; didn't know about it. — Eru·tuon 21:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hindi

I recently found some editors (AmritasyaPutra, ISoham) who can record Hindi soundfiles. Now, not sure if this is your area of expertise, but I'm curious if you know of a source that has a set of examples of the phones of Hindi, perhaps in minimal pairs, triads, or quartets. I found the stop examples in Ladefoged, but it would be wonderful to have other sets illustrating vowel contrasts with minimal changes between each example. — Eru·tuon 18:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I lost your address, so send me an e-mail. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm compiling a list of examples in Hindustani phonology § Sound files for unique contrasts. You can make corrections if you notice any errors. — Eru·tuon 19:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop changing IPA

Please stop changing IPA before the issue is resolved. – Editør (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Editør: You started using [ʊː] against the consensus. Apply to yourself what you wrote. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We disagree and there is no consensus. Again, stop changing the pronunciation of articles until there is. – Editør (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

By "consensus" I mean the current state of the guide. You started the disruption without even discussing the issue of [ʊː]. I'll repeat myself: apply to yourself what you write. Until there is an agreement to add [ɪː, ʏː, ʊː] to Help:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, pre-/r/ [eː, øː, oː] must be transcribed [eː, øː, oː]. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Just adding some thoughts here. Actually why don't we use [ɪː, ʏː, ʊː]? Coming from Amsterdam I honestly cannot think of any Standard Netherlandic Dutch speaker not using them.Gati123 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No source I'm aware of reports the occurrence of these allophones in Belgian Standard Dutch, and the guide can't be biased in either way. Also, AFAIK, the distribution of these allophones is completely predictable. For more information, read Help_talk:IPA_for_Dutch_and_Afrikaans#Pronunciation of oo, where I go into details about this issue. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 22:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[ɛi], [œy], [ɔu] in Belgian Dutch

Hi, I'm not sure about these diphthongs in Belgian Dutch whenever I hear Belgians pronounce EI/IJ, UI or OU/AU they are clearly the monophthongs [ɛː] [œː] and [ɔː] instead of [ɛi], [œy], [ɔu]. Even on VRT (public broadcasting) they seem to be monophthongs. (VRT is considered to be Belgian Standard Dutch speech only) Why do we transcribe them as diphthongs?Gati123 (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither Collins & Mees (2003) nor Verhoeven (2005) acknowledge the [ɛː, œː, ɔː] pronunciation as standard Belgian. We'd need a source which says otherwise. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 12:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My badGati123 (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it's just that describing [ɛː, œː, ɔː] as standard Belgian without sourcing it would be a clear breach of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It doesn't mean that the emerging Belgian Standard doesn't use [ɛː, œː, ɔː]. Maybe it does. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 12:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah i get that if there are no sources because I was watching to this Belgian TV programme but it seems the all use [ɛː] and [ɔː] but some so use [œy]: http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/videozone/programmas/dezevendedag/2.38134?video=1.2279045 and http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/videozone/programmas/journaal/2.38135?video=1.2279142 http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/videozone/programmas/journaal/2.38121?playlist=7.39637&video=1.2277498 if you want to listen it yourself Gati123 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.npo.nl/3-op-reis/23-11-2014/BNN_101369691 Here is a really bad travel programme but it really shows the differences between Belgian and Netherlandic younger women's diphthongs and speech Gati123 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the existence of the monophthongal variants of /ɛi, œy, ʌu/. You don't have to convince me :) The last video is not that bad, but I've always been a fan of Latin America (Mexico and Colombia in particular). It was also the only video I could watch without much trouble (it has subtitles), because I don't understand spoken Dutch very well. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Rereading this is seemed to be a little over enthousiast ;) How come you can read Dutch? The last one is not particularly bad, but maybe it is because its broadcaster BNN makes some really really bad programmes. Gati123 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried to learn it in 2008-2011, but my laziness was too strong. As a result of that, I can only read it on the A2-B1 level. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Transcription [ɑu̯]/[ʌu̯] -> [ɑʊ̯]/[ʌʊ̯]

Hi, so i was recently looking at this chart 'Diphthongs of Netherlandic Dutch, from Gussenhoven (1992:47)' at Dutch_phonology#Diphthongs and I noticed that in [ʌu̯] [u̯] is really not an accurate transcription but [ɑʊ̯]/[ʌʊ̯] may be a more accurate transcription as in the chart the [u̯] is is actually a closer to a [ʊ̯]. What do you think or do you have other sources about the subject? Is [ɑʊ̯]/[ʌʊ̯] a more accurate one? Gati123 (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Diphthong offsets are variable. They end lowered near-close [ɪ̞, ʏ̞, ʊ̞] on the vowel charts from Gussenhoven (1992), close-mid [e̠, ɵ̟, o̟] in Collins & Mees (2003), in Verhoeven (2005): raised near-close [ɪ̝] in case of /ɛi/, lowered near-close [ʏ̞, ʊ̞] in case of /œy, ɔu/. /i, y, u/ is a simplistic transcription of these offsets. I'd say it should stay as it is. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 12:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it! Thanks!Gati123 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Norwegian diphthongisation

There are sources which say that some dialects of Norwegian have innovated diphthongs. But I haven't found anyone claiming that Midtre (= Midtre Gauldal?) has the pronunciations in the table in the Norwegian Dialects page. Do you have a source for the diphthongisations given? Are the three back vowels the only ones diphthongised? If not, what do the other vowels come out as? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.233.64 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, I just made a table out of the information that was already in the article. Anyway, try Egil Børre Johnsen (ed.) (1987) Vårt Eget Språk/Talemålet, H. Aschehoug & Co. ISBN 82-03-17092-7. This may be it. And to be honest, I too don't know which Midtre is meant. Peter238 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Labialization of consonants before rounded vowels is universal

[1]. That's not true. In most Limburgish dialects, there is no "ouch" - "ach" distinction. By removing the sentence, it is no longer clear that it's /ɒuxʷ/ and not /ɒux/. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ooswesthoesbes:

- The sentence clearly says before, not after. In your examples, the labialized consonant appears after, not before a rounded vowel.

- There is no /xʷ/ in Limburgish (i.e. it's not a phoneme), just [xʷ], an allophone of /x/. Your transcriptions should be [ɒuxʷ], [ɒux]. Phonemically, they are both /ɒux/. I also somewhat doubt that /x/ is labialized after a rounded vowel/offset of a diphthong, as that somewhat distorts its quality.

- Labialization of /x/ is not the phonemic difference between /ɒux/ and /ax/ (or whatever is the vowel phoneme in ach). There's a clear difference between a rounded diphthong offset (the second element of a diphthong) ([ɒux]) and labialization of a consonant after it ([ɒuxʷ]). This has nothing to do with the phonetic realization of /x/ after the low vowel /a/ which would not be labialized [x]. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 12:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I do appreciate you taking the time to understand my contribution to the General American page, and to leave my edit alone after viewing the references to it. After all, we all just want to improve this wonderful site as much as we possibly can :)

Bomb319 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)