User talk:Rua/Archives/2018/September
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Aanaar Sami
Dear Rua,
At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inari_Sami_language, you reverted the endonym Aanaar, asking "Are they called that in English?". The answer is: not traditionally, but nowadays increasingly so. Actually, scholars working on Aanaar Sami – especially native scholars – tend to favor Saami instead of Sami, so that the spelling Aanaar Saami is preferred, but Wikipedia has chosen the other way. See, for example, http://casle.fi/ and https://books.google.fi/books?id=nN6_Zkqr6EcC – or search for "Aanaar Saami" or "Aanaar (Inari) Saami" on the Internet. I'd be happy if this would convince you and the endonym favored by the leading specialists would be accepted (I didn't dare to rename the entire article). Best, Skiret girdet njozet (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would be ok if you can cite a source that says Aanaar is used a lot (not just a source that uses it itself). Rua (mew) 12:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Lule Sami
Which source did you use for the description of phonology in Lule Sami?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Primarily from a modern edition of Grundström's Lulesamisk ordbok, and from 101 lulesamiska verb, and entries in the Álgu database. None of them give exact IPA, but the general structure can be inferred. Rua (mew) 09:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have Spiik's Lulesamisk Grammatik and he seems to have quite a different vowel inventory, probably because some of what you describe as diphthongs are considered monophthongs å and ä. It would be very useful if you would cite your sources in articles you work on in the future, and also the urge (which I understand) to infer phoneme inventories from data should probably be avoided since it is a form of original research which is not permitted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is how do you describe the rest of the language if there's no phonology? Rua (mew) 09:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- 101 lulesamiska verb describes ä as a diphthong and even gives a phonetic representation: "Bokstaven ä representerar en diftong fast den bara skrivs med en bokstav. Den uttalas ungefär /iä/ eller /eä/.". It describes four diphthongs in total: ie, uo, oa and ä.
- The modern edition of Grundström's dictionary says: "Originalbokstäverna som beskriver långa vokalljud är: ā, ē, ī, ō, ū, ǡ och ǟ." Further along, it says: "Referensgruppen har valt att beskriva dessa långa vokalljud (e:, i:, u:, å:, ä:) i uppslagsord och övrig kontext med kolon (:) direkt efter vokalen och inom hakparentes". Examples in the dictionary itself are:
- hijoj [i:] hájoj [hījoi-hājoi 84] adv.
- skurisj skuritj- [skūritj 295]
- jågåsj [å2:] jågåtj- [å2:] [jåkǡtj 127]
- Rua (mew) 09:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have the same problem with Pite Sami as well. Joshua Wilbur's grammar of Pite Sami clearly states that there are no length contrasts other than a~á. But http://saami.uni-freiburg.de/psdp/stavningsregler/main.php?content=other states: "Ortografin skiljer inte mellan långt å och kort å, som t ex i båhtet ‘komma’ (med långt å) och båhtjet ‘mjölka’ (med kort å)." Wilbur makes no mention of this. Likewise, the same page describes a difference between overlong and long consonants, which Wilbur doesn't mention either. Long vowels are also described in Pitesamisk grammatik by Ann-Charlotte Sjaggo:
- "Den långa vokalen ä (grad III)/ie (grad II) i första stavelsen övergår till långt e om andra stavelsens vokal är u eller i t.ex. äddne>iednes>ednijn"
- "Långt å i första stavelsen övergår till långt u om andra stavelsens vokal är u eller i t.ex. båhtet>buhtiv"
- "Den långa vokalen á i första stavelsen övergår till långt ä om andra stavelsens vokal är u eller i t.ex. várre>värijda"
- Wilbur makes no mention of the vowel of ednijn, which is different from both ä and ie. In the section on vowel harmony, the rule "ɛ/e → i" is given, but this contradicts the spelling and description given here: [1] "uttal: mellansluten främre monoftong; uttalas som svenskt e i efter fast inte så spänt, och lite mer mot svenskt i". This also agrees with the pronunciation audio at [2] [3], which are clearly [e] and not [i].
- So, how do you reconcile all this? Rua (mew) 10:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have Spiik's Lulesamisk Grammatik and he seems to have quite a different vowel inventory, probably because some of what you describe as diphthongs are considered monophthongs å and ä. It would be very useful if you would cite your sources in articles you work on in the future, and also the urge (which I understand) to infer phoneme inventories from data should probably be avoided since it is a form of original research which is not permitted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Spiik also mentions that ä is often pronounced iä, but also as just ä in some areas. But he describes the pronunciation of å as the same as the Swedish å. I agree that it can be a challenge reconciling information like this for little known languages, but really I think the best strategy is to avoid making a phoneme table unless there is a source for the specific inventory, and then instead describe the sound system in prose, which makes it easier to describe discrepancies between different sources without adopting the view of one or the other. The best approach for questions like this is either to actually do the analysis and publish it (if one is able) or instead to wait for some other linguist to do so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)