Jump to content

Talk:Cornish phonology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Phonological tables

@Tewdar Ok, so here's exactly what I did to make the charts look nicer, I merged all of the empty cells, then in Middle Cornish I also merged the geminated consonants with the voiceless plosives. Is that okay? Fdom5997 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom - I'm probably getting a little grumpy, because a) it's quite hot weather today and b) it takes me a lot of time to create the tables. So, I'm sorry about that. I think the most important thing is to keep each phoneme in its own cell. Now, in Middle Cornish, /m/ and /m:/ are separate phonemes. If they are both in the same cell, it makes it look as though [m:] is a possible realization of /m/. Which is very, very wrong according to almost everyone. I am very happy for you to tidy stuff up, and I really do appreciate your assistance, but please try not to remove important information when doing so. Thanks.

@Tewdar All's /m/ and /m:/ are, are not "seperate" phonemes, the only real difference is that they are geminated. That is not necessarily different. Gemination is a suprasegmental, not a diacritic. Understood? Fdom5997 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - /m/ and /mm/ (for example) are TWO PHONEMES in Middle Cornish (/m:/ may or may not be geminated, or a fortis, or something else), according to George, Chaudhri, Schrijver, Jackson, and Toorians. If you disagree with them, you need to publish a paper, and provide a link to it. I have already qualified the table by stating Williams view that /m/ and /mm/ fell together in Middle Cornish. Please get somebody else here to resolve this because I think we fundamentally disagree on this.

@everybody who thinks they can edit this page without knowing anything about Brittonic languages in general and the phonology of Cornish in particular - I really wish you would pick up or buy or download some of the sources in the article and read them, really REALLY read them, before modifying stuff you have no clue whatsoever about.Tewdar (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tewdar so all's I did for the consonant chart for Middle Cornish was add labels for each row, which show each of the voiceless and voiced sounds and just simply rearranged each of the rows and deleted the excess third columns within the main columns. I have done tons of work on these phonetic charts, so I do have a lot of experience and know what I am doing. All of the symbols are still there and are still the same, I just rearranged the format of the chart. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tewdar also, just to make you aware, /m:/ is by definition (according to the updated IPA chart) considered a geminated consonant. I have also corrected all of the other geminated phonemes to match their IPA phonetic values. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - remember they may be geminate, or perhaps devoiced, or maybe badly-defined 'fortis' or something else...I give up.

@Tewdar if they were devoiced, they would have looked like this [m̥]. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - Yes, thank you. I know that. But how do we neutrally represent a phoneme that may have been geminate, may have been devoiced, or may have been something else? My suggestion is to go with the majority view, which means representing these sounds as /mm, /nn/, etc.

@Fdom5997 - Hey, perhaps you could fix the nasalised voiced bilabial fricative symbols on the chart, the nasalisation symbol is not combining correctly with the beta on my system.

Late Cornish Vowel system

@Fdom5997 - I quite like the table that you use on the Cornish Language page with long / short columns. Since almost everyone agrees that vowel quantity is phonemic at this stage, perhaps that is what we ought to use.

@Fdom5997 - I *really* would like to talk about the Late Cornish vowel table...

@Tewdar sure, I think its fine, what about it? Fdom5997 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - Wmffre (pg. 10) gives five 'full' vowels that can be realized long or short, plus schwa:-

/a/ [æ] [æː]~[ɛː] /e/ [ɛ] [eː] /i/ [ɪ] [iː] /o/ [ɔ] [oː] /u/ [ʊ] [uː] (ə)

also he notes [ɒː], which he states may possibly not be phonemically distinct from /oː/ (which may in fact have been realised as [ɔː])

George, The Celtic Languages, states "The Late Cornish system of stressed vowels was a simple one of five members" in which "phonemicity passed from the consonants to the vowels c. 1625", and thus concludes that "there were therefore *ten* vocalic phonemes in Late Cornish":

/i(ː)/ /u(ː)/ /e(ː)/ /ɔ(ː)/ /a(ː)/

Also note Bock and Bruch, who argue for a distinction between /eː/ and /ɛː/

So, what do you think the vocalic *phonemes* of Late Cornish were?

/æ/ /æː/ /ɛ/ (/ɛː/) /eː/ /ɪ/ /iː/ /ɔ/ /oː/ /ʊ/ /uː/ (/ə/) [schwa is probably sub-phonemic] (/ɒː/)

or maybe...

/i/ /u/ /e/ /o/ /a/ (/ə/)

or even...

/i(ː)/ /u(ː)/ /e(ː)/ /o(ː)/ /a(ː)/

Which representation do you think is best?Tewdar (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tewdar I think that Wmffre gives the most detail, so you should keep his source that explains the vowels. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 So you think we should use Wmffre as a basis...I presume, then, that you have his book and have read it? Or are you basing this on what I said above? Regardless, Wmffre gives five vowel phonemes, which can be realised either long or short, whereas George gives ten vowel phonemes. (George goes into a lot more detail in PHC, which I presume you are also familiar with). Why then would we base our vowel tables mainly or solely on Wmffre?Tewdar (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tewdar, we could maybe do both. I think that will be good. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - okay...that is 'sort of' what is on the page at the moment...it is a difference of interpretation I suppose. Wmffre interprets the vocalic system like, one phoneme /i/, realised as [ɪ] (when short) and [iː] (when long), whereas George would class these as two phonemes. There are problems with both approaches, but I think giving all the long / short phonemes makes sense, especially as Bock / Bruch (and Kennedy) give a long [ɛː] phoneme which either does not have a short counterpart, or causes [e:] not to have a short counterpart depending on your interpretation of this, calls into question the 'one phoneme - long or short' system of Wmffre. I was thinking of possibly either using a table like the one you have on the Cornish language page already, with long / short columns, or even separate tables long vowels vs short vowels?

@Tewdar I believe a table like the one on the Cornish language page, with long / short columns would be useful. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

[dʷ]

Where did this come from? Is that some more original research, Fdom5997? Is that supposed to represent a labialized [d]?

@Tewdar yes, that is correct. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - as in 'yes, this is original research' or 'yes, that is supposed to represent a labialized d'? I changed it to a phonemic notation anyway so you don't have to worry about the exact phonetic representation anymore. Unless you changed it back of course (I have not checked the page to see what havoc has been done during the night yet...)

@Tewdar that is yes, this is original research, in that it is supposed to represent a labialized d. I would not have said yes to that if it weren’t for my *numerous* research on the rules of the IPA chart. Fdom5997 (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - I never doubted for a second your knowledge of the IPA. What I am questioning is the suitability of dʷ for transcribing Cornish. Lets take a look at Welsh <pedwar>, for instance. Nobody transcribes this as **/ˈpɛdʷar/. Everybody transcribes it as /ˈpɛdwar/. Similarly, nobody (with the sole exception of...er, you) ever transcribes Old Cornish /dw/ as **/dʷ/. Just you, against everybody else. Why do you feel the need to do this? Similarly with your /ᵇm/ and /ᵈn/ in Late Cornish. This is a convention used in Manx, for example, but may not actually be suitable for Cornish.
Read the literature. Stick to the sources. Don't include original research. Seems the best way forward for this article in my opinion.Tewdar (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Article rename?

Just about all of the other X phonology articles cover contemporary pronunciations. It seems like a better name to reflect the article's scope is historical phonology of Cornish. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean "Phonological history of..."? There are no articles named "Historical phonology of...". Nardog (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Even better, yeah. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Contemporary pronunciations are coming soon in a new section. I think in view of the special status of Cornish as a revived language, and that the various contemporary pronunciations are wholly or mainly based on the various conjectured reconstructions of various historical periods of Cornish, they should all be contained in this single article. Also please bear in mind that there is a lack of scholarly research on contemporary pronunciations (rather than just recommendations...) Tewdar (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if we include contemporary pronunciations, it's still the case that this is a phonological history article, rather than a phonology article. If what you're saying is true, we probably shouldn't even have a Cornish phonology article. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ƶ§œš¹ - I'm slightly inclined to agree with you about the name of the page - on reflection, I think perhaps the best solution is to rename the current article to 'Phonological history of Cornish', and create a new article 'Cornish Phonology' to attempt to deal with the revived (recommended) pronunciation systems to the extent that this is possible. I don't agree that there should be no article at all for the current phonologies used in the revived language, but there are some problems with this.Tewdar (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tewdar: Contemporary phonology of Cornish can be dealt with @ Cornish language. We don't have to create a separate article. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, let's start by putting that in the relevant section at Cornish language and then, if that section becomes large enough, we can create a standalone phonology article that covers contemporary pronunciation(s). — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, we should add the recommended pronunciations for speakers of Unified Cornish, Kernewek Kemmyn, UCR, the RLC speakers and whoever else to the existing page. I don't believe that a proper survey of actual contemporary phonology exists.Tewdar (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Williams and George

There are a number of unclear citations to Williams and George. In many situations, such as the one I've tagged here, there's a citation given that I'd assumed was an indirect citation, but is still incomplete. I suspect someone may have accidentally given the wrong citation in these instances, but I could be wrong. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect someone may have muddled the references up while cleaning up...looks like some separate references got merged into one? Perhaps Ball (1990) and Ball(2009) got confused somehow? Either that or the person who first put the sources in (cough, splutter) made a few errors. Besides that reference you tagged (hopefully correct now, it was the wrong book I think), what other citations do you consider unclear? George, in Celtic Languages 2nd edition (Ball 2009) writes an article titled 'Cornish' where a lot of his current thinking is outlined. Williams writes an article “A problem in Cornish phonology”, in: Ball, Martin J., James Fife, Erich Poppe, and Jenny Rowland (eds.), Celtic linguistics / Ieithyddiaeth Geltaidd.Tewdar (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see! So Ball et al. is an anthology with chapters written by different authors. Okay, that clears it enough for me that I can adjust the citations. Thank you. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Just remember there are two books, Ball 1990 (Williams, Problem in Cornish Phonology) and Ball 2009 (George, Cornish). Thank you (and others) for fixing the citations.Tewdar (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I've confused those. The confusing thing that I just parsed through in my most recent edit is between two Williams 2006s and George 2009s. Feel free to double check to make sure I haven't goofed on this parsing. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for this informative new article..

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Fortis or Geminate Phonemes

Please avoid merging the cells of long and short (or fortis and geminate) consonants. Thanks. Tewdar (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia convention on whether geminates should appear on the left or the right of their singleton counterparts? Everybody is a massive pain and moves them left to right to left to right...I wish these folk would find something more interesting to add to the article - there's loads and loads and loads of theories and debates and arguing and fighting and death threats that could be included in this article...Tewdar (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

In general, I've seen fortis go first. I think it might keep switching because people find it strange to list the geminate version first. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what the last person to talk about this said. Which is why I changed it. And now its fortis on the right again. Ah well, at least no one's actually removing the geminates (any more) Tewdar (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

language tags cor = kw

At this revert of my edit, Editor Tewdar claimed that changing everything to lang=kw does not allow us to differentiate between old, middle, late, and revived Cornish. I am certain sure that I did not [change] everything to lang=kw. I did change cor to kw because cor and kw are synonymous.

At the top of the article, this hidden comment: {{lang|oco, cnx, cor, kw|--}} used here to internally differentiate old Cornish, middle Cornish, late Cornish, and revived Cornish respectively. Each of the ISO 639 language tags has a specific definition:

The ISO 639-1 registration authority does not publish a list of tag/name pairs online but, ISO 639-1 language tag/name pairs are included in the IANA language-subtag-registry file which is the definitive source used by Module:Lang to create proper lang= attributes for the html that wraps non-English text. Because cor and kw are synonymous, cor is not included in the subtag registry so is not recognized by {{lang}} nor is cor recognized by browsers and screen readers.

ISO 639-3 does not support late Cornish or revived Cornish. If it is necessary to internally distinguish late and revived Cornish from modern Cornish, the correct method is to use already defined (in the IANA subtag registry) variant tags:

  • kw-kkcor – Common Cornish orthography of Revived Cornish
  • kw-kscor – Standard Cornish orthography of Revived Cornish
  • kw-uccor – Unified Cornish orthography of Revived Cornish
  • kw-ucrcor – Unified Cornish Revised orthography of Revived Cornish

When those are not sufficient, it is possible to define IETF private-use tags for Module:Lang/data. For examples, see private-use language tags.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Right, so perhaps oco = old Cornish, cnx = middle Cornish... and then what? I suppose Late Cornish as 'kw', even though this is not correct? And then specifically tag KK, UC, UCR, and KS (note that the Standard Written Form is apparently not included here, even though it is the closest thing Cornish has to an official orthography) revived forms? Sigh... okay. So, do I request an SWF private use tag for Module:Lang/data then, perhaps kw-swfcor? You'll probably need four of them, like kw-swfcor_main_late, kw-swfcor_main_middle, kw-swfcor_trad_late, and kw-swfcor_trad_middle at some point, but I'll just request kw-x-swfcor for now... can I do this here, or do I need to make an official request at the module page? Right, I'll change all those cors to kws then.  Tewdar  (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
kw can only mean 'Cornish' (unqualified) because ISO 639-1 does not qualify it. If there is not an already-extant 'late' Cornish variant subtag in the IANA language-subtag-registry file, some mechanism will be necessary to tell Module:Lang that 'late' Cornish is a thing. I don't know if Standard Written Form is the same as or different from Standard Cornish orthography of Revived Cornish kw-kscor. If they are not the same, some mechanism will be necessary to tell Module:Lang that 'Standard Written Form' Cornish is a thing for which kw-x-swfcor might suffice – it would be best to first establish that Standard Written Form is distinctly different from Standard Cornish orthography of Revived Cornish.
–Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Standard Written Form and Kernowek Standard are very very different indeed.  Tewdar  (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: If it is necessary to internally distinguish late and revived Cornish from modern Cornish... - not sure what you mean here.  Tewdar  (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
You wrote in your revert of my edit:
changing everything to lang=kw does not allow us to differentiate between old, middle, late, and revived Cornish.
You also wrote in the hidden note in the article:
{{lang|oco, cnx, cor, kw|--}} used here to internally differentiate old Cornish, middle Cornish, late Cornish, and revived Cornish respectively.
You then are the one who wants to internally differentiate (I used distinguish as a synonym of differentiate) so, without loss of meaning, the quote can be rewritten as:
If it is necessary to internally differentiate late and revived Cornish from modern Cornish...
—Trappist the monk (talk)
Erm... we need to distinguish old (800-1200), middle (1200-1600),and late/early modern (1600-1800+) Cornish, from revived Cornish (all varieties). There is a problem with the term "modern Cornish", as it may mean revived Cornish, or the Cornish as spoken from 1600-1800... Tewdar  (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Or indeed, a revived version of the Cornish as spoken from 1600-1800...  Tewdar  (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, we need another tag for revived Late Cornish (Gendall, Kennedy...) I've just been going through the Cornish language article tags, to try and convert everything to this new system.  Tewdar  (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Propose a suitable IETF private-use language tag: kw-x-<something> where <something> is a string of 1–8 alphanumeric characters.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It is not currently possible to convert cor to kw, without classing SWF and revived late Cornish forms as... something else.  Tewdar  (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
What? cor = kw; nothing else.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes,I know, but without a suitable tag for the Cornish of 1600-1800, I don't really want to muddy the waters by mixing the Cornish of thisvperiod with all varieties of revived Cornish. At this point, I'd be happy to tag absolutely every word of Cornish with 'kw', since this is apparently the meaning of this tag. What do you think?  Tewdar  (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that I have an opinion beyond what I've already said about (mis-)using cor to somehow distinguish or differentiate between various kinds of Cornish.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I made some suggestions on the module talk page, and started a discussion below.  Tewdar  (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
My mistake, apparently kw-x-mod also exists, for 'Modern Cornish'.  Tewdar  (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
kw-x-mod does not exist but that does not mean that it can't.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

lang tags discussion

Question

Should we:

(1) Use kw throughout?

(2) Use only the tags currently available to us, i.e. oco, cnx, kw, kw-kkcor, kk-kscor, kw-uccor, and kw-ucrcor (see below), and forget about the ones that aren't included?

(3) Get the maintainer of the LANG module to include new tags e.g. for the Standard Written Form, Modern Cornish, and the late Cornish of 1600-1800AD?

(4) Make two new tags for traditional (pre-revival) Cornish and revived (post revival/extinction) Cornish?

(5) Use oco for old Cornish, use cnx for Middle and late Cornish, and kw for everything else?

(6) My current solution:oco for old Cornish, cnx for middle and late Cornish, specific revivalist orthographies if available, and kw for everything else. Might be alright with a few more tags...

(7) Don't use any tags - just use italics. 😁👍

  • Or something else?

 Tewdar  (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Summary

Here are the lang tags available for use:

Varieties of Cornish that we do not currently have tags for include:

Discussion

Okay, we can either be hyper-specific (which requires Trappist the Monk to add several more private-use tags to the lang module), or over-generalize, i.e. make everything generic kw "Cornish" (from all periods), or somewhere in the middle (perhaps Old, Middle, Late, and Revived tags, which would also require a few more private use tags)  Tewdar  (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Nail your Colours to the Mast

  • Alternatively, (3) would allow us to accurately tag everything. At a minimum, this would require something like oco, cnx and create *kw-x-emcor (for early modern Cornish of 1600–1800; I wouldn't mind merging this in with middle Cornish tbh) for the traditional language, and kw-kkcor, kk-kscor, kw-uccor, kw-ucrcor, and create *kw-x-swfcor (for the SWF) and *kw-x-rlcor (for revived Late Cornish) for the various revivalist orthographies, along with kw for when we need a generic tag. This seems a bit overkill, though; if something is a reconstruction, it can be marked with an asterisk or transcribed with phonemic notation; if it is attested in writing, it can be ⟨put inside angle brackets⟩; and if it's really that complicated, we can explain, ("hey, /*hwɪᵇmhwaᵇm/ is Ken Williams' reconstruction of a supposed 13th century word that got corrupted through sixteen generations of being passed down by word of mouth").  Tewdar (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Language tagging

(moved from User talk:Beland)

I'd love to be able to specify the language of its non-English content! Unfortunately, when I requested lang tags for Common Brittonic and Late Cornish, it took over a month and went absolutely nowhere. Also, the language is already specified in the table headings, and I was told that specifying the language inside the table was unnecessary I think. It seems almost every editor who passes through this article has a different solution to the "problems"...😁  Tewdar  08:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: For languages without tags, ISO 639 supplies the code "mis" for "miscellaneous". This article showed up on the moss bad character report because it uses Unicode superscript characters several times inside this table. Wikipedia's manual of style generally requires using <sup> or {{sup}} instead. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts.) However, there is no consensus to impose this requirement on non-English languages nor IPA notation, so the report ignores any text in {{lang}} and {{IPA}} templates. Currently the moss English spell checker ignores tables, but in the long term, any text in tables that's not a correctly-spelled English word will need to be tagged as non-English in some machine-readable way. Because there are English words in this table that should be spell-checked, it does seem like the spell checker shouldn't be blinded to the whole table. But as long as the words or fragments with superscripts are either changed to use markup instead of Unicode characters, or lang-tagged, we can defer the larger problem. -- Beland (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Just so I'm clear what you're asking for, here:
  • You're only talking about the summary table, right?
  • We're not talking about individual characters (which are often not really "IPA", even if they look like they are) here, right?
  • As an example, row 1 (ĭ, ɪ, ɪ, ɪ, e, bitus 'world', bɪd, bɪd, bɪz, bêz) would have 'bitus' tagged as 'cel-x-proto', 'bɪd'(1) tagged as "mis", 'bɪd'(2) tagged as 'oco', 'bɪz' tagged as 'cnx', and 'bêz' tagged as 'mis' (but not tag ĭ, ɪ, ɪ, ɪ, e) ...is that what you want?
  • Finally, this article, for example this table, seems to be happily using superscript characters (makkʷos, etc.) with no language tags at all. Are all such tables expected to be tagged like this, or just Cornish phonology?  Tewdar  08:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I suppose I should ping Beland...  Tewdar  08:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tewdar: The tagging you propose sounds right. For the table cells that have characters like "ĭ, ɪ, ɪ, ɪ, e", it's somewhat unclear whether these are letters from the orthography of the language or sounds in some sort of IPA-like notation? Tagging them with {{lang}} or {{IPA}} would clarify this for editors and screen readers, but adding markup visible to readers might be good, too, and doing both is certainly allowed and I've done it a lot recently. (International Phonetic Alphabet#Brackets and transcription delimiters might be helpful to pick one.) Proto-Celtic language is one of many thousands of articles that show up on my report; I just haven't gotten around to fixing or tagging it yet. -- Beland (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The IPA-like/identical characters ɪ, μ, kʷ, etc. represent a normalization of characters used in the scholarly literature by Schriver, Jackson, George, etc. which should not be described as IPA. They are not used in any orthography, except perhaps coincidentally. Is there any way to tag a table header, rather than individual cells?  Tewdar  19:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cornish_phonology/Archive_1&oldid=1101285771"