Talk:зубр

No, the accent mark in the IPA is required for the Russian language. And I'm not going to look at your wrong examples. 1-syllable words are not an excuse. Gnosandes (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, collaborative projects work by consensus: whatever change you (one person) make should match the style of existing content (added by hundreds of others) - or if you think existing style is wrong, you need to start a discussion, explain your point of view, and then run a script/bot to change it everywhere instead of just for 1 word. This is true for wikis, open source software development, or any participation in any project in which you are not the dictator for life. Your refusal to look at existing examples is a fundamentally misguided attitude. Second, question for the community  am I correct that a stress mark is not required in IPA for 1-syllable words? Just checking my sanity. Context: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=зубр&action=history Tetromino (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your consensus results must be recorded and approved somewhere. This should be as accessible as possible for newbies, who will need to familiarize themselves before editing. If you touch on the style, then please make all pages of the same type. So far, I don't see anything like this here. I can also give examples like this with an accent: *dant, *bɨd, *-jad, *brɨd and ard, af. I consider these examples as erroneous examples, and if they are erroneous examples, then I do not consider them. It is obvious. This is not an misguided attitude. And yet, in the Russian language, wordforms still exist that donate stress. Gnosandes (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * affix morphemes like usually need a stress indication because they are not used in isolation - only in words next to other syllables. For the same reason, Russian suffixes like  need a stress mark in the entry text and in IPA. I don't know anything about Celtic languages, so I cannot comment why  and friends have a stress mark in IPA; maybe it's a mistake, maybe it reflects something useful about the ancient language (a quick hack to indicate the declension class without writing out the full declension table?). I do observe that in modern descendants of those proto-Brythonic words, the stress mark is gone. Tetromino (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In Russian, stress on suffixes is guided by valencies, or rather markings:
 * фо́рм[↓]-(а);
 * не[→]-форм[↓]-áл[↓D];
 * форм[↓]-ал[↓D]-и́ст[↓D];
 * форм[↓]-ал[↓D]-ист[↓D]-и́ч[↓D]-еск[←]-(ий);
 * форм[↓]-ал[↓D]-и́зм[↓D].
 * It will always be obvious. I don’t think that your cryptic reasoning has any effect on this, because you did not consider the other two examples. Similar examples may contradict this: *deg, *pɨmp, fúr, *fōr. I can conclude that this is human laziness. To be more precise, you can see the different work of the machine: In Hungarian hu-IPA >, but in Russian ru-IPA > . It's a combination of human laziness and machine work X) Gnosandes (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Atitarev and I are in agreement that stress marks are redundant on single-syllable words except for prefixes and suffixes or in multiword expressions, exactly as Tetromino notes. Stress on suffixes is not obvious to most visitors of this site, which is why it's indicated. Benwing2 (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * your explanation of a valency theory of stress is very interesting. I read about it for Old East Slavic (самоударные/правоударные/безударные слоги), but I thought the system later broke down with too many exceptions. Didn't hear that a similar system exists in the modern language. Do you have a reference to read more about it? Maybe we should add the info to our articles about morphemes. Tetromino (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, though I started to study Russian morphophonological accentology quite late, rather, we practically did not study the system because of the death of Zaliznyak. I still have some notes in my notebook. Yes, the Proto-Slavic + and − valences were divided into 2 markings ↓, → and −. Hacking of the (+) dominant valency occurred because of Dybo’s law, and (→) pravoudarnost’ appeared. The system does not break down, but is transformed. Further, the recessive valence (−) loses its strength. Its place is taken by different markings, and (←) levoudarnost’ also appears. Ultimately, a (D) dominant characteristic appears, cf.:
 * форм[↓]-ал[↓D]-ист[↓D]-и́ч[↓D]-еск[←]-(ий)
 * форм[↓]-ал[↓D]-и́ст[↓D]-ик[←D]-(а)
 * Two systems, the Old East Slavic (as a relic of the past) and Russian, begin to conflict: на́ голову (−) <> на го́лову (→). Ultimately, the Russian system will win anyway… But so far this system has not completely won. Hello to Karl Marx %). Next read Zaliznyak: From Proto-Slavic accentuation to Russian; I think it will be easier for you to read. Gnosandes (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)