User talk:Mr KEBAB/2016

Coda rhotics
Hi Mr. KEBAB; we’ve been using for the coda rhotic in standard Brazilian Portuguese (for consistency’s sake). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, sorry for not following the established transcription. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it now - you're talking about that edit. What I meant is that transcriptions like or  are likely incorrect, because the bolded letters represent regional allophones, rather than phonemes - that's why I removed the regional transcriptions, though they can probably be restored if we switch  to  in order to conform to the established IPA practices (see Handbook of the IPA). Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant the . — Ungoliant (falai) 21:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also fixed, but thanks. Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Ungoliant (falai) 01:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

audiencia
Mr KEBAB, you added a comment in the Hungarian entry that "this way of transcribing a weak [j] is non-standard". What is the standard way and where can I verify it? The Hungarian pronunciation is generated by a Lua module and we are gradually replacing all manual IPA sections. --Panda10 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. In phonemic transcriptions (those between slashes ), all you can do is to use a dot, which signifies syllable break - the weak intervocalic palatal glide is not phonemic (see ), but a mere transitional sound occurring in front of a vowel preceded by a syllable-final close front unrounded vowel.


 * The sign in the official IPA signifies palatalization of a consonant - see Handbook of the IPA (1999). Using it for the weak palatal glide is non-standard, and has been criticized e.g. by the British phonetician John Wells (see ).


 * In phonetic transcriptions (see and ) (those between square brackets ), you also don't have to indicate the weak palatal glide, but if you really want to, you should use the symbol  (signifying an "extra short palatal approximant"), which is probably the only option available. This sound shouldn't be transcribed with the symbol, since it's not the same as the most common allophone of Hungarian . Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's our source (Siptár & Törkenczy - The Phonology of Hungarian), which confirms that it is not a phoneme:


 * Page 91: "A final argument can be based on the phenomenon of hiatus filling (see section 9.3) where an adjacent spreads to fill in an empty onset position, resulting in a -type sound which may be weaker, more transient than the realization of an underlying . Compare kiáll ‘stand out’ with kijár ‘go out’ or baltái ‘his hatchets’ with altáji ‘Altaic’; the difference is quite noticeable in careful speech, although it may get blurred in a more colloquial rendering. Now, if we assume that  is a liquid (whereas the hiatus filler is obviously a glide), this (potential) phonetic difference is readily explained."


 * In section 9.3 they actually do use the symbol in their transcriptions, but they are phonetic, not phonemic. It is therefore quite clear that transcriptions such as  are not correct, only,  or  are. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed information and the references. As I mentioned, the manually entered IPA in Hungarian entries use phonemic transcriptions between slashes. We are gradually switching to a code-generated IPA pronunciation which provides a more accurate phonetic transcription using allophones, although currently it is still displaying slashes instead of square brackets. So let’s say we switch to square brackets in the code. In this case, you recommended that we use [j̆] but I’ve not seen this symbol before for the hiatus-filler /j/ between vowels for Hungarian.


 * The IPA system is good but not perfect for precise phonetic transcriptions. For example, the English hot and the Hungarian hat are both transcribed as /hɒt/ even though the two vowels are clearly different, you can hear it on the available audio recordings. So we need to provide an interpretation of the symbols for each language.We do this in Appendix:Hungarian pronunciation where I could provide a better explanation for using [ʲ]. I hope these changes will provide a slightly better representation, even if it won’t be perfect. Thank you again for your help. --Panda10 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm not saying whether you should or shouldn't switch to square brackets (though if you don't, you can't transcribe e.g. the velar nasal, as it is allophonic), all I said was that is more acceptable than  as far as kosher IPA is concerned - note also that I wrote that before reading what Siptár & Törkenczy have to say. As we both know, the only option you have is to follow their usage and retain the symbol, which is fair enough (after all, this isn't my personal blog). If by some miracle you find a source that does use , it'd be a good idea to switch then, but, as of now, it's not really an option. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, good work on Appendix:Hungarian pronunciation. About time I improved Appendix:Spanish pronunciation... Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) --Panda10 (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

American Spanish IPA
Hi! It seems there's something wrong with Module:es-pronunc concerning the change from /θ/ to /s/ in Latin American IPA. Take a look at this page I've just created: seseo is not shown. Could you find the bug and fix it? Thanks a lot ;) [ ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑ ˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔ ˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔt̪ːo ] (parla con me) 12:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem also appears with yeísmo: Though not always:
 * [ ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑ ˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔ ˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔt̪ːo ] (parla con me) 15:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. The thing is I reported it over a month ago (see ). I have no idea how to fix it, so I better not try. You probably know much more about modules than I do... I'd say take it to the Grease pit. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)