(→Yeísmo) |
(→Yeísmo: re) |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect. |
:Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect. |
||
:In sum since there's no good reason not to supply the two major alternatives, and good reasons why they should be supplied, both {{IPA|[kasteˈʎano]}} and {{IPA|[kasteˈʝano]}} should stand. [[User:Barefoot through the chollas|Barefoot through the chollas]] ([[User talk:Barefoot through the chollas|talk]]) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
:In sum since there's no good reason not to supply the two major alternatives, and good reasons why they should be supplied, both {{IPA|[kasteˈʎano]}} and {{IPA|[kasteˈʝano]}} should stand. [[User:Barefoot through the chollas|Barefoot through the chollas]] ([[User talk:Barefoot through the chollas|talk]]) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
::First of all, what we say in the lede of this guide is {{tq|'''For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone [[yeísmo]]''' (where words such as ''haya'' and ''halla'' are pronounced the same), words spelled with {{angle bracket|ll}} can be transcribed with {{IPA|[ʝ]}}.}} |
|||
::{{tq|Yes, we do need to supply both in this article in English, as they are the two major standard variants valid as unmarked (least-marked) target phones for non-native speakers}} That would then require retranscribing the palatal lateral with {{angbr IPA|ʝ}} in hundreds if not thousands of cases. That smells like IPA spam to me. I'd rather scrap {{angbr IPA|ʎ}} from the guide and just use {{angbr IPA|ʝ}} (or the corresponding affricate symbol, in appropriate cases). Whenever {{IPA|[ʎ}} is a valid pronunciation, {{IPA|[ʝ]}} is also possible, and you can't go wrong with the former. |
|||
::{{tq|It doesn't cover all that and can't.}} Yes, it can. It depends on the conventions. To quote the Handbook of the IPA (pages 29–30), {{tq|If the relevant phonological system is known, a transcription can be devised which includes any number of additional symbols to indicate the phonetic realizations of the phonemes. ... '''Narrowness is regarded as a continuum''', so that {{IPA|[tʃɛkðəlɛnzwɛɫ]}} might be regarded as a slightly narrow (or 'narrowed') transcription, and {{IPA|[tʃe̞ʔ͡kð̞əlɛ̃nzwæ̠ɫ]}} as very narrow ... '''the realizational information which is not explicit in a particular allophonic transcription is, in principle, provided by conventions.'''}} Phonetic transcription ≠ fully narrow phonetic transcription. To repeat myself, we already use {{angbr IPA|s}} to represent a phone that varies between {{angbr IPA|s}} and {{angbr IPA|h}} in the syllable coda. |
|||
::{{tq|My own impression is that {{IPA|[kasteˈjano]}} is far more frequent than {{IPA|[kasteˈʝano]}} worldwide, but I don't have an authoritative source for that, so let it be.}} All you have to do is head to [[Spanish phonology]] where the sound is described as varying between a fricative and an approximant, with the former being an emphatic variant and the latter being used in other contexts. Per [[palatal approximant]], {{angbr IPA|j}} is unsuitable for this phone in Spanish. Since {{IPA|/ʝ/}} is unspecified for rounding, ''ayuda'' has to be transcribed {{IPA|[aˈʝuða]}} as the phone represented with {{angbr|y}} in the orthography is labialized, but at the same time is not {{IPA|[ɥ]}} (which doesn't exist in Spanish). |
|||
::{{tq|Sorry, even more confusion. ⟨ʝ⟩ represents a grapheme, which does not exist for Spanish orthography.}} I specifically used the [[Template:Angbr IPA|angbr IPA]] template for this. Is this a joke? |
|||
::{{tq|I'm guessing that you might be trying to say that a phonemic transcription would suffice, then let readers apply their own "automatic" phonological rules. But non-natives don't have their own genuine Spanish phonological rules, and -- leaving aside the sticky question of the phonemic status of the variants in question -- without conducting an examination of Spanish phonology they have no way of knowing what rules natives might apply.}} Since we're using phonetic brackets, I'm not talking about phonemic transcriptions. I'm saying that {{angbr IPA|ʎ}} is enough for broad phonetic transcriptions such as this one. Or, conversely, {{angbr IPA|ʝ}} would be enough as well. |
|||
::{{tq|Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect.}} We mention both ''yeísmo'' and ''seseo'' in the lede. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:38, 29 June 2022
This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||
Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot II. |
Pizza
I understand that revision 1006104540 added the word pizza to the 'tz' section, but added the deleted 'd͡ʒ'. They deleted that because a user said 'that's ɟʝ in our system'. I'm also not happy with velar consonants and labial consonants being velar consonants and labial consonants. Yours truly, Kurisumasen (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
They deleted that because a user said 'that's ɟʝ in our system'.
And?- Whether you're happy with it is irrelevant here.
[[foo]]s
is preferred because it's shorter. See MOS:PIPESTYLE. In fact AWB by default automatically shortens links like[[foo|foos]]
. Nardog (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)- Yes, but also I want to know about the word "pizza". This is really Italian. It is also used in other languages. Kurisumasen (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wiktionary says it's pronounced variously in Spanish. But even when pronounced with [ts], it's just heterosyllabic [t.s] (just like in English, which also lacks /ts/ as a phoneme), which is different from the case of abertzale. Removed it. Nardog (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Kurisumasen (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wiktionary says it's pronounced variously in Spanish. But even when pronounced with [ts], it's just heterosyllabic [t.s] (just like in English, which also lacks /ts/ as a phoneme), which is different from the case of abertzale. Removed it. Nardog (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but also I want to know about the word "pizza". This is really Italian. It is also used in other languages. Kurisumasen (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Can you see what you wrote? I paraphrase, "I'm also not happy with <this link> and <that link>, linked in the way I prefer and at odds with MOS:PIPESTYLE, being <this link> and <that link>, linked according to that MOS". You realize that they work exactly the same, no? Not only that, the way those links look is the same. Sol505000 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but the other links are the way I like it:
[[Rhotic consonant|rhotic consonants]]
and[[Labial consonant|labial consonants]]
. So, it should be like that to me. Kurisumasen (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)- "The way I like it" is a good reason for a bold initial edit, but a less optimal reason for subsequent edits when others have raised substantial concerns (here: per MOS). And apart from the MOS, WP:NOPIPE puts the whole thing very nicely. There is nothing wrong with building new content with large pipes like
[[Rhotic consonant|rhotic consonants]]
. But changing old code to this style for the heck of it, or edit warring when someone changes[[Rhotic consonant|rhotic consonants]]
to[[Rhotic consonant]]s
for the sake of a readable code is the road towards disruptive editing, which we also often see with WP:NOTBROKEN "fixing". –Austronesier (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)- Though I use my wording better:
[[Aztec|Aztecs]]
, not[[Aztec]]s
. --Kurisumasen (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)- I've never seen WP:EDITWARRING over a sillier thing. Sol505000 (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, let’s leave it like that then.Kurisumasen (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've never seen WP:EDITWARRING over a sillier thing. Sol505000 (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Though I use my wording better:
- "The way I like it" is a good reason for a bold initial edit, but a less optimal reason for subsequent edits when others have raised substantial concerns (here: per MOS). And apart from the MOS, WP:NOPIPE puts the whole thing very nicely. There is nothing wrong with building new content with large pipes like
- Yes, but the other links are the way I like it:
Gilda
How is Gilda an example for /ʃ/? --Error (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- We could ask Sheila1988, who added it, presumably to make our guide consistent with Gilda (Argentine singer). — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that was my intention, although it's possible that only some dialects pronounce it like that.Sheila1988 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- First time I hear about it. In Spain, both Gilda (film) and es:gilda (pincho) are pronounced as [xilða]. If kept, it should link to that particular case. --Error (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- AS far as I can find it's an argentinian pronunciation.Sheila1988 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- So it's [ˈɟʝilda] in our system. We don't transcribe sheísmo/zheísmo. Sol505000 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) AFAICS, the name of the singer Gilda is actually an example for /ʝ/, since [ʃ] is the typical modern Rioplatense realization of supraregional /ʝ/ (and also of /ʎ/ because of yeísmo). In this video, the presenter speaks says [ˈʃilda] consistent with her accent, but the voice-over speaker with a more "supraregional"(?) accent says [ɟʝilda] (0:50) and (phrase-internally) [aðeˈmaɦ ðe ˈʝilda] (3:05). So unless we really want to emulate a dialectal pronunciation, the example should be moved from /ʃ/ to /ʝ/, or taken out completely. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- In any case I don't see a need to have this example. It looks like it was added solely to cover all the spelling variants, which these IPA keys are not for. On the other hand, I can see keeping Xola, which Sol505000 removed, because Freixenet is a borrowing from Catalan, while the former is from Nahuatl (but we could use a more common word). Nardog (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with covering all the spelling variants. With language with as transparent an orthography as Spanish, there wouldn't be too many of them. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- In any case I don't see a need to have this example. It looks like it was added solely to cover all the spelling variants, which these IPA keys are not for. On the other hand, I can see keeping Xola, which Sol505000 removed, because Freixenet is a borrowing from Catalan, while the former is from Nahuatl (but we could use a more common word). Nardog (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- AS far as I can find it's an argentinian pronunciation.Sheila1988 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- First time I hear about it. In Spain, both Gilda (film) and es:gilda (pincho) are pronounced as [xilða]. If kept, it should link to that particular case. --Error (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Changes in the vowel chart
I noticed in the vowel chart the examples provided in English are in fact words with long vowels, e.g. food /fuːd/ and father /fɑːðə/. In Spanish we do not have long vowels as such. I propose other examples in order to be more precise:
- Love /lʌv/ for Spanish /a/
- Bed /bed/ for Spanish /e/
- City /cɪti/ for Spanish /i/
- God /gɒd/ for Spanish /o/
- Influence /ɪnfluəns/ for Spanish /u/
These examples are from BrE pronunciation. --Leandro (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- You’re right, Spanish doesn’t have phonemic long vowels, but precisely because of this, using English long vowels to approximate vowel qualities is perfectly fine; most Spanish speakers won’t have any trouble understanding if you lengthen the vowels. Keep in mind that the English examples here are meant for an international audience, not just southern England. God and love are particularly bad examples because the qualities of those vowels vary widely between dialects. In most American dialects, the vowel in god is unrounded, and in Inland North in particular, it can be even further forward than Spanish /a/. As for the vowel in love, that’s close enough to Spanish /a/ in Australian English or conservative RP, but it can correspond to basically anything in the region of [ʊ~ə~ɑ~ɐ] depending on the dialect. 187.245.67.172 (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- City (which should be written /ˈsɪti/ - ⟨c⟩ stands for the voiceless palatal plosive in IPA) and influence are also bad as these are not true phonemes in English, but rather unstressed /ɪ~iː/ and /ʊ~uː/. Furthermore, ⟨u⟩ before /ə/ signifies a variation between /ʊ~uː~w/, which makes it a very bad choice for Spanish /u/. In this guide, the symbol ⟨u⟩ stands only for the non-syllabic [u] and not the approximant [w]. If vowel length is that important, then choose words where /iː/ and /uː/ occur before voiceless/fortis plosives.
- Regarding /ɒ/, as the anon said, that vowel is a really bad approximation of Spanish /o/. In North America, the only vowel that gets close to that is their /oʊ/ - or /ɔː/ before /r/. Sol505000 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Voiced bilabial fricative or approximant?
Hello, it looks like the IPA β in the article links to voiced bilabial approximant but the target article indicates that the approximant version needs a little goatee underneath. So, which is it meant to be? --Nidaana (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Either, as Voiced bilabial fricative#Bilabial approximant says. See Spanish phonology#Consonants for a more detailed discussion. And even if it was always approximant, the diacritic is not needed unless the fricative also occurs within the language (see Handbook of the IPA, pp. 27ff). Nardog (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeísmo
@Barefoot through the chollas: Regarding the infobox in Spanish language, do we really need to explicitly transcribe the delateralized variant alongside the one with [ʎ]? The merger is automatic, it either happens or it doesn't (for transitional speakers, there is, AFAIK, a chaotic switching between the two phones, without any pattern). Since most speakers exhibit it, we may as well scratch the distinction and just write ⟨ʝ⟩ (or ⟨ɟʝ⟩ everywhere, which would be fine for a broad transcription such as the one used here. Furthermore (per Andean Spanish), in Northern Ecuador, /ʎ/ is delateralized to [ʒ] without merging with /ʝ/ (which is very likely heard as a merger by speakers from outside the area), which makes ⟨ʎ⟩ anything but an appropriate symbol for that variety of Spanish.
Back to the infobox, the insistance on including [kasteˈʝano] alongside [kasteˈʎano] strikes me as odd. These are definitely not the only variants that are possible; namely, [kahteˈʝano] and [kahteˈʎano] are also standard in some regions (as is [ehpaˈɲol], there are of course variants [kætteˈʝano, -ˈʎano, ɛppaˈɲol] in Southern Spain in addition to that, so even ⟨h⟩ wouldn't be quite correct for all accents of that type). In addition to that, [kahteˈʒano] and [kahteˈʃano] are standard in Rioplatense Spanish. If ⟨s⟩ can stand for a phonetic [h], then ⟨ʎ⟩ can stand for a phonetic [ʝ], [ʒ] and [ʃ]. ⟨ʝ⟩ already stands for all three.
Let [kasteˈʎano] cover all that.
Futhermore, at least younger speakers of Rioplatense Spanish have no marginal phonemes since [ʃ] in show is the same as their ordinary [ʃ] spelled ll and y. Sol505000 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sol505000::Yes, we do need to supply both in this article in English, as they are the two major standard variants valid as unmarked (least-marked) target phones for non-native speakers (whereas the numerous other variants you cite, to which others could be added, are more vigorously marked diatopically, diastratically or diaphasically). Equivalences produced by the "merger" (assuming you mean diachronic merger of e.g. cayó-calló) are not necessarily automatic -- or even known -- to non-native speakers who are looking for information and guidance. Thus the article supplies genuine forms for them.
- Let [kasteˈʎano] cover all that. It doesn't cover all that and can't. [kasteˈʎano] is a phonetic transcription. The phone [ʎ] can represent only itself, palatal lateral approximant, not a different phone; that's the whole point of phonetic transcription. And the point of supplying the phonetic information of [kasteˈʝano], otherwise unknowable without specific effort. (My own impression is that [kasteˈjano] is far more frequent than [kasteˈʝano] worldwide, but I don't have an authoritative source for that, so let it be.)
- ⟨ʝ⟩ already stands for all three. Sorry, even more confusion. ⟨ʝ⟩ represents a grapheme, which does not exist for Spanish orthography.
- I'm guessing that you might be trying to say that a phonemic transcription would suffice, then let readers apply their own "automatic" phonological rules. But non-natives don't have their own genuine Spanish phonological rules, and -- leaving aside the sticky question of the phonemic status of the variants in question -- without conducting an examination of Spanish phonology they have no way of knowing what rules natives might apply.
- Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect.
- In sum since there's no good reason not to supply the two major alternatives, and good reasons why they should be supplied, both [kasteˈʎano] and [kasteˈʝano] should stand. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, what we say in the lede of this guide is
For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ].
Yes, we do need to supply both in this article in English, as they are the two major standard variants valid as unmarked (least-marked) target phones for non-native speakers
That would then require retranscribing the palatal lateral with ⟨ʝ⟩ in hundreds if not thousands of cases. That smells like IPA spam to me. I'd rather scrap ⟨ʎ⟩ from the guide and just use ⟨ʝ⟩ (or the corresponding affricate symbol, in appropriate cases). Whenever [ʎ is a valid pronunciation, [ʝ] is also possible, and you can't go wrong with the former.It doesn't cover all that and can't.
Yes, it can. It depends on the conventions. To quote the Handbook of the IPA (pages 29–30),If the relevant phonological system is known, a transcription can be devised which includes any number of additional symbols to indicate the phonetic realizations of the phonemes. ... Narrowness is regarded as a continuum, so that [tʃɛkðəlɛnzwɛɫ] might be regarded as a slightly narrow (or 'narrowed') transcription, and [tʃe̞ʔ͡kð̞əlɛ̃nzwæ̠ɫ] as very narrow ... the realizational information which is not explicit in a particular allophonic transcription is, in principle, provided by conventions.
Phonetic transcription ≠ fully narrow phonetic transcription. To repeat myself, we already use ⟨s⟩ to represent a phone that varies between ⟨s⟩ and ⟨h⟩ in the syllable coda.My own impression is that [kasteˈjano] is far more frequent than [kasteˈʝano] worldwide, but I don't have an authoritative source for that, so let it be.
All you have to do is head to Spanish phonology where the sound is described as varying between a fricative and an approximant, with the former being an emphatic variant and the latter being used in other contexts. Per palatal approximant, ⟨j⟩ is unsuitable for this phone in Spanish. Since /ʝ/ is unspecified for rounding, ayuda has to be transcribed [aˈʝuða] as the phone represented with ⟨y⟩ in the orthography is labialized, but at the same time is not [ɥ] (which doesn't exist in Spanish).Sorry, even more confusion. ⟨ʝ⟩ represents a grapheme, which does not exist for Spanish orthography.
I specifically used the angbr IPA template for this. Is this a joke?I'm guessing that you might be trying to say that a phonemic transcription would suffice, then let readers apply their own "automatic" phonological rules. But non-natives don't have their own genuine Spanish phonological rules, and -- leaving aside the sticky question of the phonemic status of the variants in question -- without conducting an examination of Spanish phonology they have no way of knowing what rules natives might apply.
Since we're using phonetic brackets, I'm not talking about phonemic transcriptions. I'm saying that ⟨ʎ⟩ is enough for broad phonetic transcriptions such as this one. Or, conversely, ⟨ʝ⟩ would be enough as well.Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect.
We mention both yeísmo and seseo in the lede. Sol505000 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, what we say in the lede of this guide is