User talk:Nardog: Difference between revisions

Archives

2008, 2009, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

If your message may be of benefit to, or may benefit from, other editors, post it on a more visible talk page.

Hi Nardog! I want to clean up the vowel section of Uyghur phonology with the help of this source:

• Hahn, Reinhard F. (1991), Spoken Uyghur, London and Seattle: University of Washington Press, ISBN 978-0-295-98651-7

Do you have access to it? I would like to have a second opinion about how I interpret Hahn's data (pp. 33–57), both whether I'm totally wrong, and if not, whether my reading is OR-ish or not. In a nutshell, I think that Hahn's vowel phonemes are morphophonemes, while his orthographic representation is the actual surface phoneme level. Since you have worked with so much insight in Danish phonology, I'm sure you will quickly see the parallels. –Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: My familiarity with Turkic phonologies is extremely limited so I don't think I can be much of help, but yeah, saying /i, I/ (his notation) "share the same set of allophones" is pretty much like saying they contrast only morphophonologically. Comrie (1997)—Comrie, Bernard (1997), "Uyghur Phonology", in Kaye, Alan S. (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Including the Caucasus), vol. 2, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, pp. 913–925, ISBN 1-57506-018-3—explicitly mentions morphophonemes and even has separate tables of phonemes and morphophonemes, so it definitely won't be OR if you cite it. He also says "A phonetic ï is possible in some styles of pronouncing Russian loanwords" (which is more measured than Hahn's characterization, "distinguished only in Russian loanwords" with no reference to a minimal pair), so the contrast seems at best marginal on the phonemic level. Nardog (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the article at present looks like a WP:CONTENTFORK of Uyghur language#Phonology so either Uyghur phonology should be a redirect to the section or the section should be shortened IMO. They also make little to no mention of prosody, which is a serious omission for a stand-alone article about a language's phonology so it would be lovely if that was rectified. Nardog (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is of enormous help! I haven't been aware of the Comrie source (I stumbled across Comrie&Kaye before ages and have completely forgotten about it). I have reinvented the wheel then, but this feels ok as long as it is round and spins. Comrie is perfect for the phonological framework, and Hahn is of best use for the details of phonetic surface realizations and morphophonology. And yes, these content forks need to be merged; I feel inclined to integrate Uyghur phonology back into the main page, since the latter is not exceedingly large and won't be, even if the Phonology section gets extended a bit. OTOH, having a separate page Uyghur phonology has its plus sides, like making it handier for phonology watchers (but also for drive-by vandals or inarticulate good-faith IPs/novices focussing on phonology). –Austronesier (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Glad I could help. I agree merging the phonology article back to the one about the language is probably the better course of action. Nardog (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw that the whole poem had been added, I thought "copyvio"... but then realised that the poet died in 1946, ie 74 years ago, and Netherlands copyright lasts 70 years post mortem. It was published in his 1920 book, so if a US 95-years-after-publication applies it's OK by that too. (I don't know much about US copyright law but a quick read of Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Works_created_before_1978 suggests this. Are you sure this work is in copyright? @Cwmhiraeth: who cleared up after removal. PamD 14:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: The original version is in the public domain, but the longer version that was added likely isn't in the US. See wikisource:Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2017#The Chaos. Nardog (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: so the 1923 version could legally be added from Wikisource ... though I think the article is fine with the top and tail samples and a link to Wikisource. I didn't realise it had been the subject of such discussion. The version I edited in 2008 seems to have had the original text, which was then replaced by the "full poem", and it's been in and out a few times since. Interesting, thanks. Hmm, perhaps the article needs to be expanded to describe the various versions of the poem which exist... ? PamD 14:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the two versions are indeed described. It might still be interesting to quote the first few lines of both versions. PamD 15:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: In the page history, I see the longer versions were also added a couple times in the past. You might want to revdel them too. Nardog (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was copyright but I may have been wrong. There was an addition of part of the poem on 16 March 2016‎. Is that partial version in copyright? If I were to revision delete that edit, and all the subsequent versions, it would seem excessive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: I think the 2016 addition is small enough to pass as a quotation, but I suggest we delete Special:Diff/225347121 until the one before Special:Diff/288264993, and Special:Diff/533330983 until the one before Special:Diff/533507316, which are more excessive and could constitute copyvio. Nardog (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have done that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re your speedy deletion request of Talk:Protruded vowel, what block or ban is Sissi0313 violating? I don't see a block, a user page banner, any links from any SPI case page, or any editing restrictions. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sissiyao313. If you saw no links from SPI, that's likely because you checked WhatLinksHere for the User: page, not its talk, while {{checkuser}} does the same thing as {{no ping}}.

I only placed the SD tag in order to disable the empty edit-protected request the banned user had placed. Should I have simply blanked it? Nardog (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's exactly what I did. Anyway, you were right to tag the page for speedy deletion, but next time I'd put the master's name as a parameter to the tag (e.g., {{db-g5|Sissiyao313}}). Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have either contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests in the past six months or are an active editor listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. I have started a discussion regarding the project's current status at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Reboot, you are invited to participate in the discussion. If you are not interested in the project, no action is required on your part; this is a one-time notification and you will not receive any further messages. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC) (on behalf of User:GeneralNotability)[reply]

load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=1oddq:53 Uncaught URIError: URI malformed
    at decodeURIComponent (<anonymous>)
    at decoded (<anonymous>:308:378)
    at Function.$.cookie (<anonymous>:309:254)
    at Object.buildSection (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=7f3iz:27)
    at Object.build (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=7f3iz:29)
    at Object.create (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=7f3iz:17)
    at Object.addModule (load.php?lang=sq&mod…tor&version=7f3iz:8)
    at jQuery.fn.init.$.fn.wikiEditor (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=7f3iz:13)
    at HTMLDocument.<anonymous> (load.php?lang=sq&mod…tor&version=7f3iz:5)
    at mightThrow (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=1oddq:50)
load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=1oddq:53 Uncaught URIError: URI malformed
    at decodeURIComponent (<anonymous>)
    at decoded (<anonymous>:308:378)
    at Function.$.cookie (<anonymous>:309:254)
    at Object.get (<anonymous>:307:1717)
    at Object.$.wikiEditor.extensions.codeEditor (<anonymous>:290:1891)
    at jQuery.fn.init.$.fn.wikiEditor (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=7f3iz:13)
    at HTMLDocument.<anonymous> (<anonymous>:290:1297)
    at mightThrow (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=1oddq:50)
    at process (load.php?lang=sq&mod…or&version=1oddq:50)

The errors I see. - Klein Muçi (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi: I can't see the full URLs, as indicated by ellipses. Can you click on the items and tell me the full URLs? Nardog (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused as I have never worked with the console before for debugging reasons. I'm not really sure where to click. The errors show up in a reaally small mini-window and I had trouble even copying them. Is there any way to make that mini-window bigger? After that maybe I'm able to work with them and do what you told me to do. - Klein Muçi (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi: Ah, rather, you have to right click on "load.php?..." to copy the full URLs. Click on the ellipsis icon at top right if you want to make it bigger. Nardog (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://sq.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?lang=sq&modules=ext.centralNotice.geoIP%7Cext.dismissableSiteNotice%7Cjquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets%7Cjquery.ui&skin=vector&version=1oddq

https://sq.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?lang=sq&modules=ext.centralNotice.geoIP%7Cext.dismissableSiteNotice%7Cjquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets%7Cjquery.ui&skin=vector&version=1oddq

These two? - Klein Muçi (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi: Hmm, I tried enabling all gadgets and beta features on sqwiki and opening a module but the code editor showed up just fine. It could be a browser extension or setting that is interfering. Sorry I couldn't be of much help, but it's not an urgent problem unless other editors on sqwiki experience it too, after all. You can use the code editor by copying code, editing it on this site and then pasting it on sqwiki anyway.

Does entering mw.loader.getState('ext.codeEditor') or mw.loader.getState('ext.wikiEditor') into the console return anything other than "ready"? If not, then I have no idea. Nardog (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is where to exactly enter it? - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi: Don't you see a cursor blinking next to ">" at the bottom of the Console tab? Nardog (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did now. It reads "ready" with both of them. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi: Then I'm afraid I don't know what the cause is. Try WP:VPT if you really want to fix it, there are people much more skilled than I there. Nardog (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Thank you a lot for trying! :)) - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me wtf is a [ ɭ͓ ] a mid centralised [ ɭ ] ? + Ive never seen .̽ being used below the character, i was adding a phonology table to the Ao Naga language and saw this [1] AleksiB 1945 (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleksiB 1945: See [2]. PHOIBLE uses the subscript X to denote "frictionalized sounds", so their ⟨ɭ͓⟩ is equivalent to our ⟨ɭ˔⟩. It's a shame PHOIBLE Online doesn't link to the documentation. Nardog (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nardog,

It your revert, you said, "removing {{abbr}} is particularly not helpful." I'm confused -- I can't see what difference it makes. All it does is generate a popup, which a plain link also does. It says e.g. "uvular" rather than "uvular consonant", but I can't see how that matters. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the template documentation explains, {{abbr}} is advantageous in terms of accessibility. The tooltip for "U" says "Uvular", not "Uvular consonant", because it is short for "Uvular", not "Uvular consonant", consistent with the pulmonic chart. Nardog (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir! Peter Roach having written in English Phonetics and Phonology that it is difficult to confirm these settings scientifically and etc, I do not understand why there is no information about lack of scientific proofs. I am a reader of EnWiki, and, to tell you the exact truth, I think it to be very important to describe all points of view on that. You having edited the article on that, I do not understand why you have not added this point. I believe you to think this conception to be doubtful, therefore there is a controversy. That's why it is evident that the afore-said article is not completely correct. The article being incomplete, I cannot transcribe it.

In a word, I pray you to lay down the conventional point of view in the following article. The phrase Non-native speakers typically find the basis of articulation one of the greatest challenges in acquiring a foreign language's pronunciation. Speaking with the basis of articulation of their own native language results in a foreign accent, even if the individual sounds of the target language are produced correctly. seems not to be conventional.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: I have had a number of messages on this, from the same person I believe. See posts on my Talk page, numbered 61-4. I find it very difficult to understand what he wants, and he doesn't seem to understand my attempts at a reply. RoachPeter (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoachPeter: I suggest you simply ignore them. Wikipedia is not a social network, a soapbox, or a place to "right great wrongs". You have no obligation to interact with them and you clearly have much more important things to do! (I've warned them about posting the same message on multiple user talks, which they seem to have heeded, but if they continue to pester you or anyone we shall warn them and, if they still do, report to the admins.) Nardog (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On two sites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_front_rounded_vowel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_retroflex_trill) you maked the audio "proper way". How did you did this. I wantet to "add the proper way" too, but i didn't know how. Can you tell me how you did this? YodaMaster445 (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YodaMaster445: They were done here and here. Articles and sound samples about IPA symbols are centralized at Module:IPA symbol/data, which is then used by templates like {{Infobox IPA}} and {{IPA link}}. Be very careful not to break it though (and refrain from making potentially controversial changes to it) since many pages rely on it. If you're unsure about a change you want to make, bring it up on the talk page. Nardog (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!!!

Heya, re: [3], your edit comment calls the Yotsugana phenomenon a "merger" rather than an example of "allophones". I totally agree that this is a merger, but my understanding is that mergers and allophones are separate phenomena, and that mergers sometimes result in allophones. For much of the Tōhoku region, じ and ぢ are treated as one phoneme, such that a speaker from Kyūshū, who would distinguish じ and ぢ, is perceived as using allophonic forms of the underlying phoneme /d͡ʑɨ/ (or however it should be represented). This would seem to fit the description of allophones as on the [[Allophone]] page. No? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr: I don't think linguists normally call the resultant realization of a neutralization "an allophone" of the two phonemes. Rather, it is in the accents that do not merge /(d)zi/ and /(d)zu/ that [ɨ] after /(d)z/ (etc.) can be regarded as a good example of a vowel allophone in Japanese. (I assume you meant "じ and ず" or "ぢ and づ", not "じ and ぢ". The merger between じ and ぢ or between ず and づ involves a neutralization of consonants, not vowels.) Nardog (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added "(Alveolo-)" (in this page) because of /t͡ɕ/ /d͡ʑ/ etc and within brackets because of /j/ AleksiB 1945 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleksiB 1945: You don't get to revert to the version you like just because you "talked to" those who reverted you. Whenever a dispute arises, do not engage in an edit war and discuss the matter on the article's talk page rather than on the users' (so that other editors can read the discussion and chime in). Nardog (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: 'oo' is commonly used to describe [u] and 'ee' for [i] the same with tʂ/ʈʂ i mean its not like you gota use a ton of diacritics there is a single character for it, also considering that many of the words are transcribed under narrow transcription

Why is this even a thing? I didnt add or delete something without giving a source or something like that i just changed (t) to (ʈ) AleksiB 1945 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its just too small of a issue to post it in the main page's talk page AleksiB 1945 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Could you please watch this video and this one regarding the vocalic R in High German? The IPA is meant to help people with pronunciation of words and you're doing kind of the opposite by reverting a page everytime someone corrects something wrong. Also, no, ʁ absolutely does not represent a wide range of sounds. ʁ represents a voiced uvular fricative and only that. Dankeschön! X Æ A-Twelve (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@X Æ A-Twelve: In transcriptions using the {{IPA-de}} template and thus linked to the Help:IPA/Standard German key, ⟨ʁ⟩ indeed represents a wide range of mutually non-distinctive sounds (allophones) belonging to the /r/ phoneme, so that the transcriptions can be interpreted and pronounced in each reader's own accent rather than prescribing a single "correct" form of pronunciation (which is completely in line with the IPA's principles, by the way, since narrowness is a continuum—see IPA Handbook, pp. 28–30). As explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, deviating from the linked key in some but not all transcriptions is disruptive because it engenders inconsistency between articles and renders the key less helpful. If you wish to change the way German /r/ is represented on Wikipedia, bring up the issue on the key's talk page. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the diphthongs *[aɐ̯] and *[aːɐ̯] do not exist in German. These are non-IPA notations used in dictionaries to represent the monophthongal [aː] that stems from historical /ar/ and /aːr/. Sol505000 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Nardog:

Several years ago you helped me with some edits to an article. I was wondering if you would consider assisting me now, a COI, with edits to the Rajiv Shah page? I am currently doing paid editing for him, and am committed to adhering to the rules for such. My goal is to help my clients, and improve Wikipedia. I proposed some updates to the Rockefeller Section (the Rockefeller Foundation page will also be edited soon) on his talk page on December 12th. Would you have time to review them for Wikipedia compliance and make the edits? It looks like people that had an undeclared conflict may have edited the page in the past. Rajiv and Rockefeller are now working with me to do this in a transparent manner, as they didn't understand all of the rules. Eventually, we would like to get the banner at the top of the page removed by doing things the 'right way.' Thank you for your consideration and time. Earlier this year, I started using the COI template, but that now has a backlog of a few months. I appreciate your consideration. Best,LeepKendall (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we are in the process of cleaning up Special:WantedTemplates and your userpage, User:Nardog/Magic words, has the "high score" for the most redlinked templates in the report with 246! Normally, this isn't a problem, since your page is in userspace and isn't an article, but Special:WantedTemplates is maxed-out at 5000 templates, so we can't see any that are in articles if they fell off the end of the list. Would it be possible to "nowiki" or "#ifexist:" the redlinked templates on that page? That would really help in reducing the number of entries in Special:WantedTemplates and make it easier for us to find the real problems like this one which creative editors are introducing everyday. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plastikspork: Sorry about that. I've commented the whole page out. Thanks for your maintenance work. Nardog (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will consider maintaining the four-syllable pronunciation at least as a localism .... growing up it was the only form I'd ever heard ... i suspect if we dig deep enough we will find that it was once intended to be something like /masasawit/ and the version with the vowel hiatus is our best approximation of what we heard. as far as i know, the original Massachusett name is lost to history and our gloss of Ousamequin is entirely unrelated. —Soap— 18:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap: Of course I will as long as there is a reliable source supporting it, as any editor should. I didn't see you had mentioned a video by the college on the talk page, so I just cited it, though a scholarly source would be better. There seems to be quite a lot of variation: Random House has it /ˈmæsəsɔɪt/, and googling "massasoit" "mass uh" reveals /ˌmæsəˈsoʊɪt/ is also common. Nardog (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been thinking for some time of adding some material about the phonemic status of the velar nasal in English. I have been thinking of doing this in the form of an extra bullet point in English_phonology#Sonorants, but the piece I have written has turned out to be considerably longer than the other bullet points and might look out of place. The material is in my sandbox - I would be glad to know what you think I should do with it. Thanks. RoachPeter (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding a "Controversial issues" section to English phonology? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RoachPeter: I concur with LiliCharlie. For what it's worth, Standard German phonology already has a similar discussion on the phonemicity of the velar nasal, over which I recently raised concern on the talk here. I did a cursory reading afterwards, and it does look like it's not a fringe view, but I'd be interested to know how much support there is for the no-/ŋ/ analysis for German as well. Nardog (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I can do something with that idea. There is some English material that I put in Phoneme#The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions that would be more suitable to go in "Controversial Issues", and I think there is more to be said about levels of stress. But I would need to collect some more recent material too - the issues I have talked about have been around for ages. RoachPeter (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nardog. I was adding Kaingang as an example of the voiceless nasal glottal approximant. However, I messed up the formatting of the source I intended to include a bit (This: http://revistas.iel.unicamp.br/index.php/seta/article/view/557/474.) If you could be of any help, feel free to respond to this comment. Thanks in response and have a nice day, dude! RealWorlderGuy (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Nardog (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So not ˈʃiːfo and not ʃˈʃiːfo but rather ʃʃiːfo, no ? GabrieL (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrieL: Why? The stress is still there and, in most analyses of Italian, geminates are analyzed as belonging to separate syllables. Nardog (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because I don't manage to pronounce /ˈɛntso ʃˈʃiːfo/ ;-)

Unless /ˈɛntso ʃˈʃiːfo/=/ˈɛntso‿ʃˈʃiːfo/ (cf. [4]).

GabrieL (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's [ˈɛntso ʃˈʃiːfo], with square brackets. This kind of gemination is phonetic.

And yes, [ʃˈʃ] = [ʃʃ] = [ʃː]. At least in transcriptions of Italian (where, AFAIK, we never write ⟨ʃː⟩). Sol505000 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A space in an IPA transcription doesn't mean there's a syllable break there. It's just there to tell the reader which symbols correspond to which word for their convenience. Nardog (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's true. In Luxembourgish, the revoiced allophones of word-final obstruents seem to be analyzed as resyllabified to the following word (/zeχ ˈeːns/ → [zəˈʑeːns], /ˌkɑmpf ˈopɡin/ → [ˌkɑmˈbvopɡin], the same seems to be true of the lenited allophones of Spanish stops (well, mostly /d/). In neither case do we transcribe the resyllabification explicitly (⟨zəʑ‿ˈeːns⟩, proposed by Gilles & Trouvain doesn't AFAICS show the resyllabification, just voicing and a lack of a phrase-internal, word-initial glottal stop, which is usual in Luxembourgish anyway). Enzo Scifo is indeed [ɛn.tsoʃ.ʃiː.fo] (ignoring stress) when pronounced with a geminated /ʃ/ and [ɛn.tso | ʃiː.fo] = [ɛn.tso.ʃiː.fo] when there's a pause between /o/ and /ʃ/. That's not resyllabification as the underlying /ʃ/ spans across two syllables in the former case (and is a single sound [ʃ] in the latter case), but the idea is the same as far as the readability of phonetic transcription is concerned. Sol505000 (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nardog, totally didn't mean to do that. I was probably looking at the final diff while making the revert. Thanks for noticing. :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 18:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? (re: Querétaro) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: There is no /ð/ in Spanish (slashes indicate a phoneme). ⟨ð⟩ in transcriptions of Spanish represents an allophone of /d/ that occurs everywhere except after a pause, [n] or [l], and ranges from approximant to fricative. Symbols for voiced fricatives are often used to represent homorganic approximants or free variation between an approximant and fricative, since ⟨ɹ, j, ɰ⟩ are historically used almost exclusively for rhotics and semivowels. That's the case with ⟨β, ð, ɣ, ʝ⟩ for Spanish, ⟨ʁ⟩ for French, German, Danish, etc. See Help:IPA/Spanish and Spanish phonology. Nardog (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: [E]verywhere except after a pause doesn't include the beginning of a word? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: Do you typically insert a pregnant pause in the middle of saying the name of a place? FWIW we have [ˈrejno ð(e) esˈpaɲa], [reˈpuβlika ðe ˈkuβa], [reˈpuβlika ðe koˈlombja], [reˈal maˈðɾið ˈkluβ ðe ˈfuðβol], [sjuˈða(ð) ðe ˈmexiko], [iŋxeˈnjoso iˈðalɣo ðoŋ kiˈxote ðe la ˈmantʃa], and [ɡiˈʝeɾmo ðel ˈtoɾo]. Nardog (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

xref your (valid) edit to Welsh (language), would you expand the IPA box at the end of Template:Infobox language to include the ⟨ ⟩, / / and [ ] notations, please. I don't speak templatish well enough to do it.

If you can tone down the virulent purple background while you are at it, that would be great. It violates MOS:ACCESS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]