User talk:Fdom5997: Difference between revisions

Line 96: Line 96:

::What “factually incorrect” info? Like the arrangement of a phonetic chart? Don’t make me laugh. [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997#top|talk]]) 05:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

::What “factually incorrect” info? Like the arrangement of a phonetic chart? Don’t make me laugh. [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997#top|talk]]) 05:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:::There’s no /ae/ in Dzubukuá. Queiroz clearly states (in Portuguese) it’s a Kipeá phoneme. [[User:Yacàwotçã|Yacàwotçã]] ([[User talk:Yacàwotçã|talk]]) 05:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:::There’s no /ae/ in Dzubukuá. Queiroz clearly states (in Portuguese) it’s a Kipeá phoneme. [[User:Yacàwotçã|Yacàwotçã]] ([[User talk:Yacàwotçã|talk]]) 05:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

::::Well how about take a look on page 75 of that source. [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997#top|talk]]) 05:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

::::Well how about take a look on 75 of that source. [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997#top|talk]]) 05:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/Incidents#Fdom5997-Rampant_vandalism_and_ad_hominem_attacks_(Previously_reported). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ANI#Fdom5997 persistent undoings and disruptive behavior + personal attacks. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 11:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick message for your own information. What Timthemanofficial described about there being “one guttural phoneme” being a merger of /r/ /x/ and /ɣ/ isn’t an annecdotal pronunciation but the trend for colloquial (and slightly formal) Randstad Dutch which forms the basis of the Northern national pseudo-standard. It shouldn’t be followed as this is not the case with all standard-ish accents or even consistent within Randstad but what he described was indeed a majority’s reality. Have a nice day (I hope I didn’t come out as rude and moralisator, I just wanted to inform you of the cause of this… unfortunate happening). Ʃouer (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you mean a “majority’s reality” of the Randstad Dutch dialect? Because that’s probably what you mean if it is not the case with the Standard Dutch dialects. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don’t understand the question. But the Randstad dialect is the prestige dialect throughout the country so the “Standard” and “Randstad” accents are porous term for a similar entity. Ʃouer (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I would refer to Gussenhoven (1999) and Booij (1999:7). They are the true sources to use when listing the phonology of the Standard Dutch dialect. And there still is a clear distinction between the /r/ /x/ and /ɣ/ phonemes. If you said that “this is not the case with all standard-ish accents or even consistent within Randstad” in regards to that pronunciation, then isn’t that the “majority’s reality”? Fdom5997 (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they’re still distinct phonemes and shouldn’t be treated as one. My point was to inform you that it is standard “in the North” (above the N. Braban pronince) to have a three way merger on occasional up to moderate frequencies. Ʃouer (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad the merger is also considered standard (for the Northern one of course :d, i’d never write such things). You can easely fetch the Collins & Mees (2003) on the internet (just search for THE PHONETICS OF ENGLISH AND DUTCH, Fifth Revised Edition -not sure if I can provide the link without doing some out of policy thing-, you’ll definitely find your way) but here are some quotes.

“In the Netherlands, particularly in ABN and in most of the Randstad, and in the North generally, the velar pair /x – ɣ/ is even less stable than /f – f̬/. Though some speakers contrast pairs such as lachen – vlaggen /ˈlaxə – /ˈf̬laɣə/; […] (/ɣ/ being represented in orthography by g), this is not true generally; /ɣ/ does not occur either finally, or initially, /x/ being used in all cases, e.g. goed /xut/, geen /xe:n/, gedrag /xəˈdrax/. Outside the Randstad and the North, /ɣ/ occurs in medial and also sometimes in initial position.” p.189

“The back of the tongue makes a light contact with the rear of the velum. The exact point of articulation varies, but is probably more precisely described as post-velar [x̠] or pre-uvular [χ̟]. Typically, D /x/ as realised in (NL) ABN has a very energetic articulation with considerable scrapiness.” p.191 You’ll agree that this in menacingly close to the uvular trill.

(You’re obtuse btw, Gussenhoven makes a quick overview of the language and Booij has not been updated since the last century -it’s a recent uncompleted process-) (Yes I’m writing like for text messaging)

I’m currently searching for accounts of merger with /r/ (if you are bored, check some videos on the NOS youtube channel, the woman presentators have it REALLY noticably). Ʃouer (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the “obtuse” dropping, wasn’t very polite. I’m way to prone on going familiar while texting. I was just indicating that in a face-to-face talk I’d have had a raising of my eyebrows with some “erm… I don’t think so”. Ʃouer (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why they use /f – f̬/ but not /x – x̬/ Ʃouer (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am pretty sure that all of that is true for the standard Northern Dutch dialects, but do you still agree that the phonology section should at least display a /r/ /x/ and /ɣ/ phoneme distinction? Becuase that is pretty important. That covers the entire Standard Dutch varieties, not just the northern ones. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was utterly wrong doing so. Like Collins & Mees nuance the merger of /x/ and /ɣ/ is -although marginally- not systematic and they’re still distinct in standard Belgian -although not through voice, it’s another debate on which I’m not learned enough- and the resemblance of /x/ and one’s uvular realisation of /r/ is specifically a Randstad trait. Ʃouer (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just say in the midst of the argument “with the opinion that thinks that just because you’re anecdotal pronunciation exists, it should exist for every Dutch speaker. Well, no your not accurate.” which is false. So I thought my good deed of the day could be sharing this knowledge with you. Ʃouer (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And who is “he” as in “was utterly wrong doing so”? Fdom5997 (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timthemanofficial. Ʃouer (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. That’s all I need to know. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw /r/ is often bunched in codas so it rarely merges with /x/ in this position, doing so is nonsense. Ʃouer (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t answer my question, I simply asked, do you agree that the phonology section should at least display a /r/ /x/ and /ɣ/ phoneme distinction? Fdom5997 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should. Ʃouer (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it must! Fdom5997 (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Kihehe language Talk Page I have written my reasons for deleting /ʃ/ from the table of phonemes, if you would care to take a look. – By the way, is the category “Plosives” a satisfactory label, when the language includes implosive consonants? Wouldn’t “Stops” be more accurate, I wonder? Kanjuzi (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is fine. Also I believe “plosives” does include implosives too. So no, “plosives” is a better label. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my edit on the iaai language Stemova11 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was disrupting the chart and that wasn’t a good source that was used for the orthography. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait omniglot is a bad source, how??? Stemova11 (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it only displays samples of languages and does not use appropriate sources for orthography. Fdom5997 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered an apropreate source, and what does omniglot use Stemova11 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know of any appropriate sources, but Omniglot is not one of them. It only assumes the orthographies for the most part Fdom5997 (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m EllaMinnowPea371. Respectfully, I don’t understand why you keep undoing my edits on Edo language. I don’t have access to the Ladefoged source right now, so it may very well support all the information in the Consonants section (in that case, why isn’t it cited more per WP:INTEGRITY?), but I do know that Emovon pp. 87-95 only supports the Consonants table (which is why I added a title for the table and cited it there) and the edited information for the paragraph that precedes it; that is, the information that is in this revision. Can you please explain why you keep undoing my edits with this in mind, and if it is true that Ladefoged supports everything, can you cite it more than just once?
Thanks, ellaminnowpea ^{(371 💬)} 15:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I keep undoing it because Emovon (1979) is not the only source that is used for the consonants. But yes, you can cite Ladefoged’s source more than once. But it isn’t a requirement to cite it with a caption in the chart. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your response. As I said, I do not have access to the Ladefoged source, so I am asking that you please check that the first paragraph’s information (without my edits) is supported by Ladefoged and then cite it. If it isn’t, then I still don’t understand why my edits were reverted, as currently the only source supporting the information is Emovon, and Emovon does not support the statement “…which have nasal allophones such as [n, ɲ, ŋʷ]”, which is why I removed it.
Further, I believe it is useful to cite the consonant inventory with a caption in the table itself. This is because there is currently no explanatory statement that says something along the lines of “The following table shows the consonant inventory for Edo.” that could have a citation supporting it. Moreover, it is currently unclear whether [8] supports both the table and the statement “The three rhotics…”, or just the statement.
Finally, the second sentence of the first paragraph is confusing as-is— why are the fricatives not mentioned, but the stops are?— which is another reason why I decided to make the edits I did in this revision.

Please feel free to ask if you need any clarification. Thanks, ellaminnowpea ^{(371 💬)} 06:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fdom5997:, sorry to bother, but it’s been over a week since I’ve heard anything from you. I would very much appreciate a reply so we can resolve this issue. See my above comments. ellaminnowpea ^{(371 💬)} 04:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I say just leave it the way it is. You do not need to cite the source within the table, especially as the consonant sounds are based on more than one source. There are other sources that I have looked at that clearly distinguish three rhotics, and also the nasal allophones [n, ɲ, ŋʷ] of /l, j, w/. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great, thank you. Can you please cite the other sources, is what I’m asking? ellaminnowpea ^{(371 💬)} 05:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Evbuomwan, Osaigbovo O. (2025) is a good source that supports my claim. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. Can you cite it inline, then, so that all the information that I have challenged is directly supported by at least one source? ellaminnowpea ^{(371 💬)} 05:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my edit adding a “Failed Validation” flag to a phonology claim that isn’t found in the source cited. Please see my comment on Talk:Yawelmani Yokuts. Apiquinamir2 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the revert was made due to no source being given, but the vowel chart already has a source attached to it. In the source, the sound given is [ȯ] rather than [o], which according to the Slavistic Phonetic Alphabet, corresponds to [ɔ̇], or in other words, [o̞]/[ɔ̝]. Vxern (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that is the narrow phonetic transcription, and the phoneme should be linked and displayed as /o/ but phonetically linked as [ɔ̝]. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia’s policy on edit warring. Thank you. Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’m Yacàwotçã. I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the page Dzubukuá language have been reverted because they appear to have added incorrect information. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source, discuss it on the article’s talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully requesting that you stop editing topics with which you are not familiar and whose language of study you admittedly do not speak (that is, Portuguese). Otherwise, I will have to review your edits and collect evidence that you have been adding factually incorrect information to articles that go far beyond the Kariri languages. Thank you, Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider this my last warning. Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What “factually incorrect” info? Like the arrangement of a phonetic chart? Don’t make me laugh. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no /ae/ in Dzubukuá. Queiroz clearly states (in Portuguese) it’s a Kipeá phoneme. Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about take a look on pages 72 and 75 of that source. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]