User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 4

Hi Kwami, I just got your message (haven't logged in for a while). It's in the Evans article in the O'Grady and Tryon book. "The Minkin language of the Burketown region".

language map edits

I'll get on those edits to the new SVG of the indo-european language map ASAP! thanks for the comments! Murraybuckley 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten some questions about the numbers and enigmatic language names on File:Indoeuropean language map. At your request, I added them to the new SVG file, but have no idea what they represent. If you could give me a quick explanation of what the numbers mean and what the difference between languages like "Czech E" and "Czech" are so I can either add them to the image file itself or to the image's wiki page.

IPA to be improved to FA status

Hey Kwami. In case you plan on breaking your wikibreak any time soon, I'm trying to bring the article on the IPA up to featured article status. You can put up requests or comments about its improvement here. If you could, I'd appreciate your input, seeing as how you've made huge contribs to the language part of the pedia.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble in Mi’kmaq-land

I'd be grateful if you'd look in on the dispute at Mi'kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing and its talk page. Evertype 16:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard image copyvio?

Copyright problems with Image:Dvorak keyboard2.png

An image that you uploaded, Image:Dvorak keyboard2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

/blahedo (t) 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic þ and ð

I appreciate that you are on a wikibreak so I do not expect an answer. However, I would be grateful if you could reply to my question on the edits you made concerning the pronunciation of þ and ð in Icelandic. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Phonetics#Icelandic þ and ð. Stefán Ingi 00:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNG

Done. I have recently created some geo-stubs about Papua New Guinea. I think many are still missing. PNG is beautiful country. - Darwinek 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian phonology reedit

I'm just letting you know that I'm in the midst of fixing up the Russian phonology page. If you have any input on the process it would be much appreciated. I noticed that your phonetic table has both hard and soft /s/ and /z/ as apical while my source (Jones & Ward 1969) list the plain set as laminal alveolar while remaining silent on the palatalized set (which could mean that they are laminal alveolar as well). I'm sure you've got sourcing that backs up your edit, but I'll adjust the article to my source and when you've got time you can yay or nay it.

I hope you're enjoying your wikibreak. AEuSoes1 23:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pine Ridge Flag.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pine Ridge Flag.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 01:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noun class semantics

Hi Kwami, nice to see you editing again. I thought you might be interested in a paper I wrote on Bantu noun class semantics, since it was essentially our earlier exchange on Swahili noun classes that brought me to this subject. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mark. I look forward to reading it when I get home. Won't be editing even this lightly much longer, but should pick up again around May. kwami 17:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesian alignment

Kwamikagami,

Tks for the page on Austronesian alignment.--Ling.Nut 23:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Would you prefer <ref> footntes or "... according to Lynch, Ross & Crowley (2002)"?

Whichever you think works best! Nice to know it's appreciated. Now if I just have time to work on ASL grammar ... kwami 10:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shogi_Yagura_defense.png

Hello, someone upload this image on the french Wikipédia. There are a problem because we dont know where come from this image (why this image is public domain). I would like to know if you are owner of this works ? Thanks a lot --fr:Utilisateur:bayo 13:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to reply. It's a screen-shot I made from a freeware program you can download off the internet. kwami 12:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstandard extIPA symbols

I appreciate your efforts in preparing the excellent IPA (IPA chart 2005.png) and extIPA (extIPA.png). In the IPA chart, unofficial extensions are clearly marked. However, in the extIPA chart, as well as the extIPA article, there are some symbols that don't seem to be in the "official" ICPLA charts (2002 chart from EUROCRAN, 1997 chart from IPA). Specifically, I have no idea where the symbol for faucalized voice (Ħ, U+0126) came from; I also wonder about the supposed harsh ("!") and ventricular ("!!") voice symbols, especially as they conflict with the standard IPA postalveolar click symbol. (Other "suspicious" symbols are mainly superscript versions of standard IPA.)

Please add references regarding the additional symbols. Are they from a more recent (>2002) edition of the chart? Or are they common but unofficial extensions (in which case they should be in grey colour, as for the standard IPA chart)? Also, the extIPA chart needs to be updated to the 2002 one (see EUROCRAN link above).

I realize that you are on a wikibreak, but please look into this issue, and take any actions as needed. As always I appreciate your excellent contributions to Wikipedia.

hi. I hope kwami doesnt mind me answering this.

The symbols are actually from two different symbol sets: (1) the extIPA adopted by the International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Association, (2) the VoQS (Voice Quality Symbols). The VoQS has its own chart & its symbols do not appear on the extIPA chart. The symbol for faucalized voice comes from the VoQS chart. You can see the VoQS chart here:

* Ball, Martin J.; Esling, John H.; & Dickson, B. Craig. (1995). The VoQS system for the transcription of voice quality. Journal of the International Phonetic Alphabet, 25 (2), 71-80.

I havent found the VoQS chart on the internet, so you may need to consult a print source. – ishwar (speak) 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Lateral fricatives.png, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

KISS

I just noticed the move of SVO to AVO and the similar moves, and I'm starting to really worry about your attitude toward your role as an encyclopedian.

You have to start imposing some limits on your crusade against popular linguistic terms. Moving and redirecting SVO to AVO and similar moves was especially inconsiderate to the majority of our readrs. You don't seem to much respect for the fact that the overwhelming majority of our readers don't share your interests. You're in effect making articles less accessible to the average reader and imposing terminology which is quite obscure outside of the linguistic community. Granted that it's always difficult describing the finer details of any disciplines to laypersons, and an article may need a lot of time to mature to a proper balance of detail and pedagogic explanation, but most of the time you don't seem to even try and actually seem critical of attempting to explain things in a manner that non-linguists can understand reasonably intuitively.

You're doing a very good job with many of our the linguistic articles, but you really need to watch that academic POV. Adding detail does only good, but actually replacing common terms with more obscure ones is detrimental to the project. Wikipedia is not just an extended database of the linguistic institutions of the world.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the terrific IPA chart!

I appreciate it very much! It must have been a lot of work.

200.73.173.119 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical IPA

I don't agree with most of the changes you made to the IPA representations. If you wish to discuss the matter, please respond at Talk: Jupiter's natural satellites, where I have created a section for the purpose. RandomCritic 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruithne

The -th- is not silent; it is [h]. If you have not seen an accent, do not assume an accent. I see that other people are criticizing your attempts at IPA transcription. Please take the hint and do more careful study before making such edits. -- Evertype·✆ 13:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please correct Irish orthography, then, which specifically says the th is silent? kwami 00:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sakizaya language

Hi Kwamikagami,

Saw you recent edits to Austronesian alignment. Have been wanting to help with that page for a long time, but...hey can you help me? I am supposed to be studying for PhD prelims... I have noticed some talk about a Sakizaya language at Sakizaya people.. did an LLBA search and came out 100% empty-handed on this concept... do you have time to fix that page? A Million thanks!! Ling.Nut 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See you're busy.. sorry... :-) Ling.Nut 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voiceless dental bilabially trilled affricate

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Voiceless dental bilabially trilled affricate, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Addhoc 19:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

The article you created, "Labial-velar nasal" says "a consonantal sound used in some spoken languages", but it doesnt say what spoken languages. Please respond on my talk page. 68.224.239.145 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a talk page. Off hand, I know some dialects of Songhay have it, but I'd have to do some research to find others, and that's not possible right now. (Note "Wikibreak") kwami 10:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image:IPA_suprasegmentals_2005.png

Hi, I noticed you uploaded image:IPA_suprasegmentals_2005.png. Can you tell me how you made the contour-tone examples, please? I'm interested because I want to add transparency to Image:Xsampa-_R.png, for example. Thank you. :) --Kjoonlee 09:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also need to ask you how you made Image:Labiodental flap (Gentium).png when Gentium doesn't support the character, AFAICT. Could you share your secret..? :) --Kjoonlee 13:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've found out about the Supplement to the Combining Diacritical Marks code chart at Unicode, and I've found about Doulos SIL's magic with combining tone marks. Now I just need to know about the labiodental flap. Did you merge the glyphs manually? --Kjoonlee 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you two dont mind me butting in... Look in the Private Use Area section of Doulos SIL for the flap, specifically U+F25F, (and also see a lot of other phonetic symbols used outside of IPA). – ishwar (speak) 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I'd like it to look like Gentium, like how Kwamikagami did. I'd also like to have tone rise/fall diacritics to look native as well, instead of merging from other fonts:

looks a bit weird.. --Kjoonlee 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long to reply. Just had my first hot shower and switched on my first light bulb in three months.

I created my own extension of Gentium using a font editor. I can post it (in a week or two) if you like, but beware it's not Unicode compatible. When Gentium is next revised, they'll have more flaps and lateral fricatives. kwami 10:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletion of Category:Esperantists up for review

In case you'd like to chime in, go here. --Orange Mike 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: PDF Conversion to SVG

I Think (note only Think) that Inkscape has a plugin to allow PDF Import, and if it's in Inkscape, you can easily save to SVG. I know the unreleased 0.46 version has native PDF and AI import built in, and possibly the development versions too (I'll have to check).

Other than that, you might want to ask User:Time3000, as there was a request a while back at the Lab for PDF to SVG conversion, and Time seemed to know what to do about it. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page says that Inkscape can indeed import PDF, but only with the help of an external PDF to SVG converter such as pstoedit. You could also simply use the latter directly. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! kwami

English letter names

I noticed you recently added a hidden comment to all the letter articles, stating that the given spelling is from the OED. Will you add a <ref> to document the OED spelling, in addition to the comment? Anomie 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of letters

I have studied linguistics, and never once have I seen c referred to as cee. The OED doesn't even give its name as cee. It is only one of the names it uses for it. The comments you left in those entries are ridiculous, because in reality, you are the one who needs to provide a valid citation that cee is its only name. The same applies for every letter. This edit war never should have happened.--Gnfgb2 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both cee and ce are good, though the latter is rare, but the name is not spelled c. That's like saying the name of the numeral 3 in English is "3", or that Δ is spelled "δ". Sure, either a numeral or a letter may be used in place of its name, but it isn't the actual name. As for the comment, that's there because people put in spellings like see for C and ay for A, which aren't documented and AFAIK aren't in use. kwami 23:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but I need a source that says precisely that. As I said, the OED doesn't. The name for a letter isn't a puzzle. What makes a name a name is usage. If people started referring to c as sea, then that would be its new name. The number 3 is named three because people refer to it that way. You're making the lede sound like referring to a letter with a single character is "wrong." You're trying to change usage, rather than describe it. That's wrong, and I can't let you do it.--Gnfgb2 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does say that. Per the OED, both cee and ce are the "name of the letter C", whereas C is "the third letter of the Roman alphabet". That is, C is the letter, and cee is its name. Webster's 3rd says cee is "the letter C" and that three is "the figure 3" (among other definitions, since of course the word three exists apart from the glyph <3>). They don't spell it out any more than that, but it's obvious they mean that <C> or <3> are graphemes of written English, not words in themselves. kwami 02:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I'm not trying to change usage. It's obvious from all the ABC articles that the letters may stand for themselves. What I'm doing is providing the names of those letters to those who are looking for them - on some of the discussion pages people have asked for precisely that. kwami 02:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entry "C" in the OED was published in 1893. It has not been re-written since. Perhaps in the past people referred to letters like c as cee, but today it just isn't done. In formal writing, you still write out small numbers like three, but not letters. Check a modern dictionary like the W3 or the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition and you will not see it referred to as the "name" of the letter. Instead, you will see it referred to as the letter, or just another name for it. As for user requests, this isn't mob rule, and they can see clearly that there is more than one name for it.--Gnfgb2 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date is irrelevant, since W3 says the same thing, and any dictionary from the past 5 years will say so as well. All you're saying is that people don't often spell out the names of letters; it's like saying that "fifty-three" isn't good English because people generally write <53>. But when we speak, you say "fifty-three". As for these spellings not being used today, the dictionaries disagree: W3 has cee spring, okay (here okeh is archaic), tee-shirt, emcee, deejay, jaycee, jaygee, jayvee, etc. etc. etc. The reason we either capitalize acronyms is to show that we intend the letters to stand for themselves rather than to spell a word. If you don't want to spell out the words I listed, you need to capitalize them: OK, T-shirt, C spring, etc. In other words, the letters standing for themselves don't behave orthographically like names. If you'd like to add a note, stating that people don't usually bother to spell out the names of the letters, that's fine, but it's not okay to confound the letter with its name. kwami 03:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing systems

Hi Abjad and Abugida are terms coined by Peter Daniels who recognizes that West Semitic writings were not "alphabets" becase they did not isolate phonemes of human speech. The smallest unit a human can isolate without special training is the syllable. The Egyptian writing, on which the West Semitic was based, worked in just this way, giving information about consonants but not about vowels. Hence the reduced short signary of "consonants" must have done the same and encoded consonants plus unknown but implied vowels. Daniels recognizes all this and hence rejects "alphabet," but only muddies the water with these neologisms. I. J. Gelb first made this argument in 1952, so not sure what you mean that these systems were "not syllabaries in any meaningful sense.Bbpowell 19:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But abjads do isolate phonemes, consonantal ones. A syllabary, on the other hand, has distinct graphemes for different syllables, and does not recognize the commonality of consonants or vowels across syllables. My impression from Daniels is that he was attempting to create terms for different types of segmental scripts, reserving "alphabet" for a Greek-type script that treats consonants and vowels equivalently, not that he was claiming that the Egyptians or Semites didn't recognize that speech was segmental. On the contrary, an abjad recognizes the commonality of consonants independently of the following vowel, the essence of any segmental script, and contrary to a syllabary; his point was as much to distinguish abjads and abugidas from syllabaries, with which they have so often been confounded, as to distinguish them from "true" alphabets. (Historically some of this confusion may have been a result of Hellenocentrism or Antisemitism, though I don't know that Gelb was guilty of either.)

As an example of the difference, when the Latin alphabet was introduced into Micronesia without fully conveying the segmental concept, "B" wasn't taken to be /b/ plus an unknown but implied vowel, as in an abjad, but was understood only as the syllable /bi/. The Micronesians were nonplussed as to why the missionaries would give them such a defective script. That is, without the special training you rightly say is required to break syllables into phonemes, they were not able to grasp either Semitic- or Greek-type writing. (I don't recall if they remedied this by expanding the ABCs into a full syllabary, or if they simply abandoned it as unworkable.) There's a huge conceptual difference between an actual syllabary, such as kana, and an abjad, which is as great, or I expect even greater, than that between an abjad and a "true" alphabet.

By your argument, the Latin alphabet is actually a syllabary when used for several tonal Congolese languages but not used to indicate tone. I think it would be better to consider this a defective segmental script that only recognizes certain classes of segments (consonant and vowel) and ignores another (tone). That is, Romanized Kikongo (before recent reform) was the tonal equivalent of an abjad, whereas Romanized Vietnamese, with tone relegated to secondary position as a diacritic, is the tonal equivalent of an abugida. None of these are close to being a true tonal syllabary, as Modern Yi is, where each combination of C+V+T receives an independent glyph; likewise, abudigas and abjads are not even close to being syllabaries. kwami 21:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you must understand this question from the point of view of the history of writing. Clear experiments have shown that, for example, Chinese undeducated in pinyin cannot distinguish "phonemes," only syllables. The "phoneme" does not exist in nature but is a projection of the functioning of the Greek alphabet. In the history of writing, the West Semitic family of scripts was built on the phonology of the Egyptian uniliterals. It was not an "original" invention, but a refinement, if you want to look at it that way. You cannot understand the nature of West Semitic writing independently of its origins in the Egyptian system, wherein all phonetic signs, and certainly the uniliterals, stand for syllables with the nature of the vowel suppressed and provided by the reader.

I agree completely, except that uniliterals and Semitic letters aren't necessarily syllabic -- they can be used for consonant sequences and final consonants. That is, being syllabic isn't essential to Semitic letters; they simply don't indicate that level of detail. Also, when people who don't understand phonemes invent a writing system, they create full syllabaries like Cherokee, Afaka, or Vai, not consonantal scripts like Semitic.

Therfore the West Semitic sign mem represents the sounds ma, me, mi, or mu, as you please.

Or just m. Mem is /m/ underwritten for vowels, just as /a/ is underwritten for tone in many Congolese languages.

the Greek alphabet functioned completely diffrerently. in the Greek alphabet the letter [m] cannot be pronounced by itself but must be annotated by a sign from a second group, the so-caled vowels. from this spelling rule came the illusion of the existence of the phoneme and the profound diffiulcties alphabet users, such as you and I, have when comeing to grips with these questions. the evidence is strong that this radical new invention was first used to record Greek hexametric verse, including the verse of Homer.

Actually, I don't see the Greek alphabet as being as different as it's often made out to be; Semitic letters whose names started with a vowel in Greek pronunciation were used to stand for those vowels, a simple regularization of the acrophonic principle. This was much better suited to the structure of the Greek language. There's a modern parallel: In Hmong, full letters are used to indicate tone -- for example, paaj is /pa/ with a nasal vowel and a falling tone, but we recognize this as simply an adaptation necessary to write the language intelligibly; we don't celebrate Hmong as the greatest breakthrough in writing since vowel letters were invented for Greek. Perhaps there was a radical cognitive shift required to write vowels (I don't recall when sound shifts created long vowels out of Semitic y and w; perhaps this was after the invention of the Greek alphabet and therefore could not have served as a model for it), but this involved the addition of vowels to a segmental script, not a radical change from writing actual syllables to writing segments. To support your point, you would need to see if people raised writing a consonantal script without pointing have the same difficulties as the Chinese. My guess is that they would have trouble recognizing vowel phonemes, but not consonantal phonemes, just as people who use an alphabet that is defective in writing tone have difficulty recognizing tonemes.

Gelb walked us through this argment fifty years ago and my own colleagues, who are philologists, do in fact speak of the "West Semitic syllabaries." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbpowell (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should mention that use of the term (I believe we already do, unless someone deleted that section), but with the warning that this doesn't mean "syllabary" in the sense of having different graphemes for different syllables, as in Japanese or adaptations of Cuneiform. I think it's best to keep technical terms as unambiguous as possible, and the use of the term "syllabary" for both Japanese (kana) and Hebrew, and simultaneously the term "alphabet" for both Greek and Hebrew, is highly ambiguous. Since there are accepted terms that resolve this ambiguity, it would be helpful to our readers for us to utilize them. kwami 19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"BC" vs. "BCE"

Just so you know, please do not arbitrarily change instances of "BC" to "BCE" in articles. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Longer_periods for the convention.

Cheers! Captmondo 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. I'm reverting arbitrary changes. kwami 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you're reverting someone else's prior reversion? If so, apologies! Captmondo 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Usually I can just revert, but one editor's been trying to convert all of Wikipedia to his preference for AD, and sometimes there are other edits after his which I don't want to disturb. (Actually, I agree that AD is superior to CE in being more legible, it's just not always appropriate.) kwami 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Inkscape

Seems the only solutions I can think of are to either spend money or import your bitmap image into Inkscape and manually trace over it. -- Denelson 83 07:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what you do is simply type over the letters in Inkscape using the correct font, then convert the text to paths. -- Denelson 83 07:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croissant pronunciation

You give /kwaˈsoʊn/ as an anglicized pronunciation of croissant. Really? Rhymes with bone, not with lawn? Is that really a pronunciation used somewhere? --Macrakis 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask the person who added it; I just corrected the IPA that was already there. kwami 01:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tallmadge pronunciation

Regarding this edit, what is the pronunciation difference between the two vowels? I was looking on the IPA page, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it in trying to compare the two. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages request

Hi, could I ask you to stop interlacing your comments between the paragraphs of the comment you're responding to, as in Help talk:IPA English pronunciation key? It really gets unreadable. Thank you! —BlackTerror 12:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA on article Peisistratos (Athens)

Your edit where you replaced a link to a resource on IPA with the IPA template confuses me. You state that you've provided a more accessible link to IPA pronunciation, but I don't see any link at all in your edit. The IPA template only seems to attach a class to it, which is only useful if you have some sort of browser customization installed, as well as a tooltip. Am I missing something? --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, being in a footnote seems to mess it up. I'll fix. kwami 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much :) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of the three-revert rule

You have breached the three-revert rule at Peter Ustinov. Please undo your edit. Timeineurope 21:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a breach? You sourced a pronunciation, I left it exactly as you had it, and added your reference. If you object to changing the link on an English name to the English IPA, or to putting a phonemic transcription in slashes, I won't object if you revert me again, though I'll be puzzled as to what the problem is. kwami 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let me regret not reporting you to the relevant incident board. You must undo your edit because I would be breaching the three-revert rule. Timeineurope 21:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a different edit. At first I had changed the pronunciation, you provided a source, and this time I left the pronunciation unchanged and changed a link. Since you reverted my change of pronunciation, I don't see how you'd be breaking 3RR. I am still curious, however, as to what it is you object to. kwami 21:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting the three-revert rule if you don't think it applies here. You reverted a phonetic transcription to a phonemic transcription four times, and that constitutes a breach. Timeineurope 21:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you said you were reverting. kwami 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries don't have to include all (or any) reasons for the edit (and sometimes there's too little space). The bottom line is it doesn't matter what anyone said or didn't say. And you knew perfectly well what I think of phonemic transcription on Wikipedia. Timeineurope 22:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose fault is it if you refuse to communicate in good faith? Go ahead and change it to "phonetic" and leave the corrections then. kwami 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do communicate in good faith. You, on the other hand, breached the three-revert rule and refuse to undo your edit. Timeineurope 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope nobody minds me randomly weighing in here, but as this is the English Wikipedia I actually think Kwami's changes make sense. IPA is the most neutral way for an encyclopaedia to represent phonemes, but few people understand IPA well enough to not have to rely on a key for English. Those who wish to use the original link can always click on the relevant link in the lead paragraph of the article at which they end up. Orderinchaos 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		IPA isn't the most fun at the best of times and I admire your patience in fixing the instances of IPA2 on en.wikipedia. Keep up the good work! :) Orderinchaos 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, OC. kwami 01:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shuniah pronunciation

In NWO, we pronounce it "shoe nyuh" vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aguasabon

I'm 99% sure the stress is on the second syllable, but I'm not entirely sure. The page I got it from didn't have a stress market. It could be more like Kakabeka though, with stress on the first and third syllable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidioman (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA edits

Hi. I notice you have been editing a lot of the IPA entries in American Civil War general biographies that I wrote. When I check your revised version, it always seems to be correct, so I am wondering whether there was a change in format introduced after I placed the entries in the articles. Although I am no expert on IPA, I thought I was doing it carefully at the time. Just interested. By the way, your modification to Henry Heth is correct. He pronounced his name the same as "Heath". Hal Jespersen 00:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur pronunciation

Hi Kwami,

Thank you very much for your many IPA fixes on Wikipedia's dinosaur articles. I'm clueless when it comes to IPA, and so I really appreciate your adjustments to these articles. You recently changed the pronunciation on Scelidosaurus from sk- to s. Is this really correct? My understanding is that it's the same sound (skel) as in Thescelosaurus, on which you left the skel pronunciation. Any idea why there's a difference? Firsfron of Ronchester 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No difference. Thescelosaurus had /sɛl/ as an alternate pronunciation, and I didn't want to change things more than I needed to. The OED only has the Anglicized /sɛl/ pronunciations, but people who are trying to be true to the Latin/Greek will pronounce the /k/. I'll change it to make it consistant; after all, you can always go by the spelling if you want it to sound Latin. kwami 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia and Pancasila (politics) pronunciation

Hi there. I was interested to see your edits to these two articles. I was involved in a discussion about the pronunciation of "Pancasila" a while back (which I lost...), and you are right - it's not English. Regarding the transcription of "Indonesia", I have my doubts. Indonesians pronounce the dipthong /Əʊ/ after the "d" (as do the Americans), especially in patriotic songs, but in British English (and fast Indonesian) it is rendered /Ə/. And as far as I am aware, after checking with colleagues from the US, the UK, Australasia and Canada, the last part of the word is commonly pronounced /sjƏ /, /zIjƏ/ or some combination of the two. I like this stuff. Looking forward to knowing your thoughts. Regards. Davidelit 16:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parallelepiped

I'm not sure I did the right thing—I'll have to check the older OED at home when I have the chance. If the OED gives the syllable-division (NOT stress-placement) differently, then the correct thing to do will be to keep your edit but simply remove "note this contains a typo in stress placement," since there would be no reason to regard it as a typo. In any case, from an article-information point of view, I hope you agree that what we need is information about how the word was pronounced back when mathematicians knew its etymology, with a supporting source. This is valuable information, not the history of typographical errors (if there was one). P.S. It is also awkward that (according to the current OED), the article now gives both current American pronunciations, but neither current British one. Wareh 17:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by British pronunciation. Is the stress in a different place in RP? Currently the first pronunciations make the vowel distinctions of both GA and RP, and as far as I can tell by reverse engineering their typo, the last pronunciation is what was intended by the OED. I have an e-copy of the SOED, but there must be something wrong with it, because I'm only getting the adj. version. kwami 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current OED gives, "Brit. /ˌparəlɛlɨˈpʌɪpɛd/, /ˌparəlɛlɨˈpɪpɛd/, U.S. /ˈˌpɛrəˌlɛləˈpaɪpɨd/, /ˈˌpɛrəˌlɛləˈpɪpɨd/." I am not saying that personally I think we need four current pronunciations, and the two you've chosen cover the most notable variety in the range, but they are both American if the OED is right. Now, I'm less confident that you're correct in declaring the syllabification in the older OED is impossible in English! The point is that the word is a compound of parallel- and epi-ped. To a speaker who still feels that the "epi-" prefix is in the word (and it was precisely this feeling & knowledge that formed the traditional and older pronunciation), in careful pronunciation it would seem a bit odd to divide "-le-pi-ped" (though a parallelolepidopter would be a nice prism with a butterfly on both ends). In rapid speech, of course, I'm sure the syllable becomes le, and I'm no linguist so I won't quibble, as long as I'm sure you understand the point. (I am still not at home and have still not double checked what is printed in the older OED.) Bottom line, if the older OED prints it that way, I think it's intentional, even if you want to tell me the OED was therefore plain wrong as opposed to guilty of a typo. (But if that's the case, I suppose the strictest Wikipedia ethos would demand we still find a source for the information we've deemed best to present.) Wareh 23:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to think of a parallel. I found in the current OED "synapomorph" (lemma "syn-"), where, indeed, as you argue, the second syllable begins with the n. But it is still quite possible that this reflects a change in practice between editions. But if neither of us has yet looked in the older OED, this is starting to be an awful lot of speculation. Wareh 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]