Hello. Should the tone not be added as well to the rhyme for languages where tone is phonemic? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose, unless tone is irrelevant to rhyme in Vietnamese (I have no idea how Vietnamese poetry works, or if they even have rhyming poetry). If I remember right, the reason I didn't include any tone mark when I moved the category is that I didn't know whether to use /əː˧˩/ (Hanoi dialect), /əː˧˨/ (Huê dialect), or /əː˨˩˦/ (Ho Chi Minh City dialect). —Mahāgaja · talk 18:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Mediaeval GreekEdit

About mediaeval greek (and this at κάτα (káta). Normally, I do not interfere with etymologies and I never add mediaeval words, but there was this discussion wich involved med.greek. For gkm, in el.wikt we have mainly 3 dictionaries, {{R:LBG}} for centuries 9-11, {{R:Kriaras Medieval}} for 1100-1699, also {{R:Dimitrakos 1964}} for all phases of Greek -no etymol in this one-. None mentions declensions and genitive at the head of Med. I presume, because of the transformations through centuries. First centuries, are pracically Hellenistic (Koine Greek). Later, like Modern declensions. So, it is impossible to specify. (In el.wikt we deal type-by-type e.g. el:βροντοφώνην for βροντόφωνος) The editing of Med. words in en.wiktionary is very rare. Τhey are mentioned at Modern Greek etymologies often. I apologise for bothering you with this... ‑‑Sarri.greek  | 10:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem! I don't know anything about Medieval Greek myself beyond what I can read at Wikipedia. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You may wish to checkEdit

Hello! You may wish to check here. I do not know if it is intentional. महागज, I generally do not edit ancient greek because I am not competent (only school level). But if you wish me to make corrections here and there, please let me know. (At the moment, I study nouns and adjectives, because we are trying to fix declensions at el.wikt.) ‑‑Sarri.greek  | 03:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


Ban this shit tier vandal please. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"r" in GermanEdit

On the appendix of IPA about German, the "r" is missing, there are two ways of pronouncing the "r" the one listed as in French and the one closer to Spanish "rr". I had add this change but it was removed, they are not the same. Pls don't change it Leo9469 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not a separate phoneme: it's just pronounced differently in different places. Allowing for different regional standards would be a lot more complicated than just adding a line for one variant. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@Leo9469: There is only one r-phoneme in German, which we transcribe /ʁ/ and which can be pronounced [ʁ], [r], [ɐ̯] and a few other ways depending on factors like dialect and position in the syllable, but the German pronunciation appendix must not suggest that /ʁ/ and /r/ are separate phonemes in German, because they aren't. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

For helping to clean up a lot of the entries at Wiktionary:Todo/Incorrect derivation templates. There are a lot to go through and I don't know if I have the stamina to do it by myself. 19:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem! I noticed that I was responsible for some of the errors myself, so it's only fair I help clean them up. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference template for Morris Jones (WGHC)Edit

Thanks for setting up the template {{R:cy:WGHC}}. Would it be straightforward to add a parameter for a URL to the appropriate section (e.g., § 101 iii (2))? I'm not confident that I could add it myself without breaking something. Stevvers (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Stevvers: I was planning on doing that after I finish proofreading the work at Wikisource. Right now, not all sections have anchors yet, and not all text makes sense (because it's still unproofread OCR output). —Mahāgaja · talk 09:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


Hello, why did you eliminate the {{Template:l}} here?--BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Because we don't use {{l}} in glosses. Bare links automatically go to the English language section, so there's no need to use {{l}} for English words. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks; I also ask you if exists a template to use in case of Etruscan inscriptions that don't bear a specific name, the same usage as quote-book. BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
We don't seem to have any specific for Etruscan, no. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Μηδαμῶς, μηδαμός, μηδαμοίEdit

Hi there! You recently moved μηδαμωσ to μηδαμός, changing omega to omicron (and medial to final sigma), and then moved that to μηδαμοί on the grounds that it only occurs in the plural, which Liddell & Scott's entry agrees with. However, μηδαμῶς appears in Strong's as G3365, with omega and in the singular. Are these distinct words? (Liddell & Scott have it as "Adv. of μηδαμός", which suggests not.) I'm not knowledgeable enough to untangle this situation; can you help? -- Perey (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Perey: μηδαμῶς (mēdamôs) is an adverb meaning "not so"; at least, that's how KJV translates it both times it appears in Acts (as seen at the bottom of the Strong's page you linked to). —Mahāgaja · talk 06:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, which seems to support them being different words... but there's that line in Liddell & Scott, which (unless I'm misreading it) says that μηδαμῶς is the adverb form of μηδαμός, so "merely" an inflection, not a separate word. -- Perey (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Perey: Well, I wouldn't say an adverb is "merely" an inflection, because converting an adjective to an adverb changes the meaning. Is sagaciously an inflection of sagacious, or is it a separate word? I'd say it's a separate word, even though many English dictionaries just list it under sagacious like a quasi-inflection. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
In retrospect I'm not even sure what my original point was, because we list inflections anyway, so it doesn't matter whether μηδαμῶς is a "separate word" (by some arbitrary standard of word-ness)... it should get a Wiktionary page. And while I'm still not knowledgeable enough to puzzle out exactly what should go on that page (like info as to its relationship to μηδαμός), I'm going to go make the page and trust wiki magic to do the rest! -- Perey (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
@Perey: In terms of its relationship to μηδαμός I would put the following under ===Etymology===: From {{af|grc|μηδαμός|-ως}}, which will correctly categorize it into CAT:Ancient Greek words suffixed with -ως. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


Hello, writing (British colloquial) for the [ˈɡɛʔɪn] pronunciation is just wrong. I have heard plenty of Americans (as well as people from literally every Anglosphere country) pronounce it like that too, so it should included as an alternative pronunciation at the top; the only pronunciation specific to the UK is the [ˈɡɛʔɪŋ] one, which appears to be a recent innovation.

Americans may sometimes say [ˈɡɛʔn̩], but we certainly never say [ˈɡɛʔɪŋ]. The only place where glottalize /t/ instead of flapping it is before [n̩]. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
What the heck? I clearly say that the velar nasal variant is only used in the UK! As I said everybody else (including most of those from the UK, by the way) uses the alveolar nasal variant instead, and there is most certainly a vowel after the glottal stop, so [ˈɡɛʔn̩] isn't quite right. I only brought up the UK specific velar nasal pronunciation because you were the one acting like nobody but the British ever glottalises it.
When Americans use a glotalised pronunciation for this word it is absolutely identical to the way most people in the UK would pronounce it when glotallsing the word too.
And now you just removed all transcriptions from the getting page after initially claiming to have been unaware of this discussion. Just great. We now have a situation where the only recording on the page doesn't even match the only transcription given on the page, so you have in fact just muddied things up even more.
It doesn't matter what he said in the first sentence. The second sentence covers everything you were discussing all by itself. Simply put, Americans don't glottalize alveolar stops between vowels. I suspect the glottal stops are a way to keep the original stops from disappearing into the following syllabic nasals through assimilation- an intervening vowel would make that unnecessary. At any rate, I would recommend previewing what you've written before saving- it shouldn't take an hour and 24 revisions to make your point. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually none of his post (nor yours for that matter) addresses what I was saying at all , it seems that he was addressing a point that I didn't actually make. The actual point is that he seemed to be implying that only British people glotallise in this context (which is essentially what he stated on the article page), so his post not addressing the topic seemed odd to me. Anyway I'd argue that there definitely is a vowel sound following the glottal stop in this word and similar words that Americans glotallise... it's not simply or glottal stop followed by n.
All I really care about here is keeping the page getting out of Category:IPA pronunciations with invalid IPA characters and Category:IPA pronunciations with invalid representation marks. My personal opinion is that a dictionary should stick to lexical info, i.e. a phonemic transcription rather than a narrow phonetic one (and the audio file does correspond to the phonemic transcription /ˈɡɛtɪŋ/), but honestly as long as the page stays out of the cleanup categories, I'm not going to bother with it. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"mjg" language codeEdit

Hi, I see that you have been changing the configuration of this language. Could you resolve the Lua errors on Reconstruction:Proto-Mongolic/hutasun, Reconstruction:Proto-Mongolic/jïda, Reconstruction:Proto-Mongolic/tergen, lake/translations? Thank you. 17:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Also 黃河. 17:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing all the ones you did, it is appreciated. There are some more in CAT:E now. I guess it's probably because it took a while for the change in the module to fully propagate to those pages and override the cached renderings. 00:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes; I'll check CAT:E from time to time over the next few days. This is fully normal behavior when language codes get removed from Module:languages. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing grc formsEdit

Would you like me to correct all these edits as you have done here? But perhaps it will happen again in the future. Let me know of how you wish me to work? Thank you!! -for everything- ‑‑Sarri.greek  I 10:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel like going through all that person's edits and cleaning them up, so you can do as you please. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Celtic mutation boxesEdit

Some language's mutation
Radical Eclipsis with h-prothesis with t-prothesis
Isn't this better? Isn't this better? h-Isn't this better? t-Isn't this better?
Note: Some of these forms may be hypothetical. Not every
possible mutated form of every word actually occurs.
Note: Mutation is identical for homonyms.

Hi, I've come up with an idea, I was wondering what your thoughts were on the issue: As you know, we currently give mutation in a box at the end of an entry. However, this is a little bloat-y... We only use about a third of the width of a given entry and quite a lot in length to give essentially two or three forms that are common for the entire entry. But what if we just made the box float to the right? (as demonstrated right here).

The only issue with this I can think of is that readers might assume that this mutation box is only applicable to the etymology right next to it. However, we could put a disclaimer in the template (as I have done to the right, although I'm sure it could be worded better) to take care of that potential issue.

So, what do you think? Thanks in advance :) Thadh (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the current setup is "bloaty" at all; no more so than having inflection tables where they are. (Granted, other languages' Wiktionaries do relegate inflection tables off to the right-hand side of the page, e.g. de-wikt.) —Mahāgaja · talk 19:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I think the difference is that inflection tables are collapsible (so, essentially, they only take up a sliver on the screen, unless the reader wants to see it), while mutation boxes aren't. Actually, that might also be a good idea, making mutation boxes collapsible. Thadh (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Or at least smaller in some way. Mutation tables have only one row of content anyway, so making them collapsible wouldn't achieve a lot. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
In that case, how about just removing padding and making it wider:
Some language's mutation
Radical Eclipsis with h-prothesis with t-prothesis
And how about this? And how about this? h-And how about this? t-And how about this?
Note: Some of these forms may be hypothetical. Not every possible mutated form of every word actually occurs.
It isn't a lot, but I still feel there's improvement; Looking over the mutation boxes, it seems this already has been done for Irish to some degree, and Cornish and Breton simply have a collapsible table, so it's mostly an issue for Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. Thadh (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


Why did you remove the link to Strong's Concordance from ἅγιον? Is there something in the Wiktionary guidelines against linking it as I did? I was following the example of entries like γένεσις. Scyrme (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: γένεσις (génesis) is a lemma form; ἅγιον (hágion) is an inflected form. It doesn't make sense to add links to references and the like in non-lemma forms. The Further reading section at ἅγιος (hágios) is sufficient. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand why you say it doesn't make sense to link it. I could understand removing it if it were simply a link to the same page, as it would be redundant, but the template links to a separate entry with its own page with information particular to that entry. The link provided by the template doesn't provide information on inflected forms beyond simply listing them, and it's not like the Wiktionary entry for the non-lemma form is cluttered. Scyrme (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Scyrme: Strong's has a separate entry because there is also a neuter noun ἅγιον (hágion, temple, sanctuary). If we have an entry for that noun (in addition to the adjective form), then of course it will make sense to link to Strong's. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The "Part of Speech" box on Blue Letter Bible only says "adjective", so it does not appear that G39 is exclusively for the noun unless the site is wrong. I don't see a problem with linking it before an entry on the noun is added, but I've started an entry on the noun anyway. Scyrme (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
See the original Strong's Concordance. As you can see, 40 is the adjective, and 39 is the noun. 39 does say that it's also the neuter of 40, but the fact that there's no Strong's number for the feminine of 40 (it would go after 36) suggests that's not why 39 exists. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks. Scyrme (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

attempt to delete stress at Wiktionary:PronunciationEdit

Hi Angr,

The discussion has been moved to WT:BP, but a user is edit-warring over deleting phonemic stress marks that have been stable for a decade. Could you check it out?

kwami (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz @Fytcha This kind of canvassing isn't allowed, is it? Particularly when it's dishonest about what the status quo is. Theknightwho (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Asking another editor to take a look at a dispute isn't canvassing. I've locked to page to prevent further edit-warring until the discussion at the Beer Parlor has come to a conclusion. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
The big issue was dishonestly framing what the status quo is, really. Theknightwho (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I asked Mahāgaja because they were perhaps the most active editor on the talk page that you moved the discussion from. And I think 13 years is sufficient to establish status quo! kwami (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please don't use Template:ro-IPAEdit

It is not operational yet and produces wrong results. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Check out my Sanskrit verb module!Edit

Hey, I'm prototyping a new sandbox module at Module:User:Dragonoid76/sa-verb, which *should* make it easier to add more complex conjugations to Sanskrit verbs the same way they are done for Ancient Greek. I already have a couple of TODOs there, but I'd appreciate any feedback on it. Dragonoid76 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Etymology header policiesEdit

Hi, Mahagaja! Is there any specific policy for the Etymology header? BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@BandiniRaffaele2: Have you read Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Etymology and Wiktionary:Etymology? —Mahāgaja · talk 14:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I was searching for a rule in the Etymology headers for the Romance languages (as Romagnol). That is, either have I to use the standard form or the small caps for the latin word (as I see many done)? BandiniRaffaele2 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we use small caps for Vulgar Latin here, as come other publications do. I've never seen that done at Wiktionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Etymology of the word 'Slave'Edit

I had to revert your editing. Full quotes and their translations from F. Kluge and G. Köbler Etymological Dictionaries are now provided in the 'Talk' section of the page. I invite you to join the discussion there so as to reach a consensus and avoid further unjustified editing.

Thanks in advance. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mahagaja.
Yes I do think that your edit in an error.
And yes, I presented my point of view at Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2022/August#slave as well. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Could you chime in with your thoughts on my latest suggestions at Etymology scriptorium?
Thanks. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Reference template for F. Kluge's Etymologische Wörterbuch 6th ed.Edit

Hi. Just found out that the template {{R:EWddS|ed=4|head=Sklave|p=366}} references wrong edition (4th instead of 6th), place (Berlin instead of Strassburg) and publisher (Walter de Gruyter instead of Trübner). It would be nice if someone corrected that (I can't, 'cos I'm completely new to it yet). Thanks Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

|ed=4 means 4th edition, so it correctly references the 4th edition. We'd have to edit {{R:EWddS}} to make it accept |ed=6 for the 6th edition. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I've made the changes now. I also noticed that I mixed up some info between the 4th and the 6th editions, which should be fixed now. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, 4th edition template still links to the 6th edition at the Interner Archive... 4th one is here, and the 'Slave' is on page 329. Fuzzy Barsik (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, the URLs should be right now. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Three recent page alterations: φύσας, φῡ́σαντες, and φύς.Edit

Friday, 12 August, 2022

Hi, Mahagaja. I am the user who created the pages for φύσας, φῡ́σαντες, and φύς which you recently altered quite drastically. As I put a lot of thought into the layout of those pages with an eye to the instructiveness thereof, I am wondering: what was the impetus for your changes, especially in light of the fact that the pages as they currently exist appear much less instructive for any potential user, having no meanings in the differing senses or quotations illustrating usage by classical authors. Simply stating that φύσας is the masculine aorist past active participle of φύω, for instance, instructs only of that fact, and does not inform a user that φύσας could be used to mean "father" (as has been stated by LSJ, Stamatakos, etc.), see what I mean? The pages as they are, then, therefore appear much less useful than the pages as I created them. I have always disliked the Wiktionary pages for verb forms in Latin and Greek for those very reasons as heretofore stated. Please note that the pages as I created them included all of the information that they do with your changes, and other much more useful information as well. Please enlighten me as to the reasons for your changes, and I want to emphasize that this query is not made with argumentation in mind, in case you imagine that it is (I do not intend to engage in any of the nasty and childlike disputes which I see all too often in these talk pages). Thanks much, Michael.

P.S., I may not be able to respond to your comments with any immediacy, as I may not be at the computer much over this coming weekend. Thanks much. 18:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

When I checked LSJ at the time, I didn't see nominal use of these participles, but now that I've looked more closely, I see that they are used nominally. I'll restore the noun sections. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Mahagaja. Your addition of the Declension tables is greatly appreciated; I was going to do that, but had to familiarize myself with the Greek templates, and find the proper one to use. There is some question in my mind as to whether we should use the header "noun" to describe the nominal use of these terms. After all, the grammatical identity of these words is μετοχή, regardless of how they are used. For instance, φύσας would never be called an επίθετο, an όνομα, or an ουσιαστικό, even if it happens to be used in those roles. I defer to your greater knowledge and authority regarding this, however. If you don't mind, I want to restore some material to the entries, such as etymological and sense information and references, so that they might be complete.
I tend to use ===Noun=== for anything that behaves like a noun, including substantivized adjectives and participles, not just in Ancient Greek but in other languages like Latin and German as well. I don't see any point in adding an etymology, though, as the etymology is simply the participle that's already on the page. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
My thinking is, if we are going to call it "a noun", which is an unusual but acceptable (to my mind) characterization within the IE languages (and may be the rule in others, although I am unsure of this), then we should, in a formal way, inform users (and especially learners) how the jump from "participle" to "noun" is made. I also like to have meanings present when dealing with participles, which, often being metonymic interpretations of the literal senses, are not always crystal clear from the knowledge of the nature of the participle.

In case you weren't aware...Edit

See Category:Old Irish descendants to be fixed in desctree. The module is designed to only show the error in preview, so you may not have noticed. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Some Irish requestsEdit

Hello, I was wondering if you could create some missing Irish entries, if it's not beyond your ability :) I just saw this diagram on facebook and wondered exactly how many of these terms does en.wikt currently have documented. I know from checking that we are at least missing eipeaglotas. If you could add that and any other missing ones that would be great, thanks. User: The Ice Mage talk to meh 10:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@The Ice Mage: Please add any requested entries to Wiktionary:Requested entries (Irish). Thanks! —Mahāgaja · talk 10:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

About the word pleaseEdit

Excuse me, but why did you undo the pronunciation of /plis/, on that section of the word please? FanNihongo (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Because I don't think it's ever pronounced /plis/ (rhyming with peace) in General American; it's pronounced /pliz/ (rhyming with peas). —Mahāgaja · talk 07:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I see. I will add it back because I cannot stop hearing that word as /plis/. I want to believe it is /pliz/ but what I hear simply does not match with that pronunciation. Besides you cannot deny that there are dialects that pronounce it in that way. FanNihongo (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@FanNihongo: If there are such dialects, they aren't General American. If you want to add the pronunciation, please label it with the name of the accent in which it occurs. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Let's forget about dialects, to start the definition of GA is "it encompasses a continuum of accents rather than a single unified accent."(From the wikipedia).
The point is what I said at the beginning: "I cannot stop hearing that word as /plis/. I want to believe it is /pliz/ but what I hear simply does not match with that pronunciation."
I am just a learner of English, who lives in a Spanish speaking country(Mexico), and who listens it as /plis/ everywhere, on the TV, the anime, etc.. In my logic, if I hear that pronunciation then, it is a valid pronunciation. FanNihongo (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
You grew up speaking Spanish, which doesn't have a distinction between voiced and unvoiced sibilants- so your ear is simply not trained to hear the difference. English in the US does have that distinction, so your pronunciation will be recognized universally by native speakers here as foreign. I already brought this up on your talk page a month ago, so this should not come as a surprise. Given the greater number of vowel and consonant distinctions in US English as compared to Spanish, you really shouldn't be adding General American pronunciations at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
It is true that there is some devoicing of final obstruents in phrase-final position in English, so in isolation (or as the last word in its phrase) please could definitely be [pl̥iːz̥], but that's still a rendition of phonemic /pliz/, not /plis/, though I can understand that a native Spanish speaker would hear it as the latter. But it would still have the (nonphonemic) vowel lengthening before a voiced obstruent that is characteristic of English: peas has a much longer vowel than peace does, and please also has the longer vowel, which proves that the consonant is really /z/ not /s/. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
pinging @Chuck Entz. Alright, if there are no objections I will edit my entries(please and is) like this in the following 24 hours:
Note. about your message on my talk page, I didn't see it until now, because I am more active on Commons. FanNihongo (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@FanNihongo: I object to that on the grounds that English is not a language of Mexico. We use {{a}} for native accents of a language, not foreign accents. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Sigh, I read the Accent Template and there do not mention any of what you are telling me.
I will tell you my story: I have been learning English all my life, for many years I had been studying it in a theoretical way, first I start studying the Received Pronunciation(UK) but later I switched to General American. This is my way of Studying it: I memorize every pronunciation that I found, I study the words by duolingo, I extract its pronunciation from the wiktionary, and finally I memorize their IPA thought the anki program. But after months of doing that, at the end the result were not what I was expecting: my English didn't sound natural, and I still had trouble understanding spoken English(Note: In my life I've never meet a native speaker in person, so there were not anyone to correct me about my English).
Because of the reasons explained above: I did change my way of studying, I do the same as explained above but now, when I study a new word, I take its pronunciation in base on how someone has pronounce it. So the logic is this, because my English pronunciation is not natural, so if I pronounce the words like others pronounce it, then that pronunciation is correct, ergo my English will be more natural.
There has passed many months since I changed my study method, now my pronunciation is more natural and I understand spoken English better. Currently my goal is to add the pronunciation of every new word that I study. But it seems that the reality does not always match with the theory.
From my part I have came here to avoid an edit war, based on my experience and what I explained above the pronunciation /plis/ is valid and should be there.
Note: I tested to your arguments, by listen the word peace and please, and I didn't hear any lengthening nor distinction between /z/ and /s/. In my opinion the theory has more influence over your arguments. FanNihongo (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Forget what I say, I am studying on my duolingo, and I think I am starting to notice the difference... False alarm, on duolingo one character pronounced it clearly as /pliz/ and other character pronounced it as /plis/.FanNihongo (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Old IrishEdit

Hi Mahagaja,

How might Old Irish muinchille have been pronounced? I am trying to determine how the Latin~Romance term would have sounded at the time of the borrowing (and whether */manˈtsʲɛla/ is plausible). Nicodene (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nicodene: Latin loanwords in Irish always have the original /k/ pronunciation of c. In this case, it was further lenited to /x/ and palatalized to /xʲ/, but those are developments within Irish. The Old Irish pronunciation was /ˈmunʲxʲil͈ʲe/. The syncope of the i between the n and the c, which must have postdated lenition, suggests a fairly early loanword, no later than the Primitive Irish era (before the 6th century). —Mahāgaja · talk 16:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I see- thank you for your reply. Could the Latin word have had *[kʲ] at the time of borrowing (realization of /k/ before front vowels), or does only *[k] make sense? Nicodene (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Nicodene: Yes, it could have had [kʲ] in Latin, but it definitely would have become palatalized in Irish even if it was still unpalatalized in Latin. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)