Dogsareultracool

Please, where are you getting that ġ in Old English equates to /d͡ʒ/ ? I am aware that it only signifies /j/ when not in combination with ċ (e.g. ċġ) Leasnam (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Palatalized ġ is usually /dʒ/ when it comes directly after n. I got this information from a book I'm reading called The Development of Old English, Volume II. On page four it says:

"Some ambiguities in spelling should be noted. The fricatives g [ɣ] and ġ [j] could come to stand immediately following n by syncope of an intervening short vowel, and that makes the written sequences ng and nġ ambiguous. For instance, ng is [ŋg] in bringan 'to bring' < PGmc *bringaną because the consonants had always been in contact, but ng is [nɣ] in syngian 'to sin' < pre-OE *synnjægōjan because the cluster arose by syncope. Similarly, nġ is [ndʒ] in menġan 'to mix' < PWGmc *mangijan, but nġ is [nj] in menġu 'multitude' < PGmc *managīn-. Fortunately the clusters that arose from syncope are rare."

The same passage occurs in this PDF if you want to check. Dogsareultracool (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but there really is no authority on this. Just because one or a few authors choose to use dots in whatever manner they wish does not make it universal. I am not against it, but it could be confusing here. Here, we have been using ġ solely for /j/. Using nġ for /nd͡ʒ/ and /nj/ doen't seem to make the situation any better. My suggestion would be to bring this up at WT:TR and see if we cannot get a consensus vote on this. If it's agreed upon, we should add something to WT:AANG Leasnam (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Old English Pronunciations

Hello ! I see that you've been removing the phonemic pronunciations and replacing them with phonetic ones. Do you see any reason why this is superior to showing it the other way ? Leasnam (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Phonetic pronunciation is more specific. Also less confusing. If an entry lists a phonemic pronunciation next to a phonetic one, people are going to think the word has two pronunciations when it really has one. Dogsareultracool (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

But do you think we should be consistent across all entries ? For modern English, we use phonemic pronunciation... Leasnam (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"If an entry lists a phonemic pronunciation next to a phonetic one, people are going to think the word has two pronunciations when it really has one." > makes no sense. Per utramque cavernam 10:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)