Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Pronunciation

Suggested changes

Please use {{a|RP}} and {{a|GA}} instead of {{a|UK}} and {{a|US}} in the updated version. "UK" and "US" are really bad as accent labels since neither the UK nor the US has a uniform accent. Also, please use a word that, unlike right, has a different transcription for RP and GA; the pronunciation line of right probably needs no accent tag at all, or if it does, then {{a|GA|RP}}. One possibility is start, being {{IPA|/stɑːt/|lang=en}} in RP and {{IPA|/stɑɹt/|lang=en}} in GA. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Angr: For the moment, I only did the first part and changed UK/US to RP/GA. But can we use a word that has 1) IPA pronunciations; 2) audio files; 3) rhymes; 4) homophones; 5) hyphenation. The word start does not have homophones. My intention is to use only one entry to display a pronunciation section that is as complete as possible. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

How about carrot then? It has all 5 as well as separate RP and GA pronunciations. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Carrot is improper because whether a speaker pronounces it one way or the other depends upon whether or not their dialect has the merry, Mary, marry merger or not. Someone can speak "General American" and not have the merry, Mary, marry merger. Furthermore, even with speakers who have the merger, some people merge the sounds to the vowel of Mary, whereas others merge the sounds to the vowel of merry. So that's not a very good example to use. Tharthan (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Should we use another word instead of carrot? Or maybe we can use carrot but expanding the pronunciation with more varieties? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The entry shows both /ˈkɛɹət/ and /ˈkæɹət/ as GA pronunciations. The point is merely to illustrate separate lines for GA and RP. There's nothing wrong with using carrot. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said elsewhere, "carrot" is fine as it is, so long as things are properly done. Tharthan (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Only applicable to English?

Seems to be the case. Wyang (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As the vote creator, I only edited the presentation of what was already there, I introduced little to the policy (only the presence of {{hyphenation}}).

How can the proposal be improved in a way that meets the needs of other languages? I'd like to know if there are any ideas, after all I don't speak most languages Wiktionary has entries for. :)

But, even if the proposal remains arguably "English-only", IMO it's an improvement compared to the current version, so I'd like it to pass. It's a wiki, so we can further improve the section whenever we want. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, many languages are not written in the Latin alphabet and have devised their own way of indicating unpredictable pronunciations, e.g. Korean phonetic respellings ({{ko-IPA}}), occasional Russian respellings ({{ru-IPA}}); Secondly, the transcription for many languages is intimately related to pronunciation not orthography, and it would be more convenient to automatically generate the transcription in the Pronunciation section, e.g. {{th-pron}}; Thirdly, some languages prefer to sort the content in the Pronunciation section by dialect/variety, rather than the type of information (IPA, audio, homophone, rhyme, hyphenation), e.g. 結合; Fourthly, some languages have pitch accents that require special notations, e.g. {{ja-pron}}; Fifthly, ... Wyang (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think as a policy page this should be kept as general as possible. We could say we're using English as an example here, and point out that other languages will have more specific customs laid out on their language consideration pages (WT:About Korean, WT:About Russian, WT:About Thai, WT:About Japanese, and so on. And of course, we should make sure those language consideration pages do discuss those language-specific features for pronunciation sections. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, "The r phoneme used in English in words like red, green and orange is to be represented with /ɹ/ instead of /r/, except in accents where it is actually a trill." is a English-specific rule. One could argue that it should be moved to WT:AEN, but it's a "think thank" policy proposal rather than a full policy so I'd rather keep a few hard and fast voted rules about English or other languages in WT:EL before moving them elsewhere. I would change many things in WT:AEN but listing them here would be off-topic. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Still, I see absolutely no effort at accommodating other languages made in the new version, in which case this should be made an English-specific policy. Wyang (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

WT:EL#Variations for languages other than English says: "Some languages do have characteristics that require variation from the standard format. For links to these variations see Wiktionary:Language considerations." so one should see both EL and the About:X language pages for a specific language anyway. I do agree with @Wyang that we could expand WT:EL#Pronunciation in some way, but can we do that in another vote? The purpose of the current vote is basically just organizing and shortening the current WT:EL#Pronunciation. New things can be added later. If we add new things now, then the whole vote could fail if other people disagree with the new things. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Poll: example word

Poll: Currently, the example word in the vote is carrot. What should be the example word, if the vote passes? Hopefully, if there's consensus for a word different from carrot, we can use that word without having to make a separate formal vote for it.

Criteria:

• If possible, let's choose a word that has all types of pronunciation information simultaneously: 1) IPA pronunciations; 2) audio files; 3) rhymes; 4) homophones; 5) hyphenation. (I hope I didn't forget anything?) If there's any word in the poll lacking any of these items, I propose the word to be disqualified.

Reason:

• Because the chosen entry is going to be used as the pronunciation example, arguably it's better if it has all the pronunciation information.

Choose any number of options to support. Feel free to create additional sections if you think of new words. Thank you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

carrot

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --WikiTiki89 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose Because even though I said that it was alright, it seems that some users may wish to cause problems with it. --Tharthan (talk)
4. Oppose, especially as currently written (with the difference between /ˈkæɹət/ and /ˈkɛɹət/ unexplained). - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Support —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

   Support Enough detail, yet still reasonably simple. 128.250.0.26 00:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

   Given that this poll is part of the vote and is deciding what will go into a policy, it seems to me that you need to meet the eligibility requirements to vote, and you don't, so I'm intending your vote. If you were accidentally logged out and are actually someone who meets the requirements, please log in. :) - -sche (discuss) 04:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

queue

1. Support --WikiTiki89 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose No hyphenation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

aloud

1. Support --WikiTiki89 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose No RP/GA distinction. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

wholly

1. Support --WikiTiki89 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support insofar as it has IPA, audio, rhymes, homophones, and hyphenation; note that the IPA may however need to be cleaned up (some things currently in the entry are of dubious quality). - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose Homonyms are complicated. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

symbol

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --WikiTiki89 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Support -- Tharthan (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
4. Support insofar as it has IPA, audio, rhymes, homophones, and hyphenation; note that the IPA may however need to be cleaned up. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose No RP/GA distinction. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

altar

1. Oppose --WikiTiki89 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

censor

1. Support --WikiTiki89 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Comment: it lacks an audio file. Maybe someone can add one. - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

   I've added one. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

lever

1. Support --WikiTiki89 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose No homophones. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Support —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

   There are homophones listed in the entry; are they in error? - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

   Oh, I was thinking of the /ˈlɛvɚ/ pronunciation. I don't know what capitalized Lever is, but if it can also be pronounced /ˈlɛvɚ/ the qualifier can be removed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)