Jump to content

Talk:Close-mid central unrounded vowel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sound sample

[edit]

Needs a sound sample! -- Taral 05:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mid central unrounded vowel

[edit]

From its own description, this is an unrounded mid central vowel. Wouldn't it be better to move the section about it there? FilipeS 20:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. People have objected to having six more articles, though. kwami 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I am proposing that the section on the Mid-central unrounded vowel, in the article on the Close-mid central unrounded vowel, be moved to Mid central vowel. From its own description, that sound is a mid vowel, not a close-mid vowel. FilipeS 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be moved to Mid-central unrounded vowel. kwami 06:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles on vowels make reference to more than one sound, for example this one. What's wrong with doing the same in the article on the schwa? As a matter of fact, "schwa" already is defined in two different ways. FilipeS 13:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IPA?

[edit]

How come this sound isn't on the Wikipedia:IPA page? 70.23.234.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not really sure, even though I'm apparantly the one who removed it (probably because the example was wrong/misleading). Some oversight that is easily fixed. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Close-mid central unrounded vowel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion at Talk:Mid central vowel#Challenging the recent edits by Kbb2, especially concerning German

[edit]

--mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged [ɘ] in German: Weasel words, divergence from citation given

[edit]

In Special:Diff/776289294, Kbb2 has introduced a highly dubious text, for several reasons:

  • The text openly diverges from the citation given by using [ɘ] instead of [ɨ]. In a footnote, Kbb2 has attempted to justify the divergence. The attempt seems quite far-fetched to me:
    • While Kbb2 points out that «starke Zentralisierung» (p. 52) does not mean ‘raised and centralized’, it does not mean ‘lowered and centralized’ either.
    • Kbb2 tries to argue that the illustration on p. 34 allows us to presume that the starting point of the centralized sound is close-mid. This completely ignores that the sound in question is transcribed as [ɪ] for a reason, so we must assume that the transcription [ɨ] is chosen for a reason as well.
  • Kbb2 implicitly argues that the citation is mistaken and takes the liberty to correct it. I strongly believe we must never do this. Wikipedia does not aim at correcting its sources, but merely at representing them. The basis for a correction can only be another source.
  • I actually think the source itself is rather questionable. It is merely a tertiary source, it does not provide any sources in turn, and it uses blatant weasel words – «[h]äufig», which Kbb2 has inaccurately translated as “[m]any speakers”.

I think we should delete this passage altogether until we can find a reliable secondary source that explains the phenomenon. At the very least, we should move it to Close central unrounded vowel, which is how the source given describes the vowel. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 20:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@J. 'mach' wust: On the vowel chart, [ɪ] is depicted as being close-mid. On page 64, it is described as being a shortened and centralized /eː/; in fact, the source describes it as more open than /eː/ which, again, is depicted on the vowel chart.
When you're describing a high vowel (a vowel closer than true-mid), the word centralization would never imply raising, especially that strong (from close-mid to close). This is the correct place for this vowel.
I see no divergence from the source here. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think your problem is treating IPA too literally. This is not the first time I see you doing that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kbb2: I see no divergence from the source here. The extremely obvious divergence is that the source uses [ɨ], but you have used [ɘ] instead. Do you have any source for backing up this striking divergence? It seems to me it what you are trying to push your personal POV.
And of course I am treating the IPA and the sources literally. After all, the signs were chosen by professional linguists. There is often a whole tradition behind these choices. Unfortunately, we only have a single tertiary source that does not explain anything, so we do not know why [ɨ] was chosen. We just know it was. I guess it might have been chosen for the same reason that [ɪ] is used, not [e]. Also note that [ɪɐ] is often raised to [iɐ]. Anyway, the source says [ɨ], not [ɘ].


Personally, I believe that the phenomenon they are trying to describe is really glottalization. I have never seen any German phonetics research postulating an [ɨ] allophone, and the source does not explain anything. In my opinion, we might as well drop it until we find some more reliable source. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 23:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the source in question, but [ɘː] is a possible realization of German /ɪr/ as in "wird" [vɘːt]. I myself usually say it that way. It's a central monophthong, similar to the English "bird" vowel only higher/more closed. The fact that speakers from other regions (e.g. Westphalians or Austrians) say [viɐt] instead is obviously meaningless. 92.218.236.20 (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I clicked on the diff link. And while I still haven't seen the original source, apparently /ɪr/ is indeed one of the environments in question. So yeah, this is definitely true. But if the source doesn't use the symbol [ɘ], I agree that it is difficult to use it as proof. 92.218.236.20 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Close-mid_central_unrounded_vowel&oldid=1246115425"