Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
Template talk:fi-pronunciation. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
Template talk:fi-pronunciation, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
Template talk:fi-pronunciation in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
Template talk:fi-pronunciation you have here. The definition of the word
Template talk:fi-pronunciation will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
Template talk:fi-pronunciation, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
This template renders < uv > as /uʋ/, (cf. sauva). Anecdotally, such a pronunciation does exist but is quite rare. "Finnish Sound Structure –
Phonetics, phonology, phonotactics and prosody" states:
- 'The allophone of /V/ occurs in e.g. sauva ‘staff’ and rouva ‘married woman'.
I think we'd do best to keep the phonemic representation as /uʋ/ but changing the phonetic one to .
- brittletheories (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
- There are definitely sources for a long <v> /ʋ/:
- "Näistä ääntyy pitkänä vain i-loppuisen diftongin jälkeen, esim. leija ja tuija . Vastaavasti ääntyy pitkänä vain u-loppuisen diftongin jälkeen, esim. vauva ja sauva ." Panu Mäkinen: Suomen kielioppi 1999–2004
- "I-loppuista diftongia, jota ei seuraa muu konsonantti, voi seurata pitkä j, mutta se voi myös ääntyä lyhyenä tai jäädä kokonaan ääntymättä. Sama koskee v:tä u-loppuisen diftongin jäljessä, kun tätä diftongia ei seuraa muu konsonantti." Wikibooks (perhaps based on the previous one?)
- Anecdotally I definitely pronounce words like sauva, vauva, hauva with a long (or perhaps semi-long) /ʋ/. It'd be interesting to see what Karlsson 1982 says. Regardless, it is probably indeed wrong to show it in the phonemic transcription. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Apparently I misunderstood and it doesn't show up in the phonemic transcription anyway, so it's only the phonetic one we're talking about here. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it was only about the phonetic transcription. The question was about whether we should render it as 1) not , 2) not , or 3) and . brittletheories (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Since there is a source for actually being , I think using the latter in the phonetic transcription makes sense. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply