User talk:Sol505000

Please do not go around systematically changing /ɪ/ to /ə/ without consensus or proper sources, as if it's incorrect. In the case of Africa for example, MW, Dictionary.com, Cambridge, Oxford Learner's, and Collins still represents it with /ɪ/. Only the OED has gone ahead and changed it to /ə/ at their entry for African. As such, I've reverted you for now. You should bring up the change you want to make at WT:Beer Parlour, similar to other pronunciation suggestions that have been brought up, such as Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/October § English IPA vowels or Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/November § /ɾ/ in GenAm. AG202 (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fine, I'll pay more attention next time and check multiple sources. But deleting my transcriptions instead of fixing the IPA is completely unacceptable and disrespectful to my time and work. Sol505000 (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I solely reverted /ə/ back to /ɪ/. I did not delete any of the new transcriptions for terms that did not have them beforehand. Please direct critiques to the appropriate person. AG202 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

My apologies, this is true. Sol505000 (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm also concerned about this, because the weak-vowel merger is a phonetic process, not a phonemic one. Changes like this one effectively falsified the reference which was already there, too. Theknightwho (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

"I'm also concerned about this, because the weak-vowel merger is a phonetic process, not a phonemic one." - This is false. It is a replacement of the phoneme IPA^(key): /ɪ/ with the phoneme IPA^(key): /ə/ which creates new homophones. And why on earth would you revert all my additions, even those where the weak vowel merger is of no concern?! I suggest that you check your eyes next time. Sol505000 (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think you know why. Theknightwho (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I do not. Spell it out please. Sol505000 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, many of them are hypothetical, as these words never actually get said; only typed. For instance, why gookland /ˈɡuːklænd/ and not /ˈɡuːklənd/? We have no way of knowing, since neither are verifiable.

Secondly, this isn't your playground to act like an edgelord. Adding unverifiable pronunciations to a load of niche slurs isn't a positive contribution, to be quite frank. It's just clean-up work for other people. Theknightwho (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I cannot quite believe that you're bringing up the content of those pages. The only topic here should be the IPA. What pages I edit is my business alone - or is it not in your opinion? Whether I'm an "edgelord" in real life or not is also none of your concern. I suggest that we focus on the IPA.

The pronunciations are based on the non-offensive versions of those words. When you say "Killadelphia", you want the other person to know you're talking about Philadelphia - thus /ˌkɪləˈdɛlfiə/, or at least /ˈkɪlədɛlfiə/ when you're comparing it with /ˈfɪlədɛlfiə/, normally accented /ˌfɪləˈdɛlfiə/. It's common sense and there are thousands upon thousands of unsourced IPA transcriptions on Wiktionary. Why focus on those niche neologisms in particular?

Per -land, gookland is likely to be /ˈɡuːklænd/. Sol505000 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes indeed: why focus on those niche neologisms in particular? Theknightwho (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please leave my talk page. Sol505000 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have been trying to maintain a type of cooperative attitude towards you but based on your consistent and unrelenting confrontational nature and comments on this talk page in particular, it's becoming harder and harder to do that. It is clear you are unwilling to actually discuss something and will force your opinion no matter what. Please hold off on forcing changes while the conversation is still happening. Vininn126 (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maybe start backing up your words with sources? You don't get to equate changes based on reputable sources with the ones based on your opinion, that's the very definition of original research. You're the one pushing an analysis not found in sources (I'm not the one who needs to disprove that it does, you need to prove that it exists). Sol505000 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did you read my latest comment or are you going to continue to be confrontational, only proving my point? Vininn126 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Gussmann 2007:234-6 is not about what we're talking about. I have the PDF. Where are the relevant sources? Sol505000 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is relevant in so far as that you are using a prepositional phrase to back up your claim which is not something to actually substantiate the voicing rules of onset v, as prepositions behave differently. So it is relevant. Stop handwaving and lose the arrogant attitude. Vininn126 (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I demand that you provide a source that says that a syllable-initial /v/ can be devoiced after voiceless consonants such as /t/. <tw> in "kotwica" represents a syllable-initial cluster. You don't get to push your nonsense on me just because of how long you are here. Start naming the sources now. Sol505000 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is backed up by many sources you have presented yourself via forward devoicing (Urbańczyk 1992), I stated that. I then asked for an example where initial v after a voiceless consonant that isn't a clitic is voiced, which you yourself have not provided. It's a double edged sword. You are also edit warring. Vininn126 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is the first time you mention Urbańczyk 1992. You mean the pages 368-9? If so, there's nothing to support your syllabification in there. Try again. Sol505000 (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not pushing a syllabfication with that, I'm pushing voicing rules, which you are using to push syllabification. Please keep the argument being presented as is and do not change it so that it becomes easier for you to snidely dismiss it. The point is you are claiming that initial /v/ even after voiceless consonants is voiced. On what grounds are you drawing that conclusion? Please do not use prepositions or prefixes as examples. As to syllabification, you yourself have posted links explaining how very often a single division is not the only correct one. The entry as is has both divisions, supported by evidence you have posted. Vininn126 (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please provide a source that directly counters Ostaszewska & Tambor's (2000:88) analysis of for ⟨tw⟩ as syllable-initial. You're misunderstanding voicing rules. You can't have a cluster in Polish that is spelled ⟨tw⟩ if it neither starts nor ends a syllable, as in twaróg or tratw. It's that simple, it's monosyllabic by definition. The transcription shows your phonetic ignorance.

You can't use sources that discuss the syllabification in English as an evidence on how to syllabify a Polish word. It's absurd.

And the block is ridiculous, have you ever heard of nemo iudex in causa sua? Sol505000 (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind providing the exact quote so as to make sure they also account for word-medial syllables that also account for things like morphology?

Why does the language something written matter? Good analysis is good analysis. The very fact you think otherwise while also quoting "Being a native speaker of a language doesn't automatically grant you an insight into the fine detail of language's allophony" (from you Wikipedia talk page) is somewhat contradictory. We can't always trust native speakers, but they're the only ones to listen to, and no one else is capable of analyzing a languages phonology (aren't you native Italian analyzing Polish phonology?)

The block is not ridiculous, you were edit warring. I told you not to push edits on multiple accounts and you did it anyway. When you asked me not to edit war I stopped pushing changes and started a discussion and I decided to wait until a consensus was had. This is how things are done on WikiMedia. Familiarize yourself with that and for the last time, quit it with the attitude. Vininn126 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply