Wiktionary talk:Votes/2020-10/Use of "pronunciation spelling" label

Suggestions for other options (i.e. other potential uses) are welcomed at the review/feedback stage. Please propose them here in the first instance. In the case that anyone opposes both of my options, please state how you would like to see the label used, or indeed whether you would like to see it abolished altogether. Mihia (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

This vote is problematic for the main reason that it is threatening the status quo in the absence of any participation at all. It would seem that the desired outcome is to either "abolish the label" or remove any ambiguity from the use of the label. This is an attempt to circumvent the supermajority rule. I oppose this vote strongly in the current form. Please re-word this vote in a positive sense so that the desired outcome has to be explicitly supported. Abolishing the label entirely should be your option 4 if that's what you want. Abstentions and non-participation should never threaten our status quo if explicit support for your proposal isn't demonstrated. Once again, I consider this vote invalid in its current form. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Originally I was going to offer a separate option to abolish the label, but legislating for all possible combinations of vote outcomes becomes complicated, and the additional choice is seen to be redundant. Now, despite repeated prompting and ample opportunity, no one has suggested any other uses for this label. If we vote to delete all existing uses, and possible identified uses, and no one has any ideas for any other uses, then the inevitable consequence is that the label will be abolished, of course not preventing editors from reinstating it at a later date if opinions change or other uses come to light, as with any other decision. Mihia (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

However, looking at supermajority rule, I am now confused that it seems this can be "reversed" simply by changing the polarity of the question??? I had in mind that a 2/3 majority was needed to CHANGE the status quo, regardless of whether changing the status quo entails a support or oppose vote. Mihia (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Mihia. Why not structure it as a vote with three delete options? Delete sense 1, sense 2, sense 3? People can support the deletion of each particular sense. If they want all of them gone, they'd support the deletion of all three. What do you think? -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 08:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

You removed the problematic wording. I'm happy now. It looks good to go. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 15:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

If no one votes, there will be no action. The status quo will only be changed if a majority vote to do that. I do not know what the rules say if only a very small number of people vote. If there is no quorum rule then perhaps there should be. However, the same could be said of any vote. It is not specially a problem with this one. The part about the abolishment is informational, for the benefit of people's understanding, and is a logical necessity that will be equally true whether or not it is actually stated. If no other uses are proposed or identified, and we vote not to use any of the identified ones, then de facto the label will not be used at all. Regarding the polarity of the vote: if a simple majority is required, then the polarity makes no difference. The fact that it apparently makes a difference with the "supermajority" rule, which I was not alert to until you mentioned it, is, unless I am misunderstanding something, apparently a fatal flaw in the design of that rule, or imposes additional restrictions on vote design that I have nowhere seen stipulated or mentioned. This apparently needs addressing, but, again, it is a general problem outside the scope of this specific vote.

By the way, you seem to be under the misapprehension that my "secret" purpose is to delete the label, which is not the case. I am more or less agnostic about the use of this label. The purpose of the vote is simply to clarify how we should be using the label, one way or the other, subsequent to clearing up the "eye dialect" muddle in the previous vote. Mihia (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see. However, the way the vote is set up is still a problem. Let people vote on deleting senses of the labels instead. That will make things less complicated. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 13:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree that that would be "less complicated". Not all uses may presently exist. For example, I am not certain whether instances of option 2 and option 3 presently do exist. It doesn't make sense to "delete" something that does not exist, and it would be very undesirable if the wording or polarity of the different options varied, so the wording that people would have to vote on would end up being something like "Don't use the label for ~", which I think would be much more confusing. I don't see why anyone should have any difficulty translating their preference into a Support or Oppose vote to use the label for a certain purpose. However I do on reflection agree that the "will be understood etc." wording that I added to attempt to give clarity may instead give the impression of pre-empting, so I have decided to just remove that whole part. If you don't mind, I think I will also move this discussion onto the Talk page (where it should have been anyway). Mihia (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have also mentioned under option 1 that this constitutes the great majority of existing uses, just to reinforce to people that an "oppose" decision will entail (potentially, if anyone cares to actually do it) "deleting" a lot of labels, or potentially replacing them with something else. Mihia (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

This table is referred to in one of my comments in the oppose Option 1 section and is hosted here to prevent problems. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@The Editor's Apprentice: Your dimensional analysis is quite interesting. Although adopting the definition of nonstandard form would require a future vote, but now that a decision is in place, and with a bit of a tweak, I think this might equate to a current guideline? Assem Khidhr (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Legend for Wiktionary labels according to different standardization statuses of entries

Name	Pronunciation	Dialectal connotation	Orthography Spelling	Notes
Standard form	Standard	No	Standard	Standard being the most common pronunciation or spelling associated with said word
Pronunciation spelling (e.g. lite for light; lede for lead)	Standard	No	Nonstandard	Might also be labeled a deliberate misspelling. Mostly to resolve heterography. No implication of dialectality linked to the signifier. Lack of dialectality despite nonstandard status indicates a collective tendency to the change and therefore instability of the label, usually standardized into an alternative form
Incomprehensible	Standard	Yes	Standard	Inability to predicate dialectality of neither image nor sound; By definition of standard and dialect
Eye dialect (e.g. sed for said; guise for guys)	Standard	Yes	Nonstandard	Might also be labeled a deliberate misspelling. Implication of dialectality exists by convention and according to context, even though the nonstandard spelling represents a standard pronunciation. Frequent in emphasis of humorous or casual situations (See lolcats)
Linguistically impossible Spelling pronunciation (e.g. /ˈsælmən/ for /ˈsæmən/)	Nonstandard	No	Standard	By definition of standard and dialect A pronunciation rather than a whole entry label. Lack of dialectality despite nonstandard status indicates a collective tendency to the change and therefore instability of the label, usually standardized into an alternative pronunciation. See the evolution of /kloʊðz/ for clothes instead of the earlier /kloʊz/
Linguistically impossible Nonstandard form/Deliberate misspelling (e.g. mischevious for mischievous; spose for suppose)	Nonstandard	No	Nonstandard	By definition of standard and dialect It can easily acquire a dialectal component or receive quick recognition, turning as a result into a dialectal nonstandard/colloquial/slang or an alternative form
Mispronunciation (e.ɡ. /ˈfɑɹmə'sɪst/ for /ˈfɑɹməsɪst/ in the Egyptian dialect)	Nonstandard	Yes	Standard	Cannot be illustrated via text: out of Wiktionary scope A pronunciation rather than a whole entry label
Nonstandard form/Colloquial (e.g. fink for think; wonderfool for wonderful)	Nonstandard	Yes	Nonstandard	Orthography Might also be labeled pronunciation spelling. Spelling considered nonstandard as a signifier of the meaning in question only. It might be a standard for other senses. Sometimes used to emphasize humorous or casual situations (see lolcats)

@Assem Khidhr: Thanks for your interest in the analysis. As to your analysis' accuracy, I'm uncertain. Honestly, after my conversation with Vorziblix on the main vote page I feel a lot less confident and clear on what is and isn't linguistically possible and what all of the existing labels are and how they fit with each other. One thing that I can say though is that I think misspelling, pronunciation spelling, and deliberate misspelling all describe similar situations. Additionally, alternative forms and standard forms also are similar. Best. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@The Editor's Apprentice: On a second thought, and after carefully considering your comment and the remarks by Vorziblix (talk • contribs), I was indeed hasty with applying the linguistically impossible label. I must first point out that I'm using dialect here in the broader sense that includes sociolects in general, not necessarily the geographically or socioeconomically delimited varieties. As put in the definition here, a dialect is A variety of a language that is characteristic of a particular area, community or social group. I'll also clarify that a nonstandard form seems to be an umbrella term that can be classified according to whether the deviation from standard arises from a dialect (slang, colloquial) or not (misspelling, deliberate misspelling).

Now The case when a word is written standardly, pronounced nonstandardly, and still doesn't correpond to a dialect is actually the exact opposite of pronunciation spelling, and is already established as a linguistic concept and here in the glossary: spelling pronunciation. In English, and other languages of course, they both arise from the inherent conflict between the writing and speaking systems, leading an unbiased group of speakers, irrespective of their secondary taxa, and hence the lack of a dialectal connotation – to violate the standard. What seems to have pushed me in that direction though is the fact that it is a pronunciation label rather than a written entry label. Unlike I previously stated, this doesn't mean that it's outside of Wiktionary scope either, but maybe that it would only fit in a pronunciation section, not the entry as a whole. As for the second instance of linguistically impossible (a word both written and pronounced nonstandardly, but still doesn't correspond to a dialect), which Vorziblix exemplified by mischevious, we might assume that this, in turn, can arise non-dialectally from the inherent conflict between the several linguistic constructions of the same function, in this case -ious and -ous suffixes for English adjectives. However, I still think the extension of this, should I say, dialect-neutral nonstandard, would be quite more limited in scope, since it would easily either absorb a dialectal designation and turn into a colloquial nonstandard or be widely incorporated and turn into an alternative form.

Surely, I know this is all full of bold hypotheses and original research, but I do think it would have the potential to reach consensus and I'd love to hear your input. Apologies for the wall of text. Assem Khidhr (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Apology accepted. The broad sense of dialect seems useful for this situation. Your analysis of what possible nonstandard forms can exist seems correct. I think I understand of what you mean by " leading an unbiased group of speakers, irrespective of their secondary taxa, and hence the lack of a dialectal connotation – to violate the standard", but would appreciate your clarification. Do you mind if I reorder the table that you made in a way that makes more sense in my mind? Also, do you understand orthography to mean "the way sounds are represented with letters" in contrast to spelling (the way words are represented with letters)? I ask because the placement of the "Nonstandard form/Deliberate misspelling" and "Mispronunciation" labels in the table don't seem to align with the labels' meaning. For example, mischievious appears to me to have non-standard pronunciation, no dialect implication, standard orthography, and non-standard spelling. I agree with you that a similar table could plausibly gain consensus support and would enjoying seeing such occur. Best. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Aha! Now I can see why you first classified fink as exhibiting standard orthography. I honestly was mistakenly realizing orthography as an exchangeable synonym of spelling rather than sound-to-letter correspondence. Now that you've laid the distinction out, I suppose the analysis should be more concerned with spelling, since it derives a standard status by mere convention, regardless of its correspondence to sound, and thus is a more independent dimension. What I meant by the quote you referred to is that words like lite and pronunciations like /ˈsælmən/ appear to arise as a result of a spontaneus tendency to resolve heterography (now that I understand its coordinate haha) evident in more than a dialect. This state of spontaneity and multiplicity makes it difficult to ascribe any specific dialect to the newly coined pronunciation (spelling pronunciations), spelling (pronunciation spellings), or both (deliberate misspellings). Further, this very state implies instability of said construct, since it'd very likely follow typical sociolinguistics and be adopted by a specific community or even more proceed into a widespread alternative form. Feel free to change the order as you please and thanks again for your time. Assem Khidhr (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Update: Having seen how we're already defining pronunciation spelling (Spelling intended to represent a pronunciation, which may or may not be the standard spelling of the word) and the quotations there, I'm starting to lean towards Option 1 (along with option 2) of this vote and have amended the table as such. Maybe we should re-open a vote on option 1 sometimes later. Another interesting finding is that mischevious turns out to be a case-in-point to the turning into a standard that I was alluding to. Not only did it evolve into an alternative form, but it's effectively surpassed mischevous in popularity, at least in the academic register covered by Google ngram. The fact that this happened long time ago also suggests we might have been thinking quite prescriptively, ignoring actual linguistic input, so I'll take a look at actual transclusions of the labels in question to compare the table as of now with the status quo. Also, I think a deliberate misspelling is best treated as an umbrella term, similar to a nonstandard form. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

(It’s because you misspelled mischievous; here’s the right comparison.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've really overthought that. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

This might be a correct example though: aluminum for aluminium. It appeared shortly after its counterpart, remained less common (nonstandard for the sake of this discussion) for a while, and then went on to an overwhelming popularity. Assem Khidhr (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Apologies for the delay in this reply. I've now made the previously mentioned changes to the table. I'm glad the clarification was helpful, though I will say I don't actually know how common it is among English-speakers in general. Thanks for the clarification as to what you meant in your previous post, your analysis non-standard orthography is very keen (note, heterograph appears to already have a different meaning!). The sociolinguistics of non-standard forms definitely complicates things and leaves them with potential unsuitability. Using "deliberate misspelling" broadly makes sense for me in this context. The pair aluminum/aluminium seem like a perfect example. I checked the frequencies in the Corpus of Historical American English and found a similar pattern as you described and as Google Ngram shows. Can you clarify what you mean by leaning towards one of the options or the other? Are you thinking about starting another vote to establish a term to describe the case described in Option 1? Thanks and I hope you the best. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@The Editor's Apprentice: No problem, really. By leaning towards option A, I meant that I now think option 1, which was moot in this vote, actually corresponds both to how pronunciation spellings are defined in their respective entry and to even how the status quo of the use of this label here looks like (already mentioned in this vote). For this reason, I support option 1 now and I think that re-opening the vote on it might be a good idea in the near future. Other terms found in this table might be put for a vote in a stepwise manner, since I believe any batch approval of labels are unlikely to gain consensus. For example, we might vote on whether nonstandard form of should be used a bit broadly for rows 6 and 8 of this table or even more broadly for rows 2, 4, 6, and 8. We might also establish a differentiation between an allowed used of an umbrella term and a favorable use of a more specific term, such that broad labels are reserved to cases where specific labels are hardly attested (rows 6 and 8). Assem Khidhr (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Assem Khidhr: Got it, thank you for the clarification. I would caution you against starting a similar vote about the use of the "pronunciation spelling", particularly given what is happening with Wiktionary:Votes/2020-12/Bringing back wynn entries. Putting aside the social conflict that the vote has caused, I don't think a repeat of this vote would have a different result. That's because assuming everyone else votes the same, Option 1 would only have (6+1)/(6+1+5)=58.3% support, less than the 66.6% support necessary for a vote to pass. I think putting the other terms in the table up for votes one-by-one is a worthwhile course of action. Setting allowed as well as preferred uses for labels seems like a valuable think to consider and wasn't something I'd really thought about before in this context before. In addition to the situation that you mentioned, I think broad labels could also be useful in for when the status of a term/spelling is uncertain or unknown. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can anybody tell me in a sentence or two what I should be doing differently after these votes passed, failed, and did nothing? What was allowed before and forbidden now, or vice versa? Before the vote I thought I could use {{pronunciation spelling of}} "to represent non-standard pronunciations" and "for deliberate non-standard phonetic spellings". The vote that passed did not claim to restrict use of the label, only to permit it in a specific case. So I think I can keep on using it as before. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply