Template talk:Jovian satellites
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Pronunciation
I realize that we're not going to be able to agree upon the best method of representing all the sounds in these names, given dialectal differences, particularly with regard to the reduced vowels (where some people make more contrasts than others). But can we at least agree on the principle of maximization of syllabic onset? Such a syllabification as gæn.ə.mid makes little sense in those terms. RandomCritic 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do disagree there. I'm not familiar with any form of native English that has gæ.nə.mid. (Not that I'm familiar with very many!) The /n/ may be ambisyllabic, but the first syllable is not open. If there's significant dialectical variation, then perhaps we should eliminate syllabification marks. And do it on all the astro pages. Probably needs some discussion, in case others object to deleting them. (I'd have to rack my brains to even think of an instance where syllabification is phonemic.) kwami 00:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to what analysis you are basing your statement that "the first syllable is not open" on. Openness of syllables is not the same as quality of vowels. And no, it's not a dialectal question -- that a syllabic nucleus is, where possible, preceded by an onset, is a general linguistic principle. The "n" in Ganymede isn't even potentially "ambisyllabic". RandomCritic 04:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a general linguistic principle. Just not one followed by English. One of several things that makes English rather odd from a typological perspective. In English, the openness of syllables strongly correlates with the quality of vowels - as if every stressed syllable in English needed an off-glide of some sort, either in a diphthong or long vowel (which are often the same thing), or in sharing the onset of the following syllable. (And also in sharing the off-glide of the 'long' vowel with the following syllable if that doesn't have an onset.) The ambisyllabicity of consonants following stressed English vowels has been commented on by many. Off hand, I can dig up Ladefoged in A Course in Phonetics, though my profs said much the same thing, I've seen it elsewhere, and it corresponds well to how I at least speak. At the bottom of p 248 of the 3rd edition, L writes,
- Sometimes it is difficult to say whether a consonant is the coda of one syllable or the onset of another. How do you divide a word such as "happy" into syllables? Some people will say it is [ˈhæ.pi], others regard it as [ˈhæp.i]. Another solution is to consider the [p] as belonging in both syllables, and to call it ambisyllabic. [Which he thought important enough to add to the glossary.] The result of doing this would be to transcribe "happy" as [ˈhæpi] with no syllabic division. There is disagreement among phoneticians as to the correct solution to this problem [...]
- I have to say the n in Ganymede, for me at least, closes the first syllable as well as opens the second. I'd be happy enough to just leave out the dots, except maybe in a few cases with vowel sequences? kwami 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ladefoged is a phonetician, not a phonologist, and this is primarily a phonological question, which requires a phonological answer. Although as far as I can tell you're not utilizing a consistent theory of syllabification, the changes you've made suggest to me that you're confusing syllable structure with stress: you've put codas on stressed syllables (like the Ga in Ganymede) and deprived the following unstressed syllables of their onsets, and though there's really no difference between the no of Autonoe and the no of November, you've deprived the first one of its onset (to be consistent, you'd have to syllabify the latter [n.o.vɛm.bɚ]!). Some English speakers place a glottal stop in front of a true onsetless syllable, but that's not even possible with these syllables -- because they already have onsets. Insofar as it's consistent, your usage is totally redundant with the stress marking of the syllables.
- Also, you've changed most final e's after vowels to [ə] instead of [i]; and that's not correct, and never has been correct in the thousand-plus years of Anglicized Latin pronunciation. In specie is not pronounced "in specia"; Pasiphae doesn't rhyme with Nausicaa. Those pronunciations can't stand; they're totally misleading. RandomCritic 02:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a general linguistic principle. Just not one followed by English. One of several things that makes English rather odd from a typological perspective. In English, the openness of syllables strongly correlates with the quality of vowels - as if every stressed syllable in English needed an off-glide of some sort, either in a diphthong or long vowel (which are often the same thing), or in sharing the onset of the following syllable. (And also in sharing the off-glide of the 'long' vowel with the following syllable if that doesn't have an onset.) The ambisyllabicity of consonants following stressed English vowels has been commented on by many. Off hand, I can dig up Ladefoged in A Course in Phonetics, though my profs said much the same thing, I've seen it elsewhere, and it corresponds well to how I at least speak. At the bottom of p 248 of the 3rd edition, L writes,
- I'm curious as to what analysis you are basing your statement that "the first syllable is not open" on. Openness of syllables is not the same as quality of vowels. And no, it's not a dialectal question -- that a syllabic nucleus is, where possible, preceded by an onset, is a general linguistic principle. The "n" in Ganymede isn't even potentially "ambisyllabic". RandomCritic 04:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A ghastly mess
- I agree the syllabification is probably redundant, but that only means it's not phonemic, and so shouldn't be indicated.
- Totally illogical. I say that kwami's irrational method of syllabification is redundant with phonemic stress, and he concludes that "syllabification is not phonemic and shouldn't be indicated!" No, the syllabification is key to interpreting the phonetics out of a phonemic notation. It's only kwami's false syllabification which is meaningless, because he's confused syllabification with stress. But kwami can never admit he's wrong, can he? RandomCritic 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- As for claiming the no of Autonoe and the no of November are the same, that could only be in some sort of theoretical framework; phonetically they're quite distinct, and for some phonologists, phonology depends on phonetics.
- Not kwami, it seems (well, kwami is no phonologist) -- for kwami, it can all be made up on the spot from a melange of misunderstood sources. But hearing kwami lecture anybody on phonology -- a topic he hardly understands -- is a bit much. As for "Autonoe" and "November" -- I suspect he doesn't know how to pronounce either word. RandomCritic 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about Pasiphae; you are of course correct. That was an oversight when correcting Pasithee and Euporie. kwami 06:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- And now, in a supposedly "phonemic" notation, kwami is using a symbols for a conditioned (i.e. non-phonemic) reflex which doesn't even exist in IPA (though supposedly the symbols are "IPA"). This transcription gets worse and worse with every iteration of kwami trying to "improve" it. RandomCritic 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- As usual, RC, you criticize, rather shrilly, without doing anything constructive such as, gee I don't know, offering suggestions for improvement? We even have this page, which other editors use for just that. Either help out or give it a rest. kwami 06:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- And now, in a supposedly "phonemic" notation, kwami is using a symbols for a conditioned (i.e. non-phonemic) reflex which doesn't even exist in IPA (though supposedly the symbols are "IPA"). This transcription gets worse and worse with every iteration of kwami trying to "improve" it. RandomCritic 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
