User talk:Nardog

Archives

2008, 2009, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

If your message may be of benefit to, or may benefit from, other editors, post it on a more visible talk page.

The redirect Firebrand (upcoming film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 12 § Firebrand (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Cobweb (upcoming South Korean film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 13 § Cobweb (upcoming South Korean film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Close Your Eyes (upcoming film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 13 § Close Your Eyes (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Hypnotic (upcoming film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 13 § Hypnotic (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on H:IPA-EN requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

Mariamnei (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei: I assume you nominated it for SD without checking the page history. Nardog (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog - Thank you for writing to me. I am a little confused here. I don't appear to have nominated H:IPA-EN for deletion, nor have I ever touched that page, and it has not been modified at all since January. Feel free to clarify what happened here. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei: You did. Otherwise how do you think you left this message here? You know what a redirect is, right? Nardog (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog - Ok, I see there was a redirect that had been vandalised and I missed that. Sorry. My bad. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your vital article topicon script is really nice! One quibble I have is that when I click on the topicon, it just brings me to the VA level page the article was assigned with instead of the specific topic (ex: clicking on the VA topicion in Lighthouse of Alexandria brings me to the level 5 Vital Articles page instead of this page linked in the talk page), which forces me to dig through the entire page before finding it. Do you think you can fix it? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 06:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, hopefully. Nardog (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I won't restore the footnote I added without a source, and admit that it was both an overstatement and overgeneralization (it is usually only in ⟨œ/oe⟩ and more marginal than "often"), but I wanted to point out the surface-level evidence of this perceptual overlap, at least in loans and names from German, Danish, and French. A primary example is one that you added to H:IPA-EN, Goethe. Others which are supported by Merriam-Webster include: goethite, Goebbels, Schoenberg, Oehlenschläger, oeillade, oeil-de-boeuf, hors d'oeuvre (though that one is arguably a case of metathesis and not pure rhotacizing, to which I removed it from the footnote in IPA-EN today). But yes, I should not have added the note without a source, as pointing out the pattern without one is too close to OR, even if seemingly "surface-level analysis". ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case we would expect newer loans to have NURSE/lettER, but the opposite is the case. Those you name were borrowed before Peugeot, oeuvre, Villeneuve, etc., which go other ways. My hunch is that Goethe etc. got ingrained before full rhoticity gained as much prestige in North America as it does now and they stuck. In any case NURSE/lettER is clearly not the go-to for NAmE speakers when adapting a front rounded vowel these days; it's FOOT or just spelling pronunciation/ignoring the diacritic. Nardog (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you restored hors d'oeuvre? I don't see how the comparison to Louvre shows that it isn't metathesis. There is an incredibly small set of loans in English which end in -vre, and they are highly inconsistent:

I'm sure I missed some French place names, but there is plenty here to show the inconsistency; sometimes metathesis, sometimes epenthesis, sometimes elision. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Favre is a good comparison that more clearly involves metathesis. I've removed hors d'oeuvre, though another non-German example to replace it would be nice. Nardog (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how about colonel (or if sticking with ⟨œ⟩, oeillade)? ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel is such an outlier it serves no illustrative purpose IMO (there are no words like it that would be transcribed using IPAc-en), and oeillade seems too obscure. I've changed my mind. Whether the /ɜːr/ in hors d'oeuvre is the result of metathesis is neither here nor there. The point is that the /r/ is not represented in orthography. Nardog (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow how it is not represented in orthography. There is clearly an ⟨r⟩, and it is metathesized to before the ⟨v⟩, never being pronounced after it. ~ oklopfer (💬) 04:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not synchronically. For us it indicates where the /r/ might have come from, but for the average audience of the guide it's a silent letter. Nardog (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also do you have an RS for the metathesis claim? Given Goethe etc. and the fact /ɜː/ is used in new loans originally with /œ/ to this day, I find it much more plausible that the NURSE is the result of simply approximating [œ]. (It might be interesting to see what rhotic Brits—and others whose NURSE isn't a syllabic approximant—who pronounce colonel non-rhotically do for hors d'oeuvre though!) Nardog (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, I do! And yes, it directly states the point that it is diachronic, not synchronic. The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology (2024):

We find U also in the pronunciation of the names of two well-known former professional athletes, Brett Favre and Patrick Roy. In US and Canadian English, Favre is pronounced [fɑɹv] and Roy [wɑ]. Metathesis, which occurs in Favre (also in hors d’oeuvre), is a diachronic process in English but not normally an adult synchronic process, except in speech errors; thus, it should be considered U (although very common in L1 acquisition, e.g., a[nim]al animal). The deletion of r in Roy ([ʁwa] in native French) is likewise a U process because L1 transfer would predict epenthesis, not deletion (e.g., Rwanda [ɹəwɑdə], not *[wandə], but Roy [wɑ], not *[ɹəwa]).

— p. 231

U clarified:

It is imperative to clarify the term universals (hereafter U). In the explication of the Ontogeny Phylogeny Model, U pertains to universals that are not already evident in the L1 and the L2. For example, when /s/ voicing occurs before nasals in Spanish speakers of English (e.g., Christmas, isthmus), it is subsumed under L1 because it is a native Spanish process (e.g., mismo → [mizmo] “same”). However, in Japanese learners of English it is classified as U because Japanese has no /sN/ sequences.

— p. 218

~ oklopfer (💬) 04:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shortcut-style further links has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. You represent a third of the template's contributors :) Pink Bee (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nardog. You deleted a prize for a peace festival in the article of Barbara Miller, arguing it was spam. Could you elaborate. I am not familiar with the peace price, but it sems that the link to this festival is real and it is not an ad for some product. Thank you. ~~ Haemmerli (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Cinema for Peace awards have been the subject of incredibly extensive conflict-of-interest editing (see top of Talk:Cinema for Peace awards). The edit in question was part of it. If you have a reliable third-party source (i.e. a source in a reputable publication related to neither the awards nor the recipient), you're welcome to re-add it by citing it. Nardog (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will revert it then. In the German wikipedia there is an article on this foundation. There I find links to articles by reputable third-party sources like Deutschlandfunk, Tagesspiegel and Der Spiegel. If you look who of the film stars of Berlin Biennale go to this award ceremony, it seems even more legitimate. I do understand that the English Wiki has a problem, as people linked to the foundation were writing the English article. But it is still there. And I have not found one source that argues that the Foundation is not ok and would be just an instrument for promotion (other then films considered furthering peace or human rights). So we cant talk about Spam. I will ad another source that cites, that the film got this price. Haemmerli (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you slightly misunderstood what I meant. I have no reason to suspect the Cinema for Peace Foundation or Awards are illegitimate. I just have strong reason to suspect they have engaged in conflict-of-interest editing, which is against Wikipedia rules, and possibly undisclosed paid editing, which is against the Wikimedia terms of use. That doesn't mean anything else they're doing is illegitimate. A totally legitimate organization can occasionally, inadvertently, do something illegitimate. Nardog (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind my asking, do you think it makes more sense to use /t/ or /t̬/ or /d/ while transcribing the flap T? ~2026-26924-43 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In what context? Nardog (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In every context. Some dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster) transcribe flap T as /t/ in every context. Some (e.g. OED) transcribe flap T as /d/ in every context. And others (e.g. Cambridge) transcribe flap T as /t̬/ in every context. I wonder which of these approaches is the correct one or which one makes the most sense ~2026-26783-10 (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the same context. Every dictionary has its own target readership and editorial policy. All of those are equally correct as long as they are well defined and consistently applied within the same work.

If you're talking about which is the most theoretically sound way to phonemically represent a flapped (historical) /t/, you'd need to first identify the speakers of English you're describing and investigate whether flapping results in a loss of contrast (neutralization) or is just an allophonic change. Nardog (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. General American then ~2026-26992-76 (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck defining that and finding representative samples! Nardog (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you don't need to be rude. I just asked because I saw your reply in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flapping in the "According to OED the flap T is [d]" section ~2026-27197-67 (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it came out that way, I was just trying to impress on you that your question is not one that has a clear-cut easy answer. Nardog (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But the authors of dictionaries (e.g. OED, MW, Cambridge) need to make a decision, right? They describe flap T as either /t/ or /t̬/ or /d/. So how can you make a decision if my question doesn't have a clear-cut easy answer? Are you supposed to toss a coin then? ~2026-27325-16 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) as you seem to have already established, those transcriptions are not universal; they instead come down to the authors' analytical choices and independent transcription systems. It's not a "coin flip" but rather careful decision making.

Your question does not have a clear-cut easy answer for multiple reasons: phonemic transcription abstracts from phonetic detail rather than adhering to its precision; General American is more a term of convenience than any concrete dialect, so a singular analysis would be quite difficult to define consistently; and the flap is typically only analyzed as an allophone of /t/ and /d/ rather than a phoneme of its own. Of course neutralization further complicates this (depending on the dialect), but mapping it to a single phoneme is ultimately an analytical choice.

One might just use /t/ and /d/ if they are trying to stay closer to morphophonemic convention (that the flap is a positional realization of /t/ and /d/), or /d/ if they are prioritizing feature similarity (namely voicing), or /ɾ/ (or a custom symbol like /t̬/, which imparts some phonetic detail while remaining somewhat more familiar to general readers) if they are identifying the flap as a distinct phoneme, all of which are defensible within their respective frameworks (though the third point may be less so). In a strictly IPA-based phonetic transcription, [ɾ] would be the "correct" choice, but English dictionaries are not exactly wont to such systems, instead leaning more toward approachability and familiarity.

Apologies for butting ([bʌɾɪŋ]) in. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your answer. Using /d/ to represent [ɾ] in GA personally looks the most correct for me.

[ɾ], as you said, it's not considered a phoneme, so a new character like /t̬/ doesn't look right.

Using /t/ for some words with [ɾ] and /d/ for others seems like something done not due to actual pronunciation but rather owing to spelling and comparison with other dialects. Also if the words like "bitter" and "bidder" are perfect homophones in GA, it seems only natural for them to have the same transcription

So the only choice that leaves is using /d/.

That's just my perspective. I wanted to learn yours, and thanks for letting me do it ~2026-27352-05 (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"If" is doing the heavy lifting there. And even if bitter and bidder were homophonous, writer and rider might not be. And in that case, should it be attributed to a split of the PRICE vowel or to the fortis–lenis contrast? And let's say you ironed all this out for a set of speakers, then how representative is that sample? These are some of the questions that your inquiry would need to address. Nardog (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• vert :

Hi, this one, you heard [vɛːʁ], [vɛ̈ːʁ] or [væːʁ]? ~2026-29114-60 (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have undid my edit on this page. Multiple sources (like Moscow State University Faculty of Philology) state, that when «м» precedes a labiodetal fricative («ф» or «в»), it becomes a labiodental nasal ([ɱ]). Moreover, the Russian phonology page includes it. Does that page not include allophones? MiroCavga (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As the top of every IPA key and MOS:IPAINTEGRITY say, any change to an IPA key must be discussed on the talk page beforehand and, if it gains consensus, applied across articles. Otherwise there'd be no point in having a key. Nardog (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation since I was confused! MiroCavga (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]