Wiktionarydiskussion:Stilguide/Uttal/Limburgiska

Jag hoppas att man kan förstå vad jag har skriven på denna sida. Det är än inte bliven klar med, men jag tycker att avsikten nu klar måste vara :) Så, ni förstår denna sida? --Ooswesthoesbes 21 november 2009 kl. 18.10 (CET)

Jag har inga problem att förstå. Jättebra! Ever wonder 21 november 2009 kl. 18.24 (CET)

Bra :) Jag ska skapa exempelorden snart. Uttalsfilerna ska måste vänta för nu. --Ooswesthoesbes 21 november 2009 kl. 19.30 (CET)

Jag har en fråga: I don't know how to write this in Swedish, so I'll have to ask someone here to translate it, because I think it's important for this page. You could compare the situation of Limburgish a little bit with the situation of Norwegian: there is a standard written form, but there's no spoken form that everybody uses. On this page I've described the pronunciation of the Etsberg dialect, not only because it's one of my native dialects, but also because it fits very well in the orthography, because it has all sounds that exist in Limburgish dialects and because it's a dialect that stands among all other dialects (so it's not very extreme, but in the middle). I think it's important to notice on this page that other dialects have a different pronunciation. --Ooswesthoesbes 22 november 2009 kl. 12.11 (CET)

I've added the following to the introduction: "Not: Limburgiska har ett standardiserat skriftspråk men ingen motsvarande talspråklig standardform. Uttalsbeskrivningen på denna sida utgår från Etsberg-dialekten. Denna "harmonierar" väl med skriftspråket, använder alla ljud som förekommer i de olika limburgiska dialekterna, och kan sägas placera sig "i mitten" av den limburgiska dialektvariationen - en slags "medel-limburgiska". Uttalet i andra dialekter kommer alltså att avvika mer eller mindre från beskrivningen nedan."

In English, roughly: "Note: Limburgish has a standardized ortography but no corresponding spoken standard form. The description of the pronounciation on this page is based on (or perhaps rather:"takes as a point of departure") the Etsberg dialect. This dialect 'harmonizes' well with the ortography, uses all the sounds that are found in the different Limburgish dialects, and can be said to be placed 'in the middle' of the Limburgish dialect variation - a sort of 'average Limburgish'. Thus, the pronounciation in other dialects will differ to a larger or smaller extent from what is described below."

So, now

1. Does this sound like more or less what you wanted?
2. Do you think that what you say about the Etsberg dialect could be at all controversial? Can it be sourced?
3. Finally, how does this relate to what the first paragraph says about doing only phonematic transcription, to avoid sending the message that any one accent is "better" or "more correct"? To what extent have you understood this paragraph and considered its inclusion on this page in its current form? Would a translation be of use? Ever wonder 22 november 2009 kl. 13.06 (CET)

1. Yes, thank you very much :)
2. I don't know any Swedish/Dutch/English sources on the Etsberg dialect and the Limburgish literature - for the part that it exists on it - is rather small. I can only give you the papers of HLI.
3. Actually, I really have no idea what the first paragraph is about, I've just copied it from Wiktionary:Stilguide/Uttal/Engelska and replaced engelska with limburgiska. I thought it was some kind of introduction so. --Ooswesthoesbes 22 november 2009 kl. 13.11 (CET)

Ok, this is what it says (more or less): "Here is a page to make the adding and interpreting of pronounciation information on Limburgish words easier. Note that this primarily should be a phonematic transcription. Making a fine-phonetic interpretation of a word necessarily leads to trying to establish a certain dialect as normative (Sic, but would probably be better as "sv:norm/en:the norm). Doing the transcription on the phoneme level lets us avoid this problem and all tables should always give phonemes, not phones. For this we use phonematic notation with slashes // rather than phonetic with square brackets []." Ever wonder 25 november 2009 kl. 18.34 (CET)

Oh.. That's not really conform the second paragraph.. --Ooswesthoesbes 25 november 2009 kl. 19.24 (CET) Thanks for your translations btw! :)

No, it doesn't... and perhaps yes it does, in a way. They're both acknowledging the problem, after all, but they obviously differ in what solution is suggested and perhaps considered acceptable. We have to decide if the solution in the second paragraph, and in the page as a whole I suppose, is one that is acceptable in the Limburgish case, and how in that case we can phrase an explanation without being inconsistent (when the treatment of different languages is compared, but avoiding contradictions inside the page is of course the first objective). In deciding whether it is ok to "pick a dialect", the big question will have to be whether there is an alternative: Would strictly phonematic transcription solve the problem? If the dialect variation is as strong as has been suggested, it seems quite possible that it won't. Ever wonder 25 november 2009 kl. 20.28 (CET)

At the articles we could put a notice at the IPA which dialect it is, like also has been done at nl.wikt. I don't think one "loose" transcription would work. If you take the word "hóndj", it is pronounced in the Etsberg as /hoɲc/, in Tegelen as /hoŋk/, in Valkenburg as /hond/ and in Maastricht as /hoːnt/. I think for now it would be best to choose one dialect, maybe also because Etsbergs is the only dialect I know well enough to put the entire dialect in IPA. Later on, when other people with a bigger knowledge of another dialect come, we might be able to add another dialect. --Ooswesthoesbes 26 november 2009 kl. 06.20 (CET)

As the transcription is phonetic (and what seems to be a rather narrow phonetic transcription at that) rather than phonemic, square brackets [] should be used instead of slashes // (the latter signifying phonemic transcription). (And the use of phonetic transcription also contradicts what's stated in the first paragraph.) Also, the characters ṛ ṃ ḷ are not in the standard IPA notation - do they refer to voiceless sonorants? If so, they should be written as r̥ m̥ l̥ (like the l̥ and n̥ given at the bottom of the page). /Fenix 27 november 2009 kl. 18.45 (CET)

Yes, they do exist. They represent syllabic consonants: see here. --Ooswesthoesbes 28 november 2009 kl. 11.09 (CET)

As explained in that article, the IPA uses the under-stroke (also "vertical line below"), which is a combining diacritic, for marking syllabic consonants. The present ṛ ṃ ḷ are single characters with diacritical dot below (used in the transliteration of Sanskrit). They should be written as r̩ m̩ l̩ in the IPA. /Fenix 29 november 2009 kl. 17.36 (CET)

I don't really see the difference to be honest. --Ooswesthoesbes 30 november 2009 kl. 07.08 (CET)

Well, the difference is that it's two different diacritical marks (though in low font sizes they may of course appear similar) and also two different modes of input (there are no single characters with the IPA diacritical mark in Unicode). I hid the part in the introduction about phonemic transcription because it really contradicts what's in the tables (to get the correct square brackets one'll probably have to modify the IPA template and add a parameter for phonetic transcription). /Fenix 3 december 2009 kl. 21.17 (CET)

Ok. Thank you. --Ooswesthoesbes 4 december 2009 kl. 05.06 (CET)

é

Eh.. Well, it works as following (I'll just to two examples to make it easy). You take a normal word, you unaccentuate it and then you accentuate it again, so:

1. Ich höb gein kinjer. (I don't have any kids: accented).

   Haes se gen kinjer? (Don't you have any kids?: not accented, f.e. a question to ask whether you've understood it well).

   Nein, ich höb gén kinjer. (No, I don't have any kids: re-accentuated to make clear that indeed the speaker doesn't have any kids.)

2. Haes se get gedaon dèsdaags? (Have you done something today?: accented)

   Ich höb ch't gedaon jao. (I have done something indeed: not accented)

   Gét ódder nieks? (Something or nothing? accented: again a question to make something clear)

The examples are not very good I must admit, but you probably get the idea. It's an accented not-accented word :) Any ways to call this in Swedish? --Ooswesthoesbes 27 juli 2010 kl. 20.54 (CEST)

I think I've got it, if it's emphasis that you're referring to. I was confused, because the Swedish word 'accentuera' does not normally mean to emphasise, as far as I know. – Smiddle 27 juli 2010 kl. 21.19 (CEST)

Oh, sorry, I'm not very familiar with the exact meanings of swedish words :) But thank you for your help :) --Ooswesthoesbes 27 juli 2010 kl. 21.33 (CEST)

You're welcome! – Smiddle 27 juli 2010 kl. 22.11 (CEST)

:) --Ooswesthoesbes 27 juli 2010 kl. 23.08 (CEST)