Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jillyoung2. Peer reviewers: 2020tibbwg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

Anyone know how to move the chart over to the right side of the page, to allow text wrapping? Wolfdog (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[ɚ]

@LakeKayak: AFAIK transcriptions such as [ɒɚ] do not denote disyllabic sequences but diphthongs with a non-syllabic rhotacized schwa. The non-syllabic diacritic is dropped for simplicity, and it may be an overly narrow transcription (and a confusing one indeed; there's also the plain rhotacized schwa [ɚ] which is written the same). If it's relevant, in my transcriptions I write the non-syllabic [ɚ] as [ɹ] and the syllabic [ɚ] as [ɹ̩] - then again, I tend to simplify my transcriptions whenever possible. On the other hand though, we should follow the sources. I think [ɹ] for the non-syllabic sound and [ɚ] for the syllabic one is the way to go. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr KEBAB: The real problem is whether or not the ar in cart is a diphthong in a rhotic accent. Can you verify that?LakeKayak (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LakeKayak: I suppose you can call both [ɒɚ] and [ɒɹ] 'diphthongs' and use any of them without a real change of meaning. See R-colored_vowel#English and the source it cites. To me, it's better to write [ɒɹ]. Maybe there's more to it though. I'm not sure. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LakeKayak and Mr KEBAB: And should we use the even more precise [ɹ̠], or is the postalveolar nature of the consonant already implied? (Also, anyone know why the toilet transcription was changed from [ˈtʰɝlət] to [ˈtɝlət]?) Wolfdog (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: The Handbook of the IPA doesn't define the exact place of articulation of [ɹ] and the symbol may be used for dental, alveolar and postalveolar approximants (however, as you know, the dental approximant is virtually always transcribed with ⟨ð⟩). There's no need to specify that it's postalveolar. AFAIK, alveolar [ɹ] simply doesn't appear in native US English unless we count assimilation after [t, d] (the sequences [tɹ, dɹ] can be either postalveolar or alveolar, depending on the speaker - see Gimson's Pronunciation of English, 8th ed.). To me, alveolar [ɹ] sounds Irish/Scottish/Jamaican but definitely not American.
I changed */ˈtʰɝlət/ (note the slashes) to [ˈtɝlət] because both [tʰ] and [t] belong to the same phoneme /t/, because we don't need to transcribe aspiration in phonetic transcription and also because it's not very clear whether [ɝ] should count as a phonetic realization of /ɔɪ/ or /ɝ/ (in the big picture I'd consider it to be /ɔɪ/). Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: So shouldn't we leave the slashes? Wolfdog (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: If the sentence matches the source, the brackets are a must. The way it's worded is that it's considered to be a phonetic realization of /ɔɪ/ (as, IMO, it should be). Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: I disagree. I think the lack of aspiration is an oversight, because that wasn't the focus of the sentence. I don't think we're misrepresenting the source to use my suggestion (as NYCE certainly aspirates initial /t/). And, actually, the verbatim transcription in the source is [ˈtɜɹlət], if you mean to be literally quoting the source. If you think the aspiration is too much, we could use the phonemic transcription: /tɜːrlət/, which is still accurately representing the source. Wolfdog (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: The source says "CHOICE items may occur with [ɜɹ] (e.g., [ˈtɜɹlət] toilet), apparently as a result of hypercorrection". This must mean that the author considers [ɜɹ] to be a phonetic realization of /ɔɪ/. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr KEBAB: Right. I agree that that's the transcription the source gives (I mention it myself as the verbatim transcription above... two comments ago). However, I'm still not clear on why the /t/ can't be represented as aspirated if we're going for the phonetic transcription. As long as we're not quoting the source directly, instead we're paraphrasing, I think it makes sense. The aspiration is not some wild or unbelievable addition that readers or editors would doubt, and, in fact, it is accurate to how New Yorkers speak. I guess it's just a minor detail. For now, I'll put back the slightly-more-phonetic transcription, since we seem to agree on the [ɜɹ] part at least. Wolfdog (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: Oh, I've never commented on transcribing aspiration in phonetic transcription, I just said that it was incorrect to do so in phonemic transcription. I have no preference, so whatever makes you happy. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry I did in one of the messages above. I said it's not needed, which is true. But since it's not wrong either, I have no preference, as I said. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable speakers

Is there any good reason to move (or not to move) the "Notable speakers" section of New York City English to this page? Wolfdog (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark L in the New York accent

@LakeKayak: I'm not sure if "verification needed" is the correct template to use for your concern. Perhaps it's my fault and I should have put the direct link to the page within that website. 15 tokens of /l/ are presented in the linked set of audio recordings of a traditional male NYC speaker, and all fifteen are transcribed (and obviously audibly realized as) the "dark" [ɫ]. All the tokens are in initial or final position.

Also, Wells specifically says "Many New Yorkers pronounce the alveolar consonants /t, d, n, l/ with the blade of the tongue rather than the tip" (515). This is literally all that is said about /l/ on that page. It says nothing at all about the absence of dark L and even at best it only accounts for "many New Yorkers". Therefore, the statement on this WP page that "Wells report [sic] a lack of velarization of the initial /l/" appears to be untrue. Wolfdog (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfdog, I'm not so sure who accurately the site you provided is. Barring the use of clear or dark /l/, there are a few errors I noticed on the page. For one example, the /oʊ/ is transcribed as [ʌ̈ʊ]. Thus, the source is saying that the /oʊ/ is centralized and unrounded, which is not the case. For another example, the /ʌ/ is transcribed as [ʌ̈]. And the Atlas of North American English reports that the /ʌ/ vowel is very retracted.
However, I got this notion from Dental, alveolar and postalveolar lateral approximants. I can check to see who instated the claim and ask them for clarity.LakeKayak (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LakeKayak: Yes, that would be great. The more I think about and listen to the L of white NYCE, the less convinced I feel. The "errors" you mentioned are not obviously errors (listen to the audio). Remember that we were shown that Trump has a fronted GOAT and that this is possibly a realization of Jewish New Yorkers and perhaps others (higher class?). But back to the dark L transcription, it is unlikely that it is in error for the following reasons: 1) Listen to the audio itself. It's dark. 2) All of 15 examples are transcribed that way. You think the author consistently made 15 errors? 3) Notice that any of the given audio from "Engl. & Wales: S/M" (southern/midlands England and Wales) show an initial L that is never transcribed as dark. Obviously, then, the author knows to be on the lookout for a dark/light L distinction in his speakers. 4) The main author/editor of the project is Paul Heggarty, an established and published linguist (see Google Books here). Heggarty writes that "all the recordings in this database were phonetically transcribed by Warren Maguire" who is described as the project's "chief data collector" and is also an established linguist — both men employed at the University of Edinburgh. This can easily be verified through a Google search of either man. Wolfdog (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That backfired.LakeKayak (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What did? Wolfdog (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who instated the edits on the page Dental, alveolar and postalveolar lateral approximants has retired. As a result, I am unable to contact him.LakeKayak (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: I found something Wells says in the same book on page 517.
"L Vocalization is quite common in New York, ... It is found in the non-prevocalic environments (sell, sells, sold; but not selling, although this intervocalic position has a lateral which is definitely 'dark' by British standards).
At least we know that he does mention the use of clear or dark /l/ in New York City English.
As for whether or not I think the editor of the link you provided consistently made fifteen errors. I think it may be worse. I counted seventeen "consistent" errors, as you say, for /oʊ/ and /ʌ/ combined.LakeKayak (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LakeKayak: What do you mean errors "for /o/ and /ʌʊ/ combined"? Do you mean for the transcription of GOAT as [ʌ̈ʊ]? Have you listened to the audio at all? Wolfdog (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite stubborn for an editor with whom I feel I've fostered a mutual trust over several months. Have I usually been baseless in my editings? In any case, there is further proof for dark L in NYCE here. Wolfdog (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: The page does contain some mistakes. He transcribes some diphthongal realizations of /i, u/ as if they were monophthongs. He also transcribes heart with [ɹ] which I can't hear.
When it comes to /oʊ/, the transcription [ʌ ̈ʊk] for 'oak' is spot on. You can compare it with the Dutch word ook, which does have [oʊ]. Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is probably not an error (the transcriptions were devised before an audio recording was made and so may not perfectly fit the sound you hear: "A few of the transcriptions are based on the speech of more than one speaker from the given location, so that not all transcriptions correspond exactly to the associated recording"). Furthermore, even some one-off error has nothing to do with LakeKayak's claim that the dark L is erroneous, which again would be something beyond a one-off error. Now I've found two sources for the dark L. Are we going to continue bickering? Wolfdog (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: That explains it, thanks. I didn't comment on the dark L by the way. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, we won't continue bickering. However, as for the second link that Wolfdog provided, I did see that before and I was puzzled by it.
As for the first link, I was really in question over that source entirely and not simply that one aspect. And that is why I thought the /oʊ/'s and /ʌ/'s were relevant. Wolfdog, I did listen to the audios for /oʊ/ and /ʌ/, and I wasn't sure how much they sounded like when I think of New York City. And that's why I was hesitant on that source.
The easiest way to resolve this is to leave the page alone for now. And we can keep my eyes and ears open on the web. One issue I have is that I sometimes make the /l/ sound with the front my tongue extended past my teeth and the back of my tongue curved upward. I know this wasn't a learned feature, so I am in question over where I got this feature from.LakeKayak (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I've come across as blunt, but it was odd to me that my perfectly credible source was being criticized when original research to the contrary was being allowed to stand on the page without any criticism whatsoever. That seemed pretty ludicrous to me... and personally frustrating. Well, I plan to remove the OR and replace it with the information backed by the source(s). Hope that makes sense to everyone. No reason to just leave it alone when it is unverified and even contradicted by other sources. Wolfdog (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: I have been looked out for some time, but how about this source I found this link from Hubbell. Hubbell reports the /l/ against the alveolar ridge, and so as he also states not as clear as in RP. And Newman reported a clearer /l/ in New York Latino English. Now, this may differ from the /l/ I had spoke about before. But at least I can understand Newman better now.LakeKayak (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LakeKayak: The Hubbell study is a good find, but also obviously quite old (some of the pronunciations it studies are now outdated or declining). I'm going to mend a few of the sentences added. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You need to explain precisely what change you didn't like"

I'm sorry, Wolfdog. I thought that that edit only encompassed two changes, changing the lead and text-wrapping. I made a mistake.

I specifically thought the text-wrapping made the page harder to read.LakeKayak (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I figured. I'll edit that back you. Although I feel the aesthetic isn't great then either. Wolfdog (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New York accent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Up-gliding NURSE

Kbb2, why are you reverting even at this level of understandable specificity?? This is a specific dialect page, not just a broad article about American English. It's the one unassailable place to keep a transcription at its narrowest: the exact pronunciation of an exact dialect's phoneme! The abstract range represented by this or that symbol are not what's at issue here. Wolfdog (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kbb2 is correct insofar as ⟨ɜ⟩ had the same value as [ə] until 1993, so [ɜɪ] and [əɪ] seen in some sources are most likely equivalent. But now that ⟨ɜ⟩ represents something else in the canonical IPA, it only seems reasonable to me to transcribe the diphthongal NYC NURSE as ⟨əɪ⟩ (that is, just ⟨əɪ⟩, not alongside ⟨ɜɪ⟩). Nardog (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'm trying to be precise here. Wolfdog (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog and Wolfdog: Ok, let's write it that way. I prefer ⟨ɜɪ⟩ because it's more similar to ⟨ɜː⟩ but the alternative is also fine. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accent Range

@Ajd: I live in Dutchess County. It is the standard accent here. I lived in Saratoga county, above Albany. It can commonly be heard there, spoken by people who were born and raised in the region. The accent can be heard throughout eastern New York. The blanket statement in the article is inaccurate. 021120x (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is looking for is reliable sources, ideally reflecting expert research, not your personal impressions on the subject. It's certainly true that the dialects of the Hudson Valley and the Albany area have features in common with the NYC accent and are easily mistaken for it, but that doesn't mean that it's the same accent. The reliable sources I know of that analyze the dialects of Dutchess County and Albany are few, but what they report is that (unlike NYC) they don't have non-rhoticity and they have a simpler short-a system. In that respect they're like North Jersey outside Newark and Jersey City, which is also not included in the NYC dialect region by those standards. See here and here (section 4.2).

Bad-bared merger?

I notice that BATH and (non-rhotic) SQUARE are both transcribed as [ɛə]. Is this to imply that they're phonemically merged /ɛə/? Tyrui (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a possibility for some non-rhotic New Yorkers, yes. Wolfdog (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog I think it would be a good idea to add that to Rhoticity in English #Mergers characteristic of non-rhotic accents. Do you have any sources? Tyrui (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyrui: Yup! The Atlas of North American English (2006) says, on page 234 of New York City dialect: When short-a is split into tense and lax classes, the tense class rises along the front periphery as an ingliding vowel /æh/, which merges with the mid (and high) ingliding vowels that have developed from the vocalized /ihr/ and /ehr/ word-classes. The words bad and bared become homonyms. With more extreme raising of /æh/, this homonymy can extend to include beard. Wolfdog (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_York_accent