Module talk:mk-pronunciation

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@Martin123xyz: Hello. Do you have something to say about the module? Is everything handled right? Guldrelokk (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. How could I use this module to generate IPA transcriptions for my entries as I create them? It looks good, but I don't agree with the final stress of одвај (odvaj); it is indeed final in the Skopje dialect, but as far as I know, it's initial in the standard language. I would also like to point out that the assimilation of sibilants is characteristic of rapid, natural speech, but that in slower, more solemn discourse, one would likely say [ˈbɛst͡ʃɛstɛn]. Finally, a function should be added to convert [r] to [ɾ] in intervocalic contexts except when the following vowel is stressed (this is the only case where [ɾ] is obligatory, whereas it is a free variant of [r] elsewhere], since the module already takes allophony into account, and [bara] as a phonetic realisation of бара (bara), for instance, would constitute an incorrect pronunciation (except in songs, perhaps), although phonemically /bara/ is, of course, perfectly all right. Martin123xyz (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Martin123xyz: Thank you. I’ve implemented /r/ allophony. You only need to include Template:mk-IPA in the entry, unless the stress is irregular, in which case you can supply the word with a stress mark as a parameter, like this: {{mk-IPA|зима́ва}}; for зи́мава (zímava) just {{mk-IPA}} is enough. I marked the stress in одвај explicitly for a test, I didn’t know it is dialectal, but the entry is not affected anyway. Wouldn’t it be better to keep the assimilation as both the less obvious and the more natural pronunciation variant? Guldrelokk (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk: Thank you for implementing the /r/ allophony. I agree with you regarding the sibilant assimilation. I will now start using the module and will notify you if any issue arises (other than unpredictable stress or syllabic /r/, as in прорти (prorti), where you cannot tell by the orthography that the word is trisyllabic, and which is inconsistent with the bisyllabic порти (porti), for instance, for which no entry exists yet) Martin123xyz (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I have noticed another thing that needs to be added: /n/ shouldn't assimilate only to [ŋ] before velars (as it does in ранг (rang), but also to [m] and [ɱ] before labials and labiodentals, e.g. in станбен (stanben) and конфузен (konfuzen). Meanwhile, /m/ and /ɳ/ do not assimilate to the place of articulation of the following consonant, e.g. /ramka/ stays [ramka], so they should not be modified. Martin123xyz (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I have now noticed that емиграциски (emigraciski) is transcribed with an optional ]j] at the beginning, which is incorrect. An epenthetic [j] might appear before /ɛ/ if there's another preceding vowel, i.e. in case of hiatus, but never at the beginning of a word. Martin123xyz (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Martin123xyz: Everything seems fixed now. But does /m/ really not even become labiodental before /f/ or /v/? Also, can’t прорти (prorti) also be written про’рти (pro’rti)? I thought this is a rule, as stated in Правопис на македонскиот јазик, page 6: „Самогласното р се пишува со апостроф кога се наоѓа на почетокот на зборот, а по него следува согласка: ’рбет, ’рбетник, ’рѓа, ’рж, ’ржи, ’рскавица,’рт, ’рти, ’рчи. Овие зборови се пишуваат со апостроф и кога ним им се додава префикс што завршува на самогласка: за’рѓа, за’ржи, про’рти, но кога им се додава префикс што завршува на согласка, апостроф не се пишува: безрбетник, изрти, сржи.“ If not, then you still can supply про’рти as the parameter to get the correct pronunciation, this won’t affect the entry display. Guldrelokk (talk)
@Guldrelokk: Thank you for the adjustments. Honestly, I don't know whether [m] becomes [ɱ] because the difference is too slight for me to perceive whereas I haven't read anything about it; the assimilation of [n] to [ɱ], on the other hand, is much more conspicuous. However, I do think that it's logical for [m] to assimilate to a following labiodental, so I suggest we include that in the algorithm. You are also right about the rule regarding the apostrophe. I will add the forms with the internal apostrophe. Martin123xyz (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk: I have come upon a new issue : the transcription for надгласилен (nadglasilen) includes too many consonants in the onset of the second syllable; the /d/ should be assigned to the previous syllable, since /dgl/ is not a possible onset in Macedonian. In fact, no sequence of the type plosive-plosive-liquid is. Martin123xyz (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Martin123xyz: Yes, sorry, it was only meant to affect /t͡s/, /d͡z/ and the like. Now it’s fixed. Guldrelokk (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk: I'm afraid that now the transcription of извршител (izvršitel) is incorrect: the /v/ is assigned to the first syllable but actually belongs to the second. The sequence /zv/ is not a possible coda in Macedonian. The syllabification rules need to be refined to take into account the nature of the consonants in addition to their number in a given cluster. I would fix this myself but I don't understand the code. Martin123xyz (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Martin123xyz: It already did that, just in a wrong way. Изв-ршител is of course not correct, as the second syllable is left open. It seems to work fine now. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk: Hello again. The transcription for соучесништво (součesništvo) now splits the affricate, inserting the stress mark between the plosive and the fricative, whereas the affricates are actually single consonants. Martin123xyz (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk: Hello; the transcription for множеник (množenik) is wrong because it marks the initial /m/ as syllabic, whereas it it forms part of the consonant cluster of the onset of the first syllable whose nucleus is /o/. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, sure. I fixed it. Guldrelokk (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello again. I have noticed that the syllabification for подмножество (podmnožestvo) is wrong - it should be [pɔdˈmnɔʒɛstvɔ] instead of [pɔdmˈnɔʒɛstvɔ] because /dm/ is not a possible coda. Martin123xyz (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martin123xyz: Excuse me, I didn’t notice your report – should be fixed now, let me know if something else goes wrong. Guldrelokk (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guldrelokk: Sorry if I stepped on your toes, I'm crap at computing and I was excited that I could do the fix myself for once! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam: That was nice of you, thank you – I was glad to see that is already fixed. Guldrelokk (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)