User talk:Sol505000

Look, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Before making unwarranted assumptions about my intentions, please take a look at this discussion. The reason I am writing this not because I want something, but because the two of you keep insisting on a pronunciation that is fundamentally incorrect. My name is not pronounced as "Jam" or "Steembergen". Any Dutch speaker can confirm this. I am all for being consistent with Help:IPA/Dutch, but that page does not write at all that /n/ becomes [m] before a labial, nor that [ɣ] is the only acceptable transcription of Dutch /g/. I also understand that that help page uses a simplification. That's why I suggested Dutch pronunciation: [joˈɦɑnəsˈɦɛndrɪkˈjɑnvɑnˈsteːnbɛrxə(n)] as a reasonable alternative. I am not questioning your honourable intentions, and I'd really rather not interfere with articles about me, but I do feel entitled to speak up when people are deliberately adding incorrect information. (And for the record, I don't appreciate being referred to as "they"). Regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 19:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Being a native speaker of a language doesn't automatically grant you an insight into the fine detail of language's allophony (this mimics my arguments in this discussion). Per Booij's Phonology of Dutch (pages 64 and 65), /n/ is readily assimilated even across word boundaries in normal speech (e.g. in Parijs [ɪmpaːˈrɛis]). There's nothing incorrect about this, all Dutch speakers do it all of the time, except in overly careful speech where some of those assimilations may be avoided. It is not about "Jan" being pronounced [jɑɱ] (it never is in isolation), it's about what immediately follows "Jan" in the phrase "Jan van Steenbergen": it is a labiodental [v], therefore: [ˈjɑɱvɑn...]. It's simple, really. You're not supposed to make pauses when you read those transcriptions, that's the trick.

Heemskerk and Zonneveld even seem to prescribe those assimilated forms in their Uitspraakwoordenboek (thus: [ˈsteːmbɛrɣə(n)] for "Steenbergen" - I agree that the alveolar [n] is possible too here). In this regard Dutch seems to be much more like Spanish or Italian, rather than German.

The usage of the symbol ⟨ɣ⟩ is up to debate (to a certain extent). We seem to be using a pandialectal transcription that covers northern and southern dialects simultaneously. We could split them, but that needs to be done across Wikipedia, in every single Northern Standard Dutch transcription and the guide (see MOS:IPAINTEGRITY). Sol505000 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello Sol505000,

Could you help me check if the IPA for Alexander is correct? Is it [aːlɛkˈsɑndər] or [aːlɛˈksɑndər] ? Also, is the IPA for Maxim [mɑkˈsɪm] ? --BigBullfrog (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

(Apologies for the delay). I would bet on [aːlɛkˈsɑndər] . The ⟨e⟩ is, after all, a short front [ɛ], rather than a schwa [ə]. On Forvo, Maxim De Cuyper is [ˈmɑksɪmdəˈkœypər] , with initial stress. Sol505000 (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, I'm interested in your opinion about this experimental module for phonetic NL Dutch at wiktionary. The phonetic IPA appears when clicking on 'Show pronunciations' at 'Visibility'. Exarchus (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, sorry for the delay. Some of the transcriptions look a bit odd, I'm not sure what to think e.g. about the affrication of /t/. I've certainly heard it sometimes, but only word-finally and only in some accents (I think it's a Low Saxon thing, which given the proximity of the larger Low Saxon-speaking area to Denmark (Danish has /t/-affrication) wouldn't be the least bit surprising). I don't think anyone affricates it after /s/ in the same syllable, as in tentoonstelling, where /st/ is obviously morpheme-initial (from stelling), the same way nobody in England would say [stsɑːt] for start.

Another thing is l-vocalization. It probably doesn't occur before vowels, but I could be wrong. [ɹ] certainly needs a following consonant (a phonetic consonant, which includes a glottal stop) or a pause. I think there are at least some phrases that natives think of more as one word, where the glottal stop is deleted and /r/ is turned into a normal syllable-initial allophone, [ɾ~ʁ~ʀ]. I think er is is often [ɛʁɪs] or [ɛɾɪs], with a blurred syllable boundary. This could also apply to the prefixes before a stem beginning with a vowel, e.g. ver-. This could get messy real fast.

The extra length of /i,y,u/ needs to be marked before /r/ within the same morpheme, unless what follows /r/ is a consonant different than /s/ or /t/ (also within the same morpheme).

If we're going for a narrow transcription, the glottal stops need to be marked between /ə/ and the following vowel. Also, gestopt is syllabified /ɣəˈstɔpt/, for morphological reasons (though it doesn't affect pronunciation the way it would in e.g. Spanish, where you could get s-aspiration or s-dropping if you marked /s/ as syllable-final). Sol505000 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, thanks for your reply. What do you think of having 'had jij' as [ɦɑt͡ʃ‿ˈjɛɪ̯] ? I was surprised by the creator of this module saying this was intentional. There are a few other things which I consider debatable if intended to give general 'Hollandic' pronunciation, such as apparently a 'zeil'/'zuil'-merger as [zɛːl]. (But I'm from Belgium, so not a 'native'.) You can look at the code here. Exarchus (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

/t/ assimilates to /j/, so it looks correct. Whether /t/ becomes a full-on affricate or just a stop (and whether a phonetic [j] really follows it) is another question.

I can't see [ɛː] for either, to be honest. It's [ɛɪ̯] in my browser, the second symbol is ⟨ɪ⟩ (the symbol for near-close near-front unrounded vowel) with a non-syllabic diacritic underneath. I'm not sure whether it's really a better transcription than the traditional [ɛi̯] or [ɛi]. In current NSD, both /ɛiœyɔu/ and /eːøːoː/ can end in a lax vowel: [æɪɐʏɑʊɛɪœʏɔʊ], but that may depend on the speaker. Just as [æɪ] is in a free variation with [aɪ], [ɛɪ] (i.e. the new fashionable /eː/) can be [ei], in which case both elements are raised (it's normally never monophthongal, as in Belgium). The shift is far from complete and this can make learning the /ɛi/-/eː/ alternations in verbs extremely frustrating for L2 learners as far as pronunciation (or its comprehesion, to be more accurate) is concerned. Sol505000 (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]