Category talk:English pronunciation spellings
Latest comment: 6 years ago by -sche in topic RFM discussion: May–July 2017
See also: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/January#spelling_pronunciations
--Barytonesis (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Is there a difference I'm overlooking? —suzukaze (t・c) 00:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- The definition in
Eye dialect on WikipediaWikipedia doesn't agree with ours. There is no article for pronunciation spellings, but there is Pronunciation respelling on WikipediaWikipedia , which suggests that Eye dialect is or once was a special type of pronunciation spelling. I find this a bit confusing and expect it would have the same effect on others who are not students of linguistics and some who are. DCDuring (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC) - As I understand it, true eye dialect is spelling that makes standard pronunciations look like dialect as a way of implying something about the speaker. In other words, the dialectal nature if the speech is only an illusion for the eye, not real. Somehow it came to be used here to mean anything that looks like dialect, including pronunciation spellings of genuinely dialectal speech. So, to answer your question: there's supposed to be a difference, but it's probably not consistently followed- it would take going through all the entries in the categories to sort them out. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- The current scheme is as Chuck describes, and involves both categories being used even if many entries need to be moved. Traditionally we used "eye dialect" for visual representation of "dialectal" speech whether or not the speech was contrastive with a standard pronunciation, partially because many cases are not clear-cut. For example, "uh leftenunt" represents a dialectal, non-standard pronunciation variant from an American perspective (so citations from American books might support a "pronunciation respelling" sense), but represents the standard pronunciation merely respelled for effect from a British perspective (so citations from British books might support a separate "eye dialect" sense). - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, what Chuck says is right. Genuine examples of eye dialect include sez for says (whose the standard pronunciation is already the same as "sez") and wuz (US) or woz (GB) for was. One I recently encountered in the book Spencer's Mountain is recken for reckon. But spellings that represent a nonstandard pronunciation (e.g. cain't) are not eye dialect. Sometimes a spelling can be both a misspelling (when used by people who don't know better) and eye dialect (when used by people who do know better, but want to imply a speaker who doesn't), for example could of/would of for could've/would've. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template talk:eye dialect of. Feel free to add other conversations to that list. --Oxytonesis (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not merged. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)