Talk:California English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Add a counter example to the phonetic examples[edit]

I was born, raised, and have lived in the south bay area my entire life. And currently I am in the process of completing a civil engineering graduate degree at a well known bay area university. The phonetic examples in the article, really make no-sense to a native Californian because they are apparently written for a Northeastern audience that understand what the counter phonetic sounds like.

Also note that there are differences in word bundles, for example my use of "no-sense", is a phrase we know is considered rude by our transplanted northeastern coworkers, but is commonly used by Californians to simply say, 'I do not understand'. Granite07 (talk)

Recent splits[edit]

There have been recent splits of this article or new subset articles, San Francisco English and Inland California English, which are admittedly well researched and well sourced but I'm not sure if they provide anything much beyond this current article and any newly added info (which, I should add, is certainly in good faith, much appreciated, and valuable) can easily be merged into the mother page California English. California English is only 28,963 kB as it now stands, and WP's size split suggests that for "40kB / 40,000 chars" the "Length alone does not justify division." The other type of split, a content split, is recommended mainly just when dealing with "two or more distinct topics with the same or a similar titles" (i.e. a need for disambiguation), which is not the case here. The case here is a dialect or class of dialects, whose nuances and internal distinctions are still the focus of much incomplete/ongoing current research that suggests that California varieties themselves are transitional and not necessarily stable (yet). With that in mind, it's probably more appropriate to avoid breaking apart a transitional dialect's article into entirely new articles about its sub-dialects. Like with various other pages (see Western American English, Western New England English, etc.), it's more suitable at this stage to keep everything all in one place. Others' thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Keeping the description of Mission brogue and Inland California here sounds reasonable at this stage. Nardog (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor EagleyeB101 has responded to my edits on my talk page. I'm copying and pasting their full response here and then giving my own response: Wolfdog (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey there! IF you remember me, I was the author on the new new dialect pages of San Francisco English and Inland California English. I saw that you took down my pages, shortened them and grouped them together on the California English page. I put many hours of work on those pages, reading through sources, listening to audio recordings to confirm that the sources matched up with what one might hear normally, writing the pages themselves, etc. and I would really like the original pages to be restored as independent articles. I feel that the independent articles give the dialects more detail than the abbreviated versions you put on the California English page. I could do this on my own, but I wanted to discuss this with you before that so we don't get into some sort of back and forth changing things. Again, I also just want to say thanks for the advice you gave and the improvements you made to those original pages. I also don't mean to be attacking you in any way with this—you have more experience on Wikipedia than I do. I was just very proud of those pages I made and would enjoy seeing them restored. Thank you!EagleyeB101 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, EagleyeB101. I apologize; I assumed you would've been looking at Talk:California English or would've added it to your watchlist so you could see the above discussion from a few days ago. Please read it, and note its mention of policy regarding Wikipedia size splits and content splits. That said, I don't feel attacked at all, and I completely understand your feelings of put[ting] many hours of work on those pages, reading through sources, etc. I've been in the exact same position many, many times and had my work reverted. In this case, I've tried to not simply erase your pages, but actually merge as much of the information and sources as I could back into California English. Admittedly, I did a less complete job of this with Inland California English. You made so many newly-worded edits (but with mostly the same content and sources) that it was very difficult for me to try to merge everything back. Feel free to copy and paste info/sources you think I missed into California English by looking at pages' histories. None of this was against your new-page edits themselves (which were excellently written and sourced, and essentially a more fleshed-out version of what we already had, in the case of Inland California English, or what can be easily merged in the case of San Francisco English/Mission brogue). Again, feel free to restore much of that info by merging it to the California English site itself. At this juncture, there is no common name among lay readers (or even the experts themselves!) of these varieties, so for everyone's benefit they would best remain as sections under the easily discoverable and intuitively-named page "California English". I understand your frustrations, and I'm totally open to continue talking here. Wolfdog (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

EagleyeB101 Wolfdog (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC) To start, I apologize if the formatting for this reply seems incorrect or looks strange—I'm not entirely sure how to make this reply look like a "reply". Since your last message, I've just been waiting to see if anyone else had any input and mulling over the best course to take with the Inland California English page and San Francisco English/Mission Brogue page. I understand that the names for those two dialects are not readily known by the general public or agreed upon by experts—that was actually a problem I ran into particularly for the San Francisco page. Considering this, I wouldn't want to put the information on those two topics in some place where they would not be readily seen by readers of Wikipedia. However, with merging these two articles under California English along with the other dialects already on this page, I feel that the page has drifted away from what is typical for most dialect/accent pages. Before, the California English page was fairly restricted to describing the Urban california dialect marked by the California Vowel Shift. Now, with the page's additional information on California's inland varieties and the moribund San Francisco variety, two varieties that do not hold very similar features or histories with the general Urban California variety. (San Francisco English could not even be considered a member of Western American English due to its lack of a cot-caught merger and backed /u/ pronunciations which were present even among non-Mission Brogue speakers.) Typically from what I have found on Wikipedia, accents tend to be grouped on the same page based on similar linguistic grouping, not solely geographic. The example you gave of New England English is actually a perfect example of a dialect grouping with both linguistic and geographic ties. I feel that the page for California English has drifted too far into grouping its sub-dialects based on their similar geography rather than linguistic features. Just as I want the information for Inland California English and San Francisco English, I also wouldn't want to give the wrong idea that the three main dialects in question are necessarily closely related. So, how about we keep the sub-articles for Inland California English and San Francisco English/Mission Brogue on this page, but also bring back their independent pages with a "main article" link? I could also re-word the introduction of California English to put a special emphasis on California's urban variety (what most people think of) and clarify that the two others do not necessarily fall under the same classification. This would create a similar style page to the Western American English page—there is precedent for this. Thanks for reading this far!EagleyeB101 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I see your point that I feel that the page has drifted away from what is typical for most dialect/accent pages, however, I still think this is superseded by the argument about put[ting] the information on those two topics in some place where they would not be readily seen by readers of Wikipedia. Urban and rural California varieties are certainly related and likely are dialects-in-formation, due to the relative "youngness" of Western U.S. dialects, rather than singular or consistent dialects. California English is clearly the place to go for discovering more about any varieties within that state and at this stage all the information fits comfortably there, another solid argument against splitting the page. Once again, refer back to the bytage guidelines and other WP policy I mentioned earlier. And If we're using precedent as an argument, look at even Rhode Island English, a dialect that has actually been well-established and stable for at least a century, yet does not have its own page. This isn't a problem though, since it exists quite comfortably as a section under Eastern New England English. (Dialects like this also exist as sections under Hiberno-English.) There's nothing lowly about certain dialects remaining as sections. Feel free to take any of the information from the former pages and copying-and-pasting them at California English. Wolfdog (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

L’s turning to w or y sounds....[edit]

Don’t know where I would put in the pronunciation (or placement?) of the consonant “L”

Between the original (colonial)Spanish spoken and the huge influx of African Americans from Louisiana during WWII, the “l” has softened in many places, after a vowel, to the double “ll” of French or Spanish*, with the tongue rising towards the hard palate, but not touching it.

All right > aw right

Already > aw ready

Fillmore > Fiuh more (sorry don’t have an international phonetics keyboard here!) like the French ”fille” (daughter)

ill > ihw sounding like certain british urban pronunciations the word “ill”

This does vary= yellow has a more pronounced “l” sound, with the front of the tongue lightly flicking against the hard palate (but not the tip), which can sometimes almost “miss” touching the hard palate.

Then there are the “t”s..... I can demonstrate but I don’t have the knowledge of how to write this! Sorry!

* Spanish has tended towards using “y” [j] in ella, (her) and amarillo (yellow) but the California “l” is a bit “softer” sounding. Caliallye (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like you might be thinking of L-vocalization. AJD (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

/o/ and /e/[edit]

Is there a reason why North American /oʊ̯/ and /eɪ̯/ are written as monophthongs here? It's not stated within the article if these two are monophthongized, which would be highly unusual in American speech. But if that's true, then it should be stated with proper referencing. AnyGuy (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)