Talk:Gaius (praenomen)

Pronunciation

What is meant by "archaically /ˈɡɑː.iː.əs/"? Archaic English? Archaic Latin? Either is dubious in this context. Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It was three syllables in Latin, but AFAIK never in English, and that's how it was formatted. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The pronunciation was provided so that English speakers would be able to approximate the sound of the name in early Latin, hence the use of IPA for English. I believe this is the only praenomen where the number of syllables shifted during the historical period, and thus the only one for which it should be necessary to provide an "archaic" pronunciation. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We should just give the pronunciation in Latin if we want that as well. (Didn't we used to have it?) But unless it's actually pronounced that way in English, we shouldn't present it as English.

Added the Latin pron. to the 2nd section. Please fix if I got it wrong. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it transcribed as /ˈɡɑːjjʊs/, on the understanding that Latin intervocalic /j/ was always geminate. (Or at least when the preceding vowel is stressed?) Phonetically, there's not much difference between [ˈɡɑːjjʊs] and [ˈɡɑː.i(ː).ʊs], though there obviously can be implications for phonotactics, morphology and so on. Latin prevocalic vowels are canonically short, however, which would mean that we should transcribe trisyllabic Gaius as /ˈɡa.ɪ.ʊs/. It seems to me this creates more problems than analyzing it as /ˈɡɑːjjʊs/. Any thoughts? Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. Is the macron original, or an incorrect fix? It seems odd they would mark a short vowel long, esp. when it's common to not mark V length at all. But I suspect this is a pronunciation it would be fairly easy to support w a ref. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically, both the a and i are long vowels, and should be pronounced separately. However, in practice they tended to blend together, as we pronounce the name today. But all the IPA pronunciations strike me as incredibly difficult to interpret, compared with some of the methods I grew up with using Merriam-Webster. I understand that simpler methods of indicating pronunciation are acceptable as substitutes or complements for IPA in Wikipedia; as this is English Wikipedia and the target audience is familiar with English rules of pronunciation, perhaps we could settle on something more people could understand. I've just looked over the table of traditional respelling systems under Pronunciation respelling for English, and the Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key seems to have a fairly simple and intuitive system. Using that instead of IPA, I would recommend these pronunciations: GEYE-us (classical), GAH-EE-us (archaic), GAY-us (commonly used in English before the 20th Century). I considered using a schwa at the end, but I think the u is pretty distinctive. P Aculeius (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Respelling only works for English. We can't use it for other languages, because English doesn't have equivalents to there sounds, and in this case because that would mean the Latin pronunciation of the archaic period differed according to the English dialects spoken by our readers today. — kwami (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is written in English, for people who speak English, and are familiar with English rules of pronunciation. That's exactly what Wikipedia Pronunciation respelling is for. It makes no sense to apply different forms of pronunciation for words from different languages if the goal is to tell English speakers how to pronounce them; that would mean that English speakers would have to learn a different set of pronunciation rules and symbols for each language before learning how to pronounce the words. The purpose of having the pronunciations here is to render the names in a form that can easily be understood by the reader. If the reader has to use unfamiliar symbols that mean different things depending on the language they're representing, then it'd be better just to eliminate all of the pronunciations, since they won't do most readers any good. P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to create a respelling system that can replace the IPA, which would be quite a job, and then get consensus that it is appropriate to use on WP. I don't understand the "symbols that mean different things depending on the language they're representing" comment: that's what you're arguing for. I'm arguing against doing that. Your argument that we can't use a proper transcription because our readers are ignorant suggests that we shouldn't have any Latin on WP, because most of our audience doesn't read Latin.

Anyway, anyone who can use a general English dictionary knows basic IPA, so it's not a very high bar, and as an international encyclopedia we use it just as we do the metric system, the Gregorian calendar, and international currencies. — kwami (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to create anything. That's why the Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key exists, and it clearly is appropriate for use on Wikipedia. IPA symbols are used differently to represent the sounds of different languages; that's why there are separate keys for IPA in dozens of different languages, including IPA for English, IPA for Latin, etc. This isn't about transcribing things at all. The problem is that most English speakers aren't familiar with IPA at all. I didn't say they were ignorant; that's your word. Nor did I suggest that articles should be restricted to material familiar to all of the audience. Your argument seems to be that if people want to know how to pronounce a word, they need to learn IPA.

I strongly disagree with the assertion that "anyone who can use a general English dictionary knows basic IPA." That's simply not true. The IPA for English key contains 74 different symbols and polygraphs representing different sounds. I grew up using all kinds of dictionaries, but I didn't encounter IPA or have to learn how to use it until I started writing articles on Wikipedia. And after hours of studying it and trying to approximate sounds in it, I find that IPA experts disagree with almost every construction I've made using it. If careful study isn't enough to be able to use it correctly, then the vast majority of English speakers, including most people who use "general English dictionaries", certainly aren't going to understand it well enough to use it. This isn't about the Gregorian calendar, the metric system, or decimal currency. It's not about 16th Century grammar, either. It's about making pronunciation guides simple for the largest number of English readers. The fact that experienced users of IPA can't agree on what to do suggests that it's not the best way to achieve that goal. P Aculeius (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)