Talk:Elision

message: Kansai people do not elide vowels. Pronoucing every vowel is the basic technique to mimic Kansai-ben. They do elide "ikimasuka?" to "ikimakka?", but I think it is rather influence of Kanto's "ikimasska" than traditional Kansai-ben. So I do not think that Kansai dialect is a good example of eliding dialect. --Seitaro 09:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kansai

message: Why isn't anyone putting in Latin-Romance and English-Japanese elisions? lysdexia 06:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin-Romance and English-Japanese elisions

message: Rate my work.  How do ye like my exact pronunciations and translations? lysdexia 03:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lysdexia. Not being a native speaker of any of the languages that you added information on, I am not competent enough to give a rating. Still, on the outset, it appears to be a very valuable contribution. Continue with your good work. -- Sundar 05:35, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding chatspeak, like cya, r, u, etc., but they were more acronyms than elisions.  French has so many useless (nonfunctional), at least in speech, letters that its shortenings are quite close to the first words. lysdexia 10:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: This article is all about spoken language. "Chatspeak" is entirely written, so it's completely irrelevant IMO. Hairy Dude 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: whew

message: I'm not sure what to make of these. There are hundreds of them, and they're not in any discernible order, they contain a myriad unexplained abbreviations, and the "pronunciation" or whatever that is is also in some obscure or undefined system. Further, I don't think that many of them are in fact examples of elision. Certainly not synchronic elision or monolinguistic elision. It should be clarified which are examples of synchronic monolinguistic elision (like e.g. the British pronunciation of secretary) and which are not, like for example coup, which was never pronounced in English with a p sound and while. And then there are the cases that not elision at all, like while, which just derives from a different inflected form of whilst, not an elision of the final -st. And I don't think it's particularly interesting to list every English word which has lost a sound in the course of the history of the language, because that includes pretty much every single word; for example every word that has a final silent e is an example of diachronic elision, but that should be handled by prose that explains the loss of final e, not an exhaustive listing of every word that has a final silent e. Similarly with all the other silent letters. And so on. I find this section to be so useless and misleading that I think it should probably just be deleted (I can't speak to the other languages' sections as I haven't looked at them yet, but they may be problematic too). I will leave it for a few days, but if these issues can't be improved, I geuninely can't see how we can with sound mind leave this heap of misinformation here, and I don't see any way it can be salvaged save removal of nearly everything and careful explanation of everything else. Nohat 05:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English examples 

message: I'm copying some of what Lysdexia replied to my... replies, so as to keep section size down and avoid my head from blowing up.
:I wasn't claiming it was a dictionary.  I wanted a wordlist, which is not forbidden...
OK, a wordlist. A wordlist with all the words in English that you consider to have undergone elision, which, by your criteria, are tens of thousands. That your criteria are too broad has been already discussed ad nauseam. That a list with more than a couple dozen items is ridiculous long for the purpose of illustration is IMHO obvious too.
:::Wrong, my criteria included a bunch of elided classes so that! each word needn't be listed.  What part of -cn- don't you understand?
You had said: "Few speakers respect IPA pronunciations anyway, and choose to use their own vowels and accents." And I replied: "Speakers don't know IPA and IPA doesn't tell speakers how to speak. IPA describes, it doesn't prescribe." And now you say:
:In other words, few speakers speak as the IPA exclusively describes.  I didn't say it prescribes!  The IPA isn't loose enough.
I'm feeling like... what would be the opposite of "preaching to the choir"? IPA is not supposed to do what you believe it should be supposed to do. Do you understand the difference between a thing and a representation of the thing? And also, you didn't say "prescribe", but that's what you implied when you said "few respect IPA". You don't respect descriptions, you respect laws or principles dictated from outside, i. e. prescriptions. 
:::The difference is nominal.  The IPA is too strict, meaning that its descriptions are inaccurate.  Then editors, like you, enforcing IPA enforce its prescription.
:If someone doesn't understand how a foreign language sounds, never having taken the class, then try listening to the many media.
First of all, you mean English, so why do you generalize? Second, suppose I don't have access to the "many media". Third, why should I cope with a myriad accents listening to CNN, BBC, etc. or watching reruns of Friends or The Simpsons or whatever, if English can be written down using IPA in a very good approximation? A trained linguist might be able to listen and abstract phonemes from speech heard on TV, and then write them down, but the average Joe cannot. Yet you don't need much training to understand the IPA. Millions of students of English throughout the world do it all the time.
:::It should work for all languages supposed to have a relationship between spelling and speaking.  The signs used by IPA are too different than those in native alfabets; the pronunciations are too detailed; the keys are not quick studies; and it's not worth the time studying what all its signs mean to get a lone word spoken right.  Writing keys in native letters, with however many variants needed, and knowing how to say the letters is easier I guaranty than any other published sustem.  Our memories are polluted with superfluous characters.  Just look at all the crap (L. chaff) in Unicode.
:Sounds like stops or aspirations that cannot be spoken continuously or extendedly are not part of the language, are considered to be artefacts, and are left out.
Try learning any language using those ideas. If everything a linguistically unaware native speaker considers "an artifact" or unworthy of mention must be suppressed, then it is impossible to note down the language correctly unless you know it beforehand!
::: *snap* *crackle* *pop* That's a language for cartoons.  The individual should deem what is correct about a language, not the main body of speakers.  People are corruptive as a whole.  Using native representations (letters), judgement calls can be made within.
:I can and do hence say "teen" many ways that aren't and are described by the IPA.
How brave.
:::And many do, of all words.
:Why is anything written?  Why is anything filmed?  Why are there mirrors?  It's so people can be well-reminded what they're doing, and tell what's best and right from worst and wrong.
I don't even know what to call this. Writing has a moral purpose? Having a written language helps me telling right from wrong? I'm sorry for the millions of illiterate people out there. You're not only deeply mistaken but bordering on the strangest kind of fanaticism I've ever encountered.
:::It's ethical, not moral.  A rose, besides its smell, does have another meaning by any other name.  Sounds are objective; order is objective; choices are objective.  Knowing what one is saying from one's meaning is ethical; speaking and writing come later but help this.  So you misunderstood, not knowing the difference between ethics and morals, and meaning and writing.
:"Loanwords should not be considered English but foreign English." That makes up about 70% of English vocabulary if you go backwards just a few centuries (1,000 years at most).
::I know.  Those damned Romans...  Er, I mean, those doomed Romans...
I meant French.
:::more Latin than French
You said "Aspiration and voicing are independent." I explained why this is not so. Aspiration excludes voicing by definition. Some studies show that English speakers employ aspiration (rather than voicing) to distinguish initial /b/ from initial /p/ for example, so that a non-aspirated initial /p/ tends to be heard as /b/. Which means that aspiration is used as a contrast to voicing.
:::That's what independent means.  I was talking about what sounds are or aren't needed to speak a letter.
:"Fonemes don't have constituents!". Phonemes have features. That's how they're described. Roundedness, nasalization, point of articulation, etc. are all features.
:::I wasn't talking about features.
But it was. If I call features "features", then that's a technical word; better to say that phonemes have certain constituents, "which linguists call features".
:::The so-called length or articulation or quality that tacks on a sumbol in the IPA key's suntax is not a feature but a constituent.  I already contrasted these with the features like pitch or speed or volume.
About Arabic script:
:If Arabic needs those vowels, then it's written defectively.  But you can put the stress anywhere on "particularly" by what you want to call attention to, if anything.
It's not written defectively. It leaves some things out. You do not write everything, in any language. "Particularly" is stressed over tic, but that is not written anywhere in the word.
:::Such stress is not needed.  It changes with speed, mood, and case.  When people say "partic?!ularly", they are being impatient.  And this is especially not needed in an article about elisions.
:Soooo, do you find words like "scrounged" hard to say? :)
I have no idea where that came from, but no, as a matter of fact I don't find it hard. Because I knew the word beforehand, that is.
:::Because Spanish doesn't have words like that.
:Using new letters for sounds should be forgiven because they're given next to the word, as-written, that most people know how to say.  And anyone can verify by speaking and feeling that \ch\ is not made from \t\+\sh\ as the IPA claims.  It's common knowledge; common to find out, that is.
The IPA doesn't claim anything. The IPA uses conventional symbols for a necessarily incomplete, but approximate enough, transcription. Ch is not t plus sh, but it is formed by a stop part and a fricative part. This is a fact.
:::voiceless postalveolar affricate, affricate#notation, 
:::The stop part may be involved in the forming, especially as a mistake, but not in the saying.  All parts conspire to make a unique sound that has no [sounded] parts.
--Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: lysdexia 05:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: And again

message: I think we can remove the factual accuracy tag from the article now (the criteria for such a dispute are not met anymore). Also, some clarification would be needed as to the meanings of elision. What I'd like to see is a distinction between synchronical elision (which is the one mostly being discussed now), and diachronical elision.
I would rather not include "accidental" elision (that is, simply omitting sounds by mistake or lack of familiarity) and in general the unrestricted, unsystematic meaning of elision as simply "leaving out things". And of course, elision as "leaving symbols out of a written word" should not even be mentioned here.
Nohat, you seem not to agree with the idea of diachronical elision for this article; is this so?
--Pablo D. Flores 11:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion of diachronic elision is warranted. But I think we both agree what is needed is a discussion, not a laundry list of English words that have undergone diachronic elision over the course of history of the English language. The only encyclopedic way to do it would be to describe the patterns of diachronic elision with a few examples for each type. Nohat 15:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I have done so.  If the factual accuracy should come into question now or in the future, please add the tag back in but explain what facts are disputable.  Be specific! — The Storm Surfer 06:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy and inclusive definition

message: The article says that "syncope" is a synonym.  The Syncope article is vague about the relationsip, so your input at Talk:Syncope would be valuable.  If they are synonyms, the articles should be merged. -Pgan002 07:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elision vs. Syncope 

message: "going to" ---> "gonna"
Is this an example of the phenomenon discussed here? Michael Hardy 00:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. It's probably related, but gonna is its own word, so if it ever was an example(doubtful) it's not now. BioTube 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how "gonna" is its own word; it is only used in situations where "going to" could be used with no change in meaning.  In my dialect, anyway.  If you have a "gonna" that is different from "going to", I'd be very curious to hear about it.  — The Storm Surfer 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the reverse direction, you can say "I'm going to the store", but you can't say "I'm gonna the store".  "Gonna" has become a helping verb, almost, though you're right in saying it's still interchangeable with "going to".  It's a subset of the uses of "going to".  68.191.180.62 (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "gonna"?

message: England football fans often turn "Eng-land" into "En-ger-land". In poetry and songs, the author's choose between the short and long form of words in which elision exists, depending on how many syllables they need. They sing "En-ger-land" because they need three syllables in the tune they sing it to. I believe - though admittedly I have no evidence to back it up - that this is an example of the opposite of elision. Imagine that the actual name of the country was "Engerland".  Elision would probably reduce the pronunciation to "En-gland", but in poetry and song, either form would be used depending on the syllables needed. I'm not sure whether there's a name for this reverse process, but it might be worth including in the article. Hope this makes sense.
--82.4.55.101 (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the longer form Engeland (with the middle e clearly pronounced) is not unusual in old folk songs in Swedish, especially where this longer form is better suited to the metric.  However, this does not seem to be cases of elision; rather the converse. JoergenB (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: En-ger-land

message: The accompanying verb, (to) elide, redirects here. I found this article investigating some articles about (linguistic) ellipses, like Verb phrase ellipsis and Sluicing. These two actually provide short explanations of what they mean by "eliding"; which in their context is the omission of entire words or phrases.
Is there already some other article about this use of "elide" (and thus, I suppose, implicitly or explicitly also "elision")? If not, should one be written; or a paragraph or a short section be added to this one? I'd like to have an adequate link for forms of 'to elide', in such contexts.
I just noted that this talk page is noted as a "stub class poetry article" and a "classical music article". That's two other (related but not identical) usages. Especially the usage in music, IMHO could not be reduced to just a subcase of "phonemic" elision. JoergenB (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other uses (within linguistics) 

message: I am against merger of this article with any other.  It can stand on its own, and is notable.  Furthermore, an article of this age will have an editing history and talk page that would be lost -- along with attributions -- that can not be re-created. I can think of no reason to merge. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No editing history will be lost, and there is nothing on Talk:Deletion (phonology) worth preserving. I'm going ahead with the merge (of that article into this one). CapnPrep (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The proposal is to merge with Deletion (phonology), not File deletion, or Set "elision" or any other non-linguistic uses of the words you might imagine. And it is obvious that anything (other than technical discussion of formal phonological theories, which should have their own articles, if sufficiently notable) that could be added to Deletion (phonology) would also be relevant here, if it's not here already. CapnPrep (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: I'm not sure adding that whole quote was necessary or appropriate. Regardless, how is "whisky" an elision? That's how it's spelled. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Mice and Men 

message: The end of the 2nd para uses 'cannot' -- but this is a compound not a contraction. Suggestions?
humanengr (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need proper example of 'a contraction that is not an elision' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309224231/http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/exp_lang/putting_words.html to http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/exp_lang/putting_words.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm going to begin editing with just a few changes and deletions to reduce the thicket of misinformation, mostly in the intro bit above the contents inset. Suggestions, disagreements, etc. can be discussed here. 47.32.20.133 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massaging misinformation out of the intro (and beyond) 

message: This page  mentions that elision is common in Turkish; the article could use some examples from that language. -- Beland (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish 

message: I'd like to ask for advice here: the pronunciation /kʌmftərbəl/ is given for 'comfortable', and the pronunciation of the second syllable with /ər/ is new to me. I'm not doubting that some American speakers have this pronunciation: Merriam-Webster gives it, and I can hear it in a number of the American pronunciations of 'comfortable' given in Forvo. I am concerned that some readers may be confused by the presence of a second phonological process in addition to elision: as well as the elision of the /ə/ between /f/ and /t/, the example shows a shift of /r/ from the end of the citations form's second syllable to the end of the following syllable. The example may be confusing because I am sure this shift doesn't happen in non-rhotic English accents and it makes it hard to see how the transcription fits such accents in a diaphonemic fashion. I wonder how many other words show this pattern. I think it should be possible to find a simpler example of elision for this article.  RoachPeter (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this looks like an example of metathesis rather than just elision. I suggest we either replace the "after" notation with /ˈkʌmftəbəl/ or remove the row altogether. Nardog (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  English examples: 'comfortable' 

message: The article states that elision applies to sounds or words, but there's no mention of the programming application.
Elision is used when typing out programming syntax is optional, for example the optional comma is called (https://tc39.es/ecma262/#prod-Elision), and https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.8.0/book/lifetimes.html has the section "Lifetime elision".
Also Copy elision  AltoStev (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "elision" in programming 

message: This article seems to violate MOS:CURLY. Is there some justification for that? (It also seems to use single quote marks rather than the double quote marks that seem more common in Wikipedia articles.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MOS:CURLY]]