Talk:Prosody (linguistics)

message: An anon editor wrote that breathing only corresponds to prosodic boundaries in careful speech, as when reading. Actually, audible breathing is an extremely reliable indicator of prosodic boundaries. (Remember, we're not talking about syntactic boundaries here.) In reviewing the pitch traces of hundreds of prosodic units from spontaneous English conversation, I have never once come across a breath in the middle of a prosodic contour. In fact, breathing occurs at major prosodic units, and is generally accompanied by a reset in pitch and speed. Similar results obtain for other European, Asian, African, and American languages. Wikipedia says “Qualitatively, one can understand prosody as the difference (in terms of acoustic properties) between a well-performed play, and one on first reading. kwami 11:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give a link to where Wikipedia says this? It seems rather an odd sort of explanation to me.  RoachPeter (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breathing 

message: Can anyone provide an explanation of the notation that can be used to record intonation (IPA or otherwise)?
:See Intonation (linguistics) There are many notation schemes available: This page mentions a few, or this one. ---23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intonation 

message: The term is used in neuropathology, bcz the ability (or abilities?) to utter and interpret prosody resides in one (or two?) specific area(s) of the brain, and a stroke can destroy it/them. It may even deserve a Prosody (neurology) article, but until then, does it perhaps deserve some mention in the accompanying article?--Jerzy•t 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurology 

message: Could simplify the definitions and explanations in the first paragraph so I can understand it, instead to merely relating it to concepts in specific fields. --Blue Spider (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's gotten really garbled. kwami (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, hopefully that's a little better. If you still can't follow, the links should give you the background you need. Or give us the specifics here, and we'll see what we can do. kwami (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  just poorly written 

message: I have reviewed this article for cleanup. I removed the  template; kwami's edits some time ago were excellent, and I had no trouble understanding the article, even though I knew little about the topic. If another editor thinks it's still too technical, please respond to kwami's comment above. I have also done some rephrasing, wikification, and Manual of Style editing of the Prosody and emotion section, and repaired the quote (from which an em dash in the original was improperly deleted). --Unconventional (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: About "dessert" and "desert" (n.): their first syllables are different anyway, as in "detach" and "den". "desert" (v.) is spoken (by me, at least) identically to "dessert". Dsalt (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the "desert" (n.) of "just deserts" that is pronounced identically to dessert. — kwami (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be dilecticle variation, because I pronounce them just like the article says. (I live in North Texas) (but I do pronounce desert the noun and desert the verb identically)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.207.96 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desert/Dessert 

message: The article says there is no written form of prosody, but this is no longer true if you include the ways people use online text to express themselves, exaggerating words, using italics, bold or caps for emphasis and peppering speech with emoticons. If anyone has detailed informtion about this please add it to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.149.33 (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always been such things, but it' extremely primitive compared to our ability to write words--more like proto-writing. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I have heard this word used by educators, and I am a bit confused.  They speak of a child having "prosody" when they read, and sometimes they sound like that's a good thing, making it seem like prosody is an inherently positive noun.  But I read this article, and it seems like it's a neutral word.  So I ask:  
If a child's oral reading is poor, do we say that 
*A) this child has poor/bad/weak prosody, 
or do we say that 
*B) this child lacks prosody?
If "prosody" is a neutral noun, then I would think "A" is correct, and that we need a modifier to clarify, but if "prosody" is an inherently positive term, then I would think "B" is correct.  Can anyone explain this to me? 98.82.23.7 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When reading, prosidy is usually considered good, because it shows the reader understands what they are reading, and is effectively turning the writing into speach. Words are not simply divided into positive, negative, and neutral categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.207.96 (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear connotation 

message: Uhhh... the word is "ellipsis" not "ellipses.'  (Needs correction in the main article.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabeles (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ellipses" is the plural for, of "ellipsis." Seeing as all of the other terms in that sentence are in their plural forms, "ellipses" is the only form that is grammatically correct. Thanks for looking out for the integrity of the page, though.Rob Hurt (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Cleanup 

message: The lead of the article gives the meaning of 'prosody' as "song sung to music; pronunciation of syllable". I think the latter part is a bit too vague - it really relates to the tone or accent of the syllable (checked this with my old copy of Liddell and Scott). Would it be OK to change this to "song sung to music; tone or accent of a syllable"?  RoachPeter (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was the one who added that etymology, and the change sounds reasonable. — Eru·tuon 18:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of prosody 

message: The example from Hebrew morphophonology (3rd para in the "Domain" section) seems to me to have almost nothing to do with prosody as described in this article - I feel sure it belongs somewhere else. OK if I delete it?   RoachPeter (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That example seems a little odd. I guess it's using "prosody" in the sense of syllable structure defined by consonants and vowels, or relative obstruction of the vocal tract, which I'm not sure is usually considered "prosody". However, perhaps some people use it that way — I have a book on Ancient Greek prosody that includes details of syllable structure. I would say if you delete it from the article, copy it here so that people can comment on it. — Eru·tuon 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

text: The source cited for that paragraph is worth glancing at. It uses the term "prosodic structure" in the sense of syllable structure. I think the paragraph doesn't belong where it's been placed in this article, and the article needs some rewriting for the paragraph to properly belong in it. It's confusing how exactly "prosodic structure" as used by the source relates to prosody as described in this article. — Eru·tuon 20:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose syllable structure may have some marginal importance in this topic. The para does have some similarity to work by J.R.Firth and his followers: this unusual approach to phonology was called Prosodic Analysis. Firthian analysts were able to posit an abstract skeleton of segmental material (similar to what is given in the Hebrew example here) to which various "prosodies" covering more than one segment were attached (vowel harmony is a good example). If this is the theory underlying this example, it isn't made clear how it's relevant. I'm hoping to make quite a few changes to the Prosody article, so maybe I could do something to preserve this bit if it's felt worth keeping.  RoachPeter (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domain: Hebrew example 

message: I propose merging Suprasegmentals into Prosody (linguistics). I think that the content in the Suprasegmentals article can easily be explained in the context of Prosody, and the Prosody article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Suprasegmentals will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Agentxp22 (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: — Assignment last updated by LingKing77 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Graduate Phonology