Talk:Low-Back-Merger Shift

message: :He studied a diverse range of English-speaking Montrealers, and found that younger speakers had a significantly retracted /ɛ/ and /ɪ/ compared with older speakers, but did not find any significant retraction.
Uhm. So is there significant rectraction or is there not?? An "among the older speakers" missing at the end maybe? --Tropylium 17:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eep! There is. I meant to say that there wasn't significant lowering. I have corrected it. —Felix the Cassowary 01:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear section

message: Wolfdog, I respect what you're doing in moving this to Third Dialect Shift, but I think you should have discussed it first. To begin with, there isn't yet a widely agreed-upon term for the combined phenomenon found in many dialects. "Third Dialect Shift" was apparently introduced by Durian (2012), and there are a handful of Google Scholar hits for the term; Boberg (2019) calls it the "Short Front Vowel Shift"; "Elsewhere Shift" has been picking up popularity recently after being proposed by Kendall and Fridland (see Nesbitt 2018); Kara Becker is editing a volume coming out soon in which every paper calls it the "Low Back Merger Shift" in an attempt to popularize that term for it; and of course "Canadian Shift" is older, better-established, and more widely used than any of these terms. I'm open to moving the article to something like Third Dialect Shift, but not without some discussion. Alternatively, it might be better to have Third Dialect or Elsewhere or what-have-you as a main article and Canadian shift as a separate article discussing it in its Canadian context specifically, I'm not sure. AJD (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of the "third dialect" of North American English appears to be used beyond Durian, but you're probably right that I conflated that with Durian's inclusion of the term "shift", making me think I'd seen it in several others articles before. I like the idea of a more neutral and encompassing term, although I agree that Canadian Shift is probably the most widely used. However, many studies are now showing a very similar shift outside of Canada, and I thought an umbrella title would therefore be more suitable than one that seems to favor a particular dialect. Anyway, you seem to get my reasons; I also respect your revert and am interest in others' thoughts as well. Wolfdog (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Do you have any preference for a name or do you think Canadian Shift remains safest? Wolfdog (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I think Canadian Shift is still the best name, honestly. Wait a couple years and see if a new consensus name shakes out in the literature and then we can move it. AJD (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

text: @Ajd In your tag, you use the term “Low Back Merger Shift”, so I’d like to ask if your opinion about the matter has changed. Tyrui (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, good question. I am starting to suspect Low Back Merger Shift might actually be taking off as a name.  I don't know if it's displaced Canadian Shift in popularity yet, but it might be a better title if the article is going to discuss the overall multi-dialectal North American phenomenon rather than just the shift in Canada. AJD (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Wolfdog What are your thoughts? I personally agree with @Ajd- I think, in sources written after 2019, I've seen more "LBMS" and "Elsewhere Shift" than "Canadian Shift"/"California Vowel Shift", though I'm not a linguist and have limited data. Tyrui (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Dialect Shift 

message: Thanks for the name change. Can you point to some specific sources that are referring to the Canadian and California Shifts as a single phenomenon? I feel a bit weaselly wording the sentence . Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is generally laid out in Becker's 2019 volume in the Proceedings if the American Dialect Society. Feel free to email me if you need access and I can send you more specific references. As for the quoted sentence, while I'd agree with it, there's not really a good citation for it so it's probably best removed. The relationship between the low back merger and front lax vowel shift is actually one of my areas of research, so I'd be happy to share my bibliography if that's helpful. — Wug·a·po·des 00:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks so much! As for the quoted sentence, is there possibly just a better way to put it? Perhaps at this point (with a source, maybe from the Becker journal, e.g.) it would be truer to write: . Unless you feel this is also inaccurate. Wolfdog (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's accurate enough, but my only caution is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus in the literature on what the common cause even is. Contributors to Becker (2019) argue that it's the movement of the LOT vowel, not merger per se that causes the front lax movement. Gardner & Roeder (2022) give an alternative proposal that the cause is due to the underlying phonology, not phonetic drift. — Wug·a·po·des 23:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: @Wolfdog your recent edit duplicated most of the article, so that the content is present twice.  Looking at the ToC will make the problem obvious. Did you read my edit summary before reverting?  Wham2001 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! Yeah, I sure did. Are you reading right? Perhaps you looked at an intermediate version? What I editied summarizes the article, as a lead normally does. But it doesn't duplicate anything. What do you mean? If anything, it provides single-time details, including the exact years 1987 and 1995 when the shifts were first documented. Can you specify please? Wolfdog (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the Table of Contents for the article in its current state.  There are two sections entitled "Canadian shift", two entitled "U.S. Third Dialect Shifts" etc. Each pair has identical contents, except for References. You introduced that duplication with this recent edit. Wham2001 (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I honestly don't see what you're talking about. I see ONE "Canadian Shift" in the Table of Contents and ONE "U.S. Third Dialect Shift". Perhaps one of our two devices is loading the page incorrectly? Perhaps we can get a third opinion. Wolfdog (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK that really is weird.  I've tried force-reloading it to clear my browser cache and I still see the same thing – perhaps you could try the same?  I got here via :Category:Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors so I might ping @ActivelyDisinterested who is editing currently and actively gnomes the sfn error categories to take a third look. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

text: PS if you look at the article history do you see that your edit at 20:10 aproximately doubled the length of the article (from 24 to 46 kbytes)? Wham2001 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the addition again, there is something very wrong with it. Most of the article has been duplicated, as can be seen by the fact it adds 22k of text. If you search "U.S. Third Dialect Shifts" in your edit you will see you are adding that section, but it already exists in the article so your addition is a duplicate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the diff I think everything from  onwards is the duplication. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's not right either, I can't work out which parts are duplicates are which are changes. I fear you'll have to do the edit from scratch. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks @ActivelyDisinterested.  I suspect that this is caused by a rarely-hit bug either in a browser or in MediaWiki – I see a duplication like this perhaps every other month (though only when they affect articles that use  or similar references).  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah there's a bug somewhere it's been reported but I bet it's near impossible to reproduce in testing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wild! Sorry for the trouble, everyone. I will attempt to re-edit from scratch. Thanks, Wham and AD! Wolfdog (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication