About the gemination of /ɲ/, /ʃ/, /ʎ/, /dz/ and /ts/ (unresolved issue in article)[edit]

Long discussion of an unresolved issue in the text was archived with no explanation of why, presumably age. The problem still festers in the article, though -- misleading or misinforming readers, depending on point of view -- so here's a potted summary.

"/ɲ/, /ʃ/, /ʎ/, /dz/, /ts/ are always geminated intervocalically" reads like a claim that e.g. foglio contains /ʎ/, which is realized phonetically [ʎː] (or [ʎʎ]). The standard view is very straightforward, however: /ʎʎ/ is realized [ʎː]. Nothing is (inexplicably, magically...) "geminated"; the phonological unit in question simply IS a geminate realized as such.

For example, there is no singleton phoneme /ʃ/ in Italian. There can be no structure */paʃe/, for example, because "/ʃ/ is always long" (obviously mis-stated ingenuously for the nonce). The phonetic form [paːʃe] pace does exist for millions of Italians (alongside non-weakened [paːtʃe]), but that phonetic [ʃ] results from application of an allophonic weakening rule /tʃ/ → [ʃ]/V_V, not as a realization of /ʃ/. The verb pasce exists as well, pronounced [paʃːe]. Thus pasce [paʃːe] and pace [paːʃe] can contrast on the basis of internal consonant length (vowel length is epiphenomenal, and not distinctive), but not as geminate/long vs. singleton/short articulation of the same phoneme. The form pasce contains a phoneme intrinsically long -- geminate, if one insists -- not /ʃ/ that somehow lengthens/geminates.

Gemination does occur in Italian word-initially under syntactic gemination: a casa [ak'ka:sa] 'at home' vs. non-geminated la casa [la'ka:sa] 'the house/home'. '

Upshot: word-internal consonants phonetically long or geminate are simply realizations of phonemic/underlying geminates -- ricco /rikko/ is pronounced with [kk], geminate projected from geminate. Totally banal. The same for /ɲɲ/, /ʃʃ/, /ʎʎ/, /ddz/, /tts/. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well ask why nobody writes English diphthongs as /aːɪ eːɪ ɔːɪ əːʊ aːʊ/ (or /ɑːj ɛːj oːj əːw aːw/ etc.) even though the first element is signifinantly longer before voiced consonants and at the end of a word (especially in monosyllables), exactly where /ɜː/, /ɔː/ and /ɑː/ are given full length, justifying the length mark in the IPA. Not even Lindsey does that, and he proposes a massive overhaul in how RP should be transcribed. It's probably for the sake of a simpler phonemic transcription. We should follow the sources as far as phonemic transcription is concerned.
Plus, /tts ddz/ don't look like phonemic affricates (in IPA, that is). Sol505000 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, having trouble following what you're saying there. English contrasts in vowel length such as pre-fortis clipping or rhythmic clipping vs. not, breaking before /l/, or a Michigander's rendition of pie vs. an Alabaman's... are phonetic. The issue in this section is phonemic status, recognizing overtly and stating clearly that e.g. the structure of lascio contains an inherently geminate/long consonant, not that it's pronounced with phonetic gemination of (non-existent) /ʃ/. Standard view of phonologists, which I agree should be followed in the article. If your comment beginning "Plus," refers to inadequacies of IPA, I quite agree with that, too. It's imperfect. Canepari opts for /ˈpiʦʦa/ /ˈɡaʣʣa/ to try to salvage pizza and gazza from the usual imbroglio. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're using ⟨ː⟩ for vowels where there aren't any length distinctions (as it's often been claimed for older RP, as COMMA/NURSE aren't distinctive in stressed syllables and SQUARE/NEAR feature a centering glide further distinguishing it from DRESS/KIT) then you are transcribing a phonetic detail in phonemic transcription (which isn't always a bad thing). The late J.W. Lewis writes that Not only would a blanket use of length colons, if carried through, more appropriately contain the symbol /ӕː/ than /ӕ/, but if one were to continue the logic of this approach ad absurdum then the theoretical arguments could be said also to indicate the desirability of length colons incorporated in the diphthongs giving /pleːɪ, rəːʊ, kɑːʊ/ etc for play, row, cow etc. Cf Gimson 1962 §704 (e). It can even be argued that relative to other languages English /m, n, ŋ/ and /l/ are long except in such situations as the vocalic phonemes also are shortened. So why not a blanket-colon transcription with /mː, nː, ŋː/ and /lː/? The Gimson 1962 decision to indicate especially the qualitative opposition, at the same time noting quantity by the length mark for vowels is one of essentially the same order. See [1].
If, as you write, the structure of lascio contains an inherently geminate/long consonant is the view upheld by the majority of scholars then the phonemic analysis in this article should reflect that.
Canepari opts for /ˈpiʦʦa/ /ˈɡaʣʣa/ to try to salvage pizza and gazza from the usual imbroglio. The problem is that only the stop is geminated: [ˈpit̚tsa, ˈɡad̚dza]. The fricative element is short.
EDIT: See Russian phonology, where ⟨ɕː ʑː⟩ are used instead of ⟨ɕ ʑ⟩ even in phonemic transcription. See also Luxembourgish phonology, where ⟨æːɪ æːʊ⟩ are used instead of ⟨æɪ æʊ⟩. We already mark non-contrastive gemination/length in other articles. If we can find sources, I'll support the change. Sol505000 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...then you're transcribing a phonetic detail in phonemic transcription (which isn't always a bad thing)" Therein, perhaps, the rub. First off, the Brits you're citing are phoneticians, not all that much concerned with phonology, and they tend to leak the purely phonetic into structure where it doesn't belong (long history behind why; no need to go into it here).
pizza gazza present the problematics of mixing phonetics and structures (phonemics, underlying form...) rather clearly (or muddily, from another point of view), if they're represented phonemically as /tts/ /ddz/. Due in part to IPA inadequacies, (phonemic) /ˈpiʦʦa/ is realized as (phonetic) [ˈpit̚tsa] seems to be about as good as possible, as clumsy as it is.
I agree that /tts/ and /ddz/ are at the very best misleading. But if the choice is between those and strongly implying, or, alas, even stating that [tts] and [ddz] are the results of geminating /ts/ and /dz/, I'll live with the phonetics leaking into /tts/ /ddz/ rather than dwelling on Caneparis more phonologically responsible /ˈpiʦʦa/ /ˈɡaʣʣa/.
As for the basic principle of gemination or not in Italian, I agree with you 100%: "If, as you write, the structure of lascio contains an inherently geminate/long consonant is the view upheld by the majority of scholars then the phonemic analysis in this article should reflect that." Of course it should, and it should say so overtly. That's the point of this talk section.
Pronounce ['peʃʃe] for an Italian, then pronounce it with [ʃ] rather than [ʃʃ]. Ask what the difference is, and you'll most likely get the same answer you would for ['anno] and a version with just [n]: they're two different words, i.e. with two different phonemic structures. (The Italian might comment about the geolinguistic distribution of [ʃ] vs. [t͡ʃ] for pece). There's no magic gemination phonological process to produce ['peʃʃe] from /'peʃe/. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
⟨ʦ ʣ⟩ are no longer a part of the IPA so I'm afraid that /ʦʦ ʣʣ/ are not an option. If we really need to indicate gemination then /tts ddz/ are probably the way to go, IMO. Sol505000 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So couldn't we simply say those consonants are phonotactically prohibited from occurring alone (i.e. restricted to occurring twice in a row) between vowels, instead of saying "always geminated"? Nardog (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nardog, that's certainly closer. The main glitch, though, is that the statement "/ɲ/, /ʃ/, /ʎ/, /dz/, /ts/ are always geminated intervocalically" assumes without evidence or argument that phonemes /ɲ/, /ʃ/, /ʎ/, /dz/, /ts/ exist in Italian, a stance that requires more than a bit of jiggery-pokery to try to justify.
The usual argument is, or perhaps better, used to be, that in standard(ized) Italian, long versions ([ɲː], [ʃː] etc.) do not surface word-initially in absolute anlaut, e.g. pause... [ˈɲɔkko] gnocco, thus gnocco must begin with /ɲ/. But hold on. Stick a vowel before it et voilà, what some call in Italian autogeminazione occurs: [loˈɲːɔkko]. That's just an observation, though, a label. Leave that as inexplicable magic, "just 'cause", or try to figure out why it happens?
Turns out there's no mystery. At the phonemic level, gnocco begins with /ɲɲ/ or /ɲː/, however you choose to represent it (blessed are the Hispanists, some of whom, to represent carro vs. caro, have the audacity to solve (dodge?) their length quandary by lifting r̄ from isolationist RFE). The inherent length of gnocco's initial /ɲɲ/ ~ /ɲː/ is blocked if no vowel precedes, i.e. there's no syllable nucleus to permit VC.CV as there is in [loɲ.ɲɔkko], where /ɲɲ/ ~ /ɲː/ is liberated from the stultifying post-pause onset to express its full phonetic realization. (First cousin to the reason that e.g. studente selects article lo, i.e. historically troublesome initial /sC/ breaks /s/ loose to the syllabification los.tu.den.te - problem solved otherwise and digested and forgotten historically in French, solved and still robust in Spanish).
Much more, but you get the picture: the problem dissolves if we just recognize what the basic facts point to, that the autogeminazione series are not really geminazioni at all. /ɲ/, /ʃ/, /ʎ/, /dz/, /ts/ do not exist, /ɲː/ or /ɲɲ/, /ʃː/ or /ʃʃ/, /ʎː/ or /ʎʎ/ and transcriptionally even clumsier /ddz/, /tts/ exist. They're geminates in the customary lexicon; they can't be geminations or doublings or lengthenings of phonemes that don't exist. If there's a process of interest, it's not gemination, but the simplification of /ɲː/ ~ /ɲɲ/ evident in post-pause [ˈɲɔkko] alongside [loɲˈɲɔkko], [ˈoɲɲi] ogni (and of /ddz/ post-pause [ˈdzekka] zecca but [ladˈdzekka] la zecca, [ˈmɛddzo] mezzo etc.). Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But does any description of the phonological inventory of Italian list /ɲɲ, ʃʃ, ʎʎ/ or /ɲː, ʃː, ʎː/ in place of /ɲ, ʃ, ʎ/? Sounds to me like the article can simply describe the inventory in the traditional way for those who are just trying to learn what sounds occur in Italian, and then go into the more abstract discussion of phonological analysis in a later section. We can just say "this is what it looks like happens on the surface" and then "but here is a more sophisticated way of looking at it". Compare e.g. Standard German phonology#Ich-Laut and ach-Laut, English phonology#Controversial issues. Nardog (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nardog, sure, I'm a great fan of KISS. In fact, seems to me irresponsible (and maybe a bit arrogant, certainly counterproductive) not to begin with the most basic comprehensible description possible. Really only one pre-game requirement: whatever is said has to be accurate (a.k.a. "true", correspond to observable reality). Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories