Sh vs. S, Alliteration or Not?

No, but it will need a short-term cleanup. After the pages have been fixed once, reference can be made to proper pronunciation guides when adding/removing pages/examples on an individual basis. Consensus won't be needed because the consensus is coming from an outside source.

Crowner update (not yet stable):

• Repeated sounds, determined phonetically. +12 (20 to 8, 2.50:1)
• Both repeated sounds and repeated letters. +2 (14 to 12, 1.17:1)
• Repeated sounds, but not necessarily the exact sounds. -1 (11 to 12)
• Repeated letters, not determined by sounds. -21 (Unanimously against.)

What I meant was sounds that, according to IPA, are the same, and sounds that the same in ceretain dialects.

I don't understand what you're trying to say or argue here.

If any phrase is alliterative at least in one dialect of English, it should be fair game to list here. But dialects and their differing pronunciation of certain words is not the issue here.

Wouldn't that imply that the current third place option, repeated sounds but not exact sounds at time of this post, is the correct choice based on that due to dialectal variations? Or am I misinterpreting your statement?

I mean some people find /s/ and /sh/ the same sound.

Less the same and more close enough to the same that it's as alliterative as anything else.

The crowner seems to have settled on "Repeated sounds, determined phonetically." at a 2.4:1 support ratio.

Edited by Albert3105 on May 2nd 2020 at 10:04:57 AM

I can't say I'm thrilled by the results, but c'est la vie...at least this can be settled now.

Yep. Seems the plurality is for phonetic alliteration only on AAA.

Do we put a note at the top of the page to indicate that? What's the next step for enacting this policy?

Edited by Florien on May 3rd 2020 at 12:59:37 PM

Fair enough; the results didn't fall as I might have preferred, but so it goes!

(I do worry a little that the use of "and" in the second-highest entry might have suggested to some that it required both factors, not either, as I seem to recall was the intent. But I see little enough reason to pursue the matter; I mention it mainly to get it off of my mind.)

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on May 3rd 2020 at 7:13:01 PM

Added Alliterative Appeal already has a large notice specifying phonetics-only.

Alliterative Name will need a massive examples purge because Sea Rover unilaterally changed the definition from phonetic to spelling-based in August 2018. I have now reverted his definition change.

The page quote will have to be changed too due to being based on spelling instead of phonetics.

The purge will be rather extensive especially due to having to purge a bunch of names that start with different vowel sounds.

Edited by Albert3105 on May 3rd 2020 at 3:33:59 AM

Quick note. That entry says "both x and y" and then the examples hopefully help explain what is meant. It does not mean both x and y simultaneously, but rather that both x and y would count as alliteration. It is the option that means "nearly everything is alliteration even when the sounds or letters are distinctly different." I'm honestly surprised it's the second highest, to be honest, but I guess that was already discussed.

The only change to the AAA quote would be to remove "voila" since that starts with a W sound. All the other V words make V sounds.

Edited by WaterBlap on May 3rd 2020 at 6:17:16 AM

I'm talking about the page quote for Alliterative Name ("I'm Penny Parker. You can remember that 'cause it's got the same letter at the front of each name. That's important theatrically, you know."), not Added Alliterative Appeal.

I've requested a crowner closure on the Locked Pages thread.

Edited by Albert3105 on May 3rd 2020 at 4:30:49 AM

I see what you mean. I at first thought you were talking about Penny Parker, but the quote specifies "it's got the same letter." I agree with removing the quote.

Also, should the clean-up stay with this thread or should we close this thread and start an alliteration-based clean-up thread? I expect most people would be put off by the [double checks] twelve pages of discussion we've had. Maybe a new thread with a simple summation (and a notice that we will not be debating what constitutes alliteration anymore).

I also wonder if it would be more efficient to tackle consonants first. Vowels are a bit more complicated and the discussion has focused on alliteration specifically. I don't think we necessarily have to start alphabetically (but I mean I'm not going to coordinate the effort so if others disagree then whatevs).

I don't really have a huge preference if we keep it here or off thread. I'll do whatever others decide.

Consonant-initial purges for trope names at Alliterative Name:

Edited by Albert3105 on May 3rd 2020 at 6:45:34 AM

So, should we make a split for visual alliteration of things? Because that is a thing that writers do, even if we're having a trope for just phonetics...

Sure bet. That's why I was collecting purge lists in the first place, so we can more easily fit them under a different spelling-based alliteration trope.

Doesn't Genghis Gambit have two hard g's?

It's a Broken Base, both soft and hard G pronunciations exist. (It etymologically had a soft G. The hard G pronunciation is IMO a hyperforeignism.)

Edited by Albert3105 on May 3rd 2020 at 7:27:59 AM

Not always, though it is pronounced with two hard Gs now, Genghis would have had something closer to a modern Ch sound at the front originally.

Ninja'd. Forgot about actually sending this post for about twenty minutes.

Edited by Florien on May 3rd 2020 at 7:41:00 AM

That is a point of consideration too: when there are more than one ways of reading a word, how would the trope count it?

A label note could clarify Accent Depundent examples?

Edited by Albert3105 on May 3rd 2020 at 10:08:27 AM

Does this mean we should also clean up examples on the work pages on Alliterative Name and wicks that don't fit the alliteration definition?