Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)
Bots, Template editors
2,183,252 edits
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Help talk:IPA/English/Archive 27) (bot
Line 1: Line 1:
{{For|requests for transcription|Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language}}
{{RecurringThemes
{{Talk header|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=3|units=months}}
|The IPA is gibberish and I can't read it. Why doesn't Wikipedia use a ''normal'' pronunciation key?
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
:''Because the IPA is the international norm, and all other conventions have shortcomings. For foreign pronunciations, the IPA is the only widely understood choice. However, in the case of English, there are a range of conventions which may be used '''in addition to''' the IPA, though few editors bother with them. See [[WP:Manual of Style (pronunciation)]].''
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|
:The IPA is the international and therefore the Wikipedia standard for phonetic transcription. In the case of English pronunciations, this key may be linked through the template {{tl|IPA-en}}; there are also some alternatives. An editor can simply say "rhymes with X" or "sounds like Y". Another option is a respelling key, linked with the {{tl|respell}} template. Note, however, that the result may be gibberish to many people. For example, 'vice' is respelled {{respell|vyes}}, which people may read as 'vye-ess' or as 'vies' ('vize'). Yet a third option are the in-house conventions of dictionaries published in the USA, which are more familiar to American children than is the IPA. Since each dictionary has its own variation on this theme, Wikipedia has developed a compromise convention linked through the template {{tl|USdict}}. However, for anyone who didn't grow up with US-published dictionaries, this system is as completely unintelligible as you find the IPA. It is also inadequate for other languages.
{{WikiProject Help|importance=high}}
|The transcription is biased. It forces American "R"s on the British/forces British vowels on Americans.''
{{WP Languages|importance=mid}}
:''It is [[diaphoneme|diaphonemic]], covering both Britain and the United States, as well as several other English-speaking countries, while favoring none.''
{{WikiProject Linguistics|phonetics=yes}}

:The vowels are closest to those of RP, as those are familiar and the distinctions between them are the most useful for predicting pronunciation in other English dialects. However, American (and elsewhere) {{IPA|/r/}} and {{IPA|/h/}} are retained, as they are necessary for many English speakers to know how to pronounce a word. It is not expected that speakers of any one dialect will pronounce a word or name exactly as we transcribe it; rather, by using this key, they should understand how to pronounce it in their own dialect. In order to show how individuals pronounce their name in their own dialect, or how inhabitants pronounce a place name in the local dialect, rather than in the reader's dialect, a separate [[Phonetic_transcription#Narrow_versus_broad_transcription|phonetic]] transcription should be used.
}}
{{Help Project}}
{{oldmfd|date=March 1 2008|result=Keep|votepage=Help:Pronunciation}}
{{archives|auto=no|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot|age=60|index=Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive index|
#[[Help talk:Pronunciation/Archive 1|October 2007 to March 2008]]
#[[Help talk:Pronunciation/Archive 2|April 2008]]
#[[/Archive 3|April to December 2008]]
#[[/Archive 4|January to February 2009]]
#[[/Archive 5|March to May 2009]]
#[[/Archive 6|June 2009 to July 2009]]
#[[/Archive 7|August to September 2009]]
#[[/Archive 8|October 2009 to April 2010]]
#[[/Archive 9]]
#[[/Archive 10]]
}}
}}
{{reader-facing page}}
{{oldmfd|date=1 March 2008|result=Keep|votepage=Help:Pronunciation}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 4
|counter = 27
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(92d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archive = Help talk:IPA/English/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(60d)
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|archive = Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive %(counter)d
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive index
|mask=Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== Examples ==

"feel" may be the same as "seed" in some foreign accents, such as Swedlish, but in US and UK, it's a diphthong and distinct from the sound in "seed". In fact, the vowel sound in "feel", same as in "real" is not covered in this key. Also, "seed" is an elongated vowel, whereas "fleece", like "feet" is much shorter in duration. This key makes no mention of this important distinction, which is often lost on ESL students. [[User:Dave Yost|Dave Yost]] ([[User talk:Dave Yost|talk]]) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

:That's because it's not important at the level of phonemes, which is all we can expect an IPA key to cover. Of course different accents have different allophones. [[User:Rothorpe|Rothorpe]] ([[User talk:Rothorpe|talk]]) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
::Indeed. The sounds of the vowel aren't identical, but it's the following consonant that determines it, not the word: ''feel'' rhymes with ''we'll'' and ''seed'' rhymes with ''we'd'', and here the word is the same... [[User:A. di M.|A. di M. (formerly Army1987)]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
:::"Seed" rhymes with "weed", not "we'd". [[Special:Contributions/68.208.127.65|68.208.127.65]] ([[User talk:68.208.127.65|talk]]) 20:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

== ʉ ==

The IPA character ʉ is listed as corresponding to both beautif'''u'''l and curric'''u'''lum, but I am not aware of any dialect in which (if I may attempt a phonetic presentation) "beautiful" is pronounced as bj-oo-ti-f'''oo'''l, nor "curriculum" as ker-ik-'''ah'''-lum; ergo these contradict one another and so one or the other must be wrong (i.e. the ''other'' "u" than that indicated must be intended in one of these two words), yet it is far from obvious which it is. It would be helpful if this could be corrected. [[Special:Contributions/94.171.240.69|94.171.240.69]] ([[User talk:94.171.240.69|talk]]) 23:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
:In this transcription system /ʉ/ means that you can pronounce the word indifferently with either /ʊ/ or /ə/; it turns out that you use /ʊ/ for ''beautiful'' and /ə/ for ''curriculum'', but other speakers can do otherwise. [[User:A. di M.|A. di M. (formerly Army1987)]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 00:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
::All of the "reduced vowels" (except, arguably, {{IPA|/ə/}}) have that sort of variation. Should we put an explanatory note? I doubt the above anonymous user is the first to be confused by this convention. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 21:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Is it OK [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IPA_for_English&oldid=378250025 now]? [[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
::::I like it, but isn't the product of happy tensing a ''short'' {{IPA|[i]}}? — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::It depends on the dialect; there are speakers for whom ''Andy's'' and ''Andes'' are homophones (see the archive of this talk page). Anyway, it might say "(either I or i: or something in between)", and the same for all the others... [[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 08:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

== Lexical set INTO?? ==

Where does this come from? It's not in ''Accents of English''. [[User:Grover cleveland|Grover cleveland]] ([[User talk:Grover cleveland|talk]]) 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:Removed. [[User:Grover cleveland|Grover cleveland]] ([[User talk:Grover cleveland|talk]]) 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== Notice ==

A discussion relevant to this project is underway on [[WP:VPR#Change /r/ in English IPA transcriptions to /ɹ/]].—[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 12:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

:There was a discussion, but I, the starter of it, have accepted that my idea was bad. So the discussion is over now. [[User:Skrodl|Skrodl]] ([[User talk:Skrodl|talk]]) 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
::For future reference, this discussion, entitled '''Change /r/ in English IPA transcriptions to /ɹ/''', has now been [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_64#Change_.2Fr.2F_in_English_IPA_transcriptions_to_.2F.C9.B9.2F|archived]]. [[User:Grover cleveland|Grover cleveland]] ([[User talk:Grover cleveland|talk]]) 04:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

== Messy archives ==

In the last months many threads have been archived to [[Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive 1]], ..., [[Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive 4]], despite [[Help talk:Pronunciation/Archive 1]] and [[Help talk:Pronunciation/Archive 2]] and [[Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive 3]], ..., [[Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive 8]] already existing. As a result, [[/Archive 3]] and [[/Archive 4]] contain threads both from 2008 and from 2010. [[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 23:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

== Why don't IPA links play through my sound system? ==

Title says it all. I can't find any such thing here,
and I wonder why it doesn't exist or isn't prominent on
the page. Is there no software that can do that?

The first time I saw a word's pronunciation given on WP,
after the word, in parentheses, and in some unfamiliar
funny-lookin' characters that were obviously a kind of
pronunciation code with which I was (and remain)
unfamiliar, I turned on my speakers before clicking on it.
I certainly didn't expect a link to a page about how to
interpret the code.

I'm just a naive WP user. You Wikipedians must have discussed this
possibility but I sure can't find any trace of it.

/jim <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.62.101.206|24.62.101.206]] ([[User talk:24.62.101.206|talk]]) 20:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:We don't generally use sound files primarily because that's a lot of work, and many people don't consider it necessary. (Most dictionaries don't include sound files, and do just fine.) — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 07:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

== Allophones ==

If the point of using IPA in Wik is to help non-native-speakers, then I think there are deficiencies in either the IPA or the version used. Some-one coming from a language where aspiration is a phonemic rather than allophonic distinction is likely to be confused by some-thing like this: b buy, cab. (It's equivalent to saying F life live for some-one who speaks a language (like English) in which voicing is a phonemic distinguisher: s/he will be at a loss on how to pronounce the word -- even though to a person of a language with-out that distinction mightn't even notice a difference.)

So it seems to me that the IPA as used here is frustrating to many Americans because it's too foreign and complicated and frustrating to many speakers of other languages because it lumps "diverse" sounds together. [[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]] ([[User talk:Kdammers|talk]]) 06:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

:IPA for English is intended for speakers, either native or good enough to know what the sounds of English are. You're correct: if you do not know how to speak English, this key will not help you much. Of course, you'd first have to decide which dialect you wish to use, and that is not encoded here at all. I don't think changing this would work. How would we ever agree on which allophonic differences are salient enough to include, and would good or native speakers even remember that "lull" has two different consonants, or that the stop in ''spy'' is a different consonant than the stop in ''pie''?

:As for it being too difficult for Americans, I'm sorry, but we can't dumb down everything for Americans because of their insular educational system. (And I say that as an American raised on that system.) We don't give astronomical distances in miles, for example, nor the mass of the Moon in pounds. Now, some editors, in order to make WP more accessible to them, go around adding conversions to more American-friendly units like pounds and miles; likewise, some editors go around adding more American-friendly pronunciation guides as outlined at {{tl|respelled}} or {{tl|USdict}}. However, that's a lot of work, and most people don't bother. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 06:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Thank you for your reasoned response. I don't think we have to get into the dialect issue (IPA and the Wik advocates of it do a fair job of adjusting for and explaining that), but I still think the allophone issue should be better addressed. someone can be well enough versed in a language to read it and understand Wik entries yet still not comprehend that what s/he views as two totally different "letters" (phonemes) are not perceived as different by the average native-speaker of English ESPECIALLY when the examples given support this, to the out-sider, confusion.

::On the second point: In the IPA discussion page, a solution has been proposed: a mouse-over gives examples using common English words. [[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]] ([[User talk:Kdammers|talk]]) 00:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

:::The logic expressed above seems to make no sense whatsoever... IPA is used so it can be read by non-English speakers, but then use a pronunciation guide that cannot be used by non-English speakers. Meanwhile, there seems to be wide agreement, including the note at the top of this page, that IPA is not useful for English speakers and is being included for non-English use. Wow. [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 23:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

::::That's a bit like saying that we use the metric system for non-English speakers, but then write the articles in English, so that they're not useful for either. The IPA is just the phonetic equivalent of metric. Americans complain about it for the same reason that they complain about the metric system: their insular education leaves them unprepared to work internationally. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Who says the IPA is used so it can be read by non-English speakers? Neither Kwami nor the post at top say as much so I'm not sure where you're getting that, Maury. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 01:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::I think Maury is confusing America with the rest of the vastly greater English speaking world. Common enough in Kwamis land of 'insular education' . --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 01:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I suspect as much, too. But perhaps we should let Maury speak for himself. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 01:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::This is much more interesting than I thought possible. All of you appear to be perfectly happy to throw around culturally predugicial comments attacking other users, without a shred of backing evidence. Didn't anyone think of going to my personal page before attacking me for being a cultural imperialist?
::::::::For the record, my comment above is based on the statement "someone can be well enough versed in a language to read it and understand Wik entries yet still not comprehend that what s/he views as two totally different "letters". This is the complaint that everyone coming here has, and it appears the common response is to call the person an imperialist. Wow.
::::::::Surely the group of people that created the world's largest and best encyclopedia in a few short years can do better? What I see here is institutionalized laziness. This is a technical issue, there are many obvious technical solutions. [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 11:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::One user, Kdammers, has asserted that we use IPA to help non-native speakers of English. We don't, and this is what Kwami has said in response. When you say "The logic expressed above seems to make no sense whatsoever" it seems as though you're reading the exchange as being made by one person. You'll have to excuse me if I come off as culturally prejudicial in implying that you make sure you comprehend things as they are intended before responding.
:::::::::It is possible to put allophones in a diaphonemic transcription scheme, but why would we do that? — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 12:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::So, IPA is not for non-natives and it's not for Americans. According to one source (http://the_english_dept.tripod.com/esc.html), there are 375 million native speakers, the same number of second-language English speakers, and 3/4 million foreign-language English speakers. If there are, say, 250 million native speakers in America, then that sure leaves the non-American native speakers as a (compartaively) small body that we are apparently catering to according to this thinking.[[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]] ([[User talk:Kdammers|talk]]) 02:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Okay, do you have a better suggestion? — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 05:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

== foal rhymes with full, and it doesn't rhyme with bone ==

it's not a good example; please remove it <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/97.126.70.183|97.126.70.183]] ([[User talk:97.126.70.183|talk]]) 07:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:It is a good example, if it warns you that the transcriptions may not reflect your dialect. Can you think of a word ending in L which has that vowel? — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 07:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
::For whom does ''foal'' [fol] rhyme with ''full'' /fʊl/? -- [[User:Evertype|Evertype]]·[[User_talk:Evertype|✆]]

:::Nobody? --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


== /ʍ/ and /hw/ ==
== Double entry ==


Why is ɪ appearing twice, both under "Vowels" and "Weak vowels"? If we need two entries here, I would expect separate symbols (even if one is a modification of the other with a combining mark of some kind). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 22:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Phoneticially the phoneme /ʍ/ is not at all the same thing as the sequence of phonemes /hw/. Phonetically the one is [ʍ] and the other might be [hw] or [hʷ]; Indeed that sequence is typologically rare and tends to [xw]. [ʍ] is more akin to [ɸ] than to [h] or [hw] or [hʷ]. It is s voiceless [w], like blowing out a candle, not a labialized [h] or a sequence. In IPA for English I suggest that ''only'' /ʍ/ should be given, and not /hw/ at all. The Concise Oxford typically writes only /w/ for words in '''wh-''', and while the OED has used /hw/, it notes:
:I believe the double entries for //ɪ// and //oʊ// are mainly there for historic reasons, back from the day when we were propagating our own idiosyncratic symbols for the weak vowel versions of the two. I have tentatively unified the symbols, keeping all the content. --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 06:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:In OE. the pronunciation symbolized by hw was probably in the earliest periods a voiced bilabial consonant preceded by a breath. This was developed in two different directions: (1) it was <u>reduced to a simple voiced consonant (w)</u>; (2) by the influence of the accompanying breath, <u>the voiced (w) became unvoiced</u>. The first of these pronunciations (w) probably became current first in southern ME. under the influence of French speakers, whence it spread northwards (but ME. orthography gives no reliable evidence on this point). It is now universal in English dialect speech except in the four northernmost counties and north Yorkshire, and is the prevailing pronunciation among educated speakers. The second pronunciation, denoted in this Dictionary by the conventional symbol (hw), and otherwise variously denoted by phoneticians, (wh), (w), (ẉ), (ʍ), is general in Scotland, Ireland, and America, and is used by a large proportion of educated speakers in England, either from social or educational tradition, or from a preference for what is considered a careful or correct pronunciation.
Note: the OED says that the OE sequence /hw/ was either reduced to /w/ or devoiced to /ʍ/. It is a mistake for IPA for English to write a velar/labial sequence /hw/ ''in contexts other than Old English''. I propose that the policy (for Kwami says it is a policy) be changed and that /ʍ/ be used, as this accurately describes the pronunciation of '''wh-''' in the dialects which have it, and /hw/ does not. -- [[User:Evertype|Evertype]]·[[User_talk:Evertype|✆]] 09:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


== Colons for length symbols ==
::I never said it was policy, I said it was a consensual convention.
::I wouldn't use the OED for an argument in phonetics; in any case, you're confusing phonetics and phonology.
::The /hw/ analysis is a common one. Treating it as a separate phoneme /ʍ/ is also common. I doubt either can be proven: it's a theoretical issue.
::So that we don't repeat ourselves, the discussion to switch to <hw> was [[Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_English/Archive_4#.CA.8D_.E2.86.92_hw.2C_.28h.29w|here]]. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 09:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
:::In addition to the analysis of {{IPA|[ʍ]}}={{IPA|/hw/}} being common (though I don't know how common), it is also easier for the target audience to read. I understand Evertype's argument that it's less phonetically precise, but this isn't a transcription convention known for its phonetic precision. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
::::The previous discussion seems to have had a brief mention of the 3rd option, /w̥/, which went over without much comment. However, this has the advantage of '''both''' visual similarity to plain /w/, and phonetical accuracy. Unlike /ʍ/, it also adheres to the regular IPA method of representing voiceless sonorants. It won't do any better against the "but is it really a single phoneme?" arguments (anyway, isn't that a topic for [[English phonology]], not this key?), but I don't see anything that puts this at a disadvantage against /ʍ/. --[[User:Tropylium|<span class="IPA">Trɔpʏliʊm</span>]] • [[User talk:Tropylium|blah]] 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::/w̥/ is too easily confused with /w/. There is absolutely nothing wrong with /hw/ as a ''phonemic'' analysis: it's used all over the place in reliable sources. Indeed, even the use of /h/ for words like ''hit'' is arguably phonetically inaccurate, since most English speakers do not have a glottal constriction in such words: phonetically they are more like [ɪ&#805;ɪt]. [[User:Grover cleveland|Grover cleveland]] ([[User talk:Grover cleveland|talk]]) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::I can't say I've ever seen {{IPA|[w̥]}} used for English, certainly not in phonemic (or diaphonemic) representations. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::It's used in ''The Sounds of the World's Languages'' as a phonetic analysis. [[User:Grover cleveland|Grover cleveland]] ([[User talk:Grover cleveland|talk]]) 01:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
:''Phoneticially the phoneme /ʍ/ is not at all the same thing as the sequence of phonemes /hw/.'' Minimal pair, please? (Or, at least, an example of each.) The [ç] in ''human'' is transcribed as /hj/ and no-one objects to that; how is this different? [[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 10:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::Yes: I think [[User:Evertype|Evertype]] must have intended to say "the '''phone''' [ʍ] is not at all the same thing as the sequence of '''phones''' [hw]", which is true, of course, but irrelevant. [[User:Grover cleveland|Grover cleveland]] ([[User talk:Grover cleveland|talk]]) 19:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think so: he was careful in distinguishing slashes from brackets and went on to describe what the possible realizations of each were. Now, by /ʍ/ he means the one in ''white'', ''which'' etc., but I can't tell what he means by the "typologically rare" sequence /hw/ which "might be [hw] or [hʷ]" and "tends to [xw]". If he can provide an example of the latter in English (preferably but not necessarily a minimal pair with /ʍ/), his argument is valid; but I don't think there's one. [[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Perhaps Evertype is thinking of Spanish borrowings like ''Juan''? For me they're identical (when spoken as Spanish loanwords in English) to the native /hw/ words like ''what'', but perhaps there are some speakers for whom they are somehow different. Obviously the best thing would be for Evertype to come back and clarify... [[User:Grover cleveland|Grover cleveland]] ([[User talk:Grover cleveland|talk]]) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


In the 3rd bullet point of the Dialect variation section colons are used in place of length symbols:
== BBC respelling key ==
: Most speakers of North American English (with the exception of Eastern New England) do not distinguish between the vowels in father /'fɑ:ðər/ and bother /'bɒðər/, pronouncing the two words as rhymes. If you speak such a dialect, ignore the difference between the symbols /ɑ:/ and /ɒ/.


I think they need to be replaced. [[Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:B1A9:DA55:640A:FC65|2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:B1A9:DA55:640A:FC65]] ([[User talk:2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:B1A9:DA55:640A:FC65|talk]]) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Thought this was interesting, and perhaps relevant if old criticisms come back. The BBC has a respelling key in which they transcribe diaphonemic /r/. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


:Done. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 22:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:"Our respellings acknowledge word-final or pre-consonantal R, as in words like party and hair, which is pronounced in some accents of English (rhotic) and not in others (non-rhotic). Therefore Parker is transcribed as PAAR-kuhr, not PAA-kuh, and the rs will be pronounced or not according to the speaker's accent."[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/phonetics.doc]


== Inclusion of /ts/ as a marginal phoneme and removal of /ʔ/ ==
== Why no links to sounds? ==


/ʔ/ is an entirely paralinguistic sound and "uh-oh" is not a valid word to base the inclusion of a marginal phoneme around. However, seeing and /ts/ is a common marginal phoneme in words like "tsar" or "Mozart", including it would probably be valid. [[User:Plexus96|Plexus96]] ([[User talk:Plexus96|talk]]) 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi. IPA articles for all other languages have links to sound articles (where sensible). Why is English the only exception? People mostly come here to translate unknown symbols into sounds. [[Special:Contributions/220.210.180.29|220.210.180.29]] ([[User talk:220.210.180.29|talk]]) 01:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:The quick answer is that this transcription system doesn't necessarily indicate sounds but classes of corresponding sounds. {{IPA|/æ/}} isn't just an [[open front unrounded vowel]], it's the vowel of ''cat''. Because dialects differ in the phonetic features of their vowels, this could be {{IPA|[æ]}}, but it could also be {{IPA|[a]}}, {{IPA|[ɛ]}}, {{IPA|[ɪə]}}, etc.
:That said, perhaps we could construct sound files of speakers of various dialects pronouncing our example words. RP and GA would be a must, but other dialects are certainly possible. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 15:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::My question remains. Why is English the only exception?
::Your reasoning does not apply to most consonants, which are shared. I would add the links myself, but the page is protected for some reason.
::In any case, even where there is regional variation, I think we should either link to the various sounds in the notes or, as you say, expand the table to show the dialects, which is already happening for Czech/Slovak, Dutch/Afrikaans, Swedish/Norwegian etc. [[Special:Contributions/220.100.125.198|220.100.125.198]] ([[User talk:220.100.125.198|talk]]) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Er... I've heard the second consonant in ''getting'' realized at least in half a dozen different ways. [[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 09:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
::You may want to improve the article then, because I don't see any mention of this fact. What you are highlighting is a shortcoming of the current version, largely independent from the point I raised. [[Special:Contributions/220.100.125.198|220.100.125.198]] ([[User talk:220.100.125.198|talk]]) 11:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:::A. di M.'s point highlights the problem with linking with most of the sounds, including consonants. Because of allophony, phonetic particularities, or dialectal variation (which, by the way, aren't under the scope here; that would be at [[English phonology]] and [[IPA chart for English dialects]], as well as the numerous articles discussing English's historical phonology) we'd only be able to link to {{IPA|/f s ʃ m n j/}} and maybe {{IPA|/w/}}. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 12:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
::In [[IPA chart for English dialects]] I cannot see variations for b, dʒ, ɡ, f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, x, m, n, ŋ, w, j and ʔ. Even where there is variation, I can't see what stops this article from mentioning the various sounds (with links) either inline in the table, or in footnotes. That's what articles for all other languages are helpfully doing.
::Assuming that at least some of the variations in "getting"'s rendering do not affect the rendering of a /t/ at the start of a word, I still think that A. di M.'s point does highlight an issue with the current article. [[Special:Contributions/220.100.125.198|220.100.125.198]] ([[User talk:220.100.125.198|talk]]) 13:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Take a look at [[fortis and lenis]], which shows some allophony for {{IPA|/t/ }}and {{IPA|/d/}} in American English. And that's just one dialect. The problem compounds until there's too much information. Heck, [[WP:IPA for Catalan]] encodes just two dialects and it's a mess.
:::If the point of this key (it's not an article, which may be an important point) were to describe English pronunciation, then we would indeed want to exhibit greater phonetic description. However, the point is to show how English pronunciation (which our readers are expected to know) is rendered in IPA. That, on top of its abstract character, means detailed phonetics and linking to sound <s>files</s> articles wouldn't be called for here. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 22:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, the fundamental difference with Catalan is that the reader cannot be expected to know what it sounds like. We do not treat the native language of our site the same as foreign languages. (We can safely assume that nearly every reader here knows English; we must assume that every other language is alien to them.) — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
::It sounds like a broader debate about the purpose of this key, and the assumptions we are making, is needed.
::If I write
<nowiki>The word ''adobe'' ({{pron-en|əˈdoʊbiː}}) blah blah</nowiki>
::I get
::"The word ''adobe'' ({{pron-en|əˈdoʊbiː}}) blah blah"
::which points to this page, where I expect readers to be able to actually work out how they are supposed to pronounce the thing. They should ideally get an answer without being further redirected to other geeky phonetics pages that they are not necessarily interested in. All the reader wants to know when they come here through that link is how to pronounce that IPA string. I really don't see how adding links to sounds would get in the way.
::As you can see, in all this no assumption about English proficiency of the reader was necessary or relevant. [[Special:Contributions/205.228.108.57|205.228.108.57]] ([[User talk:205.228.108.57|talk]]) 03:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


:/ʔ/ is included for Hawaiian loans. It's illustrated by ''uh-oh'' simply because it's one of the most common and intuitive ways to illustrate the sound; it doesn't mean it's only used in paralanguage.
:::I can't tell if that's supposed to be a pro or a con. They come to this page, and they see how the word is pronounced. That's exactly what a pronunciation key is supposed to do, the way they work in every dictionary. They aren't redirected anywhere else for that info. Why would further debate be needed? — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 04:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
:/t/ and /s/ are already phonemes so there's no need to list /ts/ separately. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 00:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
::Because the question in the title of this section has not been answered. On what grounds would you not introduce links to sounds where appropriate and unambiguous? How would they harm exactly? Make examples please. [[Special:Contributions/205.228.108.58|205.228.108.58]] ([[User talk:205.228.108.58|talk]]) 05:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
:::It would be odd to have sound files for /b/ but not for /t/. People would complain that the key is incomplete. (That's assuming they don't object to us not covering their dialect.) If we do include /t/, and give it, say, the pronunciation it has in "top", and link to that from "bottle", a reader might rightfully complain that when they pronounce the /t/ in "bottle" like the soundfile we provide them from "top", they are criticized for their poor pronunciation. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 05:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
::I never said we should link /t/ (although I do think we should link [t]). You simply don't how many people will complain until those links are introduced. As far as I can see, incomplete coverage for other languages has not been a problem so far. [[Special:Contributions/205.228.108.58|205.228.108.58]] ([[User talk:205.228.108.58|talk]]) 05:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


== IPA overwhelming ==
:::And again we are forgetting the template {{tl|IPAc-en}}, which codes:
::::<code><nowiki>The word ''adobe'' ({{IPAc-en|pron|ə|ˈ|d|oʊ|b|iː}}) blah blah</nowiki></code>
:::to get:
::::The word ''adobe'' ({{IPAc-en|pron|ə|ˈ|d|oʊ|b|iː}}) blah blah,
:::where mousovers give pop-ups indicating how to pronounce all the symbols.
:::&minus;[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] ([[User talk:Woodstone|talk]]) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::That has the same problem. If I see "''great ape'' ({{IPAc-en|pron|g|r|eɪ|t|eɪ|p}})" and pronounce the "'t' as in 'tie'" as the tooltip suggests, people would be likely to understand ''grey tape''. A better idea would be having a tooltip at least for each onset and each rime, and if practical for greater units (e.g. "Betelgeuse {{pron-en|ˈ{{explain|biːtəl|/biːtəl/ as 'beetle'}}{{explain|dʒuːz|/dʒuːz/ as 'juice'}}}}". [[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]] ([[User talk:A. di M.|talk]]) 10:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::A much simpler solution would be syllable markers {{IPAc-en|pron|g|r|eɪ|t|.|eɪ|p}} vs {{IPAc-en|pron|g|r|eɪ|.|t|eɪ|p}}.
:::::As I said above, linking to phone ''articles'' wouldn't be appropriate, nor would bringing information from "geeky phonetics [sic] pages" but linking to sound files that we create for this article would be nothing but helpful as long as we have sound files for at least RP and GA. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 13:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::"As I said above, linking to phone ''articles'' wouldn't be appropriate" - sorry I must have missed that, and the rationale behind it, too. Could you please repeat it? One thing you did say above is that "linking to sound files wouldn't be called for here", which seems in contradiction with your latest comment. [[Special:Contributions/58.138.21.63|58.138.21.63]] ([[User talk:58.138.21.63|talk]]) 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::Also I think your "much simpler solution" is missing A. di M.'s point. {{IPAc-en|pron|g|r|eɪ|t|.|eɪ|p}} still says "t as in tie", which I believe A. di M. is disputing as incorrect. Anyway, as I said this is a shortcoming of the current state which has little to do with the proposal to add links. [[Special:Contributions/58.138.21.63|58.138.21.63]] ([[User talk:58.138.21.63|talk]]) 14:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::There may be a little bit of muddling of two issues (I goofed when I said "linking to sound files wouldn't be appropriate", I meant "sound ''articles''"). The original proposal is to link the IPA characters to phone articles like [[voiceless alveolar plosive]] and [[close front unrounded vowel]]. This is untenable for several reasons:
:::::::#The sounds of English often don't correlate with the sounds indicated in such phone articles
:::::::##{{IPA|/b/}} is often devoiced or unvoiced
:::::::##{{IPA|/iː/}} is more of a diphthong {{IPA|[iɪ]}}
:::::::#Many of English's vowels simply don't have articles because they're diphthongs
:::::::##e.g. {{IPA|/eɪ/ /oʊ/ /ɔɪ/ /aɪ/ /ɪər/}} etc
:::::::#The sounds of English often have contextual variants that make linking to one phone article oversimplistic (i.e. wrong).
:::::::##{{IPA|/t/}} can be {{IPA|[tʰ]}}, {{IPA|[t]}}, {{IPA|[ɾ]}}, {{IPA|[ʔ]}}, or {{IPA|[ʔt]}}, etc. depending on context.
:::::::##{{IPA|/l/}} can have secondary [[velarization|velar constriction]] at the end of a syllable.
:::::::#This key encodes for multiple dialects, making representations indicative of different phones depending on dialect
:::::::## {{IPA|/ð/}} is a dental plosive in certain dialects, a dental fricative in others, and may even be a dental affricate for some speakers.
:::::::## {{IPA|/r/}} can be an [[alveolar approximant]], a [[retroflex approximant]], a [[labiodental approximant]], or an [[alveolar tap]].
:::::::## {{IPA|/ɨ/}} can be {{IPA|[ə]}} for some speakers and a [[near-close central unrounded vowel]] for others.
:::::::That said, the helpful feature of these phone articles is the sound file that allows readers to hear the sound in question. Although the problems outlined above prevent us from linking to phone articles, there's nothing stopping us from (and this is a separate solution) making sound files that feature the dialectal pronunciations of these sounds and linking to them in this key. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 16:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::We got it already. What part of "where sensible" and "Your reasoning does not apply to [16] consonants, which are shared" did you not understand? Points 1-4 are all moot.
::::::Anyway, I accept that pointing to sound files could be better than pointing to articles. Personally, I would prefer pointing to both, with something like this:
{{IPAblink|β}}{{IPAsound|β|30}}
::::::IPAsound currently renders in a separate line, which I'd like to see fixed. We can come up with a variation of that template that features a simple icon and a link, like [[Image:Speakerlink.svg]]. But then the sounds would not be inline any more, it would jump to a different page.
::::::I don't think new sound files are called for, at least in a first cut. The ones we have in the phone articles are good enough.
::::::Once again, all this also applies to all other languages, not just English. [[Special:Contributions/220.210.182.238|220.210.182.238]] ([[User talk:220.210.182.238|talk]]) 23:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::Actually, apologies, your point 1 does introduce new information, in that /b/ would not be part of the shared set. This however again highlights a shortcoming of the status quo, rather than an argument against the proposal. [[Special:Contributions/205.228.108.185|205.228.108.185]] ([[User talk:205.228.108.185|talk]]) 01:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure where you're getting the number 16 from. At most, I count 8 (several of which need no explanation) that have no dialectal or significant allophonic variation. Either way, it's considerably less than 24, not to mention the lack of vowel links. So we should instead concentrate on the sound file option.
::::::Keep in mind that the example words could be linked instead. For each sound, we have three options (as I see it):
::::::*Create a file for each sound rendered in a particular dialect (e.g. RP {{IPA|/iː/}}, GA {{IPA|/iː/}}, AusE {{IPA|/iː/}}, etc)
::::::*Create a file for each sound rendered in multiple dialects (e.g., RP, GA, AusE {{IPA|/uː/}}; RP, GA, AusE {{IPA|/eɪ/}}, etc
::::::*Create a file that renders all the sounds for each dialect (e.g. all the sounds in RP, all the sounds in GA, etc).
::::::Another thing to keep in mind is that the vowels are the most important to distinguish between dialects. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 05:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::The number 16 comes from this comment above:
::::::In IPA chart for English dialects I cannot see variations for b, dʒ, ɡ, f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, x, m, n, ŋ, w, j and ʔ. Even where there is variation, I can't see what stops this article from mentioning the various sounds (with links) either inline in the table, or in footnotes. That's what articles for all other languages are helpfully doing.
:::::You pointed out that /b/ has variations, so that would bring it down to 15. [[Special:Contributions/205.228.108.185|205.228.108.185]] ([[User talk:205.228.108.185|talk]]) 06:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::My vote would go for "Create a file for each sound rendered in a particular dialect", except I would not create any files, I would just link to the files we already have. From this conversation it's becoming clear to me that there are worse approximations in the current key to worry about. [[Special:Contributions/205.228.108.185|205.228.108.185]] ([[User talk:205.228.108.185|talk]]) 06:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::{{IPA|/v/}} has variations, as certain dialects merge it with {{IPA|/w/}}, {{IPA|/x/}} and {{IPA|/ʔ/}} vary in whether they're even present in a dialect, while {{IPA|/dʒ/}} and {{IPA|/ɡ/}} have the same problems as {{IPA|/b/}}.
::::::If we're going to concentrate on vowels, we will definitely have to create sound files. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 12:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


IPA is overwhelming, redundant, and not user friendly. If you use the basic latin sounds the phonics are all there and we all know them. No need to learn a whole new set of sounds that are extremely numerous and cumbersome. [[Special:Contributions/136.143.149.206|136.143.149.206]] ([[User talk:136.143.149.206|talk]]) 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
== Why < r > for / ɹ /? ==


:We don't "all know them", though. Your west coast US pronunciation will be different from mine. [[WP:RESPELL]] describes how simple pronunciation guides don't always work. For instance, I pronounce "[[English-language vowel changes before historic /r/|"Mary", "marry", and "merry"]] differently, but know that some Americans don't. The same applies to [[Cot–caught merger|"cot" and "caught"]]. Some of my compatriots pronounce [[Trap–bath split|"aren't" and "aunt"]] differently, but I don't. [[User:Bazza_7|Bazza&nbsp;<span style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]]) 18:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
It makes no sense to me that Wikipedia uses < r > to represent the English / ɹ /, and I don't think it represents a global perspective, or factual accuracy. Using < r > made sense in the era of typewriters, but it's absurd in the era of Unicode. Here are a few thoughts:


== Text on secondary stress ==
:1. Although people untrained in IPA would certainly have no way of interpreting < ɹ >, using < r > can create even more confusion.
:2. There are plenty of situations on Wikipedia in which an actual alveolar trill needs to be represented, even in English (Scots).
:3. The whole point of IPA, and of phonetic transcription in general, is crosslinguistic consistency and universality.
:4. It's not difficult to learn IPA--not at all. Especially for people who already use the Roman alphabet. And memorizing one additional oddity isn't going to make it significantly more difficult for those who have trouble with it.


On the help page, we show both primary and secondary stress marks, yet we never define how we do (or don't) use those symbols in the diaphonemic system. I believe the last chat we had arriving at some consensus was [[Help_talk:IPA/English/Archive_26#Secondary_stress|here]], where we agreed on WP to assign secondary stress only to a strong vowel ''preceding'' primary stress but not to a strong vowel ''succeeding'' it (i.e., following the British rather than American convention). It seems like it would be helpful to explain this, and even the concept of how secondary stress operates in English at all, if anyone can think of a concise wording for the concept. [[User:Wolfdog|Wolfdog]] ([[User talk:Wolfdog|talk]]) 12:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
If Wikipedia only dealt with topics in the non-Scots English-speaking world, and nothing else, it wouldn't matter. But Wikipedia deals with ''everything''! I know I'm not going to convince enough people that the symbol should be changed, but oh well; it still should be. --[[User:N-k|N-k]] ([[User talk:N-k|talk]]) 02:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
:This has come up before. You may want to check the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_64#Change_.2Fr.2F_in_English_IPA_transcriptions_to_.2F.C9.B9.2F|this link]] (you may have to scroll down a bit -- search for "IPA"). The basic reason is that the IPA transcription for English is a broad, not a narrow, IPA transcription. [[User:Grover cleveland|Grover cleveland]] ([[User talk:Grover cleveland|talk]]) 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, and as I just mentioned in the section above, it's not always (and usually isn't) {{IPA|[ɹ]}}. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 04:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:28, 19 June 2024

For requests for transcription, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language.

Double entry

Why is ɪ appearing twice, both under "Vowels" and "Weak vowels"? If we need two entries here, I would expect separate symbols (even if one is a modification of the other with a combining mark of some kind).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the double entries for //ɪ// and //oʊ// are mainly there for historic reasons, back from the day when we were propagating our own idiosyncratic symbols for the weak vowel versions of the two. I have tentatively unified the symbols, keeping all the content. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 06:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colons for length symbols

In the 3rd bullet point of the Dialect variation section colons are used in place of length symbols:

Most speakers of North American English (with the exception of Eastern New England) do not distinguish between the vowels in father /'fɑ:ðər/ and bother /'bɒðər/, pronouncing the two words as rhymes. If you speak such a dialect, ignore the difference between the symbols /ɑ:/ and /ɒ/.

I think they need to be replaced. 2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:B1A9:DA55:640A:FC65 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nardog (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of /ts/ as a marginal phoneme and removal of /ʔ/

/ʔ/ is an entirely paralinguistic sound and "uh-oh" is not a valid word to base the inclusion of a marginal phoneme around. However, seeing and /ts/ is a common marginal phoneme in words like "tsar" or "Mozart", including it would probably be valid. Plexus96 (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

/ʔ/ is included for Hawaiian loans. It's illustrated by uh-oh simply because it's one of the most common and intuitive ways to illustrate the sound; it doesn't mean it's only used in paralanguage.
/t/ and /s/ are already phonemes so there's no need to list /ts/ separately. Nardog (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPA overwhelming

IPA is overwhelming, redundant, and not user friendly. If you use the basic latin sounds the phonics are all there and we all know them. No need to learn a whole new set of sounds that are extremely numerous and cumbersome. 136.143.149.206 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "all know them", though. Your west coast US pronunciation will be different from mine. WP:RESPELL describes how simple pronunciation guides don't always work. For instance, I pronounce ""Mary", "marry", and "merry" differently, but know that some Americans don't. The same applies to "cot" and "caught". Some of my compatriots pronounce "aren't" and "aunt" differently, but I don't. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text on secondary stress

On the help page, we show both primary and secondary stress marks, yet we never define how we do (or don't) use those symbols in the diaphonemic system. I believe the last chat we had arriving at some consensus was here, where we agreed on WP to assign secondary stress only to a strong vowel preceding primary stress but not to a strong vowel succeeding it (i.e., following the British rather than American convention). It seems like it would be helpful to explain this, and even the concept of how secondary stress operates in English at all, if anyone can think of a concise wording for the concept. Wolfdog (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:IPA/English&diff=1229952981&oldid=387717565

Leave a Reply