Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)
Bots, Template editors
2,177,650 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}}
:In many cases, Wikipedia ''does'' use a "normal" pronunciation key. It is [[Help:Pronunciation respelling key]], and its transcriptions often appear next to those of the IPA. See the opening sentences of [[Azerbaijan]], [[Cochineal]], and [[Pokémon]] for a few examples.
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
:The IPA is the international standard for phonetic transcription, and therefore the Wikipedia standard as well. If you cannot read it, please see [[Help:IPA/English]]. See [[Help:IPA]] for a more extensive key that covers languages other than English. In most cases, and for most people around the world, the IPA is far less confusing than any alternative. See [[WP:Manual of Style/Pronunciation]].
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|
:In the cases of English words, or English pronunciations of foreign words, there are some alternatives to the IPA, but none of these are very practical. An editor can simply say "rhymes with {{var|X}}" or "sounds like {{var|Y}}", but this is hardly ever clear. Another option is a respelling key, linked with the {{tl|respell}} template. However, the result may be gibberish to many people. For example, 'cum laude' would be respelled {{respell|kuum|LOW|day}}, but people might read that as {{respell|koom|LOH|day}}.
{{WikiProject Help|importance=high}}
:Wikipedia deals with a vast number of topics from foreign languages, and many of these languages contain sounds that do not exist in English. In these cases, a so-called "normal" pronunciation key would be entirely inadequate. The IPA is designed to accommodate every language in existence; however, this cannot be done without sacrificing some degree of legibility. For example, the sound of ''y'' in "yes" is spelled {{IPAslink|j}} in the IPA, and this is probably alien to many English speakers. However, German and several other languages spell this sound ''j'', and that has become the international standard.
{{WP Languages|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|phonetics=yes}}
}}
}}
{{reader-facing page}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{oldmfd|date=1 March 2008|result=Keep|votepage=Help:Pronunciation}}
{{WikiProject Help|class=NA|importance=high}}
{{WP Languages|importance=mid|class=start}}
{{WP Writing systems|importance=mid|class=start}}
}}
{{oldmfd|date=March 1 2008|result=Keep|votepage=Help:Pronunciation}}
{{archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90|index=/Archive index}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 21
|counter = 27
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|algo = old(92d)
|archive = Help talk:IPA/English/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Help talk:IPA/English/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Help talk:IPA/English/Archive index
|mask=Help talk:IPA/English/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}

== /i, u/ ==

{{re|Mr KEBAB}} I'm surprised you made those edits boldly. I have a few questions:

Can the archiphonemes /i, u/ represent [j, w] only before /ə/? So {{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|w|ɑː|t|i|eɪ}} can only mean {{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|w|ɑː|t|iː|eɪ}} or {{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|w|ɑː|t|ɪ|eɪ}}, but not {{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|w|ɑː|t|j|eɪ}}? I'd like to know where you got the idea that the archiphonemes represent something different when preceding /ə/.

Is using /u/ preconsonantally something supported by multiple scholars? For Bugatti, CEPD has /ʊ/ and RDPCE has /ᵿ/ in RP and /ʊ/ in GA. I have a feeling we should limit the use of /u/ to prevocalic environments for the sake of simplicity. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 12:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Nardog}} I considered them pretty much harmless, so I just went ahead and made them. If you check LPD, you'll see that listing {{IPA|/iə, uə/}} is consistent with listing {{IPA|/ər, əl, ən, əm/}}, with which nobody has a problem.
:This compression to {{IPA|[j, w]}} doesn't happen in other environments. You're right in saying that ''poitier'' is transcribed with both {{IPA|/i/}} and {{IPA|/j/}}. The latter is a US-only variant, and it's not even listed in RDPCE, only in LPD and CEPD.
:I've removed ''Bugatti'' from the guide.
:I think we should treat {{IPA|/i, u/}} as proper phonemes that can only occur in unstressed syllables, as Wells does (at least he says that it's a possible analysis). Then we'd say that {{IPA|/ˈpwɑːtieɪ/}} represents only {{IPA|[ˈpwɑːti(ː).eɪ]}} or {{IPA|[ˈpwɑːtɪ.eɪ]}}, whereas {{IPA|/ˌkælɪˈfɔːrniə/}} can represent {{IPA|[-iː.ə]}}, {{IPA|[-ɪ.ə]}} or {{IPA|[-jə]}}. This makes the IPA less confusing. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 13:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Mr KEBAB}} Do you have a quote? I only have access to the electronic version of LPD3 and am not sure which part you're referring to.
::I would like to see evidence that 1) /i, u/ can represent [j, w] <small><s>(which I empirically know is true, but I haven't been able to find a reputable source that explicitly confirms it)</s></small>; 2) /i, u/ can represent [j, w] only before /ə/; and 3) this is supported and practiced by multiple scholars. Otherwise I don't think I would be able to approve of your edits.
::{{tq|{{IPA|/i, u/}} as proper phonemes that can only occur in unstressed syllables}} Would that mean we would have six high vowels that can occur in unstressed syllables in total? And how would an editor be supposed to know which one to use when they only have access to a recording or a source that doesn't adopt such a convention? [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 14:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Nardog}} Try Longman Pronunciation Guide -> Pronunciation Notes -> Compression. See also [http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.com/2012/10/intervocalic-semivowels.html], [http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.com/2012/10/derived-semivowels.html] and [http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.com/2012/10/rising-diphthongs.html].
:::Ditto.
:::We'd have to check ''recent'' books on English phonetics because, as you know, {{IPA|/i, u/}} are relatively new symbols in English phonetics/phonology. I'll think of something.
:::You're misunderstanding me. I'm talking only about this guide. We're already using {{IPA|/i, u/}} in our transcriptions. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 14:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Mr KEBAB}} Thanks. I'll see what I can find too.
::::As far as LPD goes, though, it seems the compression to a semivowel is indicated by the linking symbol ‿, not by the letters /i, u/ themselves. I'm still not convinced, including for #1.
::::Oh, so do you agree that /u/ need not be used for closed syllables? [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 15:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Nardog}} About half a year ago you said that using {{angle bracket|{{IPA|‿}}}} is an overkill. Did you change your mind? If so, I'm for transcribing ''California'' {{IPA|/ˌkælɪˈfɔːrni‿ə/}} (well, not exactly this word, since it has a straightforward pronunciation, but you know what I mean). It's a good solution and it's non-OR.
:::::You know that I usually side with LPD when there are discrepancies between sources. But that's just me. It's probably wise not to use {{IPA|/u/}} before consonants. Maybe we shouldn't use {{IPA|/i/}} in that position too? The usual pronunciation of the first syllable of ''because'' is {{IPA|[bɪ]}} or {{IPA|[bə]}}, but usually not {{IPA|[bi(ː)]}}. Transcribing ''because'' as {{IPA|/bi-/}} is something I do disagree with LPD on. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 15:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Mr KEBAB}} I stand by that. But I can also get behind the idea that we ''choose'' to use /iə, uə/ as meaning varisyllabic, even if that was not a common practice in literature, so we can shorten notations like {{IPAc-en|ˌ|k|æ|l|ɪ|ˈ|f|ɔːr|n|i|ə|,_|-|n|j|ə}}.
::::::I think it's best to keep the use of /i, u/ before consonants to morpheme-final positions, e.g. ''re-'', ''anti-''. Otherwise we would invite a great deal of inconsistency. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 15:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Maczkopeti}} While I genuinely appreciate all the corrections you've made, please don't say that there's a consensus regarding the use of {{IPA|/iə, uə/}}. The discussion is ongoing. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 15:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A potentially relevant study: [https://www.journal-labphon.org/articles/10.5334/labphon.36/ Jaggers, Z. S., 2018, "Evidence and characterization of a glide-vowel distinction in American English"]. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 20:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

== /juː, jʊər/ ==

These are not phonemes. I suppose they are listed in the table because /j/ gets elided in yod-dropping accents, but now that {{tl|IPAc-en}} supports /dj, lj, nj, sj, tj, θj, zj/ as diaphonemes, I think what should be on the guide are not /juː, jʊər/ but those consonant clusters. That would make it easier to point out what's wrong with
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newt_Gingrich&diff=596592220 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newfoundland_and_Labrador&diff=814424568 kinds] of good-faith but erroneous edits. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 13:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Nardog}} Sounds reasonable to me. I'm for it. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 13:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:The sign groupings we choose to encode in {{tl|IPAc-en}} do not make any claims regarding any specific phonemic (or diaphonemic) analysis. Otherwise, they would be original research.
:That being said, there are certainly analyses of English that treat /juː/ as a phoneme (historic reasons and because it patterns with other vowel phonemes). And others that do not (because it does not trigger the prevocalic variants of the articles etc.).
:That being said as well, I think that either of <nowiki>{{IPAc-en|n|uː|t}}, {{IPAc-en|nj|uː|t}}, {{IPAc-en|n|juː|t}}</nowiki> are fine choices. I see no need for prescriptivism and would go by something akin to [[MOS:RETAIN]]. --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 19:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
::I'm leaning toward being what mach is calling "prescriptive" (or what we might call "inflexible"). From the perspective of someone using the mouseover feature that gives example words, the transcription of <nowiki>{{IPAc-en|n|uː|t}}</nowiki> for ''newt'' would be incorrect for anyone who doesn't exhibit yod-dropping. Similarly, <nowiki>{{IPAc-en|n|juː|t}}</nowiki> would be confusing for those who do exhibit yod-dropping because it would guide them to a pronunciation outside of their own dialect. <nowiki>{{IPAc-en|nj|uː|t}}</nowiki> would accomplish the diaphonemic representation we're going for, IMHO. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 04:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
:::I agree with Aeusoes1 above. <nowiki>{{IPAc-en|nj|uː|t}}</nowiki> would give the person a choice to read it according to his own accent. Furthermore, this chart is not supposed to treat phonemes because of historic reasons (that would be the job of the English phonology page and the historical phonemes articles). The current system just makes it harder to interpret pronunciations for the average reader (the real purpose) while making it easier to interpret historical phonology (which is not what this page is for).--[[User:Officer781|Officer781]] ([[User talk:Officer781|talk]]) 18:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
::::I also agree. Allowing <nowiki>{{IPAc-en|n|uː|t}}</nowiki> defeats the purpose of this guide and the mouseover feature of the IPAc-en template. Not completely of course, but it's not something that should be encouraged, let alone done. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 15:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
:Question: how often is the {{IPA|/j/}} retained after {{IPA|/l/}} that precedes it within the same syllable? Forms like {{IPA|/ɪˈljuːʒən/}} sound very strange to my non-native ears. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 20:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
::''Lute'' is listed in both LPD and CEPD as having /luːt/ as the most common RP pronunciation. So I checked ''absolute, Aleutian, allude, allure, dilute, elude, illuminate, illusion, lewd, lieu, lubricate, lucid, lure, lurid, lute, pollute, resolution, revolution'' and ''salute'' in LPD and CEPD, and only ''lure'' and ''lurid'' in LPD and ''Aleutian, allure, lewd'' and ''lieu'' in CEPD were given /lj/ as the first variant; i.e., interestingly, no words were given /lj/ as the first in both. An LPD poll reveals 58% of British speakers had /j/ in ''lure'' (but note when it's pronounced /-ɜː/ or /-ɔː/, /j/ is mandatory). Maybe the keyword for /lj/ too needs to be replaced. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 15:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Nardog}} So I could've checked it myself. I forgot about that feature of LPD/CEPD. Thanks. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 15:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
::::/rjuː/ is [http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.com/2011/06/glomerulus.html long gone], so it may be a general tendency of English to drop /j/ after tautosyllabic liquids even faster than other coronals. (I recently heard someone say /ˈɛrjuːdaɪt/, which struck me as odd. But there are ''value, Matthew'', etc. after all so not that strange I guess.)
::::And [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlY1Z3SfoXY&t=5m apparently] LPD2 (2000) marked yod-coalescence pronunciations as non-RP, which LPD3 (2008) acknowledged as part of RP. So post-coronal /j/ in general seems to be disappearing in the UK too. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 16:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Nardog}} Yeah. The 2011 edition of CEPD goes a step further and ''recommends'' the coalesced pronunciations to readers who want to speak RP. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 16:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, I found the following in [[Daniel Jones (phonetician)|Daniel Jones]]' [https://archive.org/stream/cu31924027389505#page/n84/mode/1up ''Outline of English Phonetics'' (1918, p. 67)]:<blockquote>Usage varies in words in which '''l''' is initial or preceded by an unstressed vowel; thus ''lute, absolute'' are pronounced '''ljuːt, ´æbsəljuːt''' by some, and '''luːt''' (like ''loot''), '''´æbsəluːt''' by others; the forms with '''j''' are generally recommended by elocutionists, but the forms without '''j''' are, if anything, the more usual in ordinary speech, at any rate in the commoner words.</blockquote>So apparently the pronunciation with /j/ was already old-fashioned 100 years ago. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 22:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

== Non-rhotic /ɜː/ ==

There exist loanwords such as ''[[Foehn wind|föhn]], [[Möbius strip|Möbius]], [[Peugeot]]'', and ''[[pho]]'', in which a vowel (usually a front rounded one in the native language) is pronounced as the NURSE vowel in non-rhotic accents, even though it is not followed by {{angle bracket|r}}. In rhotic accents,<ref>I'm using the terms ''non-rhotic'' and ''rhotic'' more or less on the assumption that most non-rhotic speakers base their pronunciation on RP and rhotic ones on GA, simply because of there being few sources on the pronunciation of these relatively obscure words in other accents.</ref> such a vowel is pronounced as either:
#another vowel such as /uː/ (''[[Betelgeuse]]'') or /ʌ/ (''pho''), sometimes even violating the phonotactics;
#the marginal vowel /œ/ (found in [https://assets2.merriam-webster.com/mw/static/pdf/help/guide-to-pronunciation.pdf American] [https://ahdictionary.com/application/resources/misc/pronkey.pdf dictionaries], though I'm not sure how much this is meant to be descriptive of English speakers' actual production as opposed to the pronunciation in the original language<ref>Which is why I'm not as inclined to add it as another marginal diaphoneme as /ɜː/.</ref>);
#a lengthened schwa-like vowel, just like the non-rhotic NURSE; or
#the usual rhotic NURSE vowel, as in many speakers' pronunciation of [https://youglish.com/search/Goethe ''Goethe''] and [https://youglish.com/search/%22hors%20d'oeuvre%22 ''hors d'oeuvre''].
And so long as what /ɜːr/ as a diaphoneme tells readers is "Pronounce this /ɜː/ if you're non-rhotic, /ɜ(ː)r/ if you're rhotic", it wouldn't be accurate to use /ɜːr/ in cases #1–3. One might say we can still write e.g. "{{IPAc-en|uk|f|ɜːr}}, {{IPAc-en|us|f|ʌ}}", but that doesn't really solve the problem because it is highly unlikely that e.g. a rhotic UK speaker would pronounce the word with a coda /r/ instead of improvising a non-rhotic /ɜː/ or opting for the US variant. It should be able to write "{{IPA-en|fɜː|UK}}, {{IPA-en|fʌ|US}}".

CEPD18 includes at least 42 instances of case #3<ref>''accoucheuse, adieu, Auteuil, Beaulieu'' (in France), ''boeuf bourguignon, Böhm, Böll, Châteauneuf-du-Pape, coiffeuse, Creuse, Deneuve, Depardieu, Des Voeux, Dieu et mon droit, Dönges, douloureux, émeute, feuilleton, Goebbels, Goethe, Göteborg, götterdämmerung, Greuze, jeu, jeunesse dorée, Köchel, masseuse, milieu, millefeuille, mitrailleuse, Mönchen-Gladbach, Montreux, Norrköping, oeuvre, Peugeot, pot-au-feu, prie-dieu, roman fleuve, Seurat, soixante-neuf, van Rompuy, Villeneuve''</ref> and 17 of case #1,<ref>''Bayeux, berceuse, Betelgeuse, chacun à son goût, chanteuse, chartreuse, cordon bleu, danseuse, fauteuil, föhn/foehn, Loeb, meunière, Meuse, Neuchâtel, Neufchâtel, Richelieu, Schrödinger''</ref> and LPD3 includes at least 52 instances of #1,<ref>''Bayeux, berceuse, Betelgeuse, boehmite, boeuf, Böhm, chacun à son goût, chanteuse, chartreuse, Châteauneuf-du-Pape, cordon bleu, danseuse, Dieu et mon droit, Eupen, faites vos jeux, faute de mieux, föhn/foehn, Gödel, Goebbels, Goethe, Göttingen, Hebei, Henan, Hoechst, jeu(x) d'esprit, jeunesse dorée, Königsberg, masseuse, meunière, Meuse, milieu, Möbius, Montesquieu, Monteux, Montreux, Neuchâtel, Norrköping, oeil-de-boeuf, oeuvre, Peugeot, pot-au-feu, prie-dieu, Richelieu, roman fleuve, sauve qui peut, Schönberg/Schoenberg, Schrödinger, Seurat, soixante-neuf, Veuve, Villeneuve, Zhejiang''</ref><ref>Instances of case #3 are found in LPD3 but very few: ''Depardieu, millefeuille, trompe l'oeil''.</ref> counting only the first variants in each accent. In fact, there are already at least a dozen articles which could use /ɜː/,<ref>[[Amuse-bouche]], [[Beef bourguignon]], [[Betelgeuse]], [[Chartreuse (color)]], [[Foehn wind]], [[Kurt Gödel]], [[Königsberg]], [[Loess]], [[Meunière sauce]], [[August Ferdinand Möbius]], [[Möbius strip]], [[Peugeot]], [[pho]], [[Richelieu]], [[Arnold Schoenberg]]</ref> a bigger number than that of the articles currently using /ɔɪər/ or /æ̃/. So why don't we add /ɜː/ as a marginal segment? [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 14:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Nardog}} I don't know if we should add it, but what I'm curious about are US-specific pronunciations with {{IPA|/ɒ/}} which doesn't exist as a separate phoneme in General American and in the vast majority of regional accents of the North America. See [[American and British English pronunciation differences]], for example. Pronunciations such as {{IPA|/ˈkɒzməs/}} are listed as American and they're not. {{IPA|/ˈkɑːzməs/}} is American.
:The same applies to UK-specific (more like Anglo-Welsh-specific) pronunciations with coda {{IPA|/r/}}, which for the majority of speakers isn't there even phonemically and mantaining it in speech is non-standard. After all, here UK usually stands for RP/Estuary, no? Northerners wouldn't even think of saying {{IPA|/ɡrɑːs/}} etc. and that's what dictionaries prescribe.
:Perhaps it's about time we split the pronunciations into GA and RP? If we do that, transcribing words in both accents should be mandatory in all articles as long as they're sourced. We can think about other accents if there are dictionaries/wordlists to back up the IPA.
:I'm also curious about how many people actually use the mousehover feature. If we dropped it and just used IPA-en as we do for other languages, would that make a negative difference? I think it wouldn't. Many readers have admitted to me that they either don't use the mousehover feature, they don't understand our diaphonemic system or even both. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 14:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
::Please stay on topic. ;) Abandoning the diaphonemic principle is such a big change with so many ramifications throughout Wikipedia that we cannot possibly hope to discuss it here.
::Nonetheless, you raise a good point: One thing [[WP:RHOTIC]] (or [[WP:PRON]] as a whole) or this guide don't specify is what to do when IPA(c)-en is used explicitly for a pronunciation in a specific dialect. Should it be e.g. "{{IPAc-en|us|ˈ|k|ɒ|z|m|ə|s}}" or "{{IPAc-en|us|ˈ|k|ɑː|z|m|ə|s}}"? I agree it should be the latter. Shouldn't it be "{{IPA-en|ˈkɑzməs|US}}", you ask? I'd say no. I know length isn't phonemic in GA, but it'd be way too much to ask average readers (and editors) to remember /ɑː/ and /ɑ/ are equivalent but should be differentiated based on dialectal difference. In fact LPD and CEPD do use /ɑː/, /iː/, etc. even for GA, instead of supplying a distinct set of symbols for each accent (RDPCE's approach). And we could prescribe essentially what LPD/CEPD do when IPA(c)-en is used to describe a pronunciation in a specific accent, so readers and editors wouldn't have to be bewildered by so many symbols. That would be another rationale for adding /ɜː/. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 16:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
:::Not to throw a wrench in here, but I've only ever heard fellow North Americans use the pronunciation {{IPAc-en|ˈ|k|ɒ|z|m|oʊ|s}} (or, for most U.S. citizens, yes, {{IPAc-en|ˈ|k|ɑː|z|m|oʊ|s}}). Just listen to just the first minute of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxyriE97DnU this interview] to hear two Americans' pronunciations of the word, one being the lifelong scientist [[Neil deGrasse Tyson]]. Two Americans (of three) on Forvo also use this pronunciation. Although it's just my impression, I'd wager that the schwa pronunciation is an older one that is receding. [[User:Wolfdog|Wolfdog]] ([[User talk:Wolfdog|talk]]) 16:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
::::The example is from [[American and British English pronunciation differences]], which covers that variant too. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 16:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
:I'm having trouble understanding the problem with {{IPAc-en|uk|f|ɜːr}}, {{IPAc-en|us|f|ʌ}}. What do we want this hypothetical rhotic UK speaker to do that this wouldn't accomplish? — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 19:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
::To not pronounce the /r/. And don't forget there's also case #3. CEPD has a bunch, so we are currently unable to cite it accurately with {{tl|IPAc-en}}. Merriam-Webster also includes variants with \ə̄\, i.e. [ɜː].<ref>e.g. ''[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entredeux entredeux], [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flaneuse flaneuse], [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/h%C3%B6chst hoechst], [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jeu jeu], [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mitrailleuse mitrailleuse], [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sauve%20qui%20peut sauve qui peut], [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voeu voeu]''.</ref> [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 20:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
:::I think I see what you're saying. Because we're using "UK" to mean "non-rhotic" it might confuse rhotic UK speakers into producing the wrong pronunciation. The easiest solution might be explanatory footnotes. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 23:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
::::Not just that. There are also words that reliable sources say are pronounced with /ɜː/, not /ɜr/, in GA. In addition, Mr KEBAB has suggested that when IPA(c)-en is used to illustrate a pronunciation explicitly in one dialect or the other, we not follow the diaphonemic principle and use e.g. /ɑː/ in place of /ɒ/ for US pronunciation. I echo his suggestion, and should it be accepted and incorporated into [[MOS:PRON]], we would not be able to notate the UK pronunciation of words with the NURSE vowel with IPAc-en without adding /ɜː/ as another diaphoneme. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 02:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::I feel like we might need some investigating on the presence of {{IPA|/ɜː/}} as a non-native phoneme in rhotic dialects of English (akin to use of front rounded vowels or uvular rhotics in English) that goes beyond just the transcriptions found in some dictionaries. Also, is it even a good idea to use IPc-en if it's not a diaphonemic transcription? — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 15:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Aeusoes1}} Well, that's difficult when it comes to marginal segments isn't it. But listen, for example, to people pronouncing [https://youglish.com/search/Goebbels ''Goebbels'']. Some rhotic speakers do indeed pronounce it with non-rhotic /ɜː/ or some equivalent of it, but it eventually comes down to how much one is acquainted with the donor language and how much one is willing to approximate the pronunciation to it, as with any other marginal segment. The fact many people simply have a syllabic R in ''Goethe'' and ''hors d'oeuvre'' and other vowels in ''Betelgeuse'', ''pho'', etc. suggests non-rhotic /ɜː/ in rhotic speech may perhaps only be present during a transitional period in which the word has not yet completely assimilated into English (which makes it a marginal segment). Nevertheless, isn't making it possible to write e.g. "{{IPA-en|fɜː|UK}}" enough of a reason to add /ɜː/ for you? I don't quite see how a footnote can be an easier solution.
::::::Describing a pronunciation in a specific variety using IPAc-en doesn't automatically make it not diaphonemic. Rather, e.g. "{{IPA-en|ˈkɑːzmoʊs|US}}" is a transcription of a pronunciation in one variety using our diaphonemes, within the confines of what the diaphonemes allows us to do. {{IPA|/ˈkɒzmoʊs/}} wouldn't be accurate because GenAm doesn't have /ɒ/. {{IPA|/ˈkɑːzmoʊs/}} using IPAc-en helps readers identify what phoneme each symbol corresponds to more easily than e.g. {{IPA|/ˈkɑzmos/}}, which requires them to learn a whole separate set of symbols for that specific dialect. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 15:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, but it seems like you don't understand how this works. Describing a pronunciation for a specific variety that way does, indeed, make it not diaphonemic (KEBAB's suggestion was to do away with the diaphonemic system). Under the logic of our diaphonemic system, if we transcribe ''cosmos'' as {{IPAc-en|ˈ|k|ɑː|z|m|oʊ|s}}, we're saying it's pronounced with the PALM vowel, when it should be the LOT vowel. For General American, these have merged, but the point of the diaphonemic system is that we mark contrasts don't appear in all varieties. That's why the phrase "a transcription of a pronunciation in one variety using our diaphonemes" doesn't really make any sense. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 17:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Aeusoes1}} I see what you're saying, but IPAc-en does already have the built-in prescripts "UK" and "US" and is used for pronunciations in one dialect or another in many articles. And who/what says one can't use the diaphonemic system, the point of which, yes, is to mark contrasts that don't appear in all varieties, to describe a pronunciation in a specific variety, and not mark contrasts that don't appear in that variety―especially when the pronunciation of the word(s) in another variety is also provided?
::::::::(Mr KEBAB said "{{IPA|/ˈkɑːzməs/}} is American", with {{angle bracket|ɑː}} not {{angle bracket|ɑ}}, so I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment of his statement. His ''ultimate'' suggestion was indeed to do away with the diaphonemic system, but the insinuation I got there (in his first paragraph) is that we should use /ɑː/ in place of /ɒ/ as far as GA goes should we use the diaphonemic system to notate it. This he can clarify.)
::::::::Consider, for instance, what to do when describing the General American pronunciation of ''lieutenant''. Should it be {{IPA|/ljuːˈtɛnənt/}} because those who pronounce ''lieu'' {{IPA|/ljuː/}} might pronounce the /j/? But such people would most likely pronounce it {{IPA|/lɛfˈtɛnənt/}}. {{IPA|/luːˈtɛnənt/}}, which describes a pronunciation in one variety using the diaphonemes, signals the pronunciation better than the awkward, theoretically diaphonemic {{IPA|/ljuːˈtɛnənt/}} without making the readers having to learn an additional set of symbol/phoneme combinations. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 18:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::The built-in prescripts are for cases when UK and US pronunciations are the result using different diaphonemes, such as your ''lieutenant'' example, not for cases like ''cosmos'' where it's just a case of differing vowel inventories or phonetic nuances. So the accurate use of the diaphonemic system with your example would be something along the lines of:
:::::::::'''Lieutenant''' (US: {{IPAc-en|lj|uː|ˈ|t|ɛ|n|ən|t}}, UK {{IPAc-en|l|ɛ|f|ˈ|t|ɛ|n|ən|t}}) ...
:::::::::The problem with using IPAc-en, which is for diaphonemic transcriptions, for transcriptions that aren't diaphonemic, is that it then undermines the work done to get readers to understand the transcriptions. We should be consistent and using dialect-specific pronunciations like {{IPAc-en|ˈ|k|ɑː|z|m|oʊ|s}} is being inconsistent. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 21:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
:{{outdent|8}}{{re|Aeusoes1}} I disagree. When a source says {{IPA|/luːˈtɛnənt/}} is the modern General American pronunciation of ''lieutenant'', there is nothing that indicates the first syllable is underlyingly {{IPA|/ljuː/}}. Historically, yes, it may have been the source of the current realization {{IPA|/luː/}}, but unless some source says it's still pronounced with /j/ in some variety in the US, "{{IPAc-en|us|lj|uː|ˈ|t|ɛ|n|ə|n|t}}" wouldn't be an accurate diaphonemic transcription. (I don't understand why ''cosmos'' is not a case where "UK and US pronunciations are the result using different diaphonemes". In your suggestion it would be something like "{{IPAc-en|uk|ˈ|k|ɒ|z|m|ɒ|s}}, {{IPAc-en|us|ˈ|k|ɒ|z|m|ə|s|,_|-|m|oʊ|s}}".)
:Anyway, we've gone off on quite a tangent. What do you think of /ɜː/ as an additional marginal diaphoneme? I don't see why "the easiest solution might be explanatory footnotes". [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 16:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
::I think the lj in ''lieutenant'' is a bit more debatable, but you're right that this is a minor point. I think you get my point regarding why there are built-in US and UK prescripts. The way you've indicated the variant US/UK pronunciations is, I think, just right (my comment about ''cosmos'' was more with the vowel of the first syllable).
::In answer to your question, I still don't like it. For one, no one has put forth academic research on this, so that doesn't help us on understanding who does this, why, and why dictionaries have been putting this in their pronunciations. Is it a botched attempt at pronouncing a front rounded vowel in borrowed words? In addition, the symbol {{angbr|ɜː}} would be about as confusing as using {{angbr|a}}, since that's a common symbol used for pronunciations to mean something slightly different. An explanatory footnote is the ideal choice with these words because there is too much variation within and between the words. ''Goebbels'' might sometimes be pronounced with this sound, but at other times with the vowel of ''nurse''. ''Pho'' will possibly have this sound, but may also be pronounced with the vowel of ''goat''. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 17:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

::I was led here because, as as speaker of northern English (though well south of the Scottish border), I was confused by Wikipedia's insistence on /ɜː/ appearing as /ɜːr/ when I would never think of pronouncing the r. My pronunciation is largely non-rhotic (close to RP), but with just the occasional slight rhotic hints, so I would appreciate the addition of /ɜː/ in IPc-en to avoid confusion for those of us who have even a slight British rhoticism. I'm not an expert on IPA, so I will leave it to you experts to make a decision. [[User:Dbfirs|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i></span>]] 08:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
:::There are a number of problems with your proposal. Without getting too technical, putting {{IPA|/ɜː/}} as separate from {{IPA|/ɜːr/}} would mean that they were two distinct vowels. Even if there were dialects that made a contrast between the two, if the contrast is not encoded in dictionaries, we wouldn't have a way of verifying transcriptions. Even if we could verify this contrast in transcriptions, it would not be a good idea to represent one of those vowels as {{angbr|ɜː}} because that symbol is commonly used for the vowel of words like ''nurse'' for non-rhotic pronunciations and would likely confuse readers.
:::I'm not sure what you mean by "a slight British rhoticism" though. Do you contrast two vowels like this or do you switch back and forth between rhotic and non-rhotic pronunciations so that the same word can be pronounced in two different ways? — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 14:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
::::No, I don't contrast the two vowels. I usually pronounce them both as əː (long schwa, slightly less open than ɜː), and in words such as nurse, I might, sometimes, for emphasis, sound the r either partially or fully. For words such as milieu, adieu, cordon bleu etc I would never use a [[linking R]] when followed by a vowel, as I would if the pronunciation were {{IPA|/ɜːr/}}. [[User:Dbfirs|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i></span>]] 18:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::That's interesting. So you have linking R for a word like ''miller'' but not for ''milieu''? Or are you saying that there are words that you vary in your pronunciation but that there are other words that you still pronounce non-rhotically even when you are speaking in this emphatic fashion? — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 19:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::Yes, the pub ''The Miller of Mansfield'' would have a linking R in nearly all British accents, but ''in the milieu of the battle'' would have a slight hiatus, avoiding a linking R except by those <small>(too many in the UK)</small> who introduce an intrusive R where none should exist (e.g."Victoria-r-and Albert Museum"). My mention of partial rhoticism is probably a red herring -- I'm not too far from the border with Scotland where speakers are fully rhotic and where readers would be very confused by {{IPA|/ɜːr/}}. [[User:Dbfirs|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i></span>]] 19:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::In what way would such speakers be confused? — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 01:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== Stressed /iə/ ==

Regarding {{u|Mr KEBAB}}'s {{diff|Israel|828920912||edit}}, there is a variation in the pronunciation of {{angbr|ea}} in words like "idea", "diarrh(o)ea", "theater"/"theatre" and the aforementioned "Korea". In OED, these are noted as {{IPA|/ɪə/}} for UK and {{IPA|/iːə/}} for US. It seems that for UK there's a reduction to a non-rhotic {{IPAc-en|ɪər}}, while some US dialects also seem to reduce the {{IPA|/iː/}} in a similar manner to {{IPAc-en|i}}. In theory, there could be a similar stressed variant of {{IPAc-en|u|ə}} too, but I've yet to find an example for that.<br />
--[[User:Maczkopeti|maczkopeti]] ([[User talk:Maczkopeti|talk]]) 13:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
:/i/ (the happY vowel) is just a non-phonemic notation of the high front vowel found in unstressed and morpheme-final or prevocalic positions, traditionally identified as belonging to the KIT phoneme (see [http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.com/2010/11/believing-descriptions.html][http://englishspeechservices.com/blog/the-fallac%C9%AAjof-schwee/]). So there could be no such thing as a "stressed /i/" as far as our diaphonemic system goes.
:In most US dialects there is no distinction between /iː/ and /i/ (i.e. no appreciable difference in segmental quality, although some phonologists might still identify the happY vowel as belonging to the KIT phoneme). It is true that in RP the stressed vowels in words like ''idea, Korea, theatre, real'' may be realized as the same as NEAR, but they obviously cannot in GA. And in accents like RP where this can happen, the second segment in any diphthong before /ə/ can also be elided with the schwa losing its syllabicity (e.g. [faə̯] ''fire''), suggesting [ɪə] in the aforementioned words is the result of this type of diphthongization ("smoothing") from /iːə/ rather than originally having the NEAR vowel ([https://books.google.com/books?id=Ty5RoXyTKQsC&pg=PA240 Wells 1982:240] says {{tq|This can be interpreted as evidence in favour of analysing FLEECE and GOOSE as underlyingly diphthongal, /ɪi, ʊu/; Smoothing then has its usual effect of producing a monophthong with the phonetic quality of the starting-point of the underlying diphthong}}). So in our diaphonemic system they are best transcribed as /iːə/ (meanwhile, this does constitute yet another reason not to transcribe them as /iː.ə/, with a syllable break). [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 15:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
::I agree with Nardog. {{IPA|/iːə/}} is the best choice for this. Can we expect non-rhotic speakers to read this correctly without guidance? — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 17:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Confused [[User:Christian t|Christian t]] ([[User talk:Christian t|talk]]) 15:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Christian t}} About what? [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 15:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

==Stressed monosyllables==
Per the recent edits, particularly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:IPA/English&diff=832538640&oldid=832417643 this addition], I'm not sure if we have a consensus on that. It seems from [[Help talk:IPA/English/Archive 21#stress marks|this conversation]] back in December, people seemed to accept that this is a stylistic choice. I'm fine either way, but I don't want cycle of reversions every three to six months on the matter. Anyone care to make their case? — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 18:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
:I'm also confused by Kwami's edits. As far as I know, no dictionary which uses IPA puts stress in monosyllabic words, so to do so on Wikipedia is [[WP:UNDUE]] ("we have done for decades" is not a valid reason—nor true, it's idiosyncratic at best). No stress in a monosyllable does not mean unstressed, it just means neither stressed nor unstressed, as far as lexical stress is concerned, because in order for a syllable to be stressed there needs to be another syllable that is unstressed or less stressed. And we do, in the vast majority of the cases, record lexical stress, not stress in running speech—in running speech lexically stressed syllables are unstressed and lexically unstressed syllables are stressed all the time. There's no reason for it to be there. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 18:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
::We have in [[Talk:Moons of Pluto#Pronunciation|this recent thread]] an example of where the previous determination may have left too little guidance. If we decide that it's a stylistic issue, we also don't want editors going back and forth over it, even if they aren't intentionally warring. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 03:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
:::Thanks {{u|Aeusoes1}}! I must say I am slightly confused.<br>It was me who had revised {{u|Kwamikagami}}'s edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moons_of_Pluto&oldid=832292315 here], for the same reason that {{u|Maczkopeti}} gives [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:IPA/English&oldid=832416516 here], based on the convention followed by [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dictionary Wiktionary]. If it is true that "no dictionary which uses IPA puts stress in monosyllabic words" then I wonder why Wikipedia does it differently? So far I haven't seen any rationale for why the unusual convention was adopted in the first place (actually I am not convinced yet that it actually has been the convention at all, regardless of what Kwami says).<br>Citing {{u|Mr KEBAB}}: "Editors' preference. Remove the stress marks if you want, both variants are correct." (from [[Help_talk:IPA/English/Archive_21#stress_marks|here]]). Obviously there is no consensus that this is true. --[[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 13:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
::::{{replyto|Renerpho}} I stand by that. As long as you're transcribing words in isolation rather than phrases, both variants are correct as there's only one way to realize stress in a monosyllabic word (more accurately: a monosyllabic phrase, because stress in words said in isolation is both simple word stress ''and'' phrasal stress). When you're transcribing phrases, you must place stress marks in a correct manner, otherwise your transcription is incomplete. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 14:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Mr KEBAB}} Right now, the article says "Some dictionaries use a stress mark to distinguish two-syllable from one-syllable words, but on Wikipedia we mark all stressed syllables." Should that be removed then? --[[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 15:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
::::::{{replyto|Renerpho}} I have no strong preference. I'd rather not transcribe stress in isolated monosyllables, but it's not a very big deal to me. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 15:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If you pronounce a lexically unstressed monosyllable in isolation, it will take the prosodic stress of the phrase. But that doesn't mean there's no lexical distinction. There is a phonemic lexical distinction of stress in English monosyllables, and to transcribe a phonemically stressed word without stress in a phonemic transcription is just as wrong as transcribing it without vowels. True, I doubt there are many cases where the IPA trascription in the lead is going to be for an unstressed monosyllable, since nearly every WP entry is for a noun, but leaving out the stress is still technically incorrect (and would be critical in discussing the variable stress of pronouns or auxiliary verbs, for example). And when we transcribe a phrase, the distinction is certainly relevant (e.g. {{IPAc-en|'|p|r|I|n|s|_|@|v|_|'|w|eI|l|z}}).

BTW, I have used a bot to add stress to all IPA-en transcriptions in WP that didn't have it, unless the words were truly unstressed. And that was accepted -- I did it more than once. So we certainly had consensus at the time.

My main problem with giving false information for our convenience, under the assumption that the reader will understand it's false, is that in general they won't. The last time I was in a discussion about this, there were users who argued that such words actually were unstressed because dictionaries didn't mark stress for them. If many of us don't understand the convention, how can we expect our readers to? And the convenience of omitting phonemic stress is minimal, so why do it? — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 19:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Kwamikagami}} Oh, that's what you mean. I suppose you have a point there. I guess ''it'' is one of the best examples, when it's {{IPA|/ˈɪt/}} the vowel is relatively front {{IPA|[ɪ]}} and when it's {{IPA|/ɪt/}} the vowel is prone to being centralized to {{IPA|[ɪ̈]}} or it even merges with {{IPA|[ə]}}. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 06:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

::Yes, and since those vowels are now transcribed the same, we rely on the stress mark to distinguish them (though of course there are cases where there is a full unstressed {{IPA|/ɪ/}} -- we no longer have any way to indicate that). — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 06:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Kwamikagami}} TBH I'm not aware of a single dictionary that would get reduced {{IPA|/ɪ, ʊ/}} right, so removing them was pretty much the only option we had. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 12:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

::::Even Longman? — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 17:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

== Word-final /ʌ/ ==


== Double entry ==
Can ''[[Laozi|Lao-Tzu]]'' really be pronounced {{IPA|/ˈlaʊˈdzʌ/}} or is that just another invention of certain dictionaries? I strongly suspect it's the latter. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 17:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


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)
:It could be the closest theoretical English approximation of the Chinese, rather than an actual English pronunciation. You certainly see things like that a lot. But, while marginal, you do occasionally see stressed 'short' vowels in words like [[pho]] and [[meh]]. (Thus the joke in the restaurant name "Pho King Delicious".) So it wouldn't be unheard of. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 19:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
: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)


== Colons for length symbols ==
::There is no {{IPA|/ʌ/}} in [[Standard Chinese phonology]]. Pronunciation would be something like {{IPA|/t͡sɨ/}}. Not sure if I'd call {{IPA|/dzʌ/}} a close approximation. --[[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 21:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


In the 3rd bullet point of the Dialect variation section colons are used in place of length symbols:
:::"Lao-dzer" in a non-rhotic accent would be closer, or maybe a syllabic /z/, but otherwise /ʌ/ is the closest I can come up with. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 06:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
: 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)
::::Thanks for the responses. IMO {{IPA|/ʌ/}} isn't very close to the original Chinese sound. In comparison with it, it's very open and lacks the alveolar friction. {{IPA|/uː/}} is a better approximation. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 12:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


:::::That may be true, but aren't we going with what is actually cited in dictionaries or used by English speakers? [[User:Wolfdog|Wolfdog]] ([[User talk:Wolfdog|talk]]) 19:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 22:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


== Inclusion of /ts/ as a marginal phoneme and removal of /ʔ/ ==
::::::{{replyto|Wolfdog}} I just responded to Kwami, nothing more. I'm not challenging any dictionary. [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


/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)
::::::: Right. I agree that it seems to be strangely derived. [[User:Wolfdog|Wolfdog]] ([[User talk:Wolfdog|talk]]) 19:33, 2 April 2018 (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.
== Remove /əl, əm, ən/ ==
:/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)


== IPA overwhelming ==
I think we should replace them with ordinary <code>ə|l</code>, <code>ə|m</code> and <code>ə|n</code> for a few reasons:


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)
* The correct phonemic analysis is {{IPA|/əl, əm, ən/}} as in most (all?) other Germanic languages that have syllabic sonorants. I think hardly anyone postulates separate {{IPA|/l̩, m̩, n̩/}} phonemes, and our <code>əl, əm, ən</code> look the same as <code>ə|l, ə|m, ə|n</code> anyway. There's no way to distinguish them unless you use the mouseover feature. How many users/readers of Wikipedia do that? Probably not that many. This renders this distinction completely irrelevant to those who don't use the mouseover feature.
* Our [[Help:Pronunciation respelling key]] uses <code>əl, əm, ən</code> for both types of allophones (or however you want to call them). This would bring this guide and our PRK even closer.
* For speakers that vocalize their {{IPA|/l/}}'s {{IPA|/əl/}} in ''treacle'' or ''bubble'' is the same as {{IPA|/l/}} in ''mail'' or ''oil''. Cockneys would pronounce these {{IPA|[ˈtɹ̥ekʊ, ˈbɐbʊ, ˈmæɪ̯ʊ ~ ˈmæʊ̯, ˈoɪ̯ʊ]}} (forgive me if any of these particular words isn't used by cockneys, I don't know their rhyming slang very well).
* For many speakers of Estuary English the distinction between {{IPA|[əm, ən]}} and {{IPA|[m̩, n̩]}} (and {{IPA|[əl]}} and {{IPA|[l̩]}}, as pointed out above - EE is watered down Cockney after all) is no longer relevant. Older speakers (of RP in particular) perceive the presence of a phonetic schwa in words such as ''button'' as sounding childish, but for younger speakers it sounds normal (Gimson (2014:171)).
* Dialects vary somewhat as to where exactly {{IPA|[n̩]}} can be used. RP and GA don't allow it in ''London'', but the Cardiff dialect does (Collins & Mees (1990:90), Wells (2008)).


: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)
Even if we do remove <code>əl</code>, <code>əm</code>and <code>ən</code> from the IPAc-en template, we should still mention syllabic {{IPA|[l̩, m̩, n̩]}} in this guide as they are rather important and auditorily distinct allophones.


== Text on secondary stress ==
Sources:
{{Refbegin}}
* {{Citation|last1=Collins|first1=Beverley|last2=Mees|first2=Inger M.|editor-last1=Coupland|editor-first1=Nikolas|editor-last2=Thomas|editor-first2=Alan Richard|year=1990|title=English in Wales: Diversity, Conflict, and Change|chapter=The Phonetics of Cardiff English|publisher=Multilingual Matters Ltd.|pages=87–103|isbn=1-85359-032-0|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tPwYt3gVbu4C}}
* {{citation|last=Gimson|first=Alfred Charles|editor-last=Cruttenden|editor-first=Alan|year=2014|title=Gimson's Pronunciation of English|publisher=Routledge|edition=8th|isbn=9781444183092|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=M2nMAgAAQBAJ}}
* {{Citation|last=Wells|first=John C.|year=2008|title=Longman Pronunciation Dictionary|edition=3rd|publisher=Longman|isbn=9781405881180}}
{{Refend}}


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)
Thoughts? [[User:Mr KEBAB|Mr KEBAB]] ([[User talk:Mr KEBAB|talk]]) 15:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
:I disagree. {{IPA|/əl, əm, ən/}} work the same way as {{IPA|/ər/}} in that it treats what is arguably a biphonemic cluster as one unit since the pronunciation is different. If we separate the sound into two different pieces (which is precisely what <code>ə|l</code>, <code>ə|m</code> does), I think we're more prone to mislead readers into unnatural pronunciations. — [[User:Aeusoes1|Ƶ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]</sub></small>]]</span> 16:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
:I'm inclined to agree with Aeusoes1 in principle, but I also agree with Mr KEBAB in that they may not be so much of help for the visitors. But dictionaries mark these consonants in quite various ways, so having them at least listed in the key helps editors identify what diaphoneme to use upon encountering a notation such as {{angle bracket|əC}}, {{angle bracket|''ə''C}}, {{angle bracket|(ə)C}}, {{angle bracket|ᵊC}}, {{angle bracket|C̩}}, or even just {{angle bracket|C}} (following a syllable break), however helpful the diaphonemes may be for the readers.
:If making sure <code>əC</code> and <code>ə|C</code> are used where appropriate is too much of a burden for us, we could, alternatively, declare <code>əC</code> and <code>ə|C</code> equivalent (which would probably mean deprecating <code>əC</code> in IPAc-en but keeping /əl, əm, ən/ in the key). I recognize this would result in rather misleading notations, i.e. <code>ə|C</code> where /C̩/ is dominant, but that's more or less what we already do by <code>əC</code>, which isn't distinguishable from <code>ə|C</code> except for the most attentive users. Keeping /əl, əm, ən/ in the key also helps clarify this at least for those who bother to click on the notation. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 20:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
:::What I have understood from previous discussions is that we must not mistake our sign pairings used in some of our templates to implicit any phonemic or phonetic analysis. This means that on the surface, using <nowiki>{{|ən|}}</nowiki> means exactly the same as using <nowiki>{{|ə|n|}}</nowiki> (which renders <nowiki>{{|ən|}}</nowiki> pointless, but we keep it for whatever reason). Of course, this is exactly what we find in the practice of our actual articles (as opposed to the prescriptivist POVs often found on this talk page), where some use <nowiki>{{|ən|}}</nowiki>, but others use <nowiki>{{|ə|n|}}</nowiki>. Bottom point: I vote for deprecating all our sign pairings – including the Cj pairings – except for the diphthongs. --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 20:45, 11 April 2018 (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=835962606

Leave a Reply