Content deleted Content added
Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) |
m Reverted 1 edit by 78.170.162.192 (talk) to last revision by Sol505000 |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{For|requests for transcription|Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language}} |
|||
==Purpose== |
|||
{{Talk header|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=3|units=months}} |
|||
This page is meant to be the key for the {{tl|IPAEng}} template (which displays "{{IPAEng|X}}") that is used as a broad pronunciation guide to key words in Wikipedia articles. It is not meant for phonetic detail, dialectical differences, or non-English phonologies. Please keep it as simple and accessible as possible, as many of our readers are not familiar with the IPA. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 19:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|||
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes| |
|||
{{WikiProject Help|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WP Languages|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Linguistics|phonetics=yes}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{reader-facing page}} |
|||
{{oldmfd|date=1 March 2008|result=Keep|votepage=Help:Pronunciation}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 27 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
|algo = old(92d) |
|||
|archive = Help talk:IPA/English/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=/Archive index |
|||
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|||
|indexhere=yes |
|||
}} |
|||
== Double entry == |
|||
As for syllabification, that is not distinctive in English and does not need to be indicated. Showing syllable breaks just sparks edit wars with people who think they should be somewhere else. Problem is, English has ambisyllabic consonants, which cannot be represented by the IPA. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 23:03, 15 October 2007 (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) |
|||
==Problems== |
|||
: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|🙈🙉🙊]] 06:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The obvious problem is that there is no single pronunciation of English. Attempts to create a standard either privilege one dialect over others; create an artificial pronunciation no one speaks; or are a confusing mixture of both. This particular mode picks up some odd bits of phonetic trivia (like the insertion of a schwa before a syllable-final r, which does not occur in many varieties of English) but omits other pan-English phonetic developments, like voiceless stop aspiration - which, of course, cannot be determined by rule without reference to the supposedly "non-distinctive" syllabification. [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] |
|||
:This is a pan-phonemic transcription, and so doesn't suffer from these problems. Aspiration is irrelevant, and the schwas are not relevant to those who don't pronounce them. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
::Then why are you including the one and not the other? Because they happen to occur in ''your'' personal speech variant? [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Actually, I have the aspiration and not the schwas, so it's the exact opposite of my dialect. But aspiration is allophonic, and so has no business in a phonemic description. For example, if we were to write ''tie'' {{IPA|/tʰaɪ/}} and ''die'' {{IPA|/daɪ/}}, how would we write ''sty''? It would have to be either {{IPA|/stʰaɪ/}} or {{IPA|/sdaɪ/}}, because there is no third phonemic stop, and therefore {{IPA|/staɪ/}} is not an option. Since neither of those would be acceptable to our readers or editors, we can't be phonemic and also indicate aspiration. The schwas before ar, on the other hand, are phonemic in most English dialects, including RP, and therefore should be including even if you and I do not have them. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
::::You really don't grasp that the schwas are conditioned variants? Do I need to spell it out for you? [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 12:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I guess you do. Could you explain how ''Sirius'' /ˈsɪriəs/ and ''serious'' /ˈsɪəriəs/ are conditioned variants? They look like minimal pairs to me, and that is how the OED treats them. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Colons for length symbols == |
|||
Not surprisingly, IPA transcriptions of English words used in America, England, and Australia are all different -- and slightly more surprisingly, phoneticians in these countries all use the IPA in slightly different ways, rather de-internationalizing it, and making it very difficult for a person trained in the tradition of one country to read another person's transcriptions correctly. Even more problematically, "traditional" or "standard" transcriptions of sounds may be read in ways that are quite misleading from the point of view of IPA, especially its canonical vowels. A Midwesterner seeing [ ɒ ] in [ stɒp ] may suppose that it is the ''same'' sound he or she uses in pronouncing "stop", though in fact the latter is closer to [ ɑ ], or even [ a ]. |
|||
:Again, these are [phonetic] details not relevant to a /phonemic/ transcription. |
|||
In the 3rd bullet point of the Dialect variation section colons are used in place of length symbols: |
|||
It is likewise "traditional" to transcribe the "long a" and "long o" diphthongs as [ eɪ ] and [ oʊ ]. But in America, England, and Australia alike, the dominant pronunciations have much lower nuclear vowels than [ e ] and [ o ], while the off-glides are closer to [ i ] and [ u ] than [ ɪ ] and [ ʊ ] in most pronunciations, outside of the now vanishingly rare RP. The "traditional transcription" thus enjoins a pronunciation that almost no English speaker actually uses. |
|||
: 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/. |
|||
:Again, irrelevant detail. /oʊ/ is the vowel of ''bone,'' however you pronounce it in your dialect. After all, the only point of this key is to show you how to pronounce a word in your dialect. If you're interested in someone else's dialect, this key is obviously of no use, because of the objections you raise. |
|||
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) |
|||
The scheme shown assumes a rhotic dialect, but the vowels are for the most part chosen from a (typically non-rhotic) British variant of English, strongly influenced by RP. This cannot be back-translated into a non-rhotic dialect without the use of a rule involving deletion of a non-onset r and compensatory lengthening; a task considerably complicated when syllabification is considered irrelevant! |
|||
:Give me an example that is problematic. If you speak a non-rhotic dialect, just drop the ars and keep the length, as in the key words. If you merge some of the vowels, then go ahead and merge them as in the key words. No problem that I can see. If there are problems, that only means we missed some phonemic distinctions. |
|||
:Done. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 22:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I also note the -- to me, quite novel -- use of [ ɨ ] to represent the slightly lower and more centralized variant of [ ɪ ] found in unstressed vowels. The symbol [ ɨ ] canonically represents a quite different-sounding sound, the desired sound being not nearly so high, nor so central -- being, indeed, closer to [ ɪ ] than to any other canonical IPA vowel, though of course not identical; while a fully stressed [ ɪ ] (perhaps only heard in very emphatic speech) is more front than the canonical [ ɪ ]. |
|||
:We're not using [ɨ], we're using /ɨ/ - quite a different thing. We could've picked /♠/, but that would have thrown people for a loop. There is no good symbol in the IPA for this, and /ɨ/ is generally used by phoneticians who wish to keep it distinct from /ə/. This is covered in some of the links at the bottom of the page. |
|||
::Who is "we", anyway? [[User:Kwamikagami]] and who else?[[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 17:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The people who wrote the [[IPA chart for English]] and [[International Phonetic Alphabet for English]], where three reduced vowels, using (for some dialects) the same symbols, are distinguished. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
== Inclusion of /ts/ as a marginal phoneme and removal of /ʔ/ == |
|||
In the end, I am not particularly pleased with the use of IPA to represent some pan-English, not-quite-phonetic, yet not wholly phonemic transcription. I would rather see either: (1) consistent, side-by-side uses of a few common dialects; |
|||
:- that would be quite a mess, and a real editorial problem |
|||
::Not nearly so much of a mess as this one. [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 17:21, 16 October 2007 (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) |
|||
or (2) one dialect, of any type, used consistently, and identified, and accepted as WP standard; |
|||
:- not politically feasible; no matter which dialect we choose, we'd be accused of cultural imperialism |
|||
:/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. |
|||
or (3) an abandonment of IPA altogether in favor of a phonemic scheme that can be translated by the aid of certain rules to an approximation of one of several dialects of English. |
|||
:/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) |
|||
:- you can see that here: [[Help:Pronunciation respelling key]], but what an outcry if you try to use it! I've tried explaining that such a convention might be preferable because the IPA is often misinterpreted as representing specific sounds, but people really get upset with pronunciation respellings. There's no real reason to reject the IPA; as far as I can tell, the distinction of [] and // takes care of your objections. |
|||
::/t/ and /ʃ/ are already phonemes so there’s no need for /tʃ/ as well…? [[User:БудетЛучше|БудетЛучше]] ([[User talk:БудетЛучше|talk]]) 18:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No, it doesn't, because it's based on a gross misunderstanding of the use of those symbols. [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 17:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Because it's a phoneme in English if you ask just about any linguist. See [[English phonology#Obstruents]] for why. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 18:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It requires an understanding of the difference between phonetic and phonemic use of the IPA. The Association itself, in its Handbook, uses <c> as {{IPA|[tʃ]}}, for example - a phonemic transcription does not have to be phonetically accurate, and in general it ''cannot'' be, not if there is any complexity to the system. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
:::{{IPA|/ts/}} behaves more like a consonant cluster, rather than a phoneme. It doesn't appear word-initially, at least not regularly (see e.g. [https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3027]), only word-internally and -finally. Compare this with German {{IPA|/ts/}} which can easily appear in this position, as in ''zu'' {{IPA|/tsuː/}} or ''ziemlich'' {{IPA|/ˈtsiːmlɪç/}}. Native speakers of English constantly mispronounce those as {{IPA|/syː ~ suː/}} and {{IPA|/ˈsiːmlɪk, -x, -ʃ/}}. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:"/ʔ/ is an entirely paralinguistic sound" |
|||
:It's also a common allophone across most dialects of English, particularly for /t/ [[Special:Contributions/167.206.19.130|167.206.19.130]] ([[User talk:167.206.19.130|talk]]) 19:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::That's neither here nor there. We transcribe any allophone of /t/ as /t/ because this key is diaphonemic. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 20:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== IPA overwhelming == |
|||
Of course this should be something that has some precedent of usage, and is not something made up by a WP user yesterday. [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 05:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:This is pretty much standard, and have been in the Talk pages for years. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 06:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::As I pointed out right at the top, this is not a true phonemic scheme but includes all sorts of (dialectical!) phonetic details. |
|||
::::No, they are phonemic distinctions. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
:::It is moreover a wrong and a misguided assumption that all English dialects have the same underlying (phonemic) representations. |
|||
::::It does not assume that; it's a pronunciation key that will enable readers to pronounce words in their dialect by analogy with the key words in the chart. Theoretical conclusions based on that are misplaced. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
:::In fact they do not: almost every dialect will have a ''different'' underlying representation appropriate to its own system. |
|||
::::True, but many English dialects are close enough that this is not a fatal problem. (Trying to include Scots or Indian English might be asking too much, though.) |
|||
:::Phonological analysis is a synchronic form of analysis that simplifies uniform variations within a single spoken language variant; it has nothing to do with diachronic or comparative analyses. Creating a system of pre-dialectal or pan-dialectal representation that can (with a knowledge of the proper rules) be converted into a dialectical pronunciation is something ''entirely different'' from producing a phonemic representation. |
|||
::::Correct. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
:::I have repeatedly noticed a failure on the part of WP editors to understand what a phonemic representation is -- or indeed, what phonology is, which is what, I suppose, produces nonsensical statements like "/oʊ/ is the vowel of ''bone,''". Phonology does not determine underlying forms based on lexicographic fiat, but upon an analysis of sounds actually occurring in the spoken language -- and if [ oʊ ] is ''not an allophone'' that appears in a given spoken variant, then it is never going to appear in the phonemic representation. (And from a pan-dialectal or pre-dialectal point of view, the vowel is probably [ oː] anyway.) |
|||
::::Incorrect. There is no pan-dialectal ''phonetic'' transcription, and the symbols used in a phonemic analysis are irrelevant. True, an "elsewhere" allophone is generally chosen, but that is for the convenience of the reader, not a theoretical requirement. I forget now the phonologist who chose symbols something like /♠/, /♣/, /♥/, /♦/, to represent the four vowels of the Micronesian language he was working on, in order to make precisely that point. What is important here for us is that the symbols be intuitive and accessible to our readers, not that they carry a specific phonetic value. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
:::::Using the word "intuitive" wrt IPA symbols is silly -- people who are not intimately familiar with IPA most frequently complain that it's ''not'' intuitive. There's nothing "intuitive" about either the symbols themselves, or the specific values being used here; what is particularly striking is their lack of connection with the facts of any language. |
|||
::::::Of course the IPA is intuitive. Much more intuitive than, say, using numbers would be; it just takes a little getting used to. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
:::::My point, apparently missed, is that pan-English ''doesn't exist'' -- so there can be no "phonemic" representation of it. |
|||
::::::No, I didn't missed that point, but again it's not relevant. This is not a theoretical description, it's a ''key,'' and a much more helpful one than the often unintelligible mess that's out there. |
|||
:::::And applying ''phonetic'' symbols with a specific value to create glyphs that are never pronounced that way is neither doing phonology nor producing a useful Help scheme. I'd much rather see your card suit symbols than a set of ''phonetic'' representations which are necessarily going to be either misread or misapplied. [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 12:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Again, you seem to have the impression that the IPA can only be used as a phonetic alphabet. I don't know where you get that idea from. |
|||
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) |
|||
:::In any case neither the phonemic representation (of any dialect) nor some pan-English scheme is going to be worth anything without supplying the rules by which that scheme can be converted into something that can actually be pronounced, i.e., a phonetic representation. [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 17:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::That scheme is supplied: the chart gives sample words for each symbol. All you have to do is pronounce the symbol the way you pronounce that word, and you have the correct pronunciation in your dialect, or at least you do if your dialect is RP, GA, Oz, and some others that fit. In other words, this is no different than the pronunciation guide of, say, Webster's 3rd, which is also inter-dialectal, except that it uses the IPA instead of some local in-house convention. Can you give me any examples of where this system breaks down for the national dialects? So far you criticisms have been theoretical, without practical examples, and this is after all a practical situation: a pronunciation key, in Help space, not a theoretical treatise, which we already have in article namespace. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That is exactly ''not'' how the IPA is to be used -- it's not a series of random glyphs, and when people who actually know the IPA read it they are not going to read it in this sense of a ''unique'' (and probably OR) scheme that only exists in the pages of WP -- they are going to read the symbols with the values the symbols actually have. |
|||
::::::So, is the Handbook wrong to use <c> to represent [tʃ]? Or any of the litterally dozens of other cases where for convenience they use an IPA symbol for a value far removed from its defined phonetic value? [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
:::::At which point it becomes apparent that something quite bizarre is being presented -- a "phonemic" transcription of a non-existent dialect of English, cobbled together from a bunch of half-understood pronunciation charts (with no actual phonological analysis having been done).[[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 12:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Am I supposed to be doing OR phonological analysis here? And how is this bizarre to a user of, say, Webster's 3rd, which also uses an inter-dialectal transcription? Your objection seems to be that the IPA shouldn't be used for such things; can you tell us what should? Because the folks around here are not goind to be happy with a pronunciation respelling using anything but the IPA. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] |
|||
::::P.S. You put a flag on the help page stating that the "factual accuracy of this article is disputed". Which facts? This is a convention, a help guide, not a statement of truth. Please give an example. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Okay, you disagree with this approach philosophically, as a matter of personal opinion. You still haven't come up with anything factually wrong about it. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Bottom line=== |
|||
The bottom line is that it is extremely annoying that [[User:Kwamikagami]], though he doesn't seem to understand either the theoretical basis or the ''facts'' behind various transcriptions of English (much less the principles behind the English pronunciation of classical names, but that a whole different can of worms) feels the necessity to go hither and yon around WP imposing his misunderstandings upon hundreds of articles and thousands of pronunciations, creating errors -- often highly ridiculous and grotesque ones -- which may not be discovered and corrected for months or years. Why doesn't he just leave it alone? [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 12:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Again, please give examples of these "grotesque" errors. You need to back up your claims. As for the principles behind Classical names, I wouldn't be at all surprised that I don't understand vowels that don't exist in my dialect, but that's a side issue to this page. I don't leave it alone because there are contradictory standards of the IPA used here in Wikipedia, so that often the result is ambiguous. We need some standard so that ''e.g.'' we know which sound /e/ is supposed to represent. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The pronunciation key presented here, looks to me like an excellent approach to establishing a broad phonemic transcription of English, making balanced compromise choices, not too far from most dialects and sticking to broad interpretation guidelines of the IPA. It is customary in phonemic transcriptions to select conventional symbols from the phonetic symbol tables, that are somewhere near the real sound in the continuous phone space, without using the more unusual or heavily marked up symbols. For example, most applications of IPA to English use /r/ (a trill), whereas the sound this symbol transcribes is rarely realised that way. I am convinced that anyone pronouncing these transcriptions with exact phonetic values would be instantly onderstood. −[[User:Woodstone|Woodstone]] 20:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Just came across [[Help:Pronunciation]], where it says "The goal is that phonemic interpretations should not differ depending on the reader's regional dialect." That means Wikipedia editors have already decided to follow the approach that RandomCritic rejects. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 00:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: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 <span style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]]) 18:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Martian pronunciations== |
|||
Among the absurd pronunciations, used by nobody in the world, that [[User:Kwamikagami]] has come up with are: |
|||
== Text on secondary stress == |
|||
* {{IPA|juːˈpɔərɨi}} |
|||
* {{IPA|ɔrˈθɒsɨi}} |
|||
* {{IPA|ˈkɔəri}} |
|||
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) |
|||
These are ridiculous, and show that the user hasn't the slightest idea of what he is doing -- yet bulls ahead anyway. I daresay there are more such out there waiting to be discovered. [[User:RandomCritic|RandomCritic]] 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Rather than trying to stir up conflict, why don't you contribute something, such as saying (a) what is wrong, and (b) what would be better? Not a difficult thing to do. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 23:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Decided to [[WP:BOLD|BE BOLD]]. [[User:Wolfdog|Wolfdog]] ([[User talk:Wolfdog|talk]]) 13:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Phonetic vs. phonemic == |
|||
== Anki == |
|||
Several editors object to using phonemic transcriptions for English words, or non-regional transcriptions, or perhaps both. However, this doesn't have to be an either-or choice. For place and personal names, there's the internationally recognized form, and often a differing local form. With Toronto, for example, a non-regional transcription would be something like {{IPAEng|təˈrɒntoʊ}}, and the local pronunciation pronunciation could be transcribed something like {{IPA2|ˈtʰɹʷɑnə}}, assessing a different subset of the IPA chart. That is what is suggested at [[Help:Pronunciation]]. Before we get into any more edit wars, let's discuss if this is how we want to go with Wikipedia. The alternative, as I see it, is to list London, Sydney, New York, Atlanta, Dublin, Johannesburg, Aukland, or Los Angeles as well as Toronto pronunciations of "Toronto", all phonetic, in an attempt to avoid theoretical complications. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 23:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
We currently show the pronounciation of [[Anki (software)|Anki]] as /ˈɒŋkiː/, which seems surprising to me. I am aware that /ɒ/ for the spelling ⟨an⟩ is not unheard of, especially in French loanwords with /ɑ̃/ in the original, but is Anki really pronounced like that? |
|||
*'''Support''': as Kwami suggests, it seems to make sense that for names and words which have a commonly-used and internationally-recognized pronunciation, that pronunciation should be transcribed using IPA. However, if there are common local pronunciations, those may be added as well. For instance, the way "[[Beijing]]" is pronounced in English is not the same as how it is said in Mandarin. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 00:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/187.245.68.84|187.245.68.84]] ([[User talk:187.245.68.84|talk]]) 00:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I expect /æ/ or /ɑː/ (especially from British and American speakers, respectively), but it's unsourced anyway. It should be sourced to an ad or a developer saying it. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 06:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
If I understand correctly, the opposing side feels that we shouldn't create abstract pronunciations that don't exist in the real world. At least one person objects to any phonemic transcription because he rejects the concept of the phoneme alltogether. Here's an simple example: |
|||
:{{IPA|/ˈɑːŋki/}} is all I've ever heard in US English, so that's what was meant, most likely. I've corrected the IPA, changing {{IPA|/iː/}} to {{IPA|/i/}} because the nasal is always velar (so the vowel is weak, phonemically {{IPA|/ɪ/}} according to Cruttenden, or {{IPA|/ɨ/}} according to some others). [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 15:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Youglish indicates that /ˈæŋki/ is the norm in BrE, which fits for the general pattern of nativisation of <a> in recent loanwords in BrE vs. AmE. [[User:Offa29|Offa29]] ([[User talk:Offa29|talk]]) 15:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[Collet]] is, per the OED (RP), /ˈkɒlɪt/, and per W3 (GA) /ˈkɑlɨt/. Now, do we really want multiple transcriptions for a simple word like ''collet''? (Aussie might be the same as RP for this word, but it won't be for others, meaning yet a third national standard. And then there's SA, Ireland, and other countries. Currently we only list GA, which some RP speakers might rightfully object too.) We can combine the two, per the chart on this page, for */ˈkɒlɨt/. (Asterisk for a constructed form.) Now, RP speakers know (or will know, once they check the chart) that for them there is no difference between /ɨ/ and /ɪ/, while GA speakers know (or will soon realize) that for them there is no difference between /ɒ/ and /ɑ/. Thus speakers of either standard can read the transcription correctly according to their dialect. This is precisely the tack that W3 takes for various US dialects, though of course they use their own in-house symbols, which most Wikipedians fiercely reject. (Believe me, I've tried that too. And this isn't OR, because W3 symbols when read broadly are exactly equivalent to our */ˈkɒlɨt/) |
|||
If we go further, and reject a phonemic approach entirely, then the number of transcriptions multiplies, if only because GA isn't very well standardized, and the single transcription [ˈkʰɑˑlɨt] will not be sufficient for the entire country. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 01:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I speak as someone who has not studied phonetics and whose acquaintance with the IPA is from the pronunciation key of the ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]''. I'm not sure what you mean by W3 (GA), but I believe what most ordinary readers want is simply to have some reasonable manner to know how to pronounce unfamiliar terms. If that is what taking a phonemic rather than a phonetic approach, then I am all for it. Isn't that the approach that major dictionaries and encyclopedias take? |
|||
:I would suggest that a distinction be drawn between "ordinary" English words (such as ''collet'') on the one hand, and non-English terms which have not been fully assimilated into English and foreign terms (such as personal and place names) on the other. Perhaps a phonemic approach can be taken for the former and a phonetic one for the latter. What I mean is that for the latter category, the way the term is pronounced in its native language should be set out, and if there is a different but commonly-used way in which it is pronounced in English that should be given too. Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|Jacklee]] 02:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
W3 is ''Webster's Third International Dictionary,'' and GA is "general American" (newscaster standard). |
|||
Another approach to this which I forgot to mention, and which TI has switched to and I reverted pending discussion here, is to use parentheses for sounds which differ between dialects. So, for example, our /ɔər/, which could be read [ɔr] or [ɔə] or [ɔər], depending on dialect, would become /ɔ(ə)(r)/. Personally I find it more difficult to read, and I suspect it will cause just as much confusion among our readers. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] 03:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:29, 23 June 2024
 | This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
- 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)
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)
- Done. Nardog (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- /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)
- /t/ and /ʃ/ are already phonemes so there’s no need for /tʃ/ as well…? БудетЛучше (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Because it's a phoneme in English if you ask just about any linguist. See English phonology#Obstruents for why. Nardog (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- /ts/ behaves more like a consonant cluster, rather than a phoneme. It doesn't appear word-initially, at least not regularly (see e.g. [1]), only word-internally and -finally. Compare this with German /ts/ which can easily appear in this position, as in zu /tsuː/ or ziemlich /ˈtsiːmlɪç/. Native speakers of English constantly mispronounce those as /syː ~ suː/ and /ˈsiːmlɪk, -x, -ʃ/. Sol505000 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- /t/ and /ʃ/ are already phonemes so there’s no need for /tʃ/ as well…? БудетЛучше (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- "/ʔ/ is an entirely paralinguistic sound"
- It's also a common allophone across most dialects of English, particularly for /t/ 167.206.19.130 (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's neither here nor there. We transcribe any allophone of /t/ as /t/ because this key is diaphonemic. Nardog (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- Decided to BE BOLD. Wolfdog (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Anki
We currently show the pronounciation of Anki as /ˈɒŋkiː/, which seems surprising to me. I am aware that /ɒ/ for the spelling ⟨an⟩ is not unheard of, especially in French loanwords with /ɑ̃/ in the original, but is Anki really pronounced like that? 187.245.68.84 (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I expect /æ/ or /ɑː/ (especially from British and American speakers, respectively), but it's unsourced anyway. It should be sourced to an ad or a developer saying it. Nardog (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- /ˈɑːŋki/ is all I've ever heard in US English, so that's what was meant, most likely. I've corrected the IPA, changing /iː/ to /i/ because the nasal is always velar (so the vowel is weak, phonemically /ɪ/ according to Cruttenden, or /ɨ/ according to some others). Sol505000 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Youglish indicates that /ˈæŋki/ is the norm in BrE, which fits for the general pattern of nativisation of <a> in recent loanwords in BrE vs. AmE. Offa29 (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)