Wikipedia Help NA‑class

This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles NA This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives

October 2007 to March 2008 April 2008 April to December 2008 January to February 2009 March to May 2009 June 2009 to July 2009 August to September 2009 October 2009 to April 2010 February to March 2010 April to May 2010 June 2010 to March 2011 /Archive 10 /Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The article says that boor, moor, and tourist have the same (first) vowel. While it lists boar and more as having a different vowel. To me boar and boor are alternate spellings for the same word, and moor and more are homophones. In case this has been discussed before, I'm commenting on it here. Imc (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read footnote 15? Angr (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different dialects of English differ so much that it frequently amazes me that (for the most part) they are all mutually intelligible. In my dialect, the words that you provided are pronounced [buːɹʷˤ], [muːɹʷˤ], [tʰuːɹʷˤɪst], [ˈboɚ], and [boɹʷˤ] (the distinction between boar and bore is very slight but observed thoroughly). Wikipedia's pronunciation does not revolve around any dialect (nor does its spelling; proposals to enforce one variety of spelling have been repeatedly rejected). Interchangeable|talk to me 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the aspirated consonants (e.g. /pʰ/, /tʰ/, and /kʰ/) not listed on the article as separate consonants as they are on the article Wikipedia:IPA for Icelandic? Since aspiration is nearly universal to these phonemes across English dialects, why not list them (and perhaps add a footnote stating the dialects that don't use them, if complaints arise). Dialects of English that do use these aspirated consonants include all the major ones of the world (specifically Australian English, Canadian English, General American, Irish English, Received Pronunciation, New Zealand English, Scottish English, South African English, and Welsh English), so the minority would be those dialects which don't. Since this article even includes as a phoneme "ŋg", why not a much more common phenomenon: aspirated consonants? Wolfdog (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is traditional to transcribe them /p t k/. There is no benefit to adding the diacritic, and it would be counter-intuitive to most of our readers. /ŋɡ/ is a sequence; it's given so that the reader understands the distinction between it and /ŋ/. — kwami (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must tradition always prevail? Interchangeable|talk to me 15:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but in this case the tradition is not without good cause. The phonemes /p/, /t/, /k/, /tʃ/ are aspirated only word-initially and before a stressed syllable (not preceded by /s/). Elsewhere they are unaspirated, possibly glottalized, or in the case of /t/, even flapped. Arguing for this nondistinctive feature (as aspiration is not itself distinctive in English, as it is in Icelandic) is tantamount to arguing for a much more narrow transcription generally.

An unrelated question: does anyone know why Wikipedia's IPA templates suddenly underline the transcription? This never happened until a few days ago, and I find it quite off-putting, but I can't track down the relevant edit in the nested templates. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any underlining. — kwami (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ˈzɪzɨvə witnessed recent IPA-en to IPAc-en replacements. (IPAc-en should display a dotted underline which provides a hint to the phoneme help available on mouseover.) – RVJ (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't that. I suspect it was some setting with my browser in combination with a minor change Wikipedia-wide. When I checked my WP settings, the "underline links" option had gotten set to 'always'. Switched it to 'browser default', which doesn't underline any links, except on mouseover, and never the IPA ones. Oh well, good enough for me. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a glaring mistake that this article has no References, or am I missing something? The only reference it needs is the most current Journal of the International Phonetic Association, which can be found here: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=IPA. Lee (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article (it's in Wikipedia: namespace), so it doesn't need references. Angr (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If various editors keep sticking in incorrect pronunciations (at Vermont, for example) how can I provide a citation to a reliable source, when the dictionaries I have access to do not use IPA? Jc3s5h (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dictionary.com uses IPA. I believe there is also a poorly-touted guide somewhere around here that compares the conventions of various dictionaries with the IPA system used at Wikipedia. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 04:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED uses IPA and has an entry for Vermont. I corrected the article. — kwami (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note 7 says: "Note that many speakers distinguish monosyllabic triphthongs with R and disyllabic realizations: ... hire /ˈhaɪər/ from higher /ˈhaɪ.ər/, ... mare /ˈmɛər/ from mayor /ˈmeɪ.ər/."

I myself am one of these speakers, but in spite of the spelling, mayor is pronounced in one syllable, the same as mare. I think layer would be a better example. Or is this a case (similar to, for example, waistcoat) of a word whose traditional pronunciation has given way to one more in accordance with the spelling and I'm the odd one out for continuing to pronounce it the older way? Does anyone know? 2.25.121.54 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard layer pronounced with one syllable too; let's try player. ― A. di M.​  20:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IPA template translates /nj/ 'n' in 'new' . In many (most?) NA regions, /nj/ is not 'n' in 'new' and leads to confusion, especially with proper names. Most NA regions pronounce "new" as /nuː/ (North East is an exception, but even then few people say "Ny-oo York" as opposed to "N-oo York"). Can we please change the template to a more agreed upon word to represent /nj/, such as "onion"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrowolf (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the explanatory guide says, we're trying to encode for multiple dialects. If your dialect is one that has dropped this j after alveolar consonants, you can ignore it when you read our transcriptions. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your answer. Are you saying "Yes, go ahead and change it to "onion" as opposed to "new?" I realize people can drop the j the dialect applies, but my point is the example is not accurate for all dialects and there are alternatives that ARE accurate for all (or at least most) English dialects, and thus that/those should be used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrowolf (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand where you want to make this change. On this page, the only place /nj/ is mentioned is specifically in the discussion of the fact that some dialects have /nuː/ where others have /njuː/. It would make no sense to change it to onion there. Angr (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's a little confusing to Nitrowolf because there are still instances of /nj/ in yod-dropping dialects (onion being an example). Our explanatory guide covers this, but the template he's talking about just uses new as an example. Is there a way we can make this clearer? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. The template (Template:H:IPA) was the only thing I was talking about - just changing the example to something that is more universal - not changing the guide. Which, incidentally, I'm not sure specifically what is being referenced when you say the explanatory guide. Do you mean the heading "Understanding the key" on the IPA page? Nitrowolf (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, in this transcription scheme /nj/ is used diaphonemically to mean ‘whatever you pronounce new like’ (e.g. /njuːˈtriːnoʊ/ for neutrino); if the tooltip said “ni in onion” it would be inaccurate for speakers from North America, as they don't pronounce the beginning of neutrino the same as the middle of onion. (BTW, I've just noticed that IPAc-en doesn't support /u/ for sinew or influenza; would it be useful?) ― A. di M.​  17:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who distinguishes that from /u:/, and how would we know which was which? — kwami (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some old-fashioned accents pronounce it the same as /ʊ/ rather than /uː/ (it's the analogous of the lack of happy tensing). The LPD uses /u/ for it[1] and some American dictionaries use the convention of marking (primary or secondary) stress on all syllables with unreduced vowels regardless of lexical stress, hence in those dictionaries /uː/ without any stress marker means inTO rather than GOOSE. ― A. di M.​  17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishes what from /u:/? For me, sinew works for me as well, as the "new" in sinew is /nj/ to me. Is there another pronunciation? I've not heard one, other than /sin'nju/. I'm not sure what the tool tip of ni would have to do with it, as the /ni/ in onion is RP /nj/, and thus as you say unsuitable... whereas, to my knowledge, the /ni/ in onion RP as /nj/ is nearly universal across all dialects? I'm not saying this is true, but it is to the best of my knowledge. I am absolutely open to another example word for /nj/ than 'onion', but 'new' is definitely not a good example under any circumstance. Nitrowolf (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. di M., I think this has come up before, but it was decided that the functional load of /u/ was so low, and the chance of spurious /u/ so high, that it wasn't worth it. It might be time for a rethink, though, if you find it useful.

Nitrowolf, I suspect that any word will meet with the same objection that new does. Can you think of a word that has [nj] in RP, [n] in GA, and would not cause a problem? — kwami (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does "onion" not qualify? Nitrowolf (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it has /nj/ in both RP and GenAm. Angr (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I don't understand - why do we want a word that is /nj/ in RP and /n/ in GA if we are giving an example of /nj/? Wouldn't we want a word that is /nj/ in both RP and GA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrowolf (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why Moral and Forage are used as examples for /ɒr/? Do I misunderstand the pronunciation of /ɒr/ or does it not sound like "awr?" While I certainly often hear people say "Mawral" and "Fawrage," I also hear people say "Moral" and "Forage," as in /moʊral/. I think a more universal example word (or words) would be appropriate, since the split between "moral" and "mawral" seems about even. I would suggest an example for /ɒr/ be "swarm" or something else. Or am I just misunderstanding the key for /ɒr/?

For /ʌr/, the "borough" example is also a fairly even split between "bʌroʊ" and "boʊroʊ", and thus unsuitable as an example. I would suggest removing "borough" outright or replacing it with something such as "urn". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrowolf (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words you gave do not have those sounds, though it may not make any difference in your dialect (as in mine). Neither occur before an /r/ at the end of a syllable. Hurry, for example, has /ʌr/, but it's impossible in a word like urn. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with Hurry being an example... but I don't think borough is a good example. Perhaps it should just be removed?

What sound is /ɒr/ then, if not the ar in "swarm?" For me, Moral and Forage are both /oʊr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrowolf (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

/ɒr/ is the sound of, well, moral and forage. It may be that it's the same sound as the /ɔr/ of "swarm" in your accent, but it's different in other people's accents. For example, for some people foreign rhymes with snorin’, but for other people they're different, and this key shows different symbols for the sake of people who pronounce them differently. People who pronounce them the same just have to remember that /ɒr/ and /ɔr/ (and, for that matter /ɔər/) stand for the same sound in their accent. Angr (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how to account for or in "oral" being /ɔər/ or /oʊr/ and not /ɒr/ or /ɒʊr/, since they are the same sound in the key? Websters seems to agree that moral, forage (and foreign) are /ɔər/ as primary and /ɒr/ being a secondary pronunciation. The examples are fine so long as the key is consistent, but it's not, which is where the problem is IMO. I don't think moral and forage are good examples of /ɒr/, since pronunciation is fairly evenly split between the two. Nitrowolf (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]