Help talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Southeastern Brazilian 'Ni' and 'Li'[edit]

I think /ɲi/ and /ʎi/ is more appropriated. I notice a difference with Southern, Northeastern and European /ni/ and /li/. I was not thinking of making a separate page here to comment on that, but when I tried to change the pronunciation of a city's name in RJ, someone undid my edition. Lguipontes (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source for it?--Luizdl (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, my English was bad and I was falling asleep... So, my source isn't based on any academic work, but I know the accent of that city, I know most Southeastern Brazilian 'macro-dialect' (huh, I decided to name it that way, although most of Midwest have more close dialect to Rio than Marília, for example, is to make easier), I know what is /ɲi/ and /ʎi/ in IPA and I wanted to know if you in the project that are responsible for this article got it as valid. No, I'm not saying "Source? What source?", I know the rules of Wikipedia. And English by me (I can read fine) really sucks... Lguipontes (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not the responsible for this page, the Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where anyone can edit, this page was based on the article Portuguese phonology, and it was created to be a standard for the IPA pronunciation in the Wikipedia articles. But according to the Wikipedia rules, the original research is not allowed, any dubious content must be sourced (in any language), what you are saying is completely undocumented.--Luizdl (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
In time, at forvo I found a pronunciation of a woman from Rio de Janeiro, the city of the dialect that you claim the /ni/ is pronounced [ɲi]. She pronounces the word ninhada as [niɲadɐ], with a clear difference between the initial 'n' and the digraph 'nh', it seems to me you're confused due the lack of contrast between /ni/ and /ɲi/ or the few amount of words containing /ʎi/ in your native language.--Luizdl (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
To me it seems [ɲĩȷ̃adɐ] or [nʲĩȷ̃adɐ] in my dialect. Yeah, nh here seems ȷ̃ , see Portuguese phonology Lguipontes (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I know the /ɲ/ is commonly lenited, it is said at Portuguese phonology#Consonants, although I don't think the /ɲ/ in this sample is being lenited, we're not talking about lenition of /ɲ/, but about the pronunciation of /n/ before front vowels, the /ni/ in the audio sample has an alveolar articulation while the /ɲ/ in the same sample is palatal, and you still not presented any source saying that /n/ before front vowel is a dorso-palatal nasal.--Luizdl (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not lenition. The appropriate phoneme corresponding to the 'nh' digraph, in Brazil, is /ȷ̃/. See Portuguese phonology *and* its source. Another way to see that is to realise that even when speaking carefully 'nh' is *never* realized as /ɲ/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesir.le (talkcontribs) 03:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Your "sources" are Wikipedia articles, and they're not primary sources, I verified the source used in Portuguese phonology that says: "In most of Brazil and Angola, the consonant hereafter denoted as /ɲ/ may be realized as a nasal palatal approximant [j̃]", and the verification failed, the cited source, available at Google Book, page 8, says the following:

1. At the beginning of a word, like Spanish ñ, similar to ny in canyon. Nhame, nhoque. Some regions of Brazil do not use this sound initially, replacing it with consonantal i. Iame, ioque.

2. Between vowels, like nasalised y. Manhã, cunha. The vowel which precedes it is also nasalized.

That means it is lenited--Luizdl (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


I linked {{IPA-gl}} for Galician here. We're only missing a few sounds: θ, r, plus allophones (if we wish to include them) of g and ʎ. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I can help to include Galician here, though it could be controversial to consider Portuguese and Galician a single language, the reason is Galician language Institute as some political parties consider contemporanean Galician a separated language from Portuguese.
IMO Galician and Portuguese are the same language, same as Hindi-Urdu, Dutch-Flemish-Afrikaans, or Catalan-Valencian-Balearic.
Dialects can differ greatly, but i am sure Portuguese speaker can communicate with Galician speakers, especially those who speak rural Galician.
Galician and Portuguese differ as much as Andalusian Spanish and Castilian Spanish, or Majorcan and Central Valencian/apitxat.
There are two spellings for Galician:
Nación, xanela, uña, ollo, unha, avó (official Galician spelling -closer to Spanish-)
Naçom, janela, unha, olho, umha/uma, avô/avó (Galician unofficial spelling -Associaçom Galega da Língua- closer to Portuguese/Northern Portuguese. See Reintegracionismo/Movimento lusófono galego (Galician-Portuguese reintegrationism))
Nação, janela, unha, olho, uma, avô/avó (standard European and Brazilian Portuguese)
Galician phonological features:
  • 7 vowels as those from Vulgar Latin.
  • There is no occurrance of nasal vowels, however /n/ can be velarised to [ŋ] in the coda; e.g. nación [naˈθjoŋ]/[naˈsjoŋ] (Galician) nação [nɐˈsɐ̃w̃] (European Portuguese) / [naˈsɐ̃w̃] (Brazilian Portuguese).
  • Iberian lenition (allophones); e.g. nada [ˈnaða] (Galician) and [ˈnaðɐ] (European Portuguese) ([ˈnadɐ] in Brazilian Portuguese).
  • Betacism (it's said also occur in Northern Portugal, especially in rural areas); e.g. vaca [ˈbaka] (Galician), [ˈvakɐ] (European and Brazilian Portuguese).
  • Confusion and readjustment of sibilants akin to the Spanish reajuste de las sibilantes (voiced sibilants merged into voiceless, plus the appearance of /θ/. In Galician <x> /ʃ/ didn't evolve to /x/. And <ch> stayed affricated /tʃ/). So, no occurrence of /z/ and /ʒ/ (However there is [z] allophone as in Spanish, so it can be included, e.g. mesmo [z] in Galician and most Brazilian dialects, [ʒ] in European Portuguese as some Brazilian dialects.
  • Yeísmo, /ʎ/ → /ʝ/ (i'd say mainly in cities as in Spanish); e.g. folla [ˈfoʎa]~[ˈfoʝa] (Galician) folha [ˈfoʎɐ] (Portuguese).
  • Seseo, /θ/ → /s/ due to the insertion of /θ/ (some Galician dialects); e.g. céu [θɛw]~[sɛw] (Galician), [sɛw] (European and Brazilian Portuguese).
  • Galician /l/ never gets velarised or vocalised. e.g. mel [mɛl] (Galician), [mɛɫ] (European Portuguese), [mɛw] (Brazilian Portuguese)
  • Trilled r as in Northern Portuguese; e.g. rato [ˈrato] (Galician), [ˈʁatu] (European and Brazilian Portuguese <ʁ>; [h]~[x]~[χ]~[ɣ]~[ʁ]~[ʀ]~[r]).
  • Own evolved sounds:
    • <nh> /ŋ/; e.g. algunha [alˈguŋa] (Galician) alguma [ɐɫˈgumɐ] (European Portuguese) [awˈgũmɐ] (Brazilian Portuguese).
    • <gh> /ħ/ or /h/ (gheada, dialectal sound) e.g. ghato [ˈħato] (some Galician dialects) and gato [ˈgato] (standard Galician) [ˈgatu] (European and Brazilian Portuguese).
This article should be divided into three standards; European Portuguese, Brazilian Portuguese and Galician with three columns. Is it possible to add a flag for Galician? :)
Jaume87 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about a flag for galician, but we could use Spain.
The dialect/language question isn't really relevant. The relevant question is, does this key adequately cover galician? — kwami (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
See File:Flag of Galicia.svg. —Angr (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I found the Galician flag. Galicia is a nationality they have their own statute, parliament, language, etc., we do not need the flag of spain
I'm trying to make a draft for include Galician consonats at the table similarly to wp:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, but shouldn't it be better to include Galician IPA together the wp:IPA for Spanish? Because according Galician_language#Phonology, it seems to be closer to Spanish phonology and orthography than it is to Portuguese, both do not contrast /ʒ/ and /ʃ/, Galician /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ were merged as well as Spanish merged it into /x/, while Portuguese merged /ʃ/ with /tʃ/ ('x' and 'ch'), what did not happened nor in Galician neither in Spanish; both do not contrast /b/ and /v/, /s/ and /z/; both have phonemic /θ/ and it's represented orthographically by 'ce' and 'ci', which in Portuguese it is /s/ and by 'za', 'zo', and 'zu', which in Portuguese it is /z/, both do not contrast oral and nasal vowels, both have [ŋ] sound, although it is phonemic only in Galician; etc.
In my opinion, if we have to include any other IPA representation to this page, we could choose an Uruguayan language studied by many linguist as being Portuguese dialects of Uruguay (such as Michael T. Judd The Fronteiriço Dialect of Uruguay: Origins, Investigations, and Opportunities), Uruguay is a former Spanish, Portuguese and Brazilian colony, and we have an article on Riverense Portuñol, and according to that article, its phonology is much closer to standards Portuguese than Galician is, and they have even nasal diphthongs, what would you think if we include them here and Galician at the Spanish one?--Luizdl (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
As for whether Galician should be here or at IPA-es, I don't know. The mergers are irrelevant, though: the only question is whether this key would allow a reader to make sense of the IPA used to transcribe Galician.
The point of these keys is as a quick guide to the IPA used in articles. Unless transcriptions of Uruguayan Portuguese are used in our articles, there would be absolutely no point in including it here, and if included, it would need to be deleted as irrelevant clutter. It would be appropriate as an article, though. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, i don't know what to say, lol. I prefer Galician to be with Portuguese, they share same roots, although phonology and phonetics are not close any more.
You can compare divergent phonetics in many dialects and languages, see Italian dialects and languages, Hindi-Urdu, Andalusian versus Castilian (dialect with prestige), or Central Catalan which sounds closer to European Portuguese than even Galician :), versus Central Valencian (called apitxat) which sounds as much as Spanish due to a sort of readjustment of sibilants akin to Galician, Spanish and Aragonese.
I don't know that much about Galician history and how does Reintegracionismo plays there, i know currently in Galicia there is a right-wing government, and they would never allow or let people think Galician and Portuguese are the same languages, i don't even know how does the Euro-region of Galicia and Northern Portugal plays there :S. However Galician should be on this article, same as Hindi and Urdu are together despite both having different alphabets; Galician and Portuguese have different spellings :).
Portuguese and Galician share the same source of lexic and development from Old Galician-Portuguese; janela/xanela, luar, lar, ferreiro, milho/millo, prata, etc.
Have a look at the differences between Spanish and Portuguese (btw this article needs updating, if Spanish and Portuguese are close to some point of mutual intellegibility, more by the Portuguese speakers as Portuguese phonetics are far more complex than those from Spanish; Galician is even closer to Portuguese, don't you think?) Jaume87 (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made a draft too, I tried be accurate, although my version may have some inaccuracy and seems to be a little confused, I posted it in the sandbox, if you want to take a look. --Luizdl (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I only had time for a quick look, but it looks fine. We can always modify later if there's a problem.
The only real question would be putting Galician first. Maybe the layout just works better that way, but very few articles connect here for Galician compared to Portuguese. — kwami (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It's very good, but i think Galician <r> should be /r/ (trilled r) instead of European and Brazilian Portuguese convention for /ʁ/ (guttural r).
Portuguese <ʁ> diaphoneme should be better explained on the notes.
Portuguese is the language of the many <r> sounds, it varies from place to place even more than French, German or English <r>. Which Brazilian subdialects may drop final /ɾ/~/ʁ/? i heard about these pronunciations aren't uncommon in regular or informal speech in some areas of Brazil, like amaramá. This could be akin to Catalan or English r dropping (not all dialects).
/ɾ/~/ʁ/ elision can be seen in the Portuguese orthography, in verbal combinations with pronouns; e.g. convidá-lo, vê-la :)
Jaume87 (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)*
I've applied your chart with few changes, do you agree with this sort of links with EP, BP and G?. Still unfinished :) Jaume87 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your changes, about your doubt with rhotic elision on word final, it is very common, at least in Brazil, but some dialects have more tendency of elision than the others, and it is more common with infinitive verbs. With convidá-lo and vê-la, verbs ending in rhotic followed by oblique pronoun becomes /l/, and similarly, verbs ending with nasal vowel followed by pronoun it is inserted an /n/, as in vejam-na (in Brazil it is generally miss conjugated as vejam ela), but when ends in oral vowel followed by pronoun it has hiatus as in vi-o (I saw him), and makes pair with viu (he saw).--Luizdl (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm generally in favour of splitting articles relating to different standards, so I'd like to ask if we're considering doing the same for Galician. I wouldn't mind so much but having three different standards for European and Brazilian Portuguese as well as Galician seems like a bit much to me (we don't do this for any other language after all). Add that Galician is, politically speaking, a different language and that its phonetics are in many respects closer to Spanish, it seems like a split may be in order. AlexanderKaras (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
We actually do it for Dutch and Afrikaans, Bulgarian and Macedonian, Czech and Slovak, Estonian and Finnish, Hindi and Urdu, Swedish and Norwegian, as well as Turkish and Azeri. This is despite phonetic differences between the languages in a few of these. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 20:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I started linking Galician here because otherwise it would be linked to the main IPA key, and I didn't think anyone would bother to create a dedicated key anytime soon, and because the differences from standard Portuguese aren't great. The less important a language is, the less likely it is to get its own key. We even have regional keys, Australian and (soon) NW Pacific Coast NA, because who's gonna bother creating a separate key for Yoolŋu or Kutenai? — kwami (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Galician and Portuguese are definitely more divergent in phonology than Czech and Slovak. I also find the cluttered nature of listing three different keys a problem. But if the consensus is against it, by all means keep them together. - AlexanderKaras (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
When it comes to EP and BP, it looks like this table, rather than merely listing all sounds, is trying to show all differences in pronunciation between the two. This works okay, as long as they're clearly the same language and have the same written standard. But I think that doing this for Galician as well carries it a little far – it adds the complexity of a different written standard and a sound system that differs in many ways (imagine a similar chart for British English, American English, and Scots). Attempting to show correspondences between two languages and have an organized list of symbols isn't easy. It's not so simple to look for a particular symbol and find it in the list – and isn't that the point of the IPA Help keys?
So I support moving Galician off this page and giving it its own key. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 03:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Cape Verdean Creole[edit]

Another lang that links here is Cape Verdean Creole. There are a fair number of articles; not many new phonemes apart from more nasal vowels. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But, would we have 4 representations here, if we represent this Creole here we should pass the Galician to Spanish IPA or make a page only for Galician.--Luizdl (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, it should be clear enough w/o a separate column. — kwami (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I think creoles should be on separate guides.
Guides for creole languages could be called after the main language on which creoles are based:
WP:IPA for Haitian Creole
Mauritian Creole-Rodriguan Creole
Réunion Creole
Seychellois Creole, etc.
Cape Verdean creole-Guinea-Bissau creole, etc. Jaume87 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

[ː] - [.][edit]

Here says [ˈfɾiːu] and [fɾiw], which should be [ˈfɾi.u] and [fɾiw]. I will change examples for fria and friamente for others, as fria would be better to transcribe it as [ˈfɾi.ɐ], same as rua [ˈʁu.ɐ] Jaume87 (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a dialect where 'aperfeiçoe', 'vi-o' and 'abençoo' can be pronounced as diphthong?--Luizdl (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

accuracy for [ɐ][edit]

The link for [ɐ] is inaccurate because phonetically it is closer to a mid vowel, according to sources existent in Portuguese phonology.

Portuguese vowel chart.png

Luizdl (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't be better to remove the links to [ɐ] and [ʁ]? --Luizdl (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Take off the link, then. Is a footnote in order? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 04:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


I think we could change the order; from the most spoken variant to the least spoken variant: first column could be Brazilian Portuguese, second column European Portuguese, and third column Galician. What do you think? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 17:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal either way, but if you want to change it, it's fine with me. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Galician should be removed[edit]

Basically because its phonology has nothing to do with Portuguese and is much closer to Spanish or even Italian than it is to Portuguese. It's simply absurd. It would be like having IPA for Portuguese and German, or something like that. --Belchman (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. Galician is, in a number of ways, intermediate between Spanish and Portuguese. I'm not sure what measure you're using to make the claim that it is closer to Italian than Portuguese, but I'm interested in hearing you make your case. — ɫ̩Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 02:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Whereas Portuguese and Galician have a common origin, currently both languages are very different in all aspects, but especially phonetically, since Portuguese has many sounds that Galician doesn't. Galician's phonology is, currently, almost the same as that of Spanish. That's why I said that, phonetically, Galician currently is, paradoxically, closer to Italian than it is to its linguistic neighbor Portuguese. I'm stating that there is no reason to include Galician here mainly for two reasons: 1.- Galician has a phonology that is too different to be included here. If, for some reason, Galician has to go together with another language, that language should be Spanish - which is the language whose sounds are most similar to those of Galician. And 2.- Galician is a language in its own right and, thus, I don't see why it can't have its own article "IPA for Galician". --Belchman (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of instances where we combine two or more languages into one guide, so that Galician is a separate language isn't a compelling reason in and of itself to have a separate pronunciation guide.
What basis to you use to claim that Galician has "almost the same" phonology as Spanish? There are similarities but, as I said, Galician is intermediate between the two, meaning that it's not closer to Italian than to Portuguese. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 22:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a native speaker of both Galician and Spanish (and, therefore, can understand Portuguese quite well). Check, for example, the vowel sounds of the languages. Galician only adds "open e" and "open o" to the Spanish set, whereas Portuguese has many more, including nasal sounds.
Spanish (the filename says Hebrew, but apparently Hebrew uses the same vowel sounds as Spanish (Basque does too, the 5-vowel system is one of the most common in the world))
You can also compare the consonants. It's interesting to note that some people think that Portuguese is a Romance language that sounds similar to Russian, whereas Galician sounds much more like Spanish. --Belchman (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
According to Galician-Portuguese, the two languages have been and, by a number of people, are still considered the same language. Perhaps we can scour resources on this matter, but I've been under the impression that there is a stronger relationship (perhaps more phylogenic than anything else) between Portuguese and Galician than Galician and Spanish. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 04:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, those who consider it to be the same language exist, but they are a small percentage of the Galician/Portuguese population - those are mostly Galician separatists, and separatism is very weak in Galicia. And on the other hand, the governments of both regions consider them to be different languages, so "officially" they are.
You are right in that "genetically" - used in a linguistic sense - Galician is closer to Portuguese than it is to Spanish. However, the evolution of Galician during the last thousand years was much more on the Castilian "direction", whereas Portuguese took its own way.
I have seen on your userpage that you're American. A similar situation is that of English with the Romance languages and the Germanic languages. English is, "genetically", a Germanic language. However, during the Norman occupation, the Normans tried to replace English with Norman-French. The result is that, currently, English is a Germanic language with an enormous influence of the Romance languages. Galician and Portuguese, much like English and German, share basic vocabulary and grammar (the "core" of the language), but "advanced" vocabulary and, especially in the case of modern Galician and Portuguese, pronunciation, is very different. --Belchman (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If no one objects, I'm reverting to the Portuguese version, instead of the Portuguese/Galician hybrid version. --Belchman (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, maybe you should wait longer than three minutes for others to object. I'm still waiting for you to find some sources to back up your claims before I change my stance. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 13:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I waited for two days... --Belchman (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
And what "sources" do you want me to show? You say that like if this were my opinion, but the fact that Galician's pronunciation is very different from Portuguese and actually closer to Spanish rather than it's genetically-closer neighbor Portuguese is simply obvious to anyone who knows about the topic. If all you know about Galician is that it's like "intermediate between Portuguese and Spanish", I suggest you read about the topic before trying to discuss things with native speakers like me. Sorry if I sounded a little blunt. --Belchman (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I've just discovered that this very strange addition of Galician to this article was done relatively recently by user:Jaume87, who admits being a Catalan separatist, and, thus, is very probably just a POV-pushing attempt. --Belchman (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so you assumed that my silence meant that I agree with you? I suggested you find sources that back up your claims, you didn't, so I didn't respond to your post that just elaborated your point. Now you're suggesting that I "read about the topic before trying to discuss things with native speakers" but I don't know what I should read. Do you have any suggestions?
I don't know what being a Catalan separatist has to do with anything here, but I don't think it matters since you've only brought it up to provide a personal attack on another editor, which is in poor form. I recommend you assume good faith. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 00:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
May I ask how is it that you feel entitled to decide the fate of an article about a topic you clearly know nothing about? I provided information to "back up my claims", since that information is available everywhere and to anyone, but you ignored it. I don't think this is going anywhere unless I teach you lots of things and, unfortunately for you sir, I don't have time to do that for free. If you keep reverting this article, I'll have to talk to an admin to solve this issue. --Belchman (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
See the above discussion. The decision to add Galician here was made by several editors, not just myself. You're calling to change it but are basing this on your own original research as a native speaker. I'm only asking you to point out some sources that back up what you say: Is it really the case that Galician doesn't have nasal vowels? Do linguists more often say Galician is related to Portuguese or to Spanish? If you're too busy to do this, I understand and can wait until you have some free time to find such sources. Until then, I'm not convinced.
If by "reverting this article" you mean undoing your consensus-free changes, I don't think telling on me to an administrator will be of much help, since I'm not actually doing something wrong. You're free to try, though. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 12:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out, it was basically added by a single editor who probably is just an anti-Spanish POV-pusher, not "many editors" - note the difference between "probably is" and "is", you apparently fail to understand that nuance. And now you want me to provide "sources that back up my claim that Galician doesn't have nasal vowels". Is it that hard for you to check the Wikipedia links that I provided above - or the countless images that I've added here - to see that Portuguese has nasal vowels and Galician doesn't? Do you even know the most basic IPA sounds? Do you actually know anything about the language? Seriously, this is not a "discussion", this is me teaching you basic facts about the topic and you refusing to learn anything. You know, you're supposedly helping make an encyclopedia - you can read that encyclopedia too! Maybe that way you'll know something more about Galician barring it being "intermediate" between Portuguese and Spanish. --Belchman (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
If you revert back, I'm calling an administrator. --Belchman (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong in saying these changes was made by "an anti-Spanish POV-pusher", the first to add Galician phonology here was not him, but was an administrator, and although I also think Galician phonology would go better to the Spanish one, I've worked on much of this version of the table.--Luizdl (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some statements I've found on the issue.

Articles and Books:
  • Colina & Díaz-Campos (2006) "The phonetics and phonology of intervocalic velar nasals in Galician" in Lingua vol. 116. pp. 1245-1273
    • "Galician is a Romance language of Northwestern Spain, closely related to Portuguese and spoken by approximately two and a half million people." (p. 1246)
  • Xose (1996) "Illustrations of the IPA:Galician" in JIPA vol. 26
    • "Galician is a Romance language closely related to Portuguese." (p. 119)
    • "Nasalization is not distinctive for vowels, but any vowel can become fully or partially nasalized in contact with a nasal." (p. 120)
  • Azevedo (2005) Portuguese: A Linguistic Introduction
    • Galician contrasts with Portuguese in the absence of nasal vowel phonemes, no /s/-/z/ contrast, no /ʃ/-/ʒ/ contrast, and the absence of vowel reduction, though there are similar variations between dialects of Portuguese, such as the presence of a /tʃ/-/ʃ/ contrast, the preservation of a four-way alveolar fricative contrast, and the addition of /y/ and /æ/ in some dialects. (pp. 185-186)
  • Raposo & Uriagereka (1990) "Long-distance case assignment" in Linguistic Inquiry vol. 21. pp. 505-537
    • For their approach, the authors take Galician "to be a dialect of European Portuguese" (p. 505).
  • Taylor (1990) "A European Loanword of Early Date in Eastern North America" in Anthropological Linguistics vol. 32. pp. 187-210
    • "The spellings ch and tx represent [č] in all Southwest languages except Portuguese and its dialect Galician, where the sound represented is [š]." (p. 202)
  • Baker & Hale (1990) "Relativized Minimality and Pronoun Incorporation" in Linguistic Inquiry vol. 21. pp. 289-287.
    • The authors refer to the variety as "Galician Portugues" (p. 292)
  • Kloss (1967) "'Abstand Languages' and 'Asbau Languages'" in Anthropological Linguistics vol. 9. pp. 29-41
    • The author briefly compares that the structural differences between Portuguese (not Spanish) and Galician as on par with those of Faroese and Icelandic, Danish and Swedish, and Catalan and Occitan (p. 30)
  • Voegelin & Voegelin (1965) "Languages of the World: Indo-European Fascicle One" in '"Anthropological Linguistics vol. 7. pp. 1-294
    • The authors classify Galician as a "Northern Portuguese" dialect. (p. 15)
  • Clayton (1976) "The Redundance of Underlying Morpheme-Structure Condition" in Language vol. 52. pp. 295-313
    • The author talks about a historical process where nasal vowels were denasalized (p. 308)
  • Malkiel (1967) "Linguistics as a Genetic Science" in Language vol. 43. pp. 223-245
    • The author refers in passing to a modern-day "Galician-Portuguese" (p. 232)
  • March's review (1995) of Estudio sociolingüístico da comarca ferrold (1993) in Language in Society vol. 24. pp. 602-604.
    • " closely related to both Spanish and Portuguese" (p. 602)
  • Feldstein's review (1996) of The Dawn of Slavic: An Introduction to Slavic Philology (1995) in Anthropological Linguistics vol. 38. pp. 718-726
    • Galician is "a Romance language transitional between Spanish and Portuguese" (p. 719)
  • Harris's review (1975) of External History of the Romance Languages (1974) in Journal of Linguistics vol. 11. pp. 280-287
    • "Similarly, why are the loss of intervocalic /-n-/ and /-l-/ and the development of a system of nasalized vowels said (I23) to be the MAJOR innovations of Galician and Portuguese?" (p. 284)
  • Gilbert's review (1977) of Soziologie und Politik der Sprachen Europa (1975) in Language vol. 53. pp. 477-479
    • The author of the book under review, Harold Haarmann, refers to Galician as a Kultur-dialect defined as varieties that are associated with a "politically, economically, and militarily powerful neighboring standard language" in this case, Portuguese "with which it shares a strong linguistic affinity... 'the correspondences with another language of the region in the areas of phonetics-phonology, morphosyntax, and lexicon-phraseology outweigh the number of deviations...'" Speakers are also said to "possess an almost total receptive the respective standard languages, but lack the ability actively to employ those languages." (p. 478)
The impression I get from these and other sources I found is that Galician is taken as either a dialect of Portuguese, a very closely related language, or simply another Iberian language. I have not found a source that says or implies that Galician is closer to Spanish than to Portuguese, even in its phonology. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 22:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Give it up. You have no idea what you're talking about, to the point you cannot look for or interpret sources correctly. What puzzles me is the reason that leads you to edit - let alone decide the fate of - an article you know absolutely nothing about. --Belchman (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally disagree with user:Belchman: there is no reason to split Galician from Portuguese. This is just a key for transcriptions, nothing else.
About user:Belchman's remark, do I admit being a Catalan separatist? Where? Isn't this is off the subject? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 21:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, everyone would expect you to "totally" disagree with me, because anti-Spanish separatists like you seem to think demoting Galician as a mere dialect of Portuguese can help you grow stronger against your "common enemy" (Spain). You can keep on dreaming if you want to - but please don't spread your propaganda in a free source. --Belchman (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC) don't have consensus for your proposed change, have actively refused to use evidence to back up your proposal's underlying claims, decline to respond to sources used showing the flaws in your position, and instead would like to impugn other editors' politics and/or competence? I think we're done here. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 20:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
There are just four editors here: a POV-pusher, a complete ignorant about the topic and finally another one who knows about the topic - and who happens to agree with me - but who devoted quite a bit of effort at improving the current table. I guess the only thing we can do here is ignore your opinion and Jaume87's and discuss what can be done with Luizdl. "have actively refused to use evidence" I have tried to teach you about this countless times as can be seen above, even with images, but you are just too thick (or maybe just too ignorant) to understand even the most basic argument. Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens. --Belchman (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
And Administrator's Noticeboard. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 03:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you are gone very far insulting us, these aren't proper manners to discuss anything.
Concerning Galician and Portuguese, there is for sure a dialect continuum between Southern Galicia (mainly rural areas) and Northern Portugal, a euroregion that shares a common culture and origin of the contemporanean Portuguese & Galician language (from Galician-Portuguese). So, people from some Northern Portugal areas (mainly those who don't speak standard EP) may share closer phonetic features with Galician (like betacism, or /b/ & /v/ fluctuation). We should take into consideration Lindley works about dialectology and his proposals (proposta). He divides Continental (European) Portuguese into three major dialects: Galician, Northern Portuguese and Central-Southern Portuguese.
Lexicon is evident to be very close between Galician and Portuguese (much closer than Portuguese and Castilian, or Galician and Castilian), but phonetics also exhibit a sort of continuum between northern Portugal and Galicia.
Traços fonéticos diferenciadores da região Norte (dialectos portugueses setentrionais)
  • a troca do ‹b› pelo ‹v› (betacism)
  • a pronúncia do ‹s› como ‹j› ou ‹x› (apico-alveolar and palatalized /s/ and /z/)
  • a pronúncia do dígrafo ‹ch› [ʃ] como <tch> ou <tx> [tʃ] (maintenance of the Old Galician-Portuguese affricate /tʃ/ for the digraph ‹ch›)
  • a pronúncia do ditongo ‹ou› [ow] ou [aw]
Traços mais característicos das falas galegas
  • a troca do ‹b› pelo ‹v› (betacism)
  • a pronúncia de ‹j› e ‹ge/gi› como ‹x› e de ‹z› como ‹s› (merging of voiced fricatives with the voiceless pairs, akin to reajuste de las sibilantes. This is found in Basque and many Ibero-Romance languages: Castilian, Aragonese, Astur-Leonese (except Mirandese), Galician, and in some few nonstandard Western Catalan subvarieties.
  • a pronúncia do dígrafo ‹ch› [ʃ] como <tch> ou <tx> [tʃ]
  • a pronúncia das vogais átonas é muito variável e, até hoje, muito mal estudadas (Galician dialects, mainly the rural ones, may exhibit a vowel height contrast, which hasn't been studied yet in-depth)
See also Manuel de Paiva Boléo. Dialectologia e história da língua. Isoglossas portuguesas. (1951)
I am wondering myself about as falas fronteiriças, which sort of subdialect is spoken in Valença (Portugal) and Tui (Galicia) or whichever other town in between the Galician—Portuguese border. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Belchman, it is not a poll, it is necessary to find sources that support what you propose instead of insulting others editors, if you keep in saying "I have tried to teach you" or "anti-Spanish separatists like you", you will never get consensus here, the opposite, you just may get banned. By the way, there are sources that say that Galician phonology is converging with Spanish phonology too, for example, Rebecca Posner & John N. Green in Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology: Bilingualism and Linguistic Conflict in Romance pag 152: the early day of the renaissance, written Galician ignored medieval and Portuguese spelling conventions, making use of Castilian orthography, which was familiar to Galician writers. This led to a phonetic bias (adapting Castilian spelling to represent Galician phonemics), which has formed the model for the vast majority of the modern literary tradition.
Galician phonology, which had been converging since the medieval era with Castilian (and diverging from Portuguese; see Álvarez 1991, and Álvarez et al. 1974: 226-227, 239-243), made the resolution of this question easy and economical, by adapting Castilian spelling. For instance, two earlier trends in Galician were finally consolidated: the dephonemicization of /z/, which became an allophone of the phoneme /s/ (Portuguese preserves both phonemes), and of /β/, which became an allophone of /b/ (the approximate Portuguese equivalents are the phonemes /v/ and /b/). Other incipient tendencies in late medieval Galician came to fruition. For instance, the former consonantal phonemes /ts/ and /dz/ merged to /ts/, resulting in modern common Galician /θ/ (whilst modern Portuguese maintain the opposition as /s : z/)...Finally, the denasalization of Galician vowels contributes to differentiate further Galician from Portuguese phonology.--Luizdl (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I found an interesting study about the speeches of the borderlands of Galicia (Tui) and Portugal (Valença).
Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities
The borderlands of Galicia and Portugal
The investigations presented in this paper were carried out [...] in the western fortified border towns of Tui in southern Galicia and Valença in northern Portugal. [...] the Galician and Portuguese communities in question maintain long-standing cross-border alliances. Despite centuries of military and political disagreement between Spain and Portugal, [...], and despite the geographical boundary of the River Minho, [...].
  • Inhabitants of both towns (Tui and Valença) tend to retain the diphthongs [ow] and [ej].
  • The majority in both towns (95% in each) confuse orthographic b and v as /b/, resolving both phonetically as [b] and [β] depending on the context.
  • Nearly all the respondents retain the palatal affricate /tʃ/ word-initially.
  • All the respondents affix paragogic /e/ after infinitives in -ar or nouns in -al.
  • Instances were found in Valença of syllable-final /e/ as [i], not [ə] (meaning [ɨ]), confirming Teyssier's findings (1984: 59-63) for the Portuguese zone bordering the Minho. However, ILGA's assertion (1999) that the southern Galicia resolution is [e] was not confirmed, with 90% of the Tui interviewees employing a final [i] in "xente". Regarding the pronunciation of final-syllable /o/, the general tendency in Tui was to approximate to the [u] allophone of Portuguese, although this was somewhat intermittent. There was also a certain amount of raising of [e] to [i] in prettonic position, [...].
  • For Galician "irmán" and Portuguese "irmão" (brother), both groups under examination use both vowels plus nasal and vowel diphthong form indiscriminately, although where the diphthong is used, it does not tend to be nasalised, hence [aŋ] and [ao]. This contradicts both Fernández Rei's (1990: 28-9, 161) and ILGA's assertions (1990, 1995) that only velar nasal is employed in the south of Galicia. Similarly, Teyssier's claim (1984: 45-6) that in northern Portuguese dialects it is common to find [ow] replacing the standard Portuguese [ɐ̃̃w̃] was not substantiated.
  • In general terms it appears that the respondents from Valença are starting to simplify the sibilant oposition of /s̺/ /z̺/ and /s̻/ /z̻/, to the apicoalveolar /s̺/ and /z̺/ found in Tui and the rest of Galicia.
  • The Galician (and Castilian) voiceless interdental fricative /θ/ and its cognate Portuguese form /s/ are generally retained as such in their respective zones. However, some Tui respondents did demonstrate the cognate Portuguese form /s/ at the beginning of words, e.g. "cera", but this was not consistent and one only respondent ever replaced /θ/ with /s/ intervocallicaly.
  • There were many instances of voicing of the Galician voiceless palatal fricative in Tui in line with the Portuguese form /ʒ/, as in Galician "hoxe", Portuguese "hoje" (today), and Galician "xente", Portuguese "gente" (people).
  • Although syllable-final /s/ is not palatalised in standard Galician, about half of the respondents in Tui offered the Portuguese voiceless palatal fricative /ʃ/ in words such as "este" (this).
  • Finally, alhough the gheada was not found in the Portuguese spoken in Valença, nor was it found in in the Galician of Tui.
These initial findings confirm some long-standing assertions regarding the approximation of certain phonological features in the borderland regions, but there are also contradictions. Importantly, they also establish that the extent and degree of mutual intelligibility of this particular northern Portuguese dialect to speakers of this southern dialect of Galician could be even higher than previously indicated by the perceived linguistic homogeneity of features. For although 90% of the Galicians and 70% of the Portuguese stated that they neither would nor could attempt to speak the other's vernarcular, almost total aural comprenhension is evidenced by the observational data. Some 80% of the respondents in Tui display a high level of understand of northern Portuguese, even though some of the Galicians did admit to struggling at times to differentiate oral and nasal vowels and diphthongs. Some 90% of respondents in Valença demonstrated that they had no problem understanding southern Galician. Around 10% even admitted that in encounters with new acquaintances, it could sometimes be unclear whether they were speaking Galician or Portuguese.
However, native speakers of both varieties maintain what they employ their own dialectal variety for all their cross-border communications and make no concessions to the fact that their interlocutor is a non-native speaker of the said dialectal variety, indicating that as far as contextual functions are concerned, the respondents themselves believe that there is little to no mixing of, or switching between, codes. So native speaker's perception appears to decree that a bilingual conversation ensues, and because of the high degree of mutual intelligibility, there is no need for either community to attempt to employ each other's variety.
Yet, the observational data indicates that to an extent, levelling of phonological oppositions has been and is still occurring. So from a purely linguistic perspective, there may be some form of transitional accent variety emerging between that of southern Galician and northern Portuguese. What remains to be decided is whether such a reduction in intersystemic variation arises as a result of convergence phenomena. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 17:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


Isn't also Portuguese Portuguese supposed to be with [ʃ] and not [ʧ]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the [tʃ] pronunciation is for Galician. Is that not clear? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 15:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is actually! My mistake! I thought the first column was Portugal! Now everything makes much more sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nasal glides: [ɐ̃w̃] v. [ɐ̃w][edit]

I think we should come to a consensus on how to represent nasal diphthongs. Should the glide element carry the nasal mark ‹w̃, j̃› as well, or let the nasal vowel alone indicate it? Currently there is some variation.

Personally, I prefer the unmarked glides (for mainly aesthetic reasons): ‹j̃› is ugly, marking both nucleus and glide is redundant, and the extra diacritics everywhere make things look more imposing.

Thoughts? — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered previous discussion of this topic in the archive. I would still like to propose making a standard policy explicit in the key. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought this was settled: no nasalization marks over the glides. That's the consensus in the archive, and the examples on the page follow that too, in that the examples for /j/ and /w/ include cases where they're nasalized. If you find ‹w̃, j̃› in use in an article, just remove it. —Angr (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the explanatory note not clear about it? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 16:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Not really, because the explanatory note does put the tilde over the j and w. —Angr (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
So is the consensus that the entire diphthong truly isn't nasalized in Portuguese or that it truly is, but we're not going to transcibe it that way because it looks ugly? I looked in the archive, but I'm still not clear on this. (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's all nasalized but we're not marking the semivowels for aesthetic reasons. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 07:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, okay then. (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


It seems from this Youtube clip that the woman is pronouncing Alexandre Herchcovitch's name with an [h]. Is there a wider phenomenon of Portuguese speakers being able to pronounce [h] in loanwords and foreign names? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 14:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

They're speaking Brazilian Portuguese, right? Then it should be no problem at all - they just pronounce it as if it had initial ‹r›. In Bye Bye Brasil the traveling sideshow called itself Caravana Rolidei, with the second word being the English word "holiday". (At the very end of the film they change the spelling to Rolidey because "a gringo told us we had spelled it wrong - we were so ignorant!") —Angr (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Brazilians tend to pronounced ‹h› [h] in loanwords, but not in EP (at least in Portugal). For example, Honda is pronounced [ˈõdɐ] in Portugal, and [ˈhõdɐ] in Brazil. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 22:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Should we put [h] as a marginal consonant, then? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 22:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, with a similar note to that of Catalan & Castilian. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 23:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
But do we really want to consider /h/ a marginal phoneme of BP separate from /ʁ/? Isn't it just that Honda is phonemicized /ʁõdɐ/ in BP? —Angr (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You are right, but I think we shouldn't represent ‹h› with the rhotic phoneme. IMO, it'd be better to just add a note saying something like:
"Other than in loanwords and foreign names (e.g. hardware, Herchcovitch, Honda), the letter ‹h› [h] is always silent. Nonetheless, in European Portuguese ‹h› is silent in all instances (hardware /ɐɾd(ɨ)ˈwɛɾ/).
What do you think? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 14:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This page isn't for getting from Portuguese spelling to pronunciation; it's for explaining how we use IPA to represent Portuguese words at English Wikipedia. We would need a cell for the sound [h], not the letter ‹h›, and call it a marginal phoneme. But I think the case for calling it a marginal phoneme is weak if /h/ never contrasts with /ʁ/. Does Portuguese have a word ronda? If so, would any Brazilian speaker pronounce ronda and Honda differently? —Angr (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
If we don't include a cell for [h], what do we do with the pronunciation given at Alexandre Herchcovitch? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Change it to [ʁeʁʃkoˈvitʃ] (and isn't it pronounced [-ˈvitʃi] anyway?). —Angr (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
From the video clip, it doesn't sound like there's a final [i]. Why would there be? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 16:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Because BP is famous for not tolerating very many word-final consonants, which is why PUC is pronounced [ˈpuki]. Anyway, that's beside the point. What do you think of [ʁeʁʃkoˈvitʃ]? —Angr (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to get too off topic here, but I don't know if that applies to a final [tʃ] (or [dʒ]) in BP, for some reason. I think that's mainly (if not exclusively) just with the plosives. It's common to hear words ending in orthographic -de or -te in BP pronounced, at least sometimes, with no vowel at all at the end, but with the affricate still there. To an English speaker, it sounds like they should end in -dge or -ch, respectively. See here (they talk about it at about 6:20 into the lesson), here and [1]. Unfortunately though, I haven't found any academic papers on this phenomenon. (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems fine to me, as long as we mark it as Brazilian, since the European pronounciation would be vowel-initial. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like she says e "and" immediately after saying Herchcovitch, so there's no telling whether she'd put an epenthetic /i/ at the end in isolation. I clicked some of the other videos linked from that page, but I could only find cases of people saying his first name. —Angr (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Native speaker here, she did put an epenthetic /i/ at the end. I think that in normal speech natives are more likely to include a devoiced epenthetic vowel after affricates, but I have no source for this. It comes only from personal experience. (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you try to search the word "racker" on Google Brasil in Portuguese pages, it will return over 9 million results linking to pages which someone mistyped "hacker" in this way, and Google will also suggest "Você quis dizer: hacker" ("did you mean: hacker"), I also don't see any problem if we associate it with the rhotic key, and in Spanish foreign names the /x/, as in Juan, is also associated with /ʁ/ in Brazilian Portuguese.--Luizdl (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC) By the way, on this Youtube video, I listen that woman pronouncing Herchcovitch with an open /ɛ/.--Luizdl (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi Luiz, I removed sword (RP) because I don't think it is a good example for /o/. In RP it sounds a bit towards /ɔ:/ or as a mid vowel, doesn't it? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 02:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's usually transcripted /ɔ:/, but in the trapezium at Received Pronunciation article it is placed just a bit lower than [o], and I listen sword being pronounced [so:d] at howjsay
RP English monophthongs chart.svg
But if you think it is better to remove it anyway, I will not revert you again.--Luizdl (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, it is higher than /ɔ/. We could leave it unchanged, since there isn't any other better example for RP readers. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 03:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I've noted that you've also changed "purse" to "but", isn't stressed <a> preceding nasal vowel consonant a middle vowel, higher than in "but"? wouldn't "purse" be a better example for a stressed /ɐ/?--Luizdl (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, a stressed <a> before nasals sounds closer to "purse", but in unstressed position it sounds closer to but in Brazil or to banana/about in EP, doesn't it? Shouldn't we split stressed <a> before nasals, as in câmera, cama from unstressed <a> as in taça, cama? Or perhaps we could expand the note about /ɐ/, adding English approximants. I was thinking of adding another raw to represent unstressed <e> as [i] in EP, which occurs esp. in hiatus combinations such as meado, oleoso or in the case of the conjunction e. What do you reckon? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 16:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea.--Luizdl (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
but if we split it we will have to run over thousands of articles replacing [ɐ] to [ɜ], perhaps it is better just expand the note, or ask to someone use a bot for do the changes. What's your opinion?--Luizdl (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Either way is good,
perhaps it could be confusing for readers. Shall we just add an extra raw for /ɐ/ in stressed position, rather than using [ə/ɜ̝]? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 20:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On /ɲ/ in Brazilian portuguese[edit]

I am adding a section here because my comment on another section was ignored. It is not acceptable to present /ɲ/ as a standard Brazilian Portuguese phoneme: it does not exist in most variants. I have *never* met a speaker who pronounced the 'nh' digraph as /ɲ/, and this is supported by the cited sources, meaning that if the phoneme does exist, it is likely to be limited to very few dialects. It is instead realized as a /ȷ̃/, and the Brazilian Portuguese IPA should reflect the correct Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation. In fact, most of the pages I have seen in Wikipedia already do: it is this page that is outdated and plain wrong. Again, an "easy-to-see" sort of experiment would be to ask speakers to pronounce "sinhá" and "sim, há". These are almost homophones modulo intonation and prosody considerations. The consonant in question is the exact same.

The aesthetic considerations that led to the exclusion of the tilde to indicate nasalisation of diphthongs do not apply here. This is not a diphthong in the usual sense, and the important distinction is between /ɲ/ and /ȷ̃/, and not, say, between /aȷ̃/ and /ãȷ̃/, where the former might easily be taken as a short hand for the latter. Confusion may and WILL arise, as it is clear to anyone who has been around students learning Brazilian Portuguese as a foreign language. (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

/ɲ/ may not exist in BP, however this IPA symbol is widely used to represent 'nh' in Brazil. Haven't you realised sometimes we use a generic (or consensual) IPA symbol for all variants; which, in fact, does not correspond with current dialectal realisation; e.g. /ʁ/ (pronounced diaphonically as [x], [h], etc. in BP); /ɐ/ and /ɨ/ (pronounced diaphonically as [ə] and [ʊ̜]/[ɯ̽] in EP); English /ʌ/ (pron. [ɐ] in RP and some American English dialects), etc.
IMO, the note I provided is enough to let readers know about the phonetic realisation of /ɲ/ in Brazil. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 22:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The correct variant is used more often, and this article should reflect this. What you said has no basis in fact and it is furthermore unsourced. It would be prudent not to edit war this any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesir.le (talkcontribs) 22:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The only used symbol in any book is /ɲ/, and as source we can used any of the following list Portuguese phonology#Bibliography, we cannot make original researches for get phonetic accuracy, we just use generic symbols which are also used widely, even for English, as Jaume said, we use /ʌ/ to represent the sound pronounced [ɐ] in most English dialects for example, and you should discuss before do these changes.--Luizdl (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The only original research is in using the wrong symbol for the phoneme. You, judging your comment above, do not know the difference between the /ɲ/ and /ȷ̃/, since a) you thought it was lenition and b) you thought the woman in the recording was pronouncing /ɲ/ when she was clearly pronouncing /ȷ̃/. Now, it is okay not to know something, but there is no reason to persist in this mistake. It is called an *International* phonetic alphabet for a reason. Deviations from the standard should be few and far between and done with good reason. Most readers will *not* see this page before interpreting the phonetic transcriptions in the articles, which means that an exception that will cause such an incorrect pronunciation as /ɲ/ is intolerable. This is *not* an allophone, this is the sound used by the VAST majority of native Brazilian Portuguese speakers. Transcribing it as /ɲ/ will cause unnecessary confusion (as the pronunciation will resemble e.g. the Spanish ñ) when it is very easy to simply use the correct IPA symbol for the phoneme. That is why we have a different column for each variant of Portuguese. Sounds *are* different among variants, and this is *clearly* the case here. If you would be kind enough to look at the sources I cited, you would see the difference between this well known scientific fact and original research.Aesir.le (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, it was late and I didn't review that carefully enough. Aesir, they're right: if you want to introduce a new convention, you should get consensus to do so. — kwami (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Whatever, the rest of Wikipedia is mostly right. If they want this article to remain wrong that's their problem and their loss for not wanting to leave their pool of ignorance. Incidentally, by the way, the *consensus* about IPA is to use the *correct* symbols to indicate each phoneme, or we might as well use each language's native alphabet anyway. Whoever wants to remain ignorant may remain so, not my problem.Aesir.le (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles w nasal glides[edit]

These are the articles that have nasal glides. I can convert them w AWB if that's the way we decide to go. Otherwise they need to be supported in the key. — kwami (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Diogo Cão São Carlos John III of Portugal John II of Portugal John V of Portugal Alberto Santos-Dumont John I of Portugal John IV of Portugal João de Barros Tristão da Cunha Maranhão João Pessoa Sebastian of Portugal Rio Grande do Sul Damião de Góis Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, 1st Marquess of Pombal John Manuel, Prince of Portugal Teatro Nacional de São Carlos Grão-Pará Fernão Mendes Pinto Portuguese Football Federation National Union (Portugal) São José dos Campos João Figueiredo João Fernandes Lavrador João Vaz Corte-Real U.D. Leiria Adeste Fideles Francisco Pinto Balsemão Alberto João Jardim Pixinguinha O Estado de S. Paulo Sertão São Pedro (Vila do Porto) João João Fernandes Battle of São Mamede People's Democratic Union (Portugal) Fernão do Pó João da Nova Vila Velha de Ródão Municipality Araucaria angustifolia São Domingos de Rana C.F. União de Coimbra Mensalão scandal João Franco Padrão dos Descobrimentos Infante John, Duke of Valencia de Campos John, Lord of Reguengos de Monsaraz Anderson Varejão Fernão Lopes João do Canto e Castro Cifrão São Bento Palace Castle of São Jorge Algueirão–Mem Martins Rui Jordão Infanta Maria da Assunção of Portugal Infante João, Duke of Beja Galvão Bueno Sérgio Conceição History of Portugal (1578–1777) Cheese bun João Moutinho Nabão River João Pinheiro Chagas Paços de Brandão Vila Carrão, São Paulo São Miguel das Missões Francisco da Veiga Beirão João Tamagnini Barbosa João Ferreira de Almeida Pavilhão Atlântico São Nicolau (Porto) Estádio Olímpico João Havelange São Nicolau (Lisbon) João Ricardo UMM (União Metalo-Mecânica) Mate (beverage) Padrão Hard and soft C São Domingos de Benfica (Lisbon) Luz Station Church of Nossa Senhora da Conceição Velha Church of Santa Engrácia Jaguarão Águas de São Pedro National Salvation Junta Maund Padrão Real João Domingos Bomtempo Monte São João Consolação (district of São Paulo) Gabriel Gonzaga São Gonçalo Channel Cape St. Vincent São Pedro da Torre André Gusmão João Carlos, Prince of Beira Fredson Paixão João Lobo Antunes São Pedro de Penaferrim (Sintra) Paulo Roberto Falcão São João das Lampas São Tomé and Príncipe André Galvão Carrão (district of São Paulo) Nova União (mixed martial arts) Oeiras e São Julião da Barra Santo Estêvão (Alenquer) O Leãozinho Templo de Salomão

Well, in the section #Nasal glides: .5Bɐ̃w̃.5D v. .5Bɐ̃w.5D, Xyzzyva asked a consensus to not mark nasal glides, and Aeusoes and Angr agreed with him, I am neutral.--Luizdl (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Galician nasal mora[edit]

Jaume, I've observed you've split the vowels in oral vowels and nasal vowels, but just now I've observed that you've added an [ŋ] after each vowel in galician, but isn't it a nasal mora? I don't know much of Galician but, doesn't it assimilate to the next consonant articulation place? For example, wouldn't cento be [sento] rather than [seŋto]? --Luizdl (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It assimilates to the place of articulation of a following consonant. I chose a wrong representation for Galician... After all, I am not so familiar with Galician phonetics, I didn't know whether /n/ was velarised in most (or all) instances (esp. in syllable-final position), or just in the coda position.
I blanked the Galician nasal correspondences, as previous representation was odd and misleading.
I've also changed /ɛ/ and /ɔ/; since user:Susomoinhos, who is a native Galician speaker, said Vénus is pronounced with an open-mid vowel. So, I'd presume prémio, cómodo, bónus, etc. are all pronounced with the same height, aren't they? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I think so.--Luizdl (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Galician phonology[edit]

Er, I'm a little upset, right now, after _Jaume87_ had deleted my last _sourced_ additions with no previous talk (a little rude, in any case). So:

  • On nasal vowels in Galician: Xosé Ramón Freixeiro Mato (2006) "Gramatica da Lingua Galega" (ISBN:978-84-8341-060-5) wrote (p. 71) "con carácter xeral todos os fonemas vocálicos poden resultar lixeiramente nasalizados sempre que se acharen en contacto con consoante nasal, sen perderen os demais trazos; tal nasalización adquire a suficiente relevancia como para ser representada foneticamente no seguintes casos: 1. Sempre que a vogal for trabada por consoante nasal: ['ãntes] (etc...)
  • On velar l (p. 179-180): O fonema lateral alveolar sonoro /l/ en posición explosiva realízase sempre como [l] (...) Em posición implosiva pode ter a súa realización condicionada polo fonema seguinte (...) [l-] velarizado perante consoante velar ou mesmo en posición final: [bru'tal-]
  • On final vowels Dicionario de Pronuncia da Lingua Galega (2010): "as vogais postónicas finais presentan unha marcada elevación respecto das tónicas, así coma unha notable centralización. A elevación e a centralización son menos acusadas en posición final de enunciado, onde a duración é Dicionario de pronuncia da lingua galega notablemente maior. Naturalmente, estamos a falar de valores medios, non de que todas as realizacións sexan necesariamente así. Estas vogais, de acordo co Alfabeto Fonético Internacional poden representarse como [ʊ], [ɪ], [ɐ].

It's sourced, with recent (2006, 2010) and very relevant sources, so I'm awaiting for some friendly explanation. I'm a layman here, so maybe I'm behaving stupidly, but deleting sourced additions with no previous talk is _rude_.--Froaringus (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if you got offended by my reversions, but we don't represent these sounds on the key for the following reasons:
  1. Galician nasal vowels are not phonemic
  2. Final unstressed vowels are not phonemic
  3. L is not velarised in Standard Galician
Honestly, I don't think I need to inform every user when I undo their editions, especially if they are wrong. —Jɑυмe (xarrades) 20:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the way we transcribe Galician should be like this key, you added some different vowels to the transcription of Santiago de Compostela, like [ɑ̃]... —Jɑυмe (xarrades) 21:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jaume:

1) "I don't think I need to inform every user when I undo their editions, especially if they are wrong.".- Plainly wrong. If something is correctly sourced, even if it is incorrect, you can expect that someone will get upset if you delete it without a previous warning. It is like pushing someone in the bus. Again, Wikipedia is based on what it is sourced, not in what editors consider as correct/wrong. If something is sourced, but can be proved wrong, then this is the place to talk about it, as we all know. Anyway, my pulse is running faster than it should now... This was not what you searched for, but it was what you got. We all need more empathy.

2) As long as I know, the oppositions b/β, d/ð, g/ɣ are also non phonemic, but the correct phonetic representation of the word is needed to render it correctly. So cova /'kɔba/ 'cave' is really pronounced as ['kɔβɐ] in Galician; producing it as ['kɔbɐ] would sound weird, an can be mistaken by copa 'cup'. Then again, Xosé Ramón Freixeiro Mato in his Grammar (2006), uses all of these allophones to reproduce the sounds of the language. Are, under this circumstances, the nasal symbols superfluous? I don't know. On final vowels, it is the maximum authority on the language, the Real Academia Galega, the institution that is asserting than in standard Galician they are rendered as [ʊ], [ɪ], [ɐ]. Is this info superfluous or partial? Surely not. Anyway, as you probably know we the Galicians were/are usually mocked on speaking by the i and by the u, most notably at the end of words: "yu suy un pubri galleguiñu"... That's why.

3) According to Freixeiro Mato, I don't know if there is another Galician grammar that indicates otherwise, [ɫ] is the _normal_ allophone of /l/ at the end of a word, though he certainly cites a source (1991) considering "en posición final pode darse tamén unha lexeira velarización, que mesmo pode alter-la vocal precedente se esta é /a/. Esta velarización falta en moitos falantes e en xeral é moi imperceptible". But Freixeiro _always_ represent this sound as [ɫ]: útil ['utiɫ], papel [pa'pɛɫ], mol ['mɔɫ] , etc...

4) Certainly I used [ɑ̃] in Santiago de Compostela, as this is one of the normal allophone of /a/. It's my fault, to have edited that before editing here. Again, maybe this info would fit better in _Galician Phonology_, but I'm not sure that it don't correspond here also.

--Froaringus (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my behaviour, I know I was a bit rude and ungrateful.
Yes, you are quite right, we use a phonetic transcription (e.g. Galician/EP lenition, BrP affrication, etc). But, concurrently, we don't include all allophonic & dialectal variants – it is necessary to reach consensus to determine which sounds should be displayed on the table.
About final unstressed vowels: I think I know what you mean, though I really doubt stressed vowels are also raised, as you indicated in *pubri (for pobre) – it sounds weird. BTW, do you know that in Brazilian Portuguese may also occur a similar process (final unstressed /e o/ may be raised to near-close vowels, instead of close/high vowels) but we don't include this? IMO, this is not that different from final unstressed vowels in Galician, I wonder, why should Galician include these rare allophones, is there a special reason? Also, perhaps you noticed that these are not the only sounds we ignore; similarly, we also do without nasal glides, rhotic variations, /ə/, etc.
About dark l: The source you provided (a grammar) is not relevant enough (it doesn't contain proper phonetic data) to prove /l/ is widely velarised by all or most Galician speakers. Moreover, the author remarks this is a "light" and "almost inaudible" velarisation (i.e. the degree of velarisation is lower than that of EP), and other sources, such as the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet/Galician, just mention this sound as part of the assimilatory allophones of /l/, to [lˠ] (or [ɫ]), [lʲ], [l̟] and [l̪] (all of which are ignored in this guide); so, I would say, dark l [ɫ] (in the coda position) does not fit well for standard Galician.
From where do you get a retracted and nasalised /a/ in Santiago? Again, you are right there, this information can more easily be put into Galician phonology. —Jɑυмe (xarrades) 14:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's OK, friend; we all have moments...

On pubri, it's not really relevant. I just was trying to mimic those so funny comedians who find so delightful to laugh at other peoples :P As you say, the tonic vowel would stay there... Anyway, as Galician tonic syllables are not only stressed but also frequently raised, I guess some Spaniards would describe some Galician tonic /o/'s as a Spanish /u/. On the inclusion / exclusion of these final vocalic allophones, I see you all have been working at this a long time and have some agreements, so it's OK for me, but I guess that adding a note indicating that they are the normal rendering in final position is not superfluous.

On Galician [ɫ], in word absolute final position, I don't agree. Freixeiro's 2006 Grammar is currently THE Galician Grammar, in a broad sense. The first volume of it, that which I'm quoting, with 300 pages, subtitled "Fonética e Fonoloxía", is entirely dedicated to these subjects. So it IS relevant enough, although it is not a fieldwork. Quoting him, but not the examples: "En posición implosiva /l/ pode ter a súa realización condicionada polo fonema seguinte: a) [l̪] dentalizado seguido de consoante dental ou interdental (...) b) [lʲ] palatalizado seguido de consoante palatal (...) c) [ɫ] velarizado perante consoante velar ou mesmo en posición final." And as I asserted before, he represents always final /l/ as [ɫ]: ['mɔɫ], ['mɛɫ], [pa'pɛɫ], etc. So, in fact, as any nasal or any lateral at the coda shows a similar assimilation process, so why not then also at absolute final position, where nasal are all velarized [ŋ]? I can tell that the production [ŋ] or [ɫ] is becoming rarer at the cities, as the language itself, but it is alive and kicking, although not universal, in rural areas (or at least, here in O Barbanza but I'm not a source) where anyway most speakers actually live. You can find this interesting: [2]. And I am even adding another source, whichever its value can be: Phonogal. As they clearly state it, the results they provide are not normative, as they are obtained through computation, but the fact is that they _ALLWAYS_ represent final /l/ with [ɫ].

The "retracted and nasalised /a/ in Santiago" was a double mistake: it would be OK in San ['sɑ̃ŋ] Miguel. Stop. But not in Santiago [sãn̪t]]iago! Don't you hate this when it happens?

Salut, Amic
--Froaringus (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you. I think we could just add a note saying "nasal and lateral consonants only contrast before vowels; before consonants, they assimilate to the consonant's place of articulation", same as in Castilian, Italian, etc. At the moment I don't think we should use [ɫ] for Galician, or at least not until we get further phonetic studies about L-velarisation in Galician (Freixeiro's grammar does not contain scientific proofs about L-velarisation, but a lot of wording without references... How does he prove this?)
We don't indicate "all" Castilian nasal and lateral allophones ([lˠ], [lʲ] [l̪], [l̟], [nʲ], [n̪], [ɱ], [ɴ]...), so, the same goes for the rest of languages. Normally, this is simplified here, i.e. we use [ʎ] for a palatalised /l/ (as in Catalan aljub, Ribagorçan clau), [ɲ] for a palatalised /n/ (Castilian conyugal, conllevar), [ŋ] (Castilian tengo) for a velarised /n/, and [m] for a labialised /n/ (Castilian convite, enfermar). The rest of sounds are not used here. —Jɑυмe (xarrades) 20:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I just added a note... I think additional info should go on a different page. —Jɑυмe (xarrades) 23:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary notes[edit]

I am taking attention to reducing the number of footnotes in some of these IPA for X pages. These pronunciation keys are designed primarily for readers wanting to understand the language-specific IPA transcriptions they encounter in Wikipedia articles. We shouldn't swamp them with irrelevant details. Because this information may still be pertinent to the project, I have duplicated the notes below rather than try to find a place for them. This is irrespective of whether I think these claims are true or whether they are sourced. I will leave it to other editors to move the information to the appropriate article space or check that it already is. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

EP s/z not before vowels[edit]

The pronunciation of those is really closer to [ɕ] or [ʑ], and distinct from the regular [ʃ] [ʒ] fricatives. For historical reasons, there are no pure minimal pairs, but pronouncing s/z as [ʃ] or [ʒ] sounds distinctively foreign (foreigners pronouncing Lisboa do it all the time). The Wikipedia pronunciations for EP are thus all deceiving. There are indeed many speakers for whom there is no distinction, but in their case the forms that won out were the [ɕ] [ʑ] -like ones, not the [ʃ] [ʒ] ones. I don't know of any reference to back this up, it's not something that is very important (other than when finding out why foreigners sound foreign), and there's a long practice of using [ʃ] [ʒ] for transcription, but so there was one of transcribing [ɨ] with schwa (which is actually closer to our [ɐ], which is the one which could be reasonably transcribed with a schwa if parsimony is to be followed). Every single EP speaker will understand this issue if asked pronounce first Lisboa and then *Lijboa, to use a common, recognisable word. A foreigner may compare EP mas on the one hand with english mush and the beginning of EP machado on the other hand, to see the difference. (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. Unfortunately, without sources it would be inappropriate to include that information here or at Portuguese phonology. But if something turns up, we'll be sure to add it. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian Portuguese unstressed vowels[edit]

This was an issue that came from a long edit war over Spanish and Portuguese pronunciation, the use of diacritics and less common vowels for its use in narrow broad transcription.

As I said in my talk page with Aeusoes1 about this issue, the use of mid and near-close vowels is documented (by Barbosa & Albano, also Bisol if I am not wrong), and actually useful in transcriptions because the persons that don't use them don't agree over raising them, or lowering them because of regional variation (mine tends to be mantain or lower mids when it does not interpret pre-stress [e̞] and [o̞] as [i] and [u] as in Portugal in many words, and raise near-close ones, and it sounds close to weird in more southerly variants).

I've already added the mids here in IPA for Portuguese and Galician, but was quite lazy to do so with the [u ~ ʊ] and [i ~ ɪ] variation (as I have very messed up wiki skills), not very significant in final position, but more important for representing dialect variation in pre-stressed position (that is, we can have [u] in Rio and Florianópolis, [o] in São Paulo and Curitiba, [o̞] in AFAIK Porto Alegre, Cuiabá and Vitória, and [ɔ] in Belo Horizonte, the North and the Northeast, for example, or also [ʊ] in a part of Brazil south of a curvy line that crosses it from northwest to southeast and [u] north of it, and finally the earlier distinction, but with fluminense and florianopolitano speakers added to those that often use [o̞]).

I am trying to present a neutral Portuguese transcription. We don't have an officially defined standard dialect anymore (it was Rio de Janeiro's by most of the country's history until quite recently), and to use just a single transcription, such as the relatively RARE [o] that the user that edit-warred with me advocated, with such lengthy differences does not sounds right if we are interpreting it to be pluricentric.

I would not propose it as the mids represented with diacritics seem to work, but Brazil would also be divided in a northwest-southeast line that separated dialects that use [e] and [ʊ] in the south and west, and those that use "[ɛ]" and [u] in the north and east, though it would still not overcome the problem of presenting a consistent broad transcription for Brazilian Portuguese.

Also, I tend to transcript final close vowels in final position as semivowels when the next word start as a vowel because that is the only way they are pronounced. The IP thought it was inappropriate. I don't get a clue on how using [w] and [j] in this environment is a narrow transcription so seriously problematic – this will actually help English speakers as they tend to not have a knowledge on Portuguese phonotactics – and of these, only [w] forms minimal pairs with [u] (or [ʊ] and/or [o], in some dialects), after /k/ and /g/, so that they are almost entirely just allophones of the vowels. A similar approach is used for Spanish. Lguipontes (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, our priority is to have as diaphonemic (or "neutral") a transcription as we can, so our transcriptions are dialect-neutral when they can be (having features of both Brazilian and European varieties) though the possibility of reflecting the affrication of /t d/, as well as the incidences of [ɨ], mean we must choose one from time to time (or even do both when the topic isn't sufficiently Brazilian or European). As it stands, I think the ability to transcribe either [ɫ] or [w] as postvocalic /l/ is also an exception to this, albeit an unnecessary one.
While I recognize that there is regional variation in Brazil, I still don't understand why e.g. [e̞] (as opposed to simply [e]) is necessary. You say it's to reflect a north-south distinction that is important to convey because Brazil no longer has one particular standard form, but is there really not a particular variant of Brazilian Portuguese that is, for example, used in pronunciation dictionaries? In a sense, if we go beyond a Brazilian/European distinction, that would entail a fourth column in our help guide, which really starts to get cumbersome.
Similarly, the [u ~ ʊ] and [i ~ ɪ] variations (which I understood to be a Brazil v. Portugal thing) seem unnecessary to encode. Since it's not contrastive, it even simplifies matters for readers by not requiring them to learn/remember two additional IPA characters.
I can support reflecting the gliding of vowels to [w] or [j] in the context you describe, though we may want to provide a footnote about it. Is it just a Brazilian thing or is it universal? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I've never seen IPA in dictionaries, or at least I don't remember it. Actually, my first experience with such thing (I didn't even know simple, standard phonetic alphabets existed, and I'm quite used to paper encyclopedias and dictionaries) was here. Nevertheless, the former standard was Rio de Janeiro's (despite our singularities, go figure), and it is documented. There is variation between close-mid, near-close-mid, open-mid, near-open-mid and mid here, but the latter 4, and especially latter 2, are far more common.
The majority of Brazilians don't speak the variants that use [e] and [o], so [ɛ] and [ɔ] are far more realistic (I have a guess that pronouncing "pôrôroca" would be reason of slight bullying in school much as yeísmo or retroflex coda r if north and east of São Paulo, seriously), though the majority of those online use either close-mids (south and west) or mids (southeast), so using them can be confusing and transcriptions are likely to be inconsistent. As it is said in Portuguese phonology, there aren't minimal pairs between those vowels in unstressed position. I don't think a fourth column is necessary, because people would know or guess well where those characters representing uncontrastive vowels are appropriate (because of the media, where two variants that differ perhaps most significantly in this issue are confusingly both sported as standard), they would be used just for General Brazilian broad transcription.
I thought of using the characters for near-close vowels when there is no contrast between [u ~ ʊ] and [o ~ o̞ ~ ɔ], or [i ~ ɪ] and [e ~ e̞ ~ ɛ]. Yes, in final position, they are irrelevant, as most Brazilian dialects (north and east of the imaginary line) agree with Portugal, the difference between a close and a near-close is nearly imperceptible and only people speaking sort of portunhol have a close-mid there. Nevertheless, in non-final unstressed position, there is a similar problem to the point of the paragraph above, but of greater proportion, with people pronouncing Portugal from all the range from a close vowel to an open-mid one. I object using [o] and [e] for the same reasons, it is non-standard, minoritarian, and is likely to confuse even native speakers. With a single stopgap character, we can avoid the problem of determining whether it is most common or appropriate to raise it to a close/near-close or not, while the symbols for the lesser variation between closes and near-closes in final position would just be the ones used now, [i] or [u].
This is not a new issue. [a] and [ɐ], another complementary distribution for large disagreement between Brazilians, has a similar problem, that we discussed a long, long time ago. The only way I've thought of was to indicate all non-stressed /a/ with [ɐ̞] (except when [ɐ] doesn't happen, as in close syllables or diphthongs immediately before stress e.g. baixada but not baixaria), to the lack of amusement by Reiniger321, but if it can't really be done, I'm fine with [ɐ], despite the fact that as it is in complementary distribution (thus most average people won't distinguish by their ears) and some dialects lower it to a fully open vowel, transcription of it is likely to be inconsistent too.
No, they aren't, but often European Portuguese speakers drop the final vowel instead of turning it into a semivowel. See our vowel sandhi process. Lguipontes (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Conciseness of the page[edit]

I have just changed the whole page completely. It honestly looked really messy and confusing, I highly doubt someone could really get aquainted with the IPA transcriptions for Portuguese and Galician. Most sounds included in the tables aren't even phonemes, but rather allophones that do not occur in every dialect, such as the affrication of /d/ and /t/ before close front vowels /i~ɪ/, which is absent in several dialects of the so-called Brazilian Portuguese and the lenition of intervocalic /b/, /d/ and /ɡ/ that do not occur in every dialect of European Portuguese. Those pieces of information, and some others I have added, are still available through footnotes (references) though. I do know this page still lacks some allophones and other phonological changes, like the nasal diphthongs, but it already contains much information which makes it overwhelmingly detailed and I believe a more comprehensive table is more appropriated. If one really wishes to know more about the Portuguese or Galician phonology, pages entirely about it are available on Wikipedia. It looks much neater and organized now, and for the sake of an easy understanding of it, it should remain like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matheus de Aguilar (talkcontribs) 18:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This page has gotten a little criticism from the complicated presentation, but I don't think your changes have brought it in line with the goals in which these sorts of pages are based on.
  • It doesn't matter whether the sounds are phonemes or not, only whether we transcribe them. See Help:IPA for Spanish, which lists both [b] and [β]. The organization should be based around the symbols used so that a viewer who doesn't understand what a character means can come here and find it easily. This is why we organize the symbols in roughly alphabetical order, not according to phonetic properties.
  • These page are also oriented around being useful for editors interested in knowing how to transcribe the language in question. By having only one column, it becomes confusing as to how to transcribe European vs. Brazilian transcriptions (which both link to here). Taking out Galician and having a Galician-only box misrepresents how to transcribe Galician as well. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks[edit]

Many thanks for this page and its table. To place these three related spoken languages into one table is a complex task but enlightens about a lot of things, where areal features, history and spelling give parts of the answers. It's unorthodox but better than to have them separate; understanding of Galician linguistic history benefits greatly form the juxtaposition in the table with European portuguese.--Paracel63 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for input[edit]

I have been engaged in a dispute at Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias for some time now that will be of relevance to anyone involved in pronunciations. It's a former featured article, and one of the contributors who got it to FA status objects to the pronunciation of the name Caxias being indicated, for a rotating set of reasons. Any input there would be appreciated. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Vowel e in bed[edit]

The vowel e in bed is an open-mid vowel right? why it's usually being used as sample for close-mid vowel?--Luizdl (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. Pronouncing it with an open-mid vowel make people think you are saying "bad".-- (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I've already made the changes, btw "bad" has a near-open vowel. --Luizdl (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Portuguese /ɛ/ sounds much closer to RP /æ/ than (any English English) /ɛ/ to me. However, /æ/ (the bad vowel) is more often open front–central in Britain, so I wouldn't suggest approximating pt /ɛ/ with en /æ/. /ej/ similarly has a mid starting point in English English. I don't think there's any way to reliably approximate the open-mid/close-mid front contrast across many English dialects. — Lfdder (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What the hell is going on with the approximations? /ɐ/ is approximated in 4 different ways. Sometimes the approximation for Galician is first, other times it's the Portuguese one. No one will ever make sense of this table. "emission; see or play" takes the cake; emission is EP (middle), see is BP (right), play is Galician (left)....I guess. — Lfdder (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Register and Brazilian stereotypes uncommon to other Western languages[edit]

Per Lfdder's suggestion here:

  •  :"I suggest attempting to establish a consensus over at Help talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician wrt to the register and allophones that should be used in BP transcriptions. — lfdder 18:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)"

The one used in media. Basically, "Rio de Janeiro's without its stereotypes (cacoetes')", such as /S/-palatalization. Plus adopting Portuguese use of schwa /ɐ/ and lenition that a Brazilian would have when speaking very softly, in relaxed pronunciation (not emphatic speech, as what Brazilians would typically think of describing). As has been the consensus for some months. Actually, seeing by how people aren't transcribing coda ar as a flap (as media directed from and especially at São Paulo would use), I'd say that the "Globo" kind of tentative standard Brazilian is the one applied to this page for years.

The necessity of [ɫ] before /i/ is clear. No other European languages target this vowel most particularly to suffer any sort of double articulation but palatalization... au contraire, typically back vowels darken the ells and front vowels clear it when there's minimal variation. In the standard Brazilian case, though, this variation isn't "minimal". I darken all of my /l/, as I said is typical of marked carioca accent, but still the one I use for /li, lĩ/ has a notable feel in my velar region but "pulls" quite a bit from its start gutturally (I suppose aside velarizing/uvularizing, I might also glottalize it). In all Brazilian speech I've been exposed to that doesn't sound very southern or very northeastern, it is notoriously stronger before [i, ĩ].

Quite a few people I've met had perfect accents except for their ell. There's even this video of a Russian woman in which her clear [li] sounds disturbingly off from such a perfect Portuguese: . As such, I find it sensible to note to speakers of other languages that it's very different from what AFAIK all other speakers of European languages would do, since this is supposed as a pronunciation guide. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This help was made based on Portuguese phonology article, where there are citations that says lenition happens in voiced stops in European Portuguese, similar to what happens in Spanish, while no source says it also happens in Brazil.
The article also does not say nothing about velarization of /l/ at syllable onset, but says it happens at syllable coda in European dialect. I do recognize the existence of some velarization of initial /l/ in any dialect of Portuguese, especially when compared to other romance languages, but it is distinguished from that of coda /l/ present in Europe an parts of southen Brazil, which is much velarized and is supported by sources: Cruz-Ferreira (1995:93) (for EP), Hahn & Quednau (2007) (for southern BP).--Luizdl (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, it was here months before I engaged myself with Portuguese phonology articles. I suppose the former point can still be done about the vowels. The coverage on our phonological processes is showed to be still ridiculously deficient, though, because even though I might seldom produce but never heard [β] and my /d/ is nothing alike the English fricative sound but is also too fast for a proper stop sometimes, there's quite a clear difference of soft from hard /g/, especially among people who more easily produce [ʀ] than [χ]. Also, people pronounce different things reading, speaking emphatically and speaking naturally. I guess in this place we are supposed to reproduce natural speech.
The double articulation before [i] in Brazil is still a hugely unusual and marked phenomenon, though. It's not random. A source for that would be hugely in demand, given how it's a relevant phonological process in Brazilian Portuguese in half the significance of the palatalization of dental stops.
I am still looking for these :( BUT I found one saying that the palatalization process of Brazilian Portuguese leads to "alveopalatal" position here:!e-book/book/djvu/A/iif_kgpm_Variation_and_Gradience_in_Phonetics.pdf (page 168) They also show a process of lenition much more radical than fricative allophones for voiced stops... but I agree with you... everything in its own time. :)
This one from a few decades ago ( ) also suggests a single mouth position for [tʃ dʒ ɲ ʎ] under the term "palato-alveolar"... I will add it as source for the palatal nasal and lateral approximant articles and Portuguese phonology, so that I can now give it as definitive the occasional transcription [lj][ʎ] and [nj][ɲ]. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Not wanting to use it as a source—even because I couldn't find an online video for it, what a poor job—but the fricatives aren't limited to Portuguese and cariocas in my anecdotal evidence. In the "horário político obrigatório" of today (Tuesday, April 1st), José Maria Eymael, a minor "social Christian" candidate for mayor of São Paulo and now Brazil's Presidency, using a very clear paulistano accent, had perhaps more instances of [d][ð] than I would usually have for [g][ɣ], using it in unlikely positions such as federal. Ugh our phoneticians, how can this ever pass unnoticed? It sucks to have something this important without being accurately described in places like Wikipedia because it wasn't properly studied enough. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source because everybody can edit it, then the project have to use reliable sources to basis its contents, this is the main reason for the Wikipedia requires sources. Another important reason to require sources is that, for example, if I say something you disagree, you can just say it's the opposite, for this reason it is not allowed to publish here something that is an "unpublished research", you can read more about it in wikipedia: no original research.
To make this clear, it doesn't matter if someone has or not knowledge on a issue, what matters is if it has been published, if it wasn't you are allowed to put a {{citation needed}} template or even remove the content. Knowing this we will have to fit this IPA table with the published information, I mean removing the lenition and onset /l/ velarization information.--Luizdl (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
If I'm allowed to, I don't quite think Wikipedia is supposed to get a definite article when being referenced. You can argue that I'm prolix so that we're even, but I'm that too in my native language... Not surprised you'd compare me to other people. :P
Anyway, as for your assessment, I know it entirely. (I meant it very soon in my message: "I don't want to use it as evidence here.") Nevertheless, the point is that it is not a lie, what would be an expectation by the mere fact that it is a known phonological process observed in other dialects of the same language. People even allow themselves to assume that our mouth positions on other stuff are the exact same of the Portuguese and, to the exception of the vowels, all these variations are allophonic in nature, so I don't think that it is such an absurd mistake.
Maybe I study Linguistics at a University myself (the biggest candidate right now) to the point where I can prove it, but it will take at least 6 years. Meh. But if I do it, I will want a sample of at least 20.000 individuals from every dialect spoken in Brazil, and a comparison with the phonological data available for several other languages, preferentially including Nhe'engatu and a few Indigenous languages. And I will investigate possible Portuguese allophones for the entire chart of anything, and our supposed occasional pitch accent, and how children acquire each single phone in every region. Pra não restar pedra sobre pedra. ("So that absolutely no doubts or mistakes are left on the thereafter.", or sort of) Or "preda" if a bunch so prefers, that is important stuff too.
As for now, I have the alveolar+glide→post-alveolar assimilations, the unstressed vowels being mid (irrelevant to this page per Aeusoes1 on the archives) and a faint evidence for alveolo-palatal position so that we can list BP on the more accurate articles. Sold? Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know the rules, you can do anything if you provide reliable sources, and you can remove anything that lack of reliable sources.--Luizdl (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So I go put Portuguese in the alveolo-palatal list and I'll brb to fix this guide. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Too specific[edit]

This page is too specific for a Wikipedia pronunciation guide. I don't know where to start, but at least 20-30% of the information should be removed. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 14:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about just the notes, I'd say I agree. Specifically, notes 2, 5, 8, and 12 should be removed. 11 Can be shortened a bit. I could also see removing 15 and 21, though I'm a little less sure of those two.
Or do you mean how narrowly we transcribe the languages in question? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I shortened the intro, left notes 2 and 21, since they look quite important, shortened note 5 and merged it with note 6, and removed notes 8, 12 and 15. Note that my edit changed most of these numbers! The narrow transcription... it looks ok. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 23:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

NH Pronunciation in Portuguese[edit]

I recently added the example "Birmingham" for the phonemes ɲ and ŋ. It it essentially the same pronunciation, but it was removed. I don't see any reason for avoiding that and going back to the "roughly like canyon" example, since it is not as near as the Birmingham example (in a standard British accent, like RP). I think the closest pronunciation should be the one in the example. Any reason why it should not be ? Please, speak up your minds.Clausgroi (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Acoustically, [ɲ] has little to do with [ŋ]. It's an inaccurate approximation. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 00:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding [ŋ] Your edit also implied pretty heavily that only readers familiar with the RP pronunciation of that city name would understand. That would be less helpful than a word familiar by more readers. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)