Help talk:IPA/English

Pronunciation of /i/ needs to be added

Suggestion: add a vowel entry

• /i/ ee as in meet

This suggestion seems to agree with Help:IPA.

I was led here from the Greek letter Pi which has pronunciation /pi/.

There seems to be no reference on this page to the /i/ sound. (I thought the /ɪ/ was it but that has a short i as in pit. As I understand it Pi has an i sound as the ee in meet.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablonus (talk • contribs) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have stumbled on perhaps the only minimal pair distinguishing /i/ (pi) and /iː/ (pee) in English. The sign /ː/ is generally used to mark a long sound. In almost all cases /i/ is long in English. So the symbol chosen in the table is /iː/. You can derive /i/ from the table as shorter form of /iː/. However, the standard pronunciation of "pi" is /pаɪ/. −Woodstone (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have checked the pi article first. It explicitly states that the pronunciation in Greek is /pi/. Clicking on the link leads you to help:IPA, the page for language independent (phonetic) application of IPA, that contains a separate entry for /i/. This page "help:pronunciation" is only meant to describe the way IPA is applied to words in English, which generally does not have short /i/. −Woodstone (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, the same is true for the page Pi (letter). Again it uses /pi/ for the Greek pronunciation as, "In Modern Greek, the name of the letter is pronounced /pi/; in modern English, it is pronounced /paɪ/," and, again, the link on /pi/ takes the reader to the Help:Pronunciation page which does not have /i/ listed. I guess we could edit the two pi pages which point here to point to the Help:IPA page instead but I expect there are other pages which also point here for the pronunciation of /i/.

I believe the modern Greek name of pi is 'pee' as it is in English for the letter P. If that is right can we correct Wikipedia by adding /i/ to this, the Help:Pronunciation page? Ablonus (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Though of course as you all know standard American English does not have phonemic vowel duration, and /i/ etc are the standard American transcription (as found in for example the Oxford American English Dictionary), and American Wikipedia editors will often never use /i:/ -- which gets into the existential problem of this page, claiming to be how things are and should be done in Wikipedia... a thought continued in a new comment below ("While Chart Is Useful - It Violates All Wikipedia Principals")

---

Ablonus (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC) It seems from the footnote on the page that /i/ is now generally used instead of or as well as /iː/ to represent the same sound. To my surprise the Help:IPA page links both symbols to exactly the same ogg file. Per the previous contributor it seems questionable to have two pages to explain certain symbols. This is exacerbated when they disagree or when symbols which are linked to a page are not explained on that page. But there has just been a very recent discussion on whether to keep or remove the Help:Pronunciation page and the decision was Keep so I guess we are stuck with it for now.

My objection would be resolved by adding /i/ to the Help:Pronunciation page. What happens to the page longer term is another issue but for now while articles link /i/ to this page Wikipedia is in error and confusing. I'm not familiar with the talk process. What do we need to do to decide whether to add /i/ to the page or not, i.e. when does the talk on this topic come to an end? The alternatives of either

1. Relinking every /i/ in Wikipedia which points to Help:Pronunciation to point to Help:IPA, or,

2. Changing every page with /i/ to use /iː/

are not practical, IMHO. So can we simply add /i/ to this page while other discussions continue? Ablonus (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Ablonus (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Well I've added and entry for /i/. Notably it was already referred to in the footnote on /I/ and /iː/. I included the same footnote on /i/. It would be good if someone could check that I've made acceptable updates. Ablonus (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of ɑ

Why do we use "ɑ" for father all over Wikipedia? The "ɑ" I know is an extremely nasal-sounding vowel, for father I would use "ʌ", I'm far from an expert though and am probably wrong in this. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC) PS: My comp is screwing up IPA I just found, so I don't actually know what letter the IPA symbols I used are or which I intended to use, but my question stands, why doesn't the upside-down v correspond to 'father'. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer, because the upside-down v corresponds to the vowels of "mother" and "brother". —Angr 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, and they're pronounced differently than father? In my speech the letter a in father is just the lengthened (ː) letter a from brother and mother. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My dictionary has father with the vowel of car and mother/brother the vowel of cut. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To me all those are the same vowel but lengthened for car and father (cʌː & fʌːðʌ versus kʌt & mʌðʌ & bɹʌðʌ), but I'm not an expert on phonetics and I may be confusing two vowels. I don't think I am though. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be your specific dialect. Generally, the vowel of car is more open and more back while the vowel of cut is more central and higher. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I speak Australian English (general, I think; but definitely not broad), and am from Sydney. Wow, I never knew that those are pronounced differently in other dialects of English. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. Our article on Australian English phonology says just that. You can also look at IPA chart for English which is nice in that it compares the vowels of major dialects. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll read up on those links. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While Chart Is Useful - It Violates All Wikipedia Principles

This is an innovative work, using some controversial approaches, without citations, presented as standard fact -- and as such should be utterly banned from appearing in Wikipedia. But in fact it's locked instead.

It also suggests that all IPA transcriptions in English Wikipedia follow this system -- when in reality people use all sorts of dialect-specific and/or inaccurate approaches and/or alternate (national) conventions. Where's the part about "We [and who is that??] recommend this system for use by WIkipedia editors"?

Additionally -- since I secretly think it's a good, albeit highly illegal approach, and generally makes good choices -- it lacks the syllable-division symbol.

In the long term, Wikipedia needs a "pronunciation widget" at the start of each article -- with various pronunciations (British, American, local for local-specific subjects) and audio. Can set a cookie on your browser to give you your preferred rendering.

At any rate: at the moment, this article needs a clear disclaimer at the start explaining its true identity as a special help page contrived by some Wikipedia editors and not any kind of of official international English transcription norm. It's recommended for use by editors, but you will in reality find all sorts of variation in Wikipedia articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.65.53 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Check this archive which features a very thorough critique of the system we have right now (from a user who has raised the issues you've brought up). Syllable breaks were part of it, perhaps you could take a look and we can all talk some more about it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 11:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks but here's just some more of my thoughts -- I really don't have time to pursue this further:

In general its character as a mishmash of British and American sounds and transcription conventions should be noted. This could be really confusing to someone just getting acquainted with IPA, trying to equate these symbols to their own speech.

Although unlikely to get anywhere in today's IPA-is-law environment, I'll mention there is an alternate possibility -- to use capitalized abstract symbols for the vowels rather than IPA symbols. For example /O/ for "historical long-O".

One last issue: there's no indication of the standard American split of historical short-O between /ɔ/ ("boss") and /ɑ/ ("hot").

In conclusion I do think it's a reasonable practical solution, the symbols used (including long signs on /i:/ etc) are pretty much the best choices (might quibble on a few) -- but its all about labelling it clearly for what it is - nonstandard, Wikipedia-invented, potentially controversial, but best practical solution to problem, and only an attempted recommended much variation will be found in articles.... Thanks.

you are confused. This page is not an article and as such does not need to conform to the rules for articles. --86.135.120.224 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Media

hey, is this relevant to be put in the See Also section?> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pronunciation and does anybody know what is the format to put as an audio .ogg file the native term of Places/Subjects in articles? Thanx -CuteHappyBrute (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Distinctions

For the sake of neutrality, I strongly feel this page should have as many practical distinctions as possible among the intelligible polished pronunciations. Distinctions that are conservative (some accents still keep them) and splits that are common and phonologically distinct (like the way short /u/ and /oo/ are treated in Southern England and in Northern England), and only excluding things like...phoneme splits that aren't even heard by their own speakers (like ae-tensing and the bad-lad split). In particular, pre-meet-meat merger as [miːt-mɪːt] (conditional until it is assuredly extinct worldwide within our language), pre-pane-pain merger as [peːn-peɪn] and pre-toe-tow merger as [toː-toʊ] (both distinctions are reportedly alive and well in Welsh English), a full recognition of the pre-fern-fir-fur merger as [fɛrn-fɪr-fʌr], and the pre-horse-hoarse merger as [hɔərs-hoərs], and metapronunciations involving cut-put-good-mood as [kʌt-pʊt-fʊːt-muːd] (North-South difference in England), and distinguishing fore-four ([foər-foʊr]), fare-fair ([feər-feɪr]), threw-through ([θriu-θruː]), you-yew-ewe ([juː-jiu-iu]) and such—all distinctions that are still alive and (for the most part) well in a few corners of our global intelligible language. I do not believe that this page should be discriminatorily majoritarian, as it will leave large swaths of speakers of our same language phonologically unrepresented. It seems that the most neutral thing to do here is to keep pronunciations conservatively broad, even keeping distinctions that may sound archaic to some, as long as they survive in spoken language that still communicates clearly with the rest of us as English. I used to think this would involve a great deal of research, but not necessarily—the mergers we know are not globally complete can have pre-merger distinction preserved until and unless they are known to be 100% complete, and the details of phonemic splits (like North-South England /u/) maintained if the split (that would be the South part of England) is especially more common than not (as it exists in England-Wales and in the Americas and the Southern Hemisphere...). Then, with this level of broadness in place, we can finally agree that the pronunciation is internationally neutral and isn't biased towards specific varieties). - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that most dictionaries don't indicate such distinctions, so it will be nearly impossible to maintain consistency between the pronunciations listed in the articles and the key that's supposed to explain them. kwami (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least we should distinguish horse-hoarse. Even many American dictionaries do that—that's how I discovered that words like cord-lord-sort have a horse-style vowel and ford-port have a hoarse-style vowel. As for pane-pain, toe-tow and threw-through, it's actually pretty straightforward, as English has already clearly spelt the majority of these distinctions since the Chancery standard. [eː] is for all normal long /a/, tense /e/ (like in café and break) and so forth. [eɪ] is for all normal /ai ay ei ey/ in words such as rain-gray-rein-grey. [oː] is for all normal long /o/ and /oa/, as well as the /ol/ in /olm/ words like Holmes, and /au/ in words loaned from modern French such as faux. [oʊ] is for all normal /ou ow/ that are pronounced like in soul-snow, as well as /o/ in /ol/ words such as roll-poll-cold-colt, and the /ol/ in /olk/ words such as folk-yolk. In fact, the unique regular pronunciations of sequences like /all alt alk alm oll olt olk olm/ are from a historically regular diphthongization of the vowel before dark L (or the disappearance of the L in /alm olm/ and compensatory lengthening of the vowel), each becoming like /awl ault awk aːm owl oult owk oːm/. (Of course, the /au/ diphthong subsequently monophthonged to [ɔː] centuries ago.) threw-through distinction is simply not dropping the yod where RP or GA typically would. These are highly regular examples that seem to derive from common reading sense, for certain. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that people are indicating these distinctions when showing how English words are pronounced in Wikipedia entries? Don't forget this page is not about describing every variety of English, it's about explaining pronunciation symbols used in articles for readers who are unfamiliar with them. "Simplify, simplify" needs to be our motto here. —Angr 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I may be missing some principles. I keep switching between Wikipedia and Wiktionary and I'd forgotten the scopes of focus. However, what I'm saying is not about describing every variety of English, but describing English conservatively so that we don't have to describe every regional variety. In many ways, RP and GA are oversimplified for a global scope. A conservative transcription need not be prescriptively dialectal, but there are conservative features of Modern English phonology that are still maintained in actively spoken English in our world. Keeping conservative distinctions simply indicates, "This is the conservative distinction of this pronunciation that exists in our world." I don't think it is too much if toe is [toː] and tow is [toʊ]. In the varieties where they sound the same, both transcriptions [oː oʊ] are regional allophones. And besides, being autistic, I totally suck at being simple, and need help. Discussion helps. I still think I have good and important ideas, but I alone cannot easily convey them in simple layman's terms. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, we already indicate the horse-hoarse distinction. kwami (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Touché. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Move

How about moving this page from Help:Pronunciation to Help:IPA for English, which is where all of the other language specific pages are (i.e., Help:IPA for Hebrew, Help:IPA for Italian, Help:IPA for Korean, Help:IPA for Polish, Help:IPA for Russian, Help:IPA for Spanish)? Epson291 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be bold and move it, since it makes a lot of logical sense. Epson291 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of dividing sounds according to syllable

If possible, I would like to propose a standard for seperating each syllable to aid in pronunciation. For instance, take a look at the word Moai:

(/ˈmoʊаɪ/)

It is difficult for someone unfamiliar with the IPA to identify dipthongs while still keeping syllables apart. You could look at this word and think "mow-oo-ai" easily. (given, there is nothing to indicate that ʊ is or is not part of the dipthong oʊ) Respectively, it could be represented like this instead:

(/ˈmoʊ•аɪ/)

Where the • would indicate a syllabic break. 74.242.119.58 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If we were to do this, a period would be a better syllable break. A syllable break would help distinguish between mistake (error) and mistake (erroneously take). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I added it. I can see it in disambiguating cases such as these, but they'll just result in arguments if we try applying them universally, since we can't agree on English syllable structure. kwami (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the prompt response! I do like the idea of a period, as well. This definitely makes syllables more clear. 74.242.119.58 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think using the period to mark syllables is a good idea as long as it's done very sparingly, only where there's real potential for confusion (e.g. Bowie vs. boy). —Angr 16:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Silence pronounced letters

When is a letter silence? as in "tsunami"? In the wiki page on "tsunami", the pronunciation is given as "/(t)suːˈnɑːmi/". I assume that the parentheses bracketed letter "(t)" is supposed to indicate the "t" is silence?

I tried looking this up and there's no mention of when a letter in a word is supposed to be silence. Can something be added to cover this?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.28.198 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the parenthesis around the "t" means it's optional: You can pronounce that word either /su:na:mi/ or /tsu:na:mi/. A letter that is always silent (like the "b" in "lamb" or the "k" in "knife") shouldn't be indicated in phonetic transcription at all. —Angr 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to revise representation of rhoticised vowels

While arranging the rhoticised vowels in parallel columns, it occurred to me that it might be an improvement to replace the contentious schwa by another way of representing the rhotics.

Examples	IPA	Examples	IPA
		R-colored vowels
			cur- rent	ə>ː	phon- emic	mod.
bead, peat	iː	beer, mere	ɪər	ɪːr	iːr	iːr
bid, pit	ɪ	mirror	ɪr	ɪr	ɪr	ɪr
bay, hey, fate	eɪ, eː	bear, mare, Mary	ɛər	ɛːr	eɪr	eːr
bed, pet	ɛ	berry, merry	ɛr	ɛr	ɛr	ɛr
bad, pat	æ	barrow, marry	ær	ær	ær	ær
balm, father, pa	ɑ, ɑː	bar, mar	ɑr	ɑr	ɑr	ɑr
bod, pot, cot	ɒ	moral, forage	ɒr	ɒr	ɒr	ɒr
bud, butt	ʌ	hurry, Murray	ʌr	ʌr	ʌr	ʌr
bawd, paw, caught	ɔ, ɔː	born, for	ɔr	ɔr	ɔr	ɔr
beau, hoe, poke	oʊ, oː	boar, four, more	ɔər	ɔːr	oʊr	oːr
good, foot, put	ʊ	boor, moor	ʊər	ʊːr	uːr	uːr
booed, food	u

I know this proposal comes rather late in the game, but what do you think? −Woodstone (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm adding the phonemic parallels. I'm also reverting the changes you made to transcription. They require changes to hundreds of articles, so I think we'd better have consensus first. kwami (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there were no changes to the transcriptions, only to the layout. So there is no effect on any existing references. and I reverted back to the new layout. Of course if you don't like it, we can discuss if it's considered an improvement. It is part of my effort to make all help:IPA-xx pages similar in style and to make them fit as much as possible on one screen each. Whenever a list is very long, I try to find some logical way to chop it into parallel columns. For Italian and Russian this was the obvious thing to do, with few exceptions. For English, it least it would seem to help in making it easier to rememeber. −Woodstone (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Some of the rhotic vowels were changed from a 'lax' to a 'tense' notation before you started editing. What we concluded when rolling this out, if I remember correctly, was that a tense notation (if made consistent, as at right above) would be diachronically phonemic, more or less, but that a lax notation (as at left above) was more intuitive to RP speakers. I suggest that either way, we restrict diphthongs to /au, ai, oi/ in order to keep the correspondence between rhotic and non-rhotic vowels regular.

Oh, and I agree that making the rhotic-nonrhotic correspondences explicit is a good idea. My problem with the details of your proposal is that ɔː goes with ɔr but oʊ goes with ɔːr. That's confusing, but could be resolved by first changing ɔː to ɔ. — kwami(talk) 18:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We also have a possible problem with a /ʌ, ɜr/-/ʊ, ʌr/ correspondence. Someone more knowledgeable than I would need to address that. kwami (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the new layout, but reverted the recent transcription changes. I did it by manual comparison, so I may have overlooked some. Any improvements in parallelism that need changes to the transcription choices need more time to discuss. −Woodstone (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you like I move the "ou" and "ei" (too lazy for IPA here) from diphthongs to mono now? So the system shows better? −Woodstone (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While I wouldn't mind seeing the schwas removed to make a more phonemic (broad) transcription, I don't know if transcribing the vowel of bear as ɛː would be better. The table makes the table at right the best option. It might make it less intuitive for RP speakers but the system is unintuitive for everybody in one way or another. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAIR, the table at right was preferred by GA speakers, and the table at left by RP speakers. Since the RP speakers were making a concession by us writing r when it is not pronounced in RP, I thought it prudent to at least write the vowels the way they like. kwami (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd to consider that an equal concession. A pan-dialectal representation would have to have the rs. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just happy to get agreement without hard feelings. I'd be happy to revisit the issue. kwami (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have condensed the three tables into one for easier comparison. I sorted back going around the standard IPA table (better for discussion here, not for final presentation). −Woodstone (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this proposed change has much going for it. AFAIK, /ɪːr/ and /ʊːr/ don't closely reflect any major accent's pronunciation of the NEAR and CURE vowels, nor does /ɔr/ vs. /ɔːr/ adequately reflect the difference between NORTH and FORCE in any accent that distinguishes them. The "phonemic" representation isn't very satisfying either; the only major accent of English where the SQUARE and FORCE vowels are unambiguously FACE and GOAT followed by /r/ is Scottish English, and FACE and GOAT are monophthongs there. I think the existing system, for all its flaws, is the best option presented so far. —Angr 15:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right with the latter point; if we were to go that route, I'd recommend modifying it to /ɛ eː ɛr eːr/ and /ɔ oː ɔr oːr/. Course, that takes us even further from RP, but at least the non-rhotic vowels are conventional and the schwas in the rhotic vowels would correspond 1-to-1 with length marks. Basically, /ː/ would be a diphthong symbol in a lot of dialects. kwami (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm right in all the points! :þ But what I was getting at is I don't think there's any added value in interpreting SQUARE and FORCE as being phonemically FACE and GOAT followed by /r/, except in Scottish English, as opposed to treating them as phonemes in their own right. —Angr 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, or at least don't disagree. (And yes, I know you're right in all points; I was only addressing the last. :þ) This would have value in the English phonology & history of English articles, but I don't know that it would be helpful here. kwami (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the data of the original tables at the top of this discussion are now contained in the merged table, I replaced them by it. −Woodstone (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

rrr. Please someone with privilege edit and then delete this...

In paragraph 5, the article says "The IPA the stress mark" and should probably have the first "The" replaced with "In" or "With". Thanks! CBMalloch (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —KCinDC (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

/r/? Seriously?

Does anybody know of any place in the English speaking world where r is pronounced /r/? Every native speaker I've ever heard in my entire life has pronounced it /ɹ/. I don't see how the note justifies it; it just states the many transcriptions erroneously use /r/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.9.32 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The nice thing about a phonemic transcription is that one can deviate from a language's phonetics when making a phonemic representation of its sounds. The most common usage of this is the tendency to represent the rhotic consonants of various European languages as /r/ when the actual realization is not actually an alveolar trill. I've also seen <r> used when there is -lectal variation between the trill and tap (such as with Arabic). It makes a certain degree of sense as the body of sounds labeled rhotic are perceptually alike even when they are articulatorily distinct. I believe <r> is used here rather than <ɹ> for two reasons. The first is that it's easier on editors. The second reason is that [ɹ] is only true for a certain number of dialects. American English has a more postalveolar or retroflex pronunciation and Scottish English has a tap. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. It's sort of like generically using /ə/ for unstressed sounds that aren't considered different within the language. Thank you for the response. 152.7.9.32 (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to your saying that no dialect uses the trilled r: I'm pretty sure Indian English uses a pure [r]. Although of course most (all?) speakers of Indian English are not native speakers. --86.135.123.181 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Petition to develop a more user-friendly pronunciation standard for articles

I clicked on the article Donna Shalala and saw pronunciation /ʃəˈleɪlə/. Having no idea what that said, I clicked and came to Wikipedia:IPA_for_English. It look me a long time to find each symbol in the chart. If it had said (Shuh-lah-lah) it would have been much faster. Or, if there was an automated way to give the chart entries specifically for the word I clicked. How many people are going to just give up on understanding "/ʃəˈleɪlə/" because of the hassle? I just think something better would be nice. Habanero-tan (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The best option is to have sound files in addition to IPA. Using ad-hoc pronunciation guides like "shuh-lah-lah" actually does not solve the problem, as they are imprecise and overly subject to personal interpretation. Occasional attempts to come up with more "intuitive" pronunciation guides than the IPA always fail because they invariably turn out to be no easier to learn than the IPA is. Also, they can only be used for English, while the IPA can be used for any language. —Angr 10:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That would sound more like shə·LAY·lə.

No need for a petition. There are already two methods in use: Wikipedia:English Phonemic Representation and Help:Pronunciation respelling key. You are welcome to add helpful pronunciations transcribed by these systems.

IPA can also be used to compare the details of different English accents, which is difficult or impossible with the other methods. —Michael Z. 2008-09-18 14:40 z

No, apparently it doesn't matter if only those who live on Wikipedia can use IPA. The rest who casually surf in because it was the top Google result are just SOL. RoyBatty42 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Heaven forbid you should actually learn something from an encyclopedia. —Angr 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Roy, print dictionaries throughout the world use IPA, including in much of the English-speaking world. It is more common than any one of the dozen or more other systems in use. People who “live on Wikipedia” probably also live in these places.

But as I already pointed out above, there are three systems in use on Wikipedia—what exactly are you asking for? If you see something lacking in an article, you are welcome to improve it. If you aren't able to, then you could add an article to Category:Requests for audio pronunciation, post a request for another type of pronunciation transcription at Wikipedia:Requested IPA transcriptions, or even start a new requests page for pronunciations in whichever system it is that you prefer. —Michael Z. 2008-09-24 21:20 z

ç is missing

Most speakers say [ç] in letter combinations like hu or hy: like in huge, human, hyundai [çu...]

The article lacks the [ç] sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.82.119 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This only lists phonemes. [ç] is just a possible surface representation of the cluster /hj/. —Angr 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Old chart

Is this chart now considered outdated and useless? RobertM525 (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)