Help talk:IPA/Spanish

Pizza

I understand that revision 1006104540 added the word pizza to the 'tz' section, but added the deleted 'd͡ʒ'. They deleted that because a user said 'that's ɟʝ in our system'. I'm also not happy with velar consonants and labial consonants being velar consonants and labial consonants. Yours truly, Kurisumasen (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

They deleted that because a user said 'that's ɟʝ in our system'. And?

Whether you're happy with it is irrelevant here. [[foo]]s is preferred because it's shorter. See MOS:PIPESTYLE. In fact AWB by default automatically shortens links like [[foo|foos]]. Nardog (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but also I want to know about the word "pizza". This is really Italian. It is also used in other languages. Kurisumasen (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary says it's pronounced variously in Spanish. But even when pronounced with [ts], it's just heterosyllabic [t.s] (just like in English, which also lacks /ts/ as a phoneme), which is different from the case of abertzale. Removed it. Nardog (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Kurisumasen (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you see what you wrote? I paraphrase, "I'm also not happy with <this link> and <that link>, linked in the way I prefer and at odds with MOS:PIPESTYLE, being <this link> and <that link>, linked according to that MOS". You realize that they work exactly the same, no? Not only that, the way those links look is the same. Sol505000 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the other links are the way I like it: [[Rhotic consonant|rhotic consonants]] and [[Labial consonant|labial consonants]]. So, it should be like that to me. Kurisumasen (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"The way I like it" is a good reason for a bold initial edit, but a less optimal reason for subsequent edits when others have raised substantial concerns (here: per MOS). And apart from the MOS, WP:NOPIPE puts the whole thing very nicely. There is nothing wrong with building new content with large pipes like [[Rhotic consonant|rhotic consonants]]. But changing old code to this style for the heck of it, or edit warring when someone changes [[Rhotic consonant|rhotic consonants]] to [[Rhotic consonant]]s for the sake of a readable code is the road towards disruptive editing, which we also often see with WP:NOTBROKEN "fixing". –Austronesier (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Though I use my wording better: [[Aztec|Aztecs]], not [[Aztec]]s. --Kurisumasen (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen WP:EDITWARRING over a sillier thing. Sol505000 (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, let’s leave it like that then.Kurisumasen (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Gilda

How is Gilda an example for /ʃ/? --Error (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

We could ask Sheila1988, who added it, presumably to make our guide consistent with Gilda (Argentine singer). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was my intention, although it's possible that only some dialects pronounce it like that.Sheila1988 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

First time I hear about it. In Spain, both Gilda (film) and es:gilda (pincho) are pronounced as [xilða]. If kept, it should link to that particular case. --Error (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

AS far as I can find it's an argentinian pronunciation.Sheila1988 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

So it's [ˈɟʝilda] in our system. We don't transcribe sheísmo/zheísmo. Sol505000 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AFAICS, the name of the singer Gilda is actually an example for /ʝ/, since [ʃ] is the typical modern Rioplatense realization of supraregional /ʝ/ (and also of /ʎ/ because of yeísmo). In this video, the presenter speaks says [ˈʃilda] consistent with her accent, but the voice-over speaker with a more "supraregional"(?) accent says [ɟʝilda] (0:50) and (phrase-internally) [aðeˈmaɦ ðe ˈʝilda] (3:05). So unless we really want to emulate a dialectal pronunciation, the example should be moved from /ʃ/ to /ʝ/, or taken out completely. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

In any case I don't see a need to have this example. It looks like it was added solely to cover all the spelling variants, which these IPA keys are not for. On the other hand, I can see keeping Xola, which Sol505000 removed, because Freixenet is a borrowing from Catalan, while the former is from Nahuatl (but we could use a more common word). Nardog (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with covering all the spelling variants. With language with as transparent an orthography as Spanish, there wouldn't be too many of them. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes in the vowel chart

I noticed in the vowel chart the examples provided in English are in fact words with long vowels, e.g. food /fuːd/ and father /fɑːðə/. In Spanish we do not have long vowels as such. I propose other examples in order to be more precise:

• Love /lʌv/ for Spanish /a/
• Bed /bed/ for Spanish /e/
• City /cɪti/ for Spanish /i/
• God /gɒd/ for Spanish /o/
• Influence /ɪnfluəns/ for Spanish /u/

These examples are from BrE pronunciation. --Leandro (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You’re right, Spanish doesn’t have phonemic long vowels, but precisely because of this, using English long vowels to approximate vowel qualities is perfectly fine; most Spanish speakers won’t have any trouble understanding if you lengthen the vowels. Keep in mind that the English examples here are meant for an international audience, not just southern England. God and love are particularly bad examples because the qualities of those vowels vary widely between dialects. In most American dialects, the vowel in god is unrounded, and in Inland North in particular, it can be even further forward than Spanish /a/. As for the vowel in love, that’s close enough to Spanish /a/ in Australian English or conservative RP, but it can correspond to basically anything in the region of [ʊ~ə~ɑ~ɐ] depending on the dialect. 187.245.67.172 (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

City (which should be written /ˈsɪti/ - ⟨c⟩ stands for the voiceless palatal plosive in IPA) and influence are also bad as these are not true phonemes in English, but rather unstressed /ɪ~iː/ and /ʊ~uː/. Furthermore, ⟨u⟩ before /ə/ signifies a variation between /ʊ~uː~w/, which makes it a very bad choice for Spanish /u/. In this guide, the symbol ⟨u⟩ stands only for the non-syllabic [u] and not the approximant [w]. If vowel length is that important, then choose words where /iː/ and /uː/ occur before voiceless/fortis plosives.

Regarding /ɒ/, as the anon said, that vowel is a really bad approximation of Spanish /o/. In North America, the only vowel that gets close to that is their /oʊ/ - or /ɔː/ before /r/. Sol505000 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Voiced bilabial fricative or approximant?

Hello, it looks like the IPA β in the article links to voiced bilabial approximant but the target article indicates that the approximant version needs a little goatee underneath. So, which is it meant to be? --Nidaana (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Either, as Voiced bilabial fricative#Bilabial approximant says. See Spanish phonology#Consonants for a more detailed discussion. And even if it was always approximant, the diacritic is not needed unless the fricative also occurs within the language (see Handbook of the IPA, pp. 27ff). Nardog (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeísmo

@Barefoot through the chollas: Regarding the infobox in Spanish language, do we really need to explicitly transcribe the delateralized variant alongside the one with [ʎ]? The merger is automatic, it either happens or it doesn't (for transitional speakers, there is, AFAIK, a chaotic switching between the two phones, without any pattern). Since most speakers exhibit it, we may as well scratch the distinction and just write ⟨ʝ⟩ (or ⟨ɟʝ⟩ everywhere, which would be fine for a broad transcription such as the one used here. Furthermore (per Andean Spanish), in Northern Ecuador, /ʎ/ is delateralized to [ʒ] without merging with /ʝ/ (which is very likely heard as a merger by speakers from outside the area), which makes ⟨ʎ⟩ anything but an appropriate symbol for that variety of Spanish. In it, [ʒ] cannot be said to be palatal (/ʝ/ is palatal), let alone lateral. There clearly is a distinction between postalveolar and palatal places of articulation in Northern Ecuadorian Spanish, with /ʎ/ being the former (a voiced postalveolar fricative) and /ʝ/ the latter (a voiced palatal stop ~ approximant ~ fricative). Per Ecuadorian Spanish, only Southern Highlander Ecuadorian Spanish features a distinction between lateral and central approximants; in other Ecuadorian dialects, the feature [+/-lateral] is most probably redundant.

Back to the infobox, the insistance on including [kasteˈʝano] alongside [kasteˈʎano] strikes me as odd. These are definitely not the only variants that are possible; namely, [kahteˈʝano] and [kahteˈʎano] are also standard in some regions (as is [ehpaˈɲol], there are of course variants [kætteˈʝano, -ˈʎano, ɛppaˈɲol] in Southern Spain in addition to that, so even ⟨h⟩ wouldn't be quite correct for all accents of that type). In addition to that, [kahteˈʒano] and [kahteˈʃano] are standard in Rioplatense Spanish. If ⟨s⟩ can stand for a phonetic [h], then ⟨ʎ⟩ can stand for a phonetic [ʝ], [ʒ] and [ʃ]. ⟨ʝ⟩ already stands for all three.

Let [kasteˈʎano] cover all that.

Futhermore, at least younger speakers of Rioplatense Spanish have no marginal phonemes since [ʃ] in show is the same as their ordinary [ʃ] spelled ll and y. Sol505000 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sol505000::Yes, we do need to supply both in this article in English, as they are the two major standard variants valid as unmarked (least-marked) target phones for non-native speakers (whereas the numerous other variants you cite, to which others could be added, are more vigorously marked diatopically, diastratically or diaphasically). Equivalences produced by the "merger" (assuming you mean diachronic merger of e.g. cayó-calló) are not necessarily automatic -- or even known -- to non-native speakers who are looking for information and guidance. Thus the article supplies genuine forms for them.

Let [kasteˈʎano] cover all that. It doesn't cover all that and can't. [kasteˈʎano] is a phonetic transcription. The phone [ʎ] can represent only itself, palatal lateral approximant, not a different phone; that's the whole point of phonetic transcription. And the point of supplying the phonetic information of [kasteˈʝano], otherwise unknowable without specific effort. (My own impression is that [kasteˈjano] is far more frequent than [kasteˈʝano] worldwide, but I don't have an authoritative source for that, so let it be.)

⟨ʝ⟩ already stands for all three. Sorry, even more confusion. ⟨ʝ⟩ represents a grapheme, which does not exist for Spanish orthography.

I'm guessing that you might be trying to say that a phonemic transcription would suffice, then let readers apply their own "automatic" phonological rules. But non-natives don't have their own genuine Spanish phonological rules, and -- leaving aside the sticky question of the phonemic status of the variants in question -- without conducting an examination of Spanish phonology they have no way of knowing what rules natives might apply.

Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect.

In sum since there's no good reason not to supply the two major alternatives, and good reasons why they should be supplied, both [kasteˈʎano] and [kasteˈʝano] should stand. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, what we say in the lede of this guide is For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ].

Yes, we do need to supply both in this article in English, as they are the two major standard variants valid as unmarked (least-marked) target phones for non-native speakers That would then require retranscribing the palatal lateral with ⟨ʝ⟩ in hundreds if not thousands of cases. That smells like IPA spam to me. I'd rather scrap ⟨ʎ⟩ from the guide and just use ⟨ʝ⟩ (or the corresponding affricate symbol, in appropriate cases). Whenever [ʎ] is a valid pronunciation, [ʝ] is also possible, and you can't go wrong with either the former (which is the older/traditional pronunciation) OR the latter (which is more widespread).

It doesn't cover all that and can't. Yes, it can. It depends on the conventions. To quote the Handbook of the IPA (pages 29–30), If the relevant phonological system is known, a transcription can be devised which includes any number of additional symbols to indicate the phonetic realizations of the phonemes. ... Narrowness is regarded as a continuum, so that [tʃɛkðəlɛnzwɛɫ] might be regarded as a slightly narrow (or 'narrowed') transcription, and [tʃe̞ʔ͡kð̞əlɛ̃nzwæ̠ɫ] as very narrow ... the realizational information which is not explicit in a particular allophonic transcription is, in principle, provided by conventions. Phonetic transcription ≠ fully narrow phonetic transcription. To repeat myself, we already use ⟨s⟩ to represent a phone that varies between [s] and [h] in the syllable coda. Those phones share no features besides [-voiced] and [+obstruent] (or something like that), and [h] may not even be the latter (I don't know whether it's a genuine fricative or just a voiceless vowel, or whether it's variable).

My own impression is that [kasteˈjano] is far more frequent than [kasteˈʝano] worldwide, but I don't have an authoritative source for that, so let it be. All you have to do is head to Spanish phonology where the sound is described as varying between a fricative and an approximant, with the former being an emphatic variant and the latter being used in other contexts. Per palatal approximant, ⟨j⟩ is unsuitable for this phone in Spanish. Since /ʝ/ is unspecified for rounding, ayuda (which features a rounded palatal approximant) has to be transcribed [aˈʝuða] as it is not [aˈɥuða] ([ɥ] doesn't exist in Spanish).

Sorry, even more confusion. ⟨ʝ⟩ represents a grapheme, which does not exist for Spanish orthography. I specifically used the angbr IPA template for this. Is this a joke?

I'm guessing that you might be trying to say that a phonemic transcription would suffice, then let readers apply their own "automatic" phonological rules. But non-natives don't have their own genuine Spanish phonological rules, and -- leaving aside the sticky question of the phonemic status of the variants in question -- without conducting an examination of Spanish phonology they have no way of knowing what rules natives might apply. Since we're using phonetic brackets, I'm not talking about phonemic transcriptions. I'm saying that ⟨ʎ⟩ is enough for broad phonetic transcriptions such as this one. Or, conversely, ⟨ʝ⟩ would be enough as well, as the merger is spreading as rapidly as (if not faster than) the cot-caught merger in US English.

Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect. We mention both yeísmo and seseo in the lede. Isn't that enough for anyone who clicks on the transcription? Sol505000 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeating what you took it upon yourself to delete without my permission: This discussion belongs on the talk page relevant to the article Spanish language, not here, as IPA is not in question. This requires no help with IPA. I might add that so far this issue, which shouldn't be an issue at all, is a waste of my and your time. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, per MOS:PRON, transcriptions linking to that guide should agree with the said guide. It is the guide that needs to be changed first before the transcriptions are changed. If you're refusing to engage with me, then I take this as an agreement to remove the merged IPA per the guide. Again, For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]. Let's not waste any more of each other's time. Sol505000 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're refusing to engage with me I have engaged with you at length -- far too much length. I have no idea why it's so difficult to understand that the name castellano, widely used internationally in Spanish, has two major standard pronunciations, nor why you insist on ignoring one of them in an article meant to inform non-native speakers. Do not "take" something I have not said as anything but having not been said. If you want to discuss this in a civil manner in the Spanish language talk where it belongs, I'm willing to engage for a bit more. A bit. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm done being harassed into switching the talk pages because you fail to understand MOS:PRON. *This* is the place to discuss this. Even the IPA key template at the very top of this guide says that Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here; do not change any symbol or value without establishing consensus on the talk page first. For the second time, the guide says that For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]. You have falsely quoted this in your last revert at Spanish language as a reason to restore the pronunciation with a merger INSTEAD of replying to me and trying to establish consensus here. Castellano is not "a term that is more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo", that's just ludicrous. And Names given to the Spanish language#Usage and implications in former colonies proves that. Furthermore, the guide tells us that those terms should be transcribed with ⟨ʝ⟩ instead of ⟨ʎ⟩ (one transcription), rather than with both (two transcriptions). At no point are we encouraged to retranscribe those words, changing only one of those symbols. I'm going to report your edit warring. If anyone is wasting anyone's time, it is you who's wasting mine. I was more than open to discuss the issue, which is proven by my lengthy reply to your response to my first post - a response which you ignored. I see no evidence for your claim I have engaged with you at length -- far too much length in this discussion. Sol505000 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I also read the passage "For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]" as an either-or-option, not as an invitation to add a regional pronunciation with [ʝ] to an existing [ʎ]-transcription when a term is globally used, including in areas without yeismo.

But I see the problem that the guide prescribes something that comes close to a diaphonemic transcription, but yet we use brackets. Sure, IPA allows for a broad phonetic transcription, but using [ʎ] to mean both [ʎ] (in varieties where [ʝ] is a different sound) and [ʝ] (in varieties where [ʎ] does not occur) is more than broad. This is diaphonemic. –Austronesier (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree in principle, but I see no reason not to include the yeísmo variant in the very article Spanish language. I would oppose including (and have removed) [ɲihoŋŋo] in Japanese language because the Japanese key uses only ⟨ɡ⟩ for /ɡ/ (and it is a minor, declining variant), whereas the Spanish key explicitly permits [kasteˈʝano] and it is the majority variant that is gaining more ground.

Most readers won't have a clue as to what a diaphoneme is or that a phonetic transcription can vary in narrowness, and construe [kasteˈʎano] as disproportionately favoring the now-minority variant. It doesn't hurt to have both just in this vital article about the language itself. Nardog (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think that the lede needs a rewrite, though. Per Yeísmo#Extension of yeísmo, I think it needs to say For terms that are more relevant to regions that have not undergone yeísmo (...) words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʎ] and to mention Ecuadorian, Peruvian, Paraguayan and Bolivian Spanish there. I don't know about Colombia and Spain, though. Maybe we should switch over to ⟨(ɟ)ʝ⟩ for European Spanish? The distinction is allegedly lost in most of Spain. Sol505000 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In Colombia and Spain (and I think Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia too) it varies by region and I believe in most places the distinction is present, it varies by age, class and/or rural/urban origin. The y/ll distinction may be part of a prestigious, standard urban accent in Paraguay, although I'm not even sure about that and I doubt it's the case anywhere else.

As for the Spanish language article, it used to display just [kasteˈʎano], with a footnote explaining yeísmo. I think something like that, though maybe with [kasteˈʝano] as the default and the footnote explaining how some varieties don't have yeismo, would be good. The use of a footnote would explain more than just two alternate pronunciations side by side. Erinius (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not support using yeísmo as the default. The guide, so far, has been giving preeminence to lleísmo when there is ambiguity in part because diaphonemic transcriptions work best when they encode for all the relevant contrasts and then allow readers to apply the mergers they believe should be applied. Insofar as this pronunciation is relevant enough to add to the guide, it is relevant enough to use in the diaphonemic transcription unless there is a clear reason not to. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

So Spanish language should have [kasteˈʎano] with a footnote, like it used to? I can agree with that. I'm also fine leaving it as it currently is I also think we should just leave transcriptions with [ʎ] as they stand in articles that are relevant to areas where at least some speakers don't have yeísmo. Erinius (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The point of the diaphonemic approach is to avoid having multiple transcriptions if we can. The [ʎ~ʝ] contrast is something encoded for in the Spanish IPA conventions we've implemented and detailed in the guide we've composed to explain to readers and editors alike. For the sake of consistency, we should remove the duplicate pronunciations unless there is a clear and compelling reason to make an exception. Of all the articles that we would make such an exception, I would not choose the one that discusses this very dialectal difference in detail. So I'd be against both versions at Spanish language and would prefer to have just [kasteˈʎano] in the infobox. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)