Help talk:IPA/English
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Wikipedia Help NA‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on March 1 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
References
Lexical set INTO??
Where does this come from? It's not in Accents of English. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Removed. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Notice
A discussion relevant to this project is underway on WP:VPR#Change /r/ in English IPA transcriptions to /ɹ/.—Emil J. 12:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- There was a discussion, but I, the starter of it, have accepted that my idea was bad. So the discussion is over now. Skrodl (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- For future reference, this discussion, entitled Change /r/ in English IPA transcriptions to /ɹ/, has now been archived. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Messy archives
In the last months many threads have been archived to Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive 1, ..., Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive 4, despite Help talk:Pronunciation/Archive 1 and Help talk:Pronunciation/Archive 2 and Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive 3, ..., Wikipedia talk:IPA for English/Archive 8 already existing. As a result, /Archive 3 and /Archive 4 contain threads both from 2008 and from 2010. A. di M. (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Why don't IPA links play through my sound system?
Title says it all. I can't find any such thing here, and I wonder why it doesn't exist or isn't prominent on the page. Is there no software that can do that?
The first time I saw a word's pronunciation given on WP, after the word, in parentheses, and in some unfamiliar funny-lookin' characters that were obviously a kind of pronunciation code with which I was (and remain) unfamiliar, I turned on my speakers before clicking on it. I certainly didn't expect a link to a page about how to interpret the code.
I'm just a naive WP user. You Wikipedians must have discussed this possibility but I sure can't find any trace of it.
/jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.101.206 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- We don't generally use sound files primarily because that's a lot of work, and many people don't consider it necessary. (Most dictionaries don't include sound files, and do just fine.) — kwami (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Allophones
If the point of using IPA in Wik is to help non-native-speakers, then I think there are deficiencies in either the IPA or the version used. Some-one coming from a language where aspiration is a phonemic rather than allophonic distinction is likely to be confused by some-thing like this: b buy, cab. (It's equivalent to saying F life live for some-one who speaks a language (like English) in which voicing is a phonemic distinguisher: s/he will be at a loss on how to pronounce the word -- even though to a person of a language with-out that distinction mightn't even notice a difference.)
So it seems to me that the IPA as used here is frustrating to many Americans because it's too foreign and complicated and frustrating to many speakers of other languages because it lumps "diverse" sounds together. Kdammers (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- IPA for English is intended for speakers, either native or good enough to know what the sounds of English are. You're correct: if you do not know how to speak English, this key will not help you much. Of course, you'd first have to decide which dialect you wish to use, and that is not encoded here at all. I don't think changing this would work. How would we ever agree on which allophonic differences are salient enough to include, and would good or native speakers even remember that "lull" has two different consonants, or that the stop in spy is a different consonant than the stop in pie?
- As for it being too difficult for Americans, I'm sorry, but we can't dumb down everything for Americans because of their insular educational system. (And I say that as an American raised on that system.) We don't give astronomical distances in miles, for example, nor the mass of the Moon in pounds. Now, some editors, in order to make WP more accessible to them, go around adding conversions to more American-friendly units like pounds and miles; likewise, some editors go around adding more American-friendly pronunciation guides as outlined at {{respelled}} or {{USdict}}. However, that's a lot of work, and most people don't bother. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reasoned response. I don't think we have to get into the dialect issue (IPA and the Wik advocates of it do a fair job of adjusting for and explaining that), but I still think the allophone issue should be better addressed. someone can be well enough versed in a language to read it and understand Wik entries yet still not comprehend that what s/he views as two totally different "letters" (phonemes) are not perceived as different by the average native-speaker of English ESPECIALLY when the examples given support this, to the out-sider, confusion.
- On the second point: In the IPA discussion page, a solution has been proposed: a mouse-over gives examples using common English words. Kdammers (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- The logic expressed above seems to make no sense whatsoever... IPA is used so it can be read by non-English speakers, but then use a pronunciation guide that cannot be used by non-English speakers. Meanwhile, there seems to be wide agreement, including the note at the top of this page, that IPA is not useful for English speakers and is being included for non-English use. Wow. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's a bit like saying that we use the metric system for non-English speakers, but then write the articles in English, so that they're not useful for either. The IPA is just the phonetic equivalent of metric. Americans complain about it for the same reason that they complain about the metric system: their insular education leaves them unprepared to work internationally. — kwami (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Who says the IPA is used so it can be read by non-English speakers? Neither Kwami nor the post at top say as much so I'm not sure where you're getting that, Maury. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think Maury is confusing America with the rest of the vastly greater English speaking world. Common enough in Kwamis land of 'insular education' . --Kudpung (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect as much, too. But perhaps we should let Maury speak for himself. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is much more interesting than I thought possible. All of you appear to be perfectly happy to throw around culturally predugicial comments attacking other users, without a shred of backing evidence. Didn't anyone think of going to my personal page before attacking me for being a cultural imperialist?
- For the record, my comment above is based on the statement "someone can be well enough versed in a language to read it and understand Wik entries yet still not comprehend that what s/he views as two totally different "letters". This is the complaint that everyone coming here has, and it appears the common response is to call the person an imperialist. Wow.
- Surely the group of people that created the world's largest and best encyclopedia in a few short years can do better? What I see here is institutionalized laziness. This is a technical issue, there are many obvious technical solutions. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- One user, Kdammers, has asserted that we use IPA to help non-native speakers of English. We don't, and this is what Kwami has said in response. When you say "The logic expressed above seems to make no sense whatsoever" it seems as though you're reading the exchange as being made by one person. You'll have to excuse me if I come off as culturally prejudicial in implying that you make sure you comprehend things as they are intended before responding.
- It is possible to put allophones in a diaphonemic transcription scheme, but why would we do that? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 12:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- So, IPA is not for non-natives and it's not for Americans. According to one source (http://the_english_dept.tripod.com/esc.html), there are 375 million native speakers, the same number of second-language English speakers, and 3/4 million foreign-language English speakers. If there are, say, 250 million native speakers in America, then that sure leaves the non-American native speakers as a (compartaively) small body that we are apparently catering to according to this thinking.Kdammers (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, do you have a better suggestion? — kwami (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- So, IPA is not for non-natives and it's not for Americans. According to one source (http://the_english_dept.tripod.com/esc.html), there are 375 million native speakers, the same number of second-language English speakers, and 3/4 million foreign-language English speakers. If there are, say, 250 million native speakers in America, then that sure leaves the non-American native speakers as a (compartaively) small body that we are apparently catering to according to this thinking.Kdammers (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect as much, too. But perhaps we should let Maury speak for himself. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think Maury is confusing America with the rest of the vastly greater English speaking world. Common enough in Kwamis land of 'insular education' . --Kudpung (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Who says the IPA is used so it can be read by non-English speakers? Neither Kwami nor the post at top say as much so I'm not sure where you're getting that, Maury. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's a bit like saying that we use the metric system for non-English speakers, but then write the articles in English, so that they're not useful for either. The IPA is just the phonetic equivalent of metric. Americans complain about it for the same reason that they complain about the metric system: their insular education leaves them unprepared to work internationally. — kwami (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
foal rhymes with full, and it doesn't rhyme with bone
it's not a good example; please remove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.70.183 (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is a good example, if it warns you that the transcriptions may not reflect your dialect. Can you think of a word ending in L which has that vowel? — kwami (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody? --Kudpung (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Foal and Coal rhyme for me, as do Bone and Phone. I think that full might not exactly fit in with the vowel it's put under (at least in my dialect.), but I don't think it rhymes with foal or coal. I've spent the last 10 minutes attracting strange looks saying those words out loud.173.32.219.250 (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody? --Kudpung (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
/ʍ/ and /hw/
Phoneticially the phoneme /ʍ/ is not at all the same thing as the sequence of phonemes /hw/. Phonetically the one is [ʍ] and the other might be [hw] or [hʷ]; Indeed that sequence is typologically rare and tends to [xw]. [ʍ] is more akin to [ɸ] than to [h] or [hw] or [hʷ]. It is s voiceless [w], like blowing out a candle, not a labialized [h] or a sequence. In IPA for English I suggest that only /ʍ/ should be given, and not /hw/ at all. The Concise Oxford typically writes only /w/ for words in wh-, and while the OED has used /hw/, it notes:
- In OE. the pronunciation symbolized by hw was probably in the earliest periods a voiced bilabial consonant preceded by a breath. This was developed in two different directions: (1) it was reduced to a simple voiced consonant (w); (2) by the influence of the accompanying breath, the voiced (w) became unvoiced. The first of these pronunciations (w) probably became current first in southern ME. under the influence of French speakers, whence it spread northwards (but ME. orthography gives no reliable evidence on this point). It is now universal in English dialect speech except in the four northernmost counties and north Yorkshire, and is the prevailing pronunciation among educated speakers. The second pronunciation, denoted in this Dictionary by the conventional symbol (hw), and otherwise variously denoted by phoneticians, (wh), (w), (ẉ), (ʍ), is general in Scotland, Ireland, and America, and is used by a large proportion of educated speakers in England, either from social or educational tradition, or from a preference for what is considered a careful or correct pronunciation.
Note: the OED says that the OE sequence /hw/ was either reduced to /w/ or devoiced to /ʍ/. It is a mistake for IPA for English to write a velar/labial sequence /hw/ in contexts other than Old English. I propose that the policy (for Kwami says it is a policy) be changed and that /ʍ/ be used, as this accurately describes the pronunciation of wh- in the dialects which have it, and /hw/ does not. -- Evertype·✆ 09:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I never said it was policy, I said it was a consensual convention.
- I wouldn't use the OED for an argument in phonetics; in any case, you're confusing phonetics and phonology.
- The /hw/ analysis is a common one. Treating it as a separate phoneme /ʍ/ is also common. I doubt either can be proven: it's a theoretical issue.
- So that we don't repeat ourselves, the discussion to switch to <hw> was here. — kwami (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the analysis of [ʍ]=/hw/ being common (though I don't know how common), it is also easier for the target audience to read. I understand Evertype's argument that it's less phonetically precise, but this isn't a transcription convention known for its phonetic precision. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The previous discussion seems to have had a brief mention of the 3rd option, /w̥/, which went over without much comment. However, this has the advantage of both visual similarity to plain /w/, and phonetical accuracy. Unlike /ʍ/, it also adheres to the regular IPA method of representing voiceless sonorants. It won't do any better against the "but is it really a single phoneme?" arguments (anyway, isn't that a topic for English phonology, not this key?), but I don't see anything that puts this at a disadvantage against /ʍ/. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- /w̥/ is too easily confused with /w/. There is absolutely nothing wrong with /hw/ as a phonemic analysis: it's used all over the place in reliable sources. Indeed, even the use of /h/ for words like hit is arguably phonetically inaccurate, since most English speakers do not have a glottal constriction in such words: phonetically they are more like [ɪ̥ɪt]. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can't say I've ever seen [w̥] used for English, certainly not in phonemic (or diaphonemic) representations. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's used in The Sounds of the World's Languages as a phonetic analysis. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can't say I've ever seen [w̥] used for English, certainly not in phonemic (or diaphonemic) representations. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- /w̥/ is too easily confused with /w/. There is absolutely nothing wrong with /hw/ as a phonemic analysis: it's used all over the place in reliable sources. Indeed, even the use of /h/ for words like hit is arguably phonetically inaccurate, since most English speakers do not have a glottal constriction in such words: phonetically they are more like [ɪ̥ɪt]. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The previous discussion seems to have had a brief mention of the 3rd option, /w̥/, which went over without much comment. However, this has the advantage of both visual similarity to plain /w/, and phonetical accuracy. Unlike /ʍ/, it also adheres to the regular IPA method of representing voiceless sonorants. It won't do any better against the "but is it really a single phoneme?" arguments (anyway, isn't that a topic for English phonology, not this key?), but I don't see anything that puts this at a disadvantage against /ʍ/. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to the analysis of [ʍ]=/hw/ being common (though I don't know how common), it is also easier for the target audience to read. I understand Evertype's argument that it's less phonetically precise, but this isn't a transcription convention known for its phonetic precision. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Phoneticially the phoneme /ʍ/ is not at all the same thing as the sequence of phonemes /hw/. Minimal pair, please? (Or, at least, an example of each.) The [ç] in human is transcribed as /hj/ and no-one objects to that; how is this different? A. di M. (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes: I think Evertype must have intended to say "the phone [ʍ] is not at all the same thing as the sequence of phones [hw]", which is true, of course, but irrelevant. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so: he was careful in distinguishing slashes from brackets and went on to describe what the possible realizations of each were. Now, by /ʍ/ he means the one in white, which etc., but I can't tell what he means by the "typologically rare" sequence /hw/ which "might be [hw] or [hʷ]" and "tends to [xw]". If he can provide an example of the latter in English (preferably but not necessarily a minimal pair with /ʍ/), his argument is valid; but I don't think there's one. A. di M. (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps Evertype is thinking of Spanish borrowings like Juan? For me they're identical (when spoken as Spanish loanwords in English) to the native /hw/ words like what, but perhaps there are some speakers for whom they are somehow different. Obviously the best thing would be for Evertype to come back and clarify... Grover cleveland (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so: he was careful in distinguishing slashes from brackets and went on to describe what the possible realizations of each were. Now, by /ʍ/ he means the one in white, which etc., but I can't tell what he means by the "typologically rare" sequence /hw/ which "might be [hw] or [hʷ]" and "tends to [xw]". If he can provide an example of the latter in English (preferably but not necessarily a minimal pair with /ʍ/), his argument is valid; but I don't think there's one. A. di M. (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes: I think Evertype must have intended to say "the phone [ʍ] is not at all the same thing as the sequence of phones [hw]", which is true, of course, but irrelevant. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
BBC respelling key
Thought this was interesting, and perhaps relevant if old criticisms come back. The BBC has a respelling key in which they transcribe diaphonemic /r/. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Our respellings acknowledge word-final or pre-consonantal R, as in words like party and hair, which is pronounced in some accents of English (rhotic) and not in others (non-rhotic). Therefore Parker is transcribed as PAAR-kuhr, not PAA-kuh, and the rs will be pronounced or not according to the speaker's accent."[1]
Why no links to sounds?
Hi. IPA articles for all other languages have links to sound articles (where sensible). Why is English the only exception? People mostly come here to translate unknown symbols into sounds. 220.210.180.29 (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- The quick answer is that this transcription system doesn't necessarily indicate sounds but classes of corresponding sounds. /æ/ isn't just an open front unrounded vowel, it's the vowel of cat. Because dialects differ in the phonetic features of their vowels, this could be [æ], but it could also be [a], [ɛ], [ɪə], etc.
- That said, perhaps we could construct sound files of speakers of various dialects pronouncing our example words. RP and GA would be a must, but other dialects are certainly possible. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 15:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- My question remains. Why is English the only exception?
- Your reasoning does not apply to most consonants, which are shared. I would add the links myself, but the page is protected for some reason.
- In any case, even where there is regional variation, I think we should either link to the various sounds in the notes or, as you say, expand the table to show the dialects, which is already happening for Czech/Slovak, Dutch/Afrikaans, Swedish/Norwegian etc. 220.100.125.198 (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Er... I've heard the second consonant in getting realized at least in half a dozen different ways. A. di M. (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- You may want to improve the article then, because I don't see any mention of this fact. What you are highlighting is a shortcoming of the current version, largely independent from the point I raised. 220.100.125.198 (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- A. di M.'s point highlights the problem with linking with most of the sounds, including consonants. Because of allophony, phonetic particularities, or dialectal variation (which, by the way, aren't under the scope here; that would be at English phonology and IPA chart for English dialects, as well as the numerous articles discussing English's historical phonology) we'd only be able to link to /f s ʃ m n j/ and maybe /w/. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 12:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- In IPA chart for English dialects I cannot see variations for b, dʒ, ɡ, f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, x, m, n, ŋ, w, j and ʔ. Even where there is variation, I can't see what stops this article from mentioning the various sounds (with links) either inline in the table, or in footnotes. That's what articles for all other languages are helpfully doing.
- Assuming that at least some of the variations in "getting"'s rendering do not affect the rendering of a /t/ at the start of a word, I still think that A. di M.'s point does highlight an issue with the current article. 220.100.125.198 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Take a look at fortis and lenis, which shows some allophony for /t/and /d/ in American English. And that's just one dialect. The problem compounds until there's too much information. Heck, WP:IPA for Catalan encodes just two dialects and it's a mess.
- If the point of this key (it's not an article, which may be an important point) were to describe English pronunciation, then we would indeed want to exhibit greater phonetic description. However, the point is to show how English pronunciation (which our readers are expected to know) is rendered in IPA. That, on top of its abstract character, means detailed phonetics and linking to sound
filesarticles wouldn't be called for here. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 22:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC) - Yes, the fundamental difference with Catalan is that the reader cannot be expected to know what it sounds like. We do not treat the native language of our site the same as foreign languages. (We can safely assume that nearly every reader here knows English; we must assume that every other language is alien to them.) — kwami (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- It sounds like a broader debate about the purpose of this key, and the assumptions we are making, is needed.
- If I write
The word ''adobe'' ({{pron-en|əˈdoʊbiː}}) blah blah
- I get
- "The word adobe (Template:Pron-en) blah blah"
- which points to this page, where I expect readers to be able to actually work out how they are supposed to pronounce the thing. They should ideally get an answer without being further redirected to other geeky phonetics pages that they are not necessarily interested in. All the reader wants to know when they come here through that link is how to pronounce that IPA string. I really don't see how adding links to sounds would get in the way.
- As you can see, in all this no assumption about English proficiency of the reader was necessary or relevant. 205.228.108.57 (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can't tell if that's supposed to be a pro or a con. They come to this page, and they see how the word is pronounced. That's exactly what a pronunciation key is supposed to do, the way they work in every dictionary. They aren't redirected anywhere else for that info. Why would further debate be needed? — kwami (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because the question in the title of this section has not been answered. On what grounds would you not introduce links to sounds where appropriate and unambiguous? How would they harm exactly? Make examples please. 205.228.108.58 (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- It would be odd to have sound files for /b/ but not for /t/. People would complain that the key is incomplete. (That's assuming they don't object to us not covering their dialect.) If we do include /t/, and give it, say, the pronunciation it has in "top", and link to that from "bottle", a reader might rightfully complain that when they pronounce the /t/ in "bottle" like the soundfile we provide them from "top", they are criticized for their poor pronunciation. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I never said we should link /t/ (although I do think we should link [t]). You simply don't how many people will complain until those links are introduced. As far as I can see, incomplete coverage for other languages has not been a problem so far. 205.228.108.58 (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- And again we are forgetting the template {{IPAc-en}}, which codes:
The word ''adobe'' ({{IPAc-en|pron|ə|ˈ|d|oʊ|b|iː}}) blah blah
- to get:
- The word adobe ( /əˈdoʊbiː/) blah blah,
- where mousovers give pop-ups indicating how to pronounce all the symbols.
- −Woodstone (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- That has the same problem. If I see "great ape ( /ɡreɪteɪp/)" and pronounce the "'t' as in 'tie'" as the tooltip suggests, people would be likely to understand grey tape. A better idea would be having a tooltip at least for each onset and each rime, and if practical for greater units (e.g. "Betelgeuse Template:Pron-en". A. di M. (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- A much simpler solution would be syllable markers /ɡreɪt.eɪp/ vs /ɡreɪ.teɪp/.
- As I said above, linking to phone articles wouldn't be appropriate, nor would bringing information from "geeky phonetics [sic] pages" but linking to sound files that we create for this article would be nothing but helpful as long as we have sound files for at least RP and GA. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 13:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- "As I said above, linking to phone articles wouldn't be appropriate" - sorry I must have missed that, and the rationale behind it, too. Could you please repeat it? One thing you did say above is that "linking to sound files wouldn't be called for here", which seems in contradiction with your latest comment. 58.138.21.63 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also I think your "much simpler solution" is missing A. di M.'s point. /ɡreɪt.eɪp/ still says "t as in tie", which I believe A. di M. is disputing as incorrect. Anyway, as I said this is a shortcoming of the current state which has little to do with the proposal to add links. 58.138.21.63 (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- There may be a little bit of muddling of two issues (I goofed when I said "linking to sound files wouldn't be appropriate", I meant "sound articles"). The original proposal is to link the IPA characters to phone articles like voiceless alveolar plosive and close front unrounded vowel. This is untenable for several reasons:
- The sounds of English often don't correlate with the sounds indicated in such phone articles
- /b/ is often devoiced or unvoiced
- /iː/ is more of a diphthong [iɪ]
- Many of English's vowels simply don't have articles because they're diphthongs
- e.g. /eɪ/ /oʊ/ /ɔɪ/ /aɪ/ /ɪər/ etc
- The sounds of English often have contextual variants that make linking to one phone article oversimplistic (i.e. wrong).
- /t/ can be [tʰ], [t], [ɾ], [ʔ], or [ʔt], etc. depending on context.
- /l/ can have secondary velar constriction at the end of a syllable.
- This key encodes for multiple dialects, making representations indicative of different phones depending on dialect
- /ð/ is a dental plosive in certain dialects, a dental fricative in others, and may even be a dental affricate for some speakers.
- /r/ can be an alveolar approximant, a retroflex approximant, a labiodental approximant, or an alveolar tap.
- /ɨ/ can be [ə] for some speakers and a near-close central unrounded vowel for others.
- The sounds of English often don't correlate with the sounds indicated in such phone articles
- That said, the helpful feature of these phone articles is the sound file that allows readers to hear the sound in question. Although the problems outlined above prevent us from linking to phone articles, there's nothing stopping us from (and this is a separate solution) making sound files that feature the dialectal pronunciations of these sounds and linking to them in this key. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 16:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- There may be a little bit of muddling of two issues (I goofed when I said "linking to sound files wouldn't be appropriate", I meant "sound articles"). The original proposal is to link the IPA characters to phone articles like voiceless alveolar plosive and close front unrounded vowel. This is untenable for several reasons:
- We got it already. What part of "where sensible" and "Your reasoning does not apply to [16] consonants, which are shared" did you not understand? Points 1-4 are all moot.
- Anyway, I accept that pointing to sound files could be better than pointing to articles. Personally, I would prefer pointing to both, with something like this:
- And again we are forgetting the template {{IPAc-en}}, which codes:
- IPAsound currently renders in a separate line, which I'd like to see fixed. We can come up with a variation of that template that features a simple icon and a link, like
. But then the sounds would not be inline any more, it would jump to a different page.
- I don't think new sound files are called for, at least in a first cut. The ones we have in the phone articles are good enough.
- Once again, all this also applies to all other languages, not just English. 220.210.182.238 (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, apologies, your point 1 does introduce new information, in that /b/ would not be part of the shared set. This however again highlights a shortcoming of the status quo, rather than an argument against the proposal. 205.228.108.185 (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you're getting the number 16 from. At most, I count 8 (several of which need no explanation) that have no dialectal or significant allophonic variation. Either way, it's considerably less than 24, not to mention the lack of vowel links. So we should instead concentrate on the sound file option.
- Keep in mind that the example words could be linked instead. For each sound, we have three options (as I see it):
- Create a file for each sound rendered in a particular dialect (e.g. RP /iː/, GA /iː/, AusE /iː/, etc)
- Create a file for each sound rendered in multiple dialects (e.g., RP, GA, AusE /uː/; RP, GA, AusE /eɪ/, etc
- Create a file that renders all the sounds for each dialect (e.g. all the sounds in RP, all the sounds in GA, etc).
- Another thing to keep in mind is that the vowels are the most important to distinguish between dialects. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 05:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- IPAsound currently renders in a separate line, which I'd like to see fixed. We can come up with a variation of that template that features a simple icon and a link, like
- The number 16 comes from this comment above:
- In IPA chart for English dialects I cannot see variations for b, dʒ, ɡ, f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, x, m, n, ŋ, w, j and ʔ. Even where there is variation, I can't see what stops this article from mentioning the various sounds (with links) either inline in the table, or in footnotes. That's what articles for all other languages are helpfully doing.
- In some dialects /j/ is merged with /ʃ/ after /t/ and with /ʒ/ after /d/; in others it is dropped after /t/, /d/, and /n/ in the same syllable; for some speakers it has much more constriction in yeast than in yard, etc. A. di M. (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- In IPA chart for English dialects I cannot see variations for b, dʒ, ɡ, f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, x, m, n, ŋ, w, j and ʔ. Even where there is variation, I can't see what stops this article from mentioning the various sounds (with links) either inline in the table, or in footnotes. That's what articles for all other languages are helpfully doing.
- You pointed out that /b/ has variations, so that would bring it down to 15. 205.228.108.185 (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- My vote would go for "Create a file for each sound rendered in a particular dialect", except I would not create any files, I would just link to the files we already have. From this conversation it's becoming clear to me that there are worse approximations in the current key to worry about. 205.228.108.185 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- /v/ has variations, as certain dialects merge it with /w/, /x/ and /ʔ/ vary in whether they're even present in a dialect, while /dʒ/ and /ɡ/ have the same problems as /b/.
- If we're going to concentrate on vowels, we will definitely have to create sound files. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 12:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Why < r > for / ɹ /?
It makes no sense to me that Wikipedia uses < r > to represent the English / ɹ /, and I don't think it represents a global perspective, or factual accuracy. Using < r > made sense in the era of typewriters, but it's absurd in the era of Unicode. Here are a few thoughts:
- 1. Although people untrained in IPA would certainly have no way of interpreting < ɹ >, using < r > can create even more confusion.
- 2. There are plenty of situations on Wikipedia in which an actual alveolar trill needs to be represented, even in English (Scots).
- 3. The whole point of IPA, and of phonetic transcription in general, is crosslinguistic consistency and universality.
- 4. It's not difficult to learn IPA--not at all. Especially for people who already use the Roman alphabet. And memorizing one additional oddity isn't going to make it significantly more difficult for those who have trouble with it.
If Wikipedia only dealt with topics in the non-Scots English-speaking world, and nothing else, it wouldn't matter. But Wikipedia deals with everything! I know I'm not going to convince enough people that the symbol should be changed, but oh well; it still should be. --N-k (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- This has come up before. You may want to check the discussion at this link (you may have to scroll down a bit -- search for "IPA"). The basic reason is that the IPA transcription for English is a broad, not a narrow, IPA transcription. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and as I just mentioned in the section above, it's not always (and usually isn't) [ɹ]. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 04:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- /r/ is not broad transcription of /ɹ/. That is a misuse of the term broad transcription. --N-k (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and as I just mentioned in the section above, it's not always (and usually isn't) [ɹ]. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 04:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with N-k. It's infuriating to see so many people misusing IPA. While we may sometimes use things such as "N" to represent a nasal, as far as I know, there is no broad way to express the general rhotic of a particular dialect of English. I would suggest using R to represent a general rhotic, but this falls apart for two reasons. 1. It may be confused with the uvular trill /ʀ/. 2. What if more than one rhotic is present in a particular dialect? Still, it would be a far better solution than misusing another IPA symbol. On Wiktionary, we simply include narrow transcriptions and list in which dialect they are relevant. It's quite easy. /r/ and /ɹ/ are not the same and one should not be substituted for the other in terms of IPA transcriptions. If you're going to do something like that, you might as well skip transcriptions altogether and only use general spelling. -- ThePhonetician on Wiktionary. 70.33.84.175 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Something must be said of the many many linguists who use /r/ for English. Particularly when it comes to non-phonetic linguistic literature, r is used much more than ɹ by experts in the field. You can make a case that the more phonetically accurate symbol should be used in those cases just as you can here, but if the field allows its use then it really isn't a "misuse." — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 15:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with N-k. It's infuriating to see so many people misusing IPA. While we may sometimes use things such as "N" to represent a nasal, as far as I know, there is no broad way to express the general rhotic of a particular dialect of English. I would suggest using R to represent a general rhotic, but this falls apart for two reasons. 1. It may be confused with the uvular trill /ʀ/. 2. What if more than one rhotic is present in a particular dialect? Still, it would be a far better solution than misusing another IPA symbol. On Wiktionary, we simply include narrow transcriptions and list in which dialect they are relevant. It's quite easy. /r/ and /ɹ/ are not the same and one should not be substituted for the other in terms of IPA transcriptions. If you're going to do something like that, you might as well skip transcriptions altogether and only use general spelling. -- ThePhonetician on Wiktionary. 70.33.84.175 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:IPA-EN, extended
Today I got an idea I'd like to float out there: what if we created WP:IPA for English, extended (title is debatable) and a corresponding Template:IPAx-en to cover a few (overlapping) purposes:
- Narrow transcriptions that currently use Template:IPA and link only to WP:IPA (like the myriad English phonology articles)
- Local pronunciations that go beyond different diaphonemes (Examples: Melbourne, Louisville, New Orleans)
- Historical pronunciations
- Old English, Middle English, Scots, etc., which don't have transcription keys of their own, and likely won't for some time
Ideally, this page would first transclude the diaphonemic key at WP:IPA for English, then perhaps duplicate (or more likely supersede) IPA chart for English dialects, then handle the other relevant IPA symbols (in time giving dedicated sections to OE, ME, Scots, etc., which could be split off when ready)
I'm thinking this could relieve some of the pressures to narrow the broad nature of transcriptions at WP:IPAEN, while not casting the novice into the sea at WP:IPA. Of course, care must be taken to discourage use of this new key in the vast majority of cases where WP:IPAEN is more appropriate. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Trap-bath
One thing that's always bothered me about the transcription here is that words resulting from the trap-bath split must be transcribed twice, with both /æ/ and /ɑː/. Has it ever been proposed to use something like /a/, /aː/, or /æː/ to cover the BATH lexical set? — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I once proposed that, but I wasn't entirely serious. (Someone had proposed to add a symbol for an even rarer diaphoneme and I answered "If we really need to have more symbols, let's add symbols for BATH and for CLOTH which would be more useful.") That said, I wouldn't oppose that. A. di M. (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I believe Wells, in arguing against using diaphonemic systems, made the case that it was necessary in constructing such a system; AFAIK, the contrast is present in dictionaries and the logic is the same for /ɨ ɵ ʉ/ but others have argued against extending this to representing the trap-bath split for reasons that I've forgotten. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]
FWIW, American Theater Standard uses /a/ for BATH (which is supposed to be pronounced differently from both PALM and TRAP). Grover cleveland (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, this says 'but if you use in "ask" a vowel distinct both from the one in "cat" and the one in "father", then [a] is what it is', though I think most of the people who use three different vowels for them are those Americans who have /æ ɑ eə/. A. di M. (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Any connection between the two? — kwami (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so, at least no obvious connection. The original trap-bath split and the later selective lengthening/raising of TRAP-BATH affect many of the same environments, but they seem independent. For example, bad never became a BATH word, but it is usually subject to lengthening/raising in accents that feature it. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Any connection between the two? — kwami (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose that settles it then :) Grover cleveland (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I personally like /æː/, though that's the symbol used for Australian English's bad-lad split. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 15:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Example of dictionary using diaphonemic transcriptions
Apparently the 2008 "Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary" does this. See this review. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Their version of the IPA is very close to ours, apart from [e] and [ʳ] for coda /r/. — kwami (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language uses a nearly identical system (except they also use the small-caps I with stroke for wanted, they an undertack rather than a superscript schwa for syllabic vowels, and I can't remember whether they use /i/ for happy). A. di M. (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)