Help talk:IPA/Cantonese

Best equivalent for [ɵy]

I'm not sure what the best rough English approximation for [ɵy] is. Listening to this audio file, it sounds kind of like it might be close to the vowel of English buy but I'm curious what other English speakers hear. Fête suggested low in British English, but that doesn't seem right to me. Should we just keep it as no English equivalent? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

'No English equivalent' seems best to me. The best source I have, Sidney Lau, has 'No English equivalent' and a French example Deuil. Boy is much closer to hoi/海 so to list it again would be confusing. "buy" to me is the same as ai/仔.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like the "eu" in the word neutre in Quebec French. Fête (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be the same as deuil then, given French's very regular spelling (I assume Quebecois French is not that different). I just removed 'no' as that's definitely wrong; like 'low' it rhymes with 'hoe' in British English. The best example I can think of is not really an equivalent: it's like the English word hurry with the r removed (but not the word huy which if it exists at all would be pronounced like hoy in English).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes?

As a native speaker of Cantonese, I have to confess that I absolutely cannot perceive the initial phoneme of 角 (Jyutping: gok) or the example given in the article of voiceless velar stop, 家 (Jyutping: gaa), as a /k/ rather than a /g/ as is chosen to represent the sound in Jyutping. Yet since expert sources seem to say otherwise, I am utterly baffled. If someone were to pronounce 家 as kaa, I would not understand it as 家 at all. The same goes for the "b" in 班 被 畀, etc. If someone were to pronounce 畀 as "pei" (with the "p" in "span" as given in the example) instead of "bei," I would absolutely not understand what he's saying. And if someone were to pronounce "bak ging" as "pak-king," I wouldn't know what to think except that he is really, really, really, incredibly, atrociously incorrect. /g/ and /k/ simply sound so distinct, I without a doubt cannot liken the initial phoneme of 角, 家, 高, etc. to "scan" or "kiss." It is impossible for me to think that the initial phonemes of 班 and 家 are not exactly the same as the initial phonemes of "bill" and "go." I have not done a very thorough search online, but this page may be in agreement with me, though it seems to add to the confusion by citing the English "b" in "bill" and the "g" in "gone" as the IPA /p/ and the IPA /k/. Sol Pacificus (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's misleading, it's the same with Mandarin. The point is that those "unaspirated" consonants do have a lower voicing onset time than French p, t, k, so they sound like b, d, g. --2.245.197.242 (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sol Pacificus: (Redacted) First of all, what are your sources? Cantonese ⟨p, t, ts, k⟩ are distinguished from ⟨b, d, dz, g⟩ by aspiration, and they're both voiceless, so that the former set is correctly transcribed [pʰ, tʰ, tsʰ, kʰ] (not [p, t, ts, k], since aspiration is phonemic), whereas the latter set is correctly transcribed [p, t, ts, k]. This is confirmed by the site you linked to, which also uses that transcription. The recordings prove that it is correct.

English /p, t, k/ are aspirated at the beginning of a stressed syllable (correct narrow IPA transcription: [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ]), except when /s/ precedes within the same syllable (correct narrow IPA transcription: [p, t, k]). So no, scan and kiss do not have the same [k] sound, the first one is [k] (unaspirated), the second one is [kʰ] (aspirated). Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my confusion, as I truly had not expected it to ever receive a response. First of all, I did not conflate Jyutping and IPA, but instead did not notice that the site was using Jyutping in regards to ⟨b, d, dz, g, g⟩from quickly perusing it. However, you misunderstood my question and did not address it. For example, you say this: "Cantonese ⟨p, t, ts, k⟩ are distinguished from ⟨b, d, dz, g⟩ by aspiration, and they're both voiceless, so that the former set is correctly transcribed [pʰ, tʰ, tsʰ, kʰ] (not [p, t, ts, k]." The confusion does not concern the distinction between the aspirated [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ] and the unaspirated [p, t, k] at all, nor was I arguing that ⟨p, t, ts, k⟩ in Jyutping correspond to [p, t, ts, k] and not [pʰ, tʰ, tsʰ, kʰ]. That was not in disagreement, but rather that the sounds marked as the unaspirated [p, t, k] correspond to [b, d, g] respectively. The reason is because using the examples provided in that link, according to IPA, 盃 bui1, 道 dou6, and 加 gaa1 are pronounced with /puːy/, /toʊ/, and /kaː/ respectively. As the English words pill (/pɪl/), toe (/toʊ/), and cat (/kæt/) also begin with the exact same phonemes according to the IPA, this implies that they are pronounced with the same initial phonemes (i.e. [p, t, k]) and even that 道 dou6 is pronounced exactly the same as toe (with respect to accent and tone of course). So let's assume then by the IPA that the [p, t, k] of 盃 /puːy/ (cup), 道 /toʊ/ (way), and 加 /kaː/ (add) is identical to the [p, t, k] of the English words pill (/pɪl/), toe (/toʊ/), and cat (/kæt/). The problem is that if you were to pronounce 盃 as /puːy/ and not /buːy/, 道 as /toʊ/ and not /doʊ/, and 加 as /kaː/ instead of /gaː/, you will NOT be understood . My confusion does not stem from Jyutping's usage at all. I am a native Cantonese speaker, and a fluent English speaker since the age of 3. I have also asked this of my relatives, of my other friends bilingual in both languages. Even if I, as a native speaker of both languages, is not a credible source, this doesn't change the fact that there remains the confusion that the IPA treats the initial phonemes of 盃 bui1, 道 dou6, and 加 gaa1 as identical to the initial phonemes of the English words pill, toe, and cat respectively, and that is simply incorrect because you won't be intelligible. My confusion isn't that I think there's no distinction between the aspirated [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ] and the unaspirated [p, t, k] but rather that the IPA seems to treat as though there's no distinction between the unaspirated [p, t, k] and the [b, d, g] in regards to Chinese languages (both Mandarin and Cantonese) when there obviously is considering that they are distinct in the IPA, and they're very much distinct in English. Why would they identify the initial phonemes of 盃 /puːy/, 道 /toʊ/, 加 /kaː/, and 高 [koʊ] as [p, t, k] when they do not sound like [p, t, k] as used in English but rather [b, d, g]? 高 [kou] (tall) sounds exactly like the English word go /ɡoʊ/, but if you were teaching someone basic Cantonese and told them to say "He is very tall" (佢好高) by pronouncing it [khɵy][hoʊ][koʊ] as in Marco, you will not be understood because /k/ and /g/ are very distinct, and 高 is properly pronounced [goʊ] as in the English word go. Sol Pacificus (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

As a side-note, for clarification when I said "I without a doubt cannot liken the initial phoneme of 角, 家, 高, etc. to "scan" or "kiss". I did not mean that scan and kiss have the same [k] sound, but that the initial phonemes of 角, 家, 高, and 加 correspond neither to the aspirated [pʰ] in scan nor the unaspirated [k] in kiss. Sol Pacificus (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sol Pacificus: No problem, but I don't think you understood me. Please read phoneme, allophone and phonetic transcription. You're mixing up phonemic (between slashes //) and phonetic (between square brackets []) transcription, which I can tell by reading things like "Why would they identify the initial phonemes of (...) [p, t, k]" (should be /p, t, k/).

Pronouncing Cantonese /p, t, k/ as unaspirated voiceless plosives (which they are, according to reliable sources) wouldn't lead to lack of intelligibility, as they contrast with /pʰ, tʰ, kʰ/ by aspiration, not voicing (there are no phonemic */b, d, ɡ/ in Cantonese!). The same phenomenon can be observed in Danish, Faroese and Icelandic. Your confusion must be coming from not fully understanding the IPA and the difference between phonemes and allophones, as well as phonemic transcription and phonetic transcription. English /p, t, k/ are not unaspirated when they begin a stressed syllable (unless /s/ precedes), they are aspirated [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ] like Cantonese /pʰ, tʰ, kʰ/. However, we write English plosives as /p, b, t, d, k, ɡ/ because aspiration is not phonemic in English (and in many dialects occurs only in stressed syllables), and because English /b, d, ɡ/ are only sometimes realized as voiceless (or weakly voiced).

For sources, see e.g. Zee, Eric (1991), "Chinese (Hong Kong Cantonese)", published in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association (one of the most important linguistic journals in the world). We're not making this stuff up, you know.

Pinging @Officer781: if he has any further comments. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand a bit more now about the confusion between phonetic and phonemic transcription that you referred to. So to confirm, are the English words pill, toe, and cat narrowly transcribed with initial [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ] then? I see now that I had thought that it would not be intelligible because what I was really thinking was that 高 gou1 would be pronounced with what is actually initial [kʰ]. But if what you are saying is correct, then it is difficult for me to see how one distinguishes [k] and [g] then. My confusion stems only from the fact that I have been fluent in both Cantonese and English for all my life, the former being my first language, the latter I learned at the age of 3. My accents in both languages are that of native speakers (I have actually asked friends, relatives, and teachers, and especially strangers & for both languages I am always told that my accent in both is natural). But, I have always equated the Jyutping ⟨g⟩ with the English /g/ from the earliest age, even without knowing Jyutping. 高 gou1 in my mind is pronounced exactly the same as the English go and 被 the same as bay. In terms of accent, I have always found that the distinction to be in the vowels, not the consonants. Is the English go properly transcribed narrowly with initial [k] then? Sol Pacificus (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Being from Singapore and being somewhat fluent in Hokkien, the distinction should be quite apparent. My dialect, Hokkien, contrasts three stops: voiced, voiceless unaspirated and voiceless aspirated). So for both Mandarin and Cantonese (which are rather boring really as they don't have voiced stops to contrast with), the voiceless unaspirated stop transcription is correct. To nail this discussion further, the "voiced" cantonese and mandarin words cognates are pronounced voiceless unaspirated in Hokkien, not voiced. For example, 高 (voiceless unaspirated) vs 五 or 吴 (pronounced exactly like "gaw" in English, in which the latter, transcribed "goh" (surname), is true to its spelling unlike pinyin)--Officer781 (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

One distinguishes [k] and [g] by how "low pitched" it is. The former is higher pitched (like a small drum) while the latter is lower pitched (like a bass drum. The one tapped using your feet). Cantonese speakers do in fact equate the voiced stops in English (narrowly transcribed as [b, d, g]) with the voiceless unaspirated stops in Cantonese (narrowly transcribed as [p, t, k]), which is why they pronounce English with the noticeable "honkie accent". If you want to know the difference I'd suggest you find someone to teach you Hokkien or Teochew.--Officer781 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: I think the voiced and voiceless clips on our stop articles don't really show the difference. The voicing is not salient enough (the bilabial one is ok. The alveolar and velar ones are not).--Officer781 (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This has been very informative. :) It does make me wonder if I simply naturally pronounce 高 with the [k] and go with the [g] correctly even though my mind interprets them as both beginning with [g], due to having spoken both languages since such a young age. Sol Pacificus (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sol Pacificus: Actually, English initial and final /b d g/ are often devoiced completely or partially (partially meaning there's vocal chord vibration for a short time at the very end of the stop closure). So, you are probably not pronouncing go wrong, or not very wrong. If you have ever tried to pronounce French correctly, then you would be dealing with a language that actually has voiced stops [b d g]. — Eru·tuon 10:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Help talk:IPA which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Changes for some vowels I'd to like to suggest

I recently edited this page without mentioning it in the talk page first, so I apologize for that. Anyone would like to discuss about my changes? ፠ (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

For context, these are the changes. What is your rationale for proposing them? Nardog (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to change [ɔːy] to [ɔːi] and [uːy] to [uːi].

Most reconstructions of the two sounds in Middle Chinese are along the sounds of /ɑi/ and /uoi/. Both did not have the sound /y/ (also reflected by the many descendants of the this sound, e.g. Mandarin /ai/, Vietnamese /aːj/). However I would not say [ɵy] should be changed to [ɵi] out of consistency, because the reconstruction of Middle Chinese is /ɨʌ/~/io/, which seems to be more rounded (reflected by Mandarin /y/).

The CUHK (https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/finals.php) also suggested [ɔːi] and [uːi].

The reason I wanted to change it is because of my personal experience. I am a native Cantonese speaker, but I have never heard [ɔːy] or [uːy], and I personally believe [ɔːi] and [uːi] is more accurate and can help people finding how to pronounce words in Cantonese. ፠ (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Although I'd like to take back the changes of adding the non-syllabic diacritic, because I realized vowel length isn't really a big issue in pronunciation and is pretty free in Cantonese. ፠ (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog Hi can you check up on this? Thanks! ፠ (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Middle Chinese or personal experience should have no bearing on our choice of symbols because this key is about the modern language and Wikipedia goes by reliable third-party sources. But Cantonese phonology and the illustration of Hong Kong Cantonese in the Handbook of the IPA also write ⟨ɔːi, uːi⟩ so the suggested changes seem fine to me. Nardog (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm going to edit it. ፠ (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing?

Eric Zee (1999), a 3 page guide and the only source listed in bibliography, only vouched for two particular footnotes (Special:diff/769082582/769090174, in 2016). The rest of the IPA cites no source from the beginning as of now. This page needs to cite a proper dictionary and adjusted the IPA accordingly. The dictionary would have to be something like to the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, the source consulted by IPA/English. The examples column should also use proper vocabulary rather than monosyllables, like other IPA help pages. It should not be difficult to find the vocabulary once we found the dictionary. Once the issues raised above are fixed, this page should resemble Help:IPA/Wu Chinese. -- love.wh 17:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)