Help talk:IPA/Catalan

Occitan?

I'm not familiar with Occitan as much as I am Catalan. Is it important that Occitan orthgraphy seems to differ with Catalan's? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put an "under construction" tag to prompt editors and readers to understand that this page is by no means complete. Once the "and Occitan" was added, it's gotten into territory that I'm not familiar with but, for example, [ɕ ʑ] are probably not accurate when it comes to Occitan, nor is the pattern of lenition. If this is the wrong template, I'm not sure what to put instead. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, I've removed the Occitan information. I believe Catalan and Occitan to be too different phonetically and orthographically from each other to warrant a single key for both of them. If editors wish to have a guide for Occitan, the as-yet uncreated Wikipedia:IPA for Occitan is the place to do this. Right now, {{IPA-ca}} is still designed with Occitan in mind and there are probably a few dozen pages that say "occitan pronunciation." This will have to be fixed. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 10:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This table lacks the /v/ sound which is present in the Balearic Island and in the Land of Valencia

The /v/ sound exists in the Catalan spoken in the Balearic Island and the Land of Valencia. Could you include it on the list as Balearic and Valencian pronunciation. I am from Denia in Alicante and the Catalan-speaking people from here use it, thanks. 92.0.235.1 (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The /a/ phoneme

Hello! I have realised that you have used the same symbol (/a/) for representing the stressed a's of both Spanish and Catalan. That is not possible!

I am only an amateur in this field, but any native Catalan speaker can see the enormous difference between the Spanish stressed "a" and its Catalan counterpart. It is very hard for us to learn the pronunciation of Spanish a's and vice-versa.

Another thing that exemplifies what I am saying is that Catalan ortography marks some tonic vowels with accents. The possible combinations are as follows: à, è, é, í, ò, ó, and ú. The ones with acute accent (called "closed" vowels) are pronounced like Spanish (witch only has 5 vowels: á, é, í, ó and ú), but the rest (with grave accents) are called "open" and have no Spanish equivalents.

So you should change the symbol for this phoneme in one of those articles.

Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.201.2 (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Symbols used for Catalan palatal fricatives and affricates

Replaced the symbols /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /tʃ/, /dʒ/ for Catalan palatal fricatives and affricates, as those are used everywhere for transcription of these same sounds in the charts of other languages (English, Spanish, Italian, etc) here in Wikipedia and everywhere else in scholarship etc. So I cannot see the need to insist in another set of bizarre symbols /ɕ/, /ʑ/, /tɕ/ and /dʑ/.Perique des Palottes (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a tendency to represent a variety of postalveolar fricatives with <ʃ> and <ʒ>. I've seen it done with the retroflex consonants of Russian and Polish and the alveolo-palatal consonants of Korean and Japanese. The literature I've seen on Catalan varies in the characters it uses and I suspect that this is because the distinction between alveolo-palatal and palato-alveolar is pretty subtle (I really can't hear the difference). Interestingly, Wheeler (2005) uses <ʃ> and <ʒ> while referring to them as alveolo-palatal, suggesting that there may be typographic constraints. Thus, rather than base the use of <ɕ> and <ʑ> on what the IEC, the AVL, or anybody else uses, I found an article by a phonetician (Daniel Recasens) who describes the coronal and palatal consonants in a manner that's more detailed than the symbols indicate, telling me that he's studied it himself using acoustic data. It's possible that there is geographic variation but we'd really want sourcing that describes such variation before we change anything. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you read carefully Recasens paper ("Coarticulation...") you will see these same authors use freely the term alveolopalatal for any of the sounds [ʃ,tʃ,ʒ,dʒ,ʎ,ɲ] (the sounds conventionally represented in Catalan orthography as x-,-tx-,j-,-tj-,ll,ny), as opposed to palatal propper sounds like [j,ç]. And the same in other papers by the same author, as:

"An Electropalatographic Study of Alveolar and Palatal Consonants in Catalan and Italian" by Daniel Recasens et alt. http://las.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/2-3/213

So, other than papers "telling you whatever" (your wording), please be so kind to cite the exact section that unequivocally states the Catalan sounds [ʃ,tʃ,ʒ,dʒ] are different in articulation to the analogous sounds in neighbouring Romance languages (other than length or gemination).Perique des Palottes (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't get ahold of Recasens 1990, which is where the phonetic study occurs. The source you've provided shows pretty clearly that Catalan /ɲ/ and /ʎ/ are the same as Italian's, but is silent about the postalveolar fricatives. A number of other works that Recasens has done talk about these consonants but not about the fricatives. But Recasens (1990) is the source to get, it seems. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I got and read Recasens 1990 article Articulatory characteristics of palatals in JIPA 18, 1990, pp 267-280. There is no reference to Catalan sounds being other than postalveolars (same as Occitan and Italian ones). Our postalveolars [ʃ tʃ] are described with references to examples from Catalan, among others like Italian and French (as could be expected). Your alveolopalatals [ɕ tɕ] are described with references to examples from Polish and Mandarin Chinese (as could be expected - no Catalan here). Now, I challenge you to prove your case.Perique des Palottes (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the work I do have by Recasens, I found this from a more recent article in JIPA "An electropalatographic and acoustic study of affricates and fricatives in two Catalan dialects" (37.2, 2007, p. 145):

While language-dependent differences in constriction location for /s/ always occur within the alveolar zone, the place of articulation for /ʃ/ (and for its voiced cognate) is less clear. According to the International Phonetic Alphabet, the phonetic symbol [ʃ] corresponds to a postalveolar fricative, and the term 'palatoalveolar' which is also assigned to this fricative corresponds to a lamino-postalveolar articulation (see Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 14f.). Other close fricatives are the dorsopalatal [ç], which is an allophone of /x/ in German and Norwegian (Simonsen&Moen 2004), and the alveolopalatal [ɕ] in languages such as Chinese and Polish, where it is produced with a lowered tongue tip, a high tongue dorsum position and a long constriction extending from the alveolar zone to well inside the palatal zone (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 150–164)."

Already, we see that Recasens clearly understands the distinction between the different kinds of fricatives and is does not use alveolopalatal when he doesn't mean alveolopalatal. There's more:

Electropalatographic data for five speakers of Eastern Catalan reported in Recasens & Pallarès (2001: 84f.) reveal that Catalan /ʃ/ is articulated essentially at the postalveoloprepalatal zone for all speakers and involves much dorsal contact at both sides of the palate behind the constriction. Moreover, speakers seem to be having the tongue tip down during the production of this laminal or lamino-predorsal consonant, as suggested by the fact that the two frontmost rows of electrodes of the artificial palate remain completely unactivated and that the frontmost lateral contact has a V-like shape. Based on these data, we believe that Catalan /ʃ/ ought to be labeled 'alveolopalatal' which is consistent with the presence of other alveolopalatal consonants such as /ɲ/ and /ʎ/ in the language. Accordingly, we will use this term to refer to /ʃ, ʒ/ and to /tʃ, dʒ/ in this paper.

"It appears then that alveolopalatal articulations such as /ɲ/ in most Romance languages and /ʃ/ in Catalan cannot be possibly assigned a single articulatory zone: the IPA term 'postalveolar' would not be appropriate for Catalan /ʃ/ since the constriction for this consonant also occurs at the palatal zone, and the IPA term 'palatal' cannot be applied to /ɲ/ in languages or dialects where those consonants are alveolopalatal since closure location extends into the alveolar zone in this case. For all these articulations, closure or constriction location takes place not just at one articulatory zone but at two articulatory zones simultaneously. Based on these observations, it seems that the term 'alveolopalatal' would need to be included in the IPA chart, and that the phonetic symbols [ʃ] and [ɲ] could be assigned two possible places of articulation rather than just one, i.e. 'postalveolar' and 'alveolopalatal' for the former, and 'alveolopalatal' and 'palatal' for the latter."

It is very clear here that the authors mean what I have been saying they mean. This last paragraph very overtly pegs the fricative of Catalan as separate from the equivalent fricative of other Romance languages. BTW, could you email me the pdf of that 1990 file? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh? This last paragraph very overtly pegs the fricative of Catalan as separate from the equivalent fricative of other Romance languages? All the whole explanation seems messy to me, just to be polite, as your interpretation does too.

Just to show you I am not getting personal, where could I leave that pdf image file of 1990 recasens' article for you? It is 213.464 bytes long.Perique des Palottes (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Send me an email (there's an option on my userpage to do so). I'll respond to your email and then, in your response to my response, you can attach the pdf. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You will need to be more explicit.Perique des Palottes (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Go to my userpage. Either at the bottom or the side, there should be an option to "email this user." Do it. 16:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There is not such an option, or at least it is not shown anywhere. I am not going to pursue this much long. If you want to contact me directly, if you are not a "yahoo" you'll understand I've set up a temporary email address with the 2nd and 3rd words of my user nick here as d..p......s at y.....co.uk Perique des Palottes (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep in touch. Pdf should be going.Perique des Palottes (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though you want the author to say something to the effect of "this sound in Catalan is different from this sound in Italian/Spanish/French." I think that they get closest to this when they say, "It appears then that alveolopalatal articulations such as /ɲ/ in most Romance languages and /ʃ/ in Catalan..." Remember, Recasens already determined in another article that /ɲ/ shares the same place of articulation in Catalan and other Romance languages. If he believed that "/ʃ/" of Catalan was the same as other Romance languages then he would have worded it like this "It appears then that alveolopalatal articulations such as /ɲ/ and /ʃ/ in most Romance languages..."

I've quotes all three paragraphs, though, because in them he's basically saying that the sound of Catalan is the same as the sound of Chinese or Polish: He says that [ʃ] is a (lamino-)postalveolar/palatoalveolar fricative, that Chinese and Polish have alveolopalatal fricatives, that the IPA term postalveolar isn't correct for the sound in Catalan, and that "Catalan /ʃ/ ought to be labeled 'alveolopalatal.'" Is that convincing to you? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is very confusing. I found the article by clicking on the IPA for "Xavi", and the symbol used for the initial sound, the one I want to pronounce, ʃ, has been replaced. This is not how Wikipedia should be. tharsaile (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through articles that use {{IPA-ca}} and fixed the IPA. I don't know who changed the postalveolar fricatives. Was it you, Perique? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's so clear now! Many thanks to Aeusoes1 tharsaile (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

Perique, I undid some of your changes and I may have inadvertently undone things that I don't actually agree disagree with (though I hope not). I put two citation requests for information that I'd actually like to see included with proper citation at Catalan phonology. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You undo things pretty liberally, I see.Perique des Palottes (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not what you think of what you have understood of Recasens. Consensus among all schoolars is those sounds are the same, where present, in Spanish or Italian or Catalan or English. So why do you insist in just patronizing about pages on Catalan language?Perique des Palottes (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, you insist in undoing corrections to flagrant error in Catalan examples, blind is cec not *sek, sack is sac not sak, initial sound of Jordi is not affricate in Eastern Catalan, among others...Perique des Palottes (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to undo corrections to flagrant errors, but when you mix uncontroversial edits with controversial ones, these things can happen.

When I speak of consensus, I'm talking about Wikipedia's policy. The statement that all scholars believe the sounds to be the same is clearly false; if you were simply being hyperbolic, you haven't even presented the view that these sounds are identical, much less one that contradicts or discounts Recasens's work with phonetic data. So far, you've simply speculated about typography. If you don't have sources, we can't even have a conversation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you were the one introducing the change for signs for postalveolar sounds in Catalan phonology article,Revision as of 03:59, 18 January 2008. I assume you took most of it from somewhere, maybe Wheeler? But then, where did you take the alveolopalatal thing from?Perique des Palottes (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Wheeler cites Recasens in saying their alveolopalatal while using the characters ʃ ʒ. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So you decided unilaterally to use those signs, which are used for the Chinese sounds, which by the way clearly are NOT the same as the Catalan ones, where all authors, including Recasens, Wheeler, and all others, keep using the same characters ʃ ʒ, as used for other Romance languages, as they are the more approximate ones.

So, why do you think Recasens himself carefully differentiates between examples with ʃ ʒ from Catalan and other languages, and examples with ɕ ʑ from Polish and Chinese? As in p.38-39 of Recasens, 1993, "Fonètica i Fonologia" published by Enciclopèdia Catalana (this one carries the same discussion on palatal flavours and coarticulations, analogous palatograms etc and Recasens labels these sounds with the nice name of "laminoalveolars palatalitzades" - p.36).

Same in Recasens, 1996, "Fonètica descriptiva del català" published by Institut d'Estudis Catalans.

Same in Recasens & Pallares, 2001, "De la fonetica a la fonologia" published by Ariel (here Recasens labels these sounds with the nice name of "laminal postalveolars" - p.27).Perique des Palottes (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is a long enough tradition of transcribing these Catalan fricatives with the same IPA character as that used in Spanish and French, that even though phonetic data has come to show that they are (at least now, if not before) different enough that another IPA character would be more accurate, tradition has come in the way a bit. This is also the case with the "hard" postalveolars of Russian and Polish (which are retroflex), and the vowel of cup in English (which is closer to [ɐ] than [ʌ]).

This is probably why he so freely uses ɕ ʑ for Chinese and Polish but sticks to ʃ ʒ for Catalan even though he sees them as the same. I'm speculating though, and I suppose we could ask him ourselves. I chose to use the more accurate signs quite a while ago, just as I chose to use the more accurate signs for Russian. The latter decision had more involvement with other editors. So far, the only people who have opposed this for Catalan are the people who believe the signs to be inaccurate, which I disagree with. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Catalan has too long tradition transcribing with /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/. All universities across the Catalan Countries and elsewhere where there are Catalan Studies transcribe with these sounds/symbols. All dictionaries for Catalan/Valencian/Balearic use these IPA symbols.

English also sticks to some traditional sounds "symbols":

• English /ʌ/ from cup is closer to [ɐ] in many dialects, as RP or Californian English, but /ʌ/ is still used for Standard English. Also some dialects pronounce /ɛ/ as [e] or [e̞] as you mention on the IPA for English dialects article.
• /r/ is widely used instead of /ɹ/ in broad transcriptions of English. In most dialects of English and Standard English it is an approximant /ɹ/ (represented with an inverted ɹ).

So, would you mind changing /ʑ ɕ dʑ tɕ/ back to wider used and traditional /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/?

May be as you see, it is more logical and realistic representing /ʑ ɕ/ (not /dʑ/ and tɕ/) than /ʒ ʃ/ but there is a larger usage of /ʒ ʃ/ in Catalan. So, is it not possible to add a note like Catalan [β ð ɣ] (fricatives or approximants), Spanish [β ð ɣ] (approximants, traditionally fricatives) and English /r/ (which is an approximant; /ɹ/), saying:

/ʒ ʃ/ are widely used instead of /ʑ ɕ/ in broad transcriptions of Catalan (I doubt about /dʑ/ and /tɕ/ existence in Catalan, which are /dʒ/ and /tʃ/).

I was taught at university to use /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/ in Catalan and I'll keep using them, however I accept [ʑ] or [ɕ] are more realistic than /ʒ ʃ/. But is the trilled r more realistic for English than the approximant /ɹ/?

I also reckon this article should be divided into several pronunciation patterns. Same as European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese, and Northern Dutch, Southern Dutch and Afrikaans.

Patterns could be:

• Eastern Catalan (standard Eastern Catalan)
• Western Catalan (standard Valencian)

or

• Central
• Western
• Balearic

I'd be glad to help. JaumeR (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC).

In regards to tradition, I should point out that we deviate against tradition for Polish and Russian by transcribing the hard postalveolars as retroflex, for Japanese with the transcription of the back high vowel, and even the system at WP:IPA for Irish looks unconventional (though I could be wrong about that one). I don't think we need to honor that tradition, and it seems so far that there isn't a strict respect for such tradition with IPA transcriptions . You can point out a few transcription choices that don't reflect phonetic accuracy, but you can hardly call the system at WP:IPA for English traditional.

I'm warm to the idea of reflecting dialectal variation of Catalan, but I'm not sure how much. The key is, like Portuguese and Dutch, to represent only as much dialectal variation as you need. How many dialects do we need to represent? With Portuguese, it's two. Spanish is normally one, though sometimes two. Dutch is three. I'd assume two for Catalan, especially if we stick to the standard varieties. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I know I can't call WP:IPA for English traditional. English phonetics are amongst the most innovatives, I think you misunderstood me.

However is it too difficult to allow Catalan to use /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/ as English is allowed to use /r/ for its transcription of /ɹ/? Too long tradition in Catalan, too many manuals, books, sources, etc. Even Recasens himself utilizes them.

Concerning the division into several patterns. I think the best think should be 2 dialects, Eastern Cat. (Central, Balearic and Northern Cat.) and Eastern Cat. (Valencian and NW Cat.).

/v/ should be kept and should be well explained on notes where it occurs, and where it doesn't (betacism).

JaumeR (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't one of difficulty but of phonetic accuracy. As I've said above to Perique, the Recasens sources clearly define the sounds as alveolopalatal even if the palatoalveolar characters are used. Recasens and others may be guided by tradition, but I don't see why we should do the same, especially when we don't do so for other languages. As far as the English rhotic, /r/ is used instead of anything else because it's typographically easier.

I'm worried that the way you've framed the dialectal division might be cumbersome. What would be wrong (or different) with picking Standard Valencian (spoken in the southern part of Valencia) and Standard Eastern Catalan (based on Barcelonan Catalan)? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly the difference between /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/ and /ʑ ɕ dʑ dɕ/ is minimum. You could content more people by using the traditional symbols used in all Catalan universities, with a note saying "currently these sounds are /ʑ ɕ dʑ dɕ/". For Catalan is easier typographically as well. Also, /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/ are easier to find than /ʑ ɕ dʑ dɕ/, plus has more analogy with Catalan neighbouring languages (Romance languages). Any Catalan speaker would't even notice the difference between /ʑ ɕ dʑ dɕ/ and /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/.

Those are good, Standard Valencian (spoken in the southern part of Valencia) and Standard Eastern Catalan (based on Barcelonan Catalan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaumeR (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Those arguments are equally valid for Russian or Polish. Should we change those as well? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know very much in-depth about Slavic phonetics and languages, though I find them very interesting, especially Russian. But Catalan sibilants are much simplier. First, Catalan doesn't distinguish/contrast palatal and non-palatal consonants as Russian. And second, Catalan doesn't contrast retroflex vs. palatal (or more specific alveolo-palatal) as do Russian and Polish. There is a slight difference among these sounds, same in Basque with laminar /s̻/ and apical /s̺/.

I don't know much about Polish and Russian phonetics manuals, whether they use more /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/ or /ʑ ɕ dʑ tɕ/. I certainly know about Catalan, and we use /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/ all the time, Catalan speaker aren't familiarised with /ʑ ɕ dʑ dɕ/.

• Polish set of sibilants; /s ɕ ʂ/, /z ʑ ʐ/, /ts tɕ tʂ/, /dz dʑ dʐ/.
• Russian set; /s/-/sʲ/, /z/-/zʲ/, /ʂ/-/ɕɕ/, /ʐ/-/ʑʑ/, /ts/-/tɕ/.

Far more complex than Catalan. I can't oppose to Polish & Russian /ʑ ɕ dʑ tɕ/ can also be represented like /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/ if these signs are more common in Poland and Russia. Also it'd be easier for many people to recognise /ʒ ʃ dʒ tʃ/ than /ʑ ɕ dʑ tɕ/.JaumeR (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Recasens himself sticks in his articles to differentiate clearly examples from Polish and Chinese (transcribed with alveolopalatal signs) as not the same sounds used in examples from Catalan (transcribed with postalveolar signs).

All Catalan manuals, dictionaries, webs, etc. stick to postalveolar transcription AND description for those sounds as well, e.g. Els sons del català The exact articulation of those sounds has quite dialectal variation (in palatalization, tenseness, lentgh, africation, and even, coarticulation). Also, depending on the dialect, there are more or less assimilation with neighbouring consonants (say, e.g. much more assimilations in Majorcan then in Barcelonan).

A similar case could be exposed for /s/, which has different articulation among different speakers, say, coronal vs. apical with more hissing, the so called 's pija', that is the standard French sound, which is different from Catalan or Spanish ones.

So, why not sticking to generally used signs?

You, aeusoes1, are the only introductor and defender of using those signs for Catalan.

Please concede at least that the rest of us, Catalan native speakers and phonetics graduates, might not be so wrong.

Perique des Palottes (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've explained above that I prefer the alveopalatal signs because of their phonetic accuracy for Catalan. While you and others have argued that the sounds aren't actually alveolopalatal (in defiance of sourcing) Jaume is the first, and only, person to acknowledge this phonetic accuracy and make the case that we shouldn't be phonetically accurate in this regard. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep reading just what you please. Jaume above said "I doubt about /dʑ/ and /tɕ/ existence in Catalan, which are /dʒ/ and /tʃ/". He is not saying that using alveolopalatal signs are the good and only possible ones. He is conceding that there might be a lot of variation in articulations and in possible conventions to transcribe them. And so this might be why even Recasens, your champion, insists in using [ʒ,ʃ] for Catalan, as different as the Polish, Chinese, examples etc: because those same signs used for Occitan, Spanish, French, Italian, etc map sounds much more similar to Catalan ones than the others. Perique des Palottes (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You could be accused of the same. Right after, he says "however I accept [ʑ] or [ɕ] are more realistic than /ʒ ʃ/." His argument is basically that we should use the palatoalveolar symbols, despite the phonetic accuracy of the alveolopalatal symbols, because that's how they're normally transcribed not because it represents a more accurate phonetic picture. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubted about /dʑ/ and /tɕ/ (not any more), but I've never doubted Catalan palatal sibilants are closer to [ʑ]/[ɕ] ~ [ʒʲ]/[ʃʲ] (which are more "realistic"), however this doesn't mean we have to use those signs in our transcriptions since no one uses them, and that's the reason I defended the traditional symbols [ʒ ʃ] used by all sources, and I suggested to changed it. And although we use palato-alveolar signs now, we label them as alveolo-palatal. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 20:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Correcting some recent changes

• salv for final [f] writen 'v', Balearic 'I save' (present simple 1st person), seems a quite convoluted example
• càstig has accent
• tsar is a common name
• xoc; clenxa are voiceless as 'cheek'
• xilofon initial sound is as 'shine', not as 'zoo'
• dolçment should be standard dolçament, for a sequence ç+voiced consnant better feliçment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perique des Palottes (talk • contribs)

Sorry I missed an accent, I don't have a keyboard with accents so it is easier to miss something. Yes i know tsar is a common name i misused capital letters, however it is a loanword.

In Valencian and Balearic salv can be used as a synomym of excepte ("except", "apart from"). How about in Central Catalan?

We could use another word with v that sounds [f] in Standard Valencian as Balearic. However it has to be a loanword; leitmotiv, molotov.

I know xoc and clenxa are voiceless; and caixmir, peix blanc/blau are voiced.

http://dcvb.iecat.net/ JaumeR (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The representation of the two standards is coming along nicely, though I don't understand what the slashes mean. Valencian, for example has "l / ɫ." Which is it that we're going to be translating it as. Even if there's free variation, we should pick one and go with it.

It gets even more confusing with the vowels. I suspect it has something to do with stress, but it's not clear. Because there's dialectal differences in what vowels appear under stress, we should probably have a stressed/unstressed distinction like that found at WP:IPA for Russian. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we could just say /l/ (in intervocalic position) and [ɫ] in the coda. The reason i used l / ɫ was because of the 'geminate l' [ɫɫ] (which is dark in both WC and EC).

I don't think it is necessary to do a stress/unstress table for vowels as in Russian or English. English & Russian vowels are more complex and go further reductions. European Portuguese features further reductions as well, and they haven't got no such table there.

I'll delete the vowel harmony and only mention it as a note. But it is very common, mainly /ɛ/ which also appears in north-western Catalan and Andorran. JaumeR (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Further changes

Now it is divided into the two major standards of Catalan; are we allowed to use /ʃ ʒ tʃ dʒ/ instead of /ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ/? We could solve this matter with a note. JaumeR (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've tweaked the note to reflect information as I understand it. Now someone's got to go through and fix all the transcriptions, including at Catalan phonology. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Too many notes

These pronunciation keys shouldn't swamp the reader with what are for them irrelevant details. Right now, we have way too many footnotes, almost as if it's a content fork for Catalan phonology (where that kind of detailed information should go, if it's properly sourced). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, these are too heavy notes. However most of what it is said here has already been proven with sources.

Most notes should be simplified, but I think they could be useful to improve Catalan orthography and phonology articles.

I was thinking about adding some other features like;

• Majorcan ca:iodització in regular speech (akin to yeísmo, but with many exceptions).
• [ɫ] dropping and l-vocalisation in regular speech in some words.

However, as you say there are too many notes, with irrelevant details to most readers. JaumeR (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I simplified the note. I won't add the Majorcan iodització, but will add it to the Catalan phonology.

Added (for local transcriptions of La Franja) /l/ is palatalized to [ʎ] in consonant clusters; e.g. plou [pʎɔw]. Notes left are essential for local transcriptions. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 23:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Linking (no brake) /‿/

Why did you remove /‿/? Though this IPA symbol is not described in the Catalan phonology we can certainly use it. [.] (syllable break) is not very well explained in many languages' phonology studies; but we use it for hiatus in most Romance languages [ˈmi.o] (sp/it), [ˈmi.e] (ro/it), [ˈʁu.ɐ] (pt), [ˈti.ə] (ca).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/IPA_suprasegmentals_2005.png

Linking (absence of a brake) clearly occurs in Catalan/Valencian, both in formal and common regular speech. Enllaços fònics/vocàlics (also contactes vocàlics) and sinalefes:

Valencian

http://books.google.com/books?id=PKqzlXyfYm8C&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=enlla%C3%A7os+vocalics&source=bl&ots=160efSeHiz&sig=bUiQh0aQSKX7Z-RS0Puy60PJWR8&hl=es&ei=GzLgTKi4OMqzhAfHxYi_DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 39, enllaços fònics)

• mitja hora [midʒˈɔɾa], una hora [unˈɔɾa], quina hora [kinˈɔɾa], quinze anys [kinzˈaɲʃ], onze anys [onzˈaɲʃ], una escala [unasˈkala] (mandatory)
• no el saludes [noɫ saˈluðes], diu que ara ve [diw ˈkaɾa ve] (facultative)

In Central Catalan this is even more prominent due to [ə] existence, which is dropped in many cases:

http://books.google.com/books?id=sIr7afxZKtQC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=enlla%C3%A7os+voc%C3%A0lics&source=bl&ots=Tob8I5dYUA&sig=KnmbQHBDw8wMdINBaWRj-LQIzJk&hl=es&ei=MzPgTJfjDMm0hAfCrt2aDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false (from page 24 on, combinaisons de voyelles dans le Catalan Central)

• ho ha estat [wasˈtat], hi he estat [jesˈtat].
• torna a entrar [ˈtornənˌtɾa], a casa ho faré [ə ˈkazu ˈfəɾe], etc.

These two sources prove the occurrence of synaloepha and linking (absence of a brake) in Catalan/Valencian. As documents say, there is not a rule to predict such occurrences, being facultive in most cases, however in other cases such contractions are obligated by IEC and AVL. I've never heard a native Catalan/Valencian speaker who pronounces una hora or mitja hora as it is spelled, but un'hora* and mitj'hora* as Italian elision ('), un'ora and mezz'ora. Catalan orthography is also an article which needs upgrading, currently it doesn't correspond with official Catalan orthography. JaumeR (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the phenomenon occurs, but I don't think it's important for our readership. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Then i'll just add [‿] to the chart, with no explanation. JaumeR (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC) :)

I don't think we should utilize it at all. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO it could be used in these particular cases where a vowel becomes silent, I don't see any reason for not using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaumeR (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not whether it can be used but whether it should be used. I don't think it should. It has no phonetic meaning and so, phonetically, is superfluous and potentially confusing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand, then you can take it off, but this could've been useful to indicate linking and synaloephas. JaumeR (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. Now I think this symbol is pretty useful to indicate syllable mergings with unusual silent vowels :) it should be used here like French does — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me)

I'm still not seeing how it's necessary. The liaison marker in French helps indicate that a consonant put at the end of one word is pronounced like it is at the beginning of the next word. Is there a similar situation in Catalan where the pronunciation would be wrong or can't otherwise be indicated without the liaison marker? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are some cases in Standard Catalan (see below). — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 12:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Marginal vowels: [y] and [ø]

We could add these two marginal vowels, what do you think? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 15:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem from me. They're only in loanwords, right? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in loanwords and linguistic interferences from Occitan (Aranese/Gascon, Languedocien) and French. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 18:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary notes

I am taking attention to reducing the number of footnotes in some of these IPA for X pages. These pronunciation keys are designed primarily for readers wanting to understand the language-specific IPA transcriptions they encounter in Wikipedia articles. We shouldn't swamp them with irrelevant details. Because this information may still be pertinent to the project, I have duplicated the notes below rather than try to find a place for them. This is irrespective of whether I think these claims are true or whether they are sourced. I will leave it to other editors to move the information to the appropriate article space or check that it already is. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• In some dialects (particularly North-Western Catalan and Central Catalan), /p t k/ may be elided when occurring utterance-finally after a nasal consonant (e.g. tomb, seient, sang), in the case of /t/, in some of these dialects, this has extended also after liquids (e.g. alt ,hort).
• In regular speech in Valencian, intervocalic [ð] may be elided (e.g. fideuada/fideuà).
• In most of Majorcan the velar plosives, /k/ and /g/, become palatal, [c] and [ɟ], before front vowels (/i e ɛ a/) and word-finally (e.g. guix [ˈɟiʃ], sac [ˈsac]) in some of these dialects, this has extended to all environments except before liquids and back vowels; e.g. sang [ˈsaɲс].
• ‹l› is always dark [ɫ] in Eastern Catalan. In other dialects, like Valencian, it may vary allophonically with the alveolar lateral approximant, [l]~[ɫ], as it does in English.
• In La Franja Catalan (Aragon) /l/ is palatalized to [ʎ] in consonant clusters, such as /bl pl gl kl fl/; e.g. plou [ˈpʎɔw].
• In Catalan and Valencian an assimilation process occurs wherein two identical sibilants appearing in sequence within a word are reduced to a single consonant. For details, see Catalan orthography.
• In some dialects, /dz/ is deaffricated to [z] in verbal forms ending in -itzar; e.g. analitzar [ənəɫiˈza]/[analiˈza(ɾ)]. Similarly, /ts/, which only occurs word-initially in loanwords (e.g. tsar, tsuga) is deaffricated in these dialects.
• The pronunciation of words with the digraph ‹ix› varies; an absent [j] is generally more common in Eastern Catalan dialects (e.g. caixa [ˈkaʃə]) and [j]-retention is more common in Valencian and North-Western Catalan (e.g. caixa [ˈkajʃa]), though there are exceptions.
• In Western Ribagorçan /θ/ may replace standard Catalan and Valencian /s/ (from medieval /ts/): cinc [ˈθiŋk].
• In Catalan and Valencian occurs synalepha (that is the merging of two syllables into one). A synalepha may be produced either by elision (when combining two non-high vowels): una hora [ˈunˈɔɾə]/[ˈunˈɔɾa]; or by diphthongization (when combining any vowel with high vowels); e.g. posa-hi [ˈpɔzəj]/[ˈpɔzaj].
• While in most dialects /a/ is central [ä], it is front [a] in many Balearic dialects.
• The mid-open vowels /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ are lower in Valencian and most Balearic dialects, that is, in these dialects the phonetic realization of /ɛ/ approaches [æ], while /ɔ/ is as low as [ɒ].
• In most of Balearic, especially Majorcan, /ə/ can appear in stressed position; e.g. sec [ˈsəc]. This corresponds to stressed /ɛ/ or /e/ in other dialects.
• Many Valencian dialects feature a sort of vowel harmony when a syllable with stressed /ɛ/ or /ɔ/ precedes another syllable with unstressed [a] or [e]; e.g. dona/es [ˈdɔnɔ(s)]~[ˈdɔnɛ(s)] and terra/es [ˈtɛrɛ(s)]~[ˈtɛrɔ(s)].
• In some Valencian and North-Western Catalan dialects there are some instances where unstressed ‹e› and ‹o› may be reduced:
• Unstressed ‹e› merges with [a] before a nasal or sibilant consonant (e.g. enveja, espill, eixugar), in monosyllabic clitics, and in some environments before any consonant (e.g. terròs, clevill, trepitjar). Likewise, unstressed ‹e› merges into [i], in lexical derivation with -eixement/-aixement (e.g. coneixement). In some subvarieties /e/ is raised to [i] in all instances when in contact with palatal consonants; e.g. senyor [siˈɲo(ɾ)].
• Unstressed ‹o› merges with [u] before a bilabial consonant (e.g. cobert), when it precedes a stressed syllable with a high vowel (e.g. conill), in contact with palatal consonants (e.g. Josep), and in monosyllabic clitics. Lleida
• In North-Western Catalan word final unstress ‹a› and ‹e› may reduce to [ɛ]; e.g. Lleida [ˈʎejðɛ], dona/es [ˈdɔnɛ(s)]; terra/es [ˈtɛrɛ(s)].
• In most of Valencian, preposition amb merges with en. Also, some verbal forms ending in unstressed ‹a› are pronounced as [e] (e.g. verbs in third person singular: cantava, cantaria, canta, thus in Valencian first person singular (jo) cantava [kanˈtava] contrasts with third person singular (ell) cantava [kanˈtave], a similar process also occurs with gender neutral words; e.g. artista (m.) [aɾˈtiste] and artista (f.) [aɾˈtista]).
• Marginal vowels are found in Northern Catalan in loanwords and interferences from Occitan and French.
• Sonorants /m n l ʎ/ (except /ɲ/) are the most commonly geminated consonants (e.g. setmana, cotna).
• /ʎː/ does not occur in Valencian and Balearic Catalan (e.g. motlle/motle). In north-western and eastern varieties plosives /b/ and /g/ may also be geminated in certain environments, instead of usual lenition (e.g. poble [ˈpɔbːɫə], regla [ˈregːɫə]). Moreover affricates are particularly long in intervocalic position in many dialects; e.g. metge [ˈmeddʒə].
• Marginal consonants are found in loanwords, largely from Spanish but also from Caló, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, English, German, etc.

I agree that notes are still excessive and redundant. But, I do not agree all this info should be (re)moved from here, like [ʃ] (esp. eastern dial.) vs. [jʃ] (esp. western dial.), silent plosives (Catalonia), palatal consonants (Balearic), and geminate consonants.

As you say, this information guide is designed for readers wanting to understand the IPA transcriptions of Catalan, i.e it is intended to help users to transcribe Catalan. How could (some of) these movements/removals help users to transcribe Balearic? Remember, we don't transcribe in just one variant. If someone wants to transcribe the name of a Majorcan place, person, etc., like Capdepera [ˌcapdəˈpeɾə ~ ˌcaddəˈpeɾə] or Berenguer d'Anoia [bəɾəɲˈɟe ðəˈnɔjə], won't know c and g are palatal in those words without going through other articles. — Jɑυмe (xarrades) 15:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing footnotes

Essential:

• Balearic palatal consonants
• Balearic stressed /ə/
• [ʃ] vs. [jʃ]
• Geminate consonants
• Dark l

Unnecessary:

• Vowel shifts
• Valencian vowel harmony
• Rare vowel reductions in Western Catalan
• Synaloephas, etc.

We're transcribing for Balearic, too? That's not apparent from the guide. It looks like you've re-added notes about:

• Elision of plosives
  • This is more relevant to editors, not readers. The addendum that some dialects extend this environment is irrelevant if we aren't transcribing it that way.
• Balearic dorsals
  • This is only relevant if we are indeed encoding for Balearic varieties, which I'm not sure is a good idea. Can you point to a place where you think this is necessary?
• ‹ix›
  • This is only important to editors and only if the variation is reflected in our transcription practices.
• dark l
  • The chart itself expresses with the examples the way we transcribe l. That should be good enough.
• the source of marginal sounds
  • In addition to being kind of obvious, it's not that important to readers.
• gemination
  • This is problematic in two ways, one is that labeling something "gemination" clarifies most of what this note explains. The other is that it validates two different methods of transcribing gemination. We should pick one method and go with it. Are we doubling the letter or using the length mark?

I do want to admit that I'm being more strict on the notes than I otherwise would be because there are already so many of them.

The difference between things relevant to editors and readers may prompt us to consider either putting editor-centric information to the talk page (as has been done at WP:IPA for Russian) or putting it in a collapsible table. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pujadas

How do you pronounce David Pujadas in Catalan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.104.142 (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[dəˈβit puˈʒaðəs] (in standard Central Catalan). Jɑυмe (xarrades) 21:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

[ɲ] in <<punxa>> and <<menjar>>?

Is this true? In my university class in Barcelona we were told it's ['puṉʃə] and [məṉʒ'a], and one student was chastised for constantly asking it could be [ɲ]. We were also told that /l/ is [ḻ] and not [ʎ] before the palatal fricatves. Is this incorrect? This page from the UB claims the same: (http://www.ub.edu/sonscatala/); look under Taula de sons (Sound table) --> Central --> Endarrerit (Moved back). saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 18:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a very similar sound (if not the same) to the n and l in the Spanish words concha and colcha. These types of consonants don't have specific symbols, and the closest ones are [ɲ] and [ʎ], that's why they're used here. Jaume (xarrem?) 23:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The sound is not the palatal nasal [ɲ], nor the postalveolar nasal [ṉ], but the alveolo-palatal nasal (for which there is no official IPA symbol yet, but an analogously constructed one, [ȵ], has been in use in Sinology; and similarly there is [ȴ] for the alveolo-palatal lateral of "Elx" [ˈɛȴʨ]). Coda nasals become homorganic with the following sounds, which in this case are alveolo-palatal sibilants (as has been asserted and verified by phonetic studies, and one really just needs to hear the sounds pronounced by native speakers in order to check and verify it by oneself; the "softness" of these Catalan sibiliants, which is similar to the softness of the "ch" sound in Castilian Spanish, should sound quite evident for anyone familiar with the phonetic difference between the "hard"-sounding postalveolars and the "soft"-sounding alveolo-palatals). The fact that this nasal is an alveolo-palatal sound would be immediately much clearer and obvious if the proper IPA symbols for the alveolo-palatal sibilants started to be used for Catalan at last, instead of carrying on using the improper and misleading postaveolar symbols.

That is, what you hear (and should pronounce) is ['puȵ.ɕɐ] "punxa" and [mɐȵ'ʑa] "menjar". 62.83.159.55 (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Issues

Why can't we indicate mandatory syllable mergers (like in "quinze anys"), which involve a "rare" or unusual silent vowel, and epenthesis (like in "stop")?

Regarding assimilation, do you know how this work in Catalan/Valencian? As far as I am concerned, stops and fricatives/affricates don't always work in the same way. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

TBH it's good you deleted the "pronunciation remarks" I added as they didn't look that good, so this is not an issue for me, however epenthesis and synalepha are... how can we solve this? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 13:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, why did you delete "aïllar" and "ells"? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 12:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And well, I think it's pointless mentioning unstressed o can merge with ə before w if we're ignoring other dialectal features... So, I think it's best we both reach an agreement regarding which notes we use. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 14:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also say, my intention here was always to create a main section with Standard Catalan and Valencian, ie for Standard pronunciations, and a subsection with "Algherese", "Balearic", "Northwestern" and "Northern", for local pronunciations, like in Help:IPA for Occitan. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 15:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I started to work backwards from your edit, but then my final change was more of a blanket revert with re-additions of changes I didn't disagree with. There may have been something I missed that I didn't actually disagree with that got swept up in the process.

1. Regarding synalepha, you so far seem to desire using the liaison marker ⟨͜⟩ to indicate what is actually a deleted vowel. If the vowel is deleted, just don't transcribe it. In other words, I'm not yet clear one the pronunciation difference between [ˌkinˈz‿aɲʃ] and [ˌkinz ˈaɲʃ].
2. I removed the sentence "Fricatives (except /f/) and affricatives also assimilate to the place of articulation of a following vowel." I don't know what that means. Vowels don't have places of articulation.
3. No problem with aïllar or ells. I've restored them.
4. Why is the footnote about unstressed o not worthwhile? It seems like it would help in the transcription of Catalan. Did I remove other features that would likewise be helpful in this regard?
5. I'm not a fan of how IPA for Occitan works. It makes transcription unclear. We want to have a concrete system of how to indicate pronunciation that is helpful for both readers and editors. IPA for Occitan doesn't do that with its "local" pronunciation boxes. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes it could be transcribed like that too (how about transcribing "grand homme" (as [gʁɑ̃.tɔm]) and "les agneaux" (as /le.za.ɲo/)?). I think this type of transcription doesn't indicate this process so well as does with the liaison or synalepha marker. In music and poetry this symbol can be used for indicating unconventional syllable mergers that don't follow a specific norm (I would say this notation is common among many Romance languages). In phonetics, French uses it for a type of phonetic linking or sandhi (called "liaison") which involves the pronunciation of dropped consonants in phrases. Catalan features both processes, synalepha (=syllable mergings, ie either by elision or diphthongisation), as in "quinze anys" and "no ho sé", and liaison (= resurrection of lost consonants), as in "vint" ['bin] vs "vint homes" [bin't‿ɔməs]. My suggestion here is to use it for both, except for diphthongs.

The reasons for using this symbol for Catalan (when mandated by our grammar rules) are:

1. Users and transcriptors can visualise the process
2. It looks better and more aesthetic
3. It makes Catalan look closer to French transcriptions

• Sorry, I got confused with the terms and the current explanation. What I meant was all final (voiceless) fricatives/affricates (except /f/ in many dialects) become voiced when followed by a word starting with a vowel, and voiceless stops don't. I think it'd be worth mentioning this to avoid confusions. Also it would be worth to add two consecutive sibilants are reduced to one, like in "raigs" and "índexs". TV3 reporters have /ʒʒ/ as an exception.
• Ok, no problem :)
• The note is not useful because we're transcribing it as /o/ (as suggests the IEC standard) and not as /ə/. Plus we're ignoring other well accepted features, like other realizations of ou, the Valencian vowel harmony, and other vowel changes. What's the purpose of the notes besides clarifying some phonetic processes? Does any language use them for explaining extra sounds? Also, which type of notes do you think are essential for our transcriptions?
• Maybe it doesn't work well for Occitan because there are some mistakes and currently no one is fully aware of how to use it. In Catalan it would work well for Balearic, Northwestern and Northern, I'm not too sure about Algherese...

If we don't create a specific section for local transcriptions how could you or others users guess Lleida can also be pronounced as [ˈʎejðɛ]?

• What about epenthesis,— Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see the benefit of using the liaison marker. If it just indicates that a vowel has been deleted, just delete the vowel. That's why we use IPA.

If we're not transcribing unstressed /o/ as [ə], then we should remove the note or start doing it. But if it's a common pronunciation, we might want to incorporate it. Do you think indicating Valencian vowel harmony would be useful as well?

If there are other "local" pronunciations, we could just link them to the general IPA page.

What about epenthesis? If a vowel is epenthesized, we can add it in the transcription. If the process needs some clarification (either for readers or editors), we can put a note in. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I could understand why you want to ignore indicating syllable mergers with the linking symbol. How about using it for indicating the process when a silent consonant is pronounced as in French?

Maybe it could be useful to include a note about əw/vowel harmony at some point, but then we'll have to include other features and this will become a mess again.

Differing dialects, like Balearic (mallorquí–menorquí–eivissenc) or Northwestern Catalan that combine features from both Standard Valencian and Catalan should have their own representation. If you prefer to split this information from this page, we could create a page for these varieties.

Where would you put the note about epenthesis? The note could also include that cultivated speakers might keep the original pronunciation. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have a problem of using the liaison marker in the same way that we do for French. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Coda laterals and nasals

The notes state that laterals and nasals only contrast before vowels. This is true for Spanish, but totally wrong for Catalan. Catalan, in fact, is quite notorious for its abundance of syllable- and word-final ll's /ʎ/ and ny's /ɲ/ and m's /m/, which contrast with syllable- and word-final l's /ɫ/ and n's /n/. E.g., 'gal' ("Gaul") vs. 'gall' ("rooster"), 'col' ("cabbage"/"as the") vs. 'coll' ("neck"/"hill"/"squad"/"card suit"), 'val' ("voucher"/"it costs"/"it is good for") vs. 'vall' ("valley"), 'el' ("the" [m.]) vs. 'ell' ("he"), 'al' ("to/at the") vs. 'all' ("garlic"), 'són' ("they are") vs. 'som' ("shallow"/"we are"), 'fan' (they do) vs. 'fam' (hunger), 'prem' ("we take") vs. 'pren' ("he/she/it takes") vs. 'preny' ("pregnant"), 'fem' ("dung/manure"/"we do") vs. 'fent' ("doing", silent -t) vs. 'feny' ("mockery"), 'com' ("how") vs. 'con' ("cone") vs. 'cony' ("cunt"), 'amb' ("with", silent -b before another consonant) vs. 'any' (year), and a very long etcetera. 46.27.187.154 (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the minimal pairs, and you're right, the current explanation about laterals and nasals is misleading and incomplete. How could we improve it? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 13:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say all laterals and nasals:

The lateral /l/ and the nasal /n/ only contrast before vowels. Before consonants, they assimilate to the consonant's place of articulation (e.g. [m] occurs before a labial consonant, [ɲ] and [ʎ] before a palatal consonant, and [ŋ] before a velar consonant). Between a vowel and a pause, only [ɫ] (transcribed here as /l/) and [n] are found.

However I agree that the current explanation is confusing and doesn't explain the fact Catalan also contrasts them in the coda. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It sounds like it's either saying that /l/ and /n/ merge after vowels (which is not true) or that the context in which the laterals cease to contrast with each other is simply post-vocalic (which the anon has demonstrated to be false). How about:

Before consonants, the laterals and the nasals assimilate in place of articulation. For example, i.e. only [m] occurs before a labial consonant, [ɲ] and [ʎ] appear before a palatal consonant, and [ŋ] before a velar consonant.

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That statement is not right because /ʎ/, /ɲ/ and /ŋ/ can occur before any consonant. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

How about this, or something similar:

"Catalan and Valencian contrast three nasal consonants /m, n, ɲ/ and two laterals /l, ʎ/. A fourth nasal (/ŋ/) can also contrast in the coda. Among the nasals and laterals, only /n/ and /l/ are subject to assimilation before another consonant. Some dialects as well as young speakers can merge /ʎ/ with the glide [j] in a process similar to Spanish yeísmo." — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 17:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I trust your assessment of what the pattern is. I've shortened the note a little so we can stay terse and to the point in our note. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

[ɫ] > /l/

As indicated on this page, I would suggest to replace [ɫ] by /l/ in all the transcriptions for Catalan. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. That's how we treat Russian's dark lateral as well. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Valencian: ʝ for <j> = [j]

Hello,

Sorry for not looking through all the sources specified in the bibliography before asking this, but why exactly is Valencian ⟨j⟩ = [j], as in ja and jo, specified as [ʝ] rather than [j]?

The AVL document specified in the bibliography describes it as a semivowel rather than a fricative, and while it may correspond to what is a fricative in other dialects, I don't see that as good enough reason to transcribe it as such here.

Thanks, Espreon (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In that manual it's described as a semivowel, in others, other authors, also represent it as a consonant like in Castilian, this sound is perhaps the same one that young speakers use for ll. Either representation is good to me — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 18:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but which sources and authors represent it as such?

Espreon (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for taking a bit to reply. Recasens (1991), in his work Fonètica descriptiva del català, mentions this sound as a variant of /i/ (written i or ll). This variant can alternate with an affricate in some speakers of Valencia and Aragon. Josep Saborit (2010), in Millorem la pronúncia, interpretes intermedial realisations between [j] and [dʒ] (for /ll/ and /i/), and complete mergers with [dʒ] in young speakers and in some dialects. Few years ago, when Canal 9 was on air, these realisations were not always revised. This could be perhaps the reason I added it. However, now I understand [ʝ] can be problematic to fit here, so I would agree with your suggestion to transcribe it as [j]. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 20:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Loanwords & clarifications

Since Catalan includes many loanwords (some of them pronounced in a different way than in the language they've originated or came from, e.g. "collage", "bridge" or "attrezzo"),[1] I've added some clarifications for users. The usage of the explanatory or commenting feature is appropriate for this case because we have too many loanwords to include in the chart, and if we included them it wouldn't look very aesthetic. An alternative option for this could be to turn these explanations into notes, but I didn't do that because certain users don't like to have too many notes here and because this is not a spelling guide, however we could still include a separate set of notes to add some loanwords if that would help users to transcribe better Catalan, and prevent mistakes. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 15:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the recently included comments are not appropriate. Per MOS:COMMENT:

Invisible comments are useful for flagging an issue or leaving instructions about part of the text, where this is more convenient than raising the matter on the talk page. They should be used judiciously, because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors.

There are far too many "clarifications" to consider them judicious. Also, comments that are invisible are, by definition, not for users.

Perhaps the solution is to find a place in article space that covers spelling and then direct users there. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your elucidation, I understand the rule and agree with your solution. Where would you add the additional loanwords? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What about Catalan orthography?— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the best option to avoid having too many random examples. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Nasalization, vowel harmony and dialectal vowels

I suggest to add phonemic nasalization (found in French loanwords, esp. among cultivated speakers), vowel harmony and dialectal vowels. I'd also suggest to indicate some dialects contrast 10 (Balearic) to 9 stressed vowels (Valencian,[2] Central and Northwestern), some dialects merge some vowels (e.g. au and ou merger), and many Eastern dialects have different allophones for schwa.

Phonetic nasalization and/or prenasalization is also quite common in Catalan (Recasens indicates this feature in some of his manuals), so I'd also suggest to mention it in a note, like we do in Castilian. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Standard Catalan in the Balearic Islands

I request to convert this section into a table. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unstressed [ɐ] is not the same as [a]

This article is wrong in stating that the merged unstressed "a/e" vowel of the Central Catalan of the Barcelona area sounds the same as the stressed [a]. It definitely does not (even though it does not sound like a mid-central [ə], either). It sounds more open than a schwa, but distinctly different from the stressed [a]; more like the higher vowel [ɐ]. This difference between the sound of stressed "a" [a] and the sound of unstressed "a/e" [ɐ] in the Barceloní dialect is quite evident to the ear just from hearing it pronounced by native speakers of this dialect (and especially evident when the two sounds are next to one another, as in the word "menjar" [mɐȵ'ʑa], which most definitely is not pronounced [maȵ'ʑa]). This difference is also especially salient (and striking) to native speakers of Spanish (those not raised bilingual in Catalan, that is), for whom the "clear" vowel [a] sounds totally familiar, whereas the "obscure" vowel [ɐ] sounds alien and confusing. 62.83.159.55 (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the table. We transcribe the /ə/ phoneme simply with ⟨ə⟩ (not ⟨a⟩ or ⟨ɐ⟩); unstressed /a/ appears only in some cases (and it may be questionable how different it is from /ə/ due to the fact that unstressed vowels tend to be less peripheral than the stressed ones). Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This key uses a general convention (that's the reason I requested to replace [ɫ] by /l/). The unstressed vowel ([ɐ]) transcribed as /a/ is also found in western dialects, this vowel is closer and more centralized than [a] and [ɑ]. In a broad transcription I'd transcribe unstressed ⟨e⟩ in menjar as /ə/ (Eastern) and /e/ (Western), whereas in a narrow transcription I'd transcribe it as [ɐ ~ ɜ ~ ə ~ ə̟ ~ ɘ ~ e̠ ~ ɪ̈ ~ ɪ]. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 17:51, 20 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)

Question

Why is this guide pretty much limited to Standard Catalan and Valencian? There are more dialects than these, and none (including Valencian) are as prestigious as SC.

I've cleaned up many of the articles in which more than one Catalan transcription was provided. WP isn't a Catalan pronunciation dictionary, it's enough that we provide IPA for the most widely acceptable and prestigious variant which is SC. I think it might be a good idea to remove other varieties from the guide and limit Catalan transcriptions on Wikipedia exclusively to SC. That's good enough for our readers and doing otherwise might be doing a little bit of disservice to learners of Catalan (who we should also think about) who typically learn SC.

I think consistency is more important in this case than being inclusive, especially given the fact that no pronunciation variant is as prestigious as SC. The fact that many speakers of Valencian feel that the variety of Catalan they speak is a separate language is irrelevant. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And when relevant, we could list the regional pronunciation in addition to the SC one using the IPA-all template instead of this one. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't want to open the door to representing an absurd amount of dialects, but two should be fine. According to Valencian, there is a Standard Valencian; I would think that would give us a guiding principle in limiting the number of varieties we transcribe. If we want to ensure that there's only one transcription in an article and even to prioritize SC over V in the process, that's fine. I just don't think removing Valencian is warranted just because it has less prestige than Standard Catalan. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: Right, Valencian does have a pronunciation standard. I somehow missed that. I think that might be enough to leave it in the guide, even if it's somewhat less prestigious. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We can't avoid representing certain peculiarities to each of the main variants we have otherwise the transcriptions would be inaccurate in regional Catalan (including Andorra's). So perhaps we could create a new page or section (in prose or in a table)—either like Italian or formerly in Occitan—for transcriptions in western Catalonia, the islands, etc. It would be the same charts that we have but with different arrangements to those varieties for their (obvious) spelling correspondences. The problem is that Valencian is not a standard form in Catalonia (although certain aspects like accents have been used in schools), the name and whole pronunciation have differences that do not allow their usage there. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional notes

In the interest of keeping this help page focused on being, well, helpful, I've reverted the recent notes added. Our notes should be limited to those that assist editors in knowing how to transcribe Catalan (and Valencian) and help readers in understanding our transcriptions. It's not clear that these notes are effective at either of these, and the presentation right now seems more like a content fork for Catalan phonology (where that kind of detailed information should go, if it's properly sourced) or adding additional transcription conventions behind the two that there is consensus for. These pronunciation keys shouldn't swamp the reader with what are for them irrelevant details.

I've duplicated the content below and welcome a discussion about the best way about going about adding relevant information on transcriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeusoes1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Transcription of Insular Eastern Catalan

Standard Catalan in the Balearic Islands ( / B)

Balearic, a composite of dialects of the Eastern Catalan branch, uses the same pronunciation pattern as Standard Catalan (see C above), but there are some differences that should be used in the transcription of names of the Balearic Islands:

Consonants

• Distinction of /b/ and /v/, like in Standard Valencian: bell /ˈbeʎ/, vell /ˈveʎ/, avanç /əˈvans/
  • Non-lenition of /b/: abans /əˈbans/
• Elision of final /ɾ/ in most cases: amor /əˈmo/
• Replacement of the geminate ⟨tll⟩ /ʎː/ by ⟨tl⟩ /lː/ like in Valencian: vetla /ˈvəlːə/. When ⟨tll⟩ is not substituted by ⟨tl⟩, it is generally pronounced as a degeminated /ʎ/: bitllet /biˈʎət/
• Usage of /j/ in Ibiza for the words jo /ˈjɔ/ and ja /ˈja/. In the rest of the Balearic Islands /ʒ/ or /dʒ/ should be used like in Standard Catalan: /ˈ(d)ʒɔ/, /ˈ(d)ʒa/. In Majorca, as well as in Barcelona surroundings, /j/ can be found, but that is generally considered nonstandard
• Deaffrication of /dz/ in the suffix -itzar and derivates, like in Valencian: utilitza /utiˈlizə/ (this can also be found in some speakers in Catalonia)
• Preservation of final consonant clusters like in Standard Valencian: alt /ˈalt/, tomb /ˈtomp/
  • Complex final clusters followed by /s/ can optionally be simplified: sants /ˈsan(t)s/
• Replacement of /ʎ/ with /i̯/: vall /ˈbai̯/ (avoid transcribing ieisme in local and general transcriptions)

Vowels

• Existence of a stressed /ə/, similar to the sound "bird" in RP: sec /ˈsək/, què /ˈkə/,
• Occurrence of unstressed /o/ in most of Majorca: oratge /oˈɾadʒə/

Standard Catalan in Alghero (A)

Algherese, the Eastern Catalan dialect spoken in the town of Alghero (in the island of Sardinia, Italy), uses the same pronunciation as Standard Catalan (see C above), although there are some differences to be used in the transcription of Algherese names:

Consonants

• Distinction of /b/ and /v/, like in Standard Valencian: bell /ˈbel/, vell /ˈvel/, avanç /aˈvans/
  • Frequent usage of final ⟨v⟩ /f/: viv /ˈvif/
  • Non-lenition of /b/: abans /aˈbans/
• Elision and preservation of final /ɾ/ in cases where other Eastern dialects would have different rules: fer /ˈfe/, but ésser /ˈesaɾ/
• Distinction of /ʎ/ and /j/ (only between vowels): balla /ˈbaʎa/, baia /ˈbai̯a/
• Tendency to depalatalize final ⟨ll⟩ /ʎ/ and ⟨ny⟩ /ɲ/: ball /ˈbal/ and any /ˈan/
• General usage of the affricate /dʒ/ for ⟨j⟩ and ⟨g⟩, like in Standard Valencian: joc /ˈdʒɔk/
• Preservation of final consonant clusters like in Standard Valencian: alt /ˈalt/, tomb /ˈtomp/
• Replacement of the geminate ⟨tll⟩ /ʎː/ by ⟨tl⟩ /lː/ like in Valencian: vetla /ˈvɛlːa/

Vowels

• Tendency to avoid the distinction between open ⟨è⟩ /ɛ/ and ⟨ò⟩ /ɔ/ and close ⟨é⟩ /e/ and ⟨ó⟩ /o/
• The most frequent unstressed vowels are /a, u, i/ instead of /ə, u, i/
  • Initial ⟨a⟩ is silent in some cases: abella. In other cases it may appear an initial epenthetic /a/: [a]copiar
  • Unstressed ⟨e⟩ can be pronounced as /a/ (les /las/), /i/ (estiu /isˈtiu̯/) or fluctuate between /a/ and /i/ (respecte /rasˈpɛkta/ or /risˈpɛkta/). In other cases it maintains the original open or closed pronunciation found in Italian (benefici /bɛneˈfisi/). In the vowel group ⟨ei⟩ before ⟨x⟩, as well as certain verbal forms ⟨e⟩ is silent (eixir /iˈʃiɾ/, riuen /ˈriun/)
  • Unstressed ⟨i⟩ is pronounced with /a/ in words that begin with his-, im-, in-: història, imaginar, innocent
  • Unstressed ⟨o⟩ is generally pronounced as /u/ (bolet /buˈlɛt/), like in Standard Catalan; but there are few cases where /o/ is found, normally due to Italian influence: foto /ˈfoto/. The ⟨o⟩ in words like hospital, moment and obscur is pronounced with /a/

Thanks for your comment, if you read the previous conversation above you'll see my proposal for organizing these notes (and converting them into a chart). It is important to represent some local transcriptions to show the reality of a community of speakers whose pron. system differs (in a number of aspects) from both standard forms (either by taking a standard feature from a less general pattern, or having a feature of its own). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuvolet (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, I see that. Still, there's not agreement on your proposal and I personally wouldn't agree to it. I believe your proposal to be untenable for editors and readers.

First, expanding our transcriptions out to non-standard varieties makes verification nearly impossible.

Second, doing so requires editors to have to parse the best choice among at least six different varieties.

Third, our readers would get too little consistency. KB is right that we should focus on the standard varieties that second language learners focus on. It's the same with many other languages that have dialectal variation but a standard variety.— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there wasn't an agreement for adding an extra guide for dialects in some languages (some of them without sources), but it's OK for me to do it here. Concerning Catalan, there are enough sources for improving its local or regional transcriptions by adding a few more instructions without confusing readers. Thinking of 2 main transcriptions (Standard Catalan and Standard Valencian) plus 1 for Insular Catalan on a different page would be ok for me, additionally there should be a sort of notice here for Andorra and Western & South Catalonia. How would you transcribe terms such as Andorra la Vella, Tortosa and Lleida? If you use /v/, unstressed /a/ and so on you'll be using Valencian and wouldn't be accurate to call this variety that way, so we'd need to add some instructions or footnotes (esp. if we mix standard features from each system). — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 15:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

ʃ or ɕ ?!?

The ʃ links to ɕ (Voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative wiki article) and separely, tʃ links to tɕ - is that correct? Showing a different IPA symbol than which it links to is very confusing to the lay reader, especially since these are not interlinked at all in their respective articles. See also Voiceless postalveolar fricative (ʃ). I get that it's probably complicated, but still, could some linguists chime in please? Unless it's a common flashpoint of some previous IPA Wikipedians' esoteric wikiwar, of course ;) Still, in the end, it just confuses the reader trying to find the correct pronunciation. Technicality nitpicker (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue is somehow explained on the Catalan phonology page. I think there was a note here but it got replaced by some hidden instructions.

Specifically, ʃ and tʃ are used as primary symbols in all phonetic literature of Catalan (akin to other Romance language transcriptions), by both authors who define these sounds either as back alveolo-palatal or postalveolar. The standard and recommended pronunciation though is palato-alveolar,[3] so we could change the links to palato-alveolars. – Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 17:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The standard and recommended pronunciation though is palato-alveolar - the source calls those sounds palato-alveolar. It's just a label. They don't say nor prove that they're palato-alveolar as opposed to alveolo-palatal. Especially /ʃ/ is almost invariably alveolo-palatal on their recordings. Let's just trust Recasens, shall we?

And I would strongly support transcribing the alveolo-palatal series with ⟨ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ⟩ as Catalan "alveolar" sibilants are retracted. Using ⟨ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ⟩ in any language with retracted alveolar sibilants strikes me as an overly broad transcription that has a serious potential to mislead the readers as to the phonetic nature of both series. That's 8 (eight!) sounds affected. The contrast between the alveolo-palatal [ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ] and alveolar [s, z, ts, dz] has to be strongly maintained. There's nothing wrong with using English /s, z, ts, dz/ for their Catalan counterparts, but using English /ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ/ instead of the alveolo-palatals found in Catalan can lead to serious problems with intelligibility (at least in the case of fricatives, as /s, z/ sound more retracted than /ts, dz/, at least to my ears).

We transcribe Polish ⟨sz, ż, cz, dż⟩ with ⟨ʂ, ʐ, tʂ, dʐ⟩ even though everybody writes them with ⟨ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ⟩ (the same is true of Russian by the way, minus the affricates which do not occur as 'hard' in Russian), so what's the problem with changing Catalan ⟨ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ⟩ to ⟨ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ⟩? We have a source to back it up. Sol505000 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The convention used here is the same than the sources, as I said before there is a tradition of transcribing symbols as have been recommended, even by those who label the sounds as alveolo-palatal. Nobody uses the symbols ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ in Catalan Studies, including the newest sources such as the Valencian llibre d'estil or the Catalan grammars and dictionaries, so there is no reason to use it here. There is also the fact that the media diffuses the standard sounds recommended by the IEC and AVL, in a similar way to standard French which may include sounds that are disappearing and fading out of usage in certain areas. Another example is Spanish yeísmo, which is the norm even in formal circles (unlike Catalan). So there are enough reasons (to my point) to keep transcribing them as they have been diffused in the studies and here. Don't think the variants you are mentioning have problems of intelligibility and if it does we could use the proper links for palato-alveolars, after all it was my idea to use the current links, and since there is a diffusion of symbology as well as sounding I could correct that to the standard version. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)