Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleInternational Phonetic Alphabet has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 27, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
June 10, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 13, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
August 6, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Syllables in IPA[edit]

Anyone ever compose a diglyph-form or triglyph-form syllabary chart in IPA? -Inowen (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Add link to Interactive IPA Chart with Audio?[edit]

Hi guys, (I searched the archives of this talk page and haven't seen any previous mention of the following, so bringing it up here):

While trying to figure out how to pronounce some Latin word, I came across a website that looks useful: http://www.ipachart.com It offers an interactive chart that lets you click an IPA character/phonetic symbol and hear how it is supposed to be pronounced. I have no expertise to judge how reliable/trustworthy it is, but it does claim to be based on work from the UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive which is likely trustworthy.

I later noticed that that page I'm referencing links back to the General Phonetics page on Wikimedia Commons, which seems to have somewhat similar contents, and may perhaps be even better, as users can also figure out licensing issues regarding the audio files.

Either way, I think at least one of these pages (http://www.ipachart.com or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_phonetics should appear as a clear external reference (i.e. under the External References section) with an explanation that there the reader can find out what sounds IPA symbols represent, by actually hearing them, not just reading about them.

agree? Ynagar (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The external links section of this article included links to interactive charts including the one you mentioned, and other resources not maintained by the International Phonetic Association, but they had to be removed because the list grew and less-than-reliable resources clearly not meeting the standard of WP:EL were creeping in (some were moved to Help:IPA#External links). The site you mentioned is using files from Commons so it's kind of a WP:CIRCULAR source, which clearly falls into WP:ELNO #1.
If you're looking for a reliable interactive chart, I recommend [1] and [2], which are overseen by John Esling, former IPA President. There are also interactive charts produced as supplements to Peter Ladefoged's books and released online: [3] [4]; but they are old and may not work properly on your browser. There are also [5] and [6], which are nonetheless hosted by universities, but I don't find them to be as reliable as Esling's or Ladefoged's. Wikipedia also has its own interactive charts, but they are scattered across articles so they may be better accumulated in a single page à la the IPA chart article. Nardog (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Nardog,
first, thanks for your elaborate answer. I've read it a couple of times, and went chasing the links you provided... pheeww... there certainly is lots of stuff there (found the seeingspeech one particularly helpful indeed).
But I'm afraid that's also what can get people more confused.
Look, I honestly am not at all an expert on this subject matter. Just a person who sometimes encounters an unfamiliar word, from an unfamiliar language, and wants to know how to pronounce it. So in this specific case, I found my solution. But my bottom line is, right now, if someone else like me is looking for a guide to pronounciation that uses actual audio (rather than phonetic symbols that require prior knowledge/learning/deciphering), this article does not provide a clear reference to such a place (even though I expected it to).
So I think that it would be great if someone more knowledgeable than me on this matter would add (a) link/s to at least one reliable source - whether it's on Wikipedia commons or one of the others you mentioned (Esling's or Ladefoged's, etc.). I'm not qualified to know which one is better/best, perhaps its worth linking to more than one. I don't know. But the bottom line is I think other folks would benefit from this. Instead of having an answer to this need here in the talk page, currently addressed to one person (me), possibly seen by a few others who happen to read here, and potentially/eventually disappearing down the talk archives, it will be much better to have something in the article itself. Just my 2 cents. Ynagar (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The first line in the article refers to page help:IPA where almost all symbols are linked to an audio file. −Woodstone (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Woodstone. I missed it somehow. I suspect its because the line says: "For usage of IPA in Wikipedia, see Help:IPA", and I didn't take "usage in Wikipedia" to also imply that it would include audio help.
I don't think that it's necessarily obvious from this line of text. So perhaps the best thing would be to change the sentence at the top of the page to something like: "For usage of IPA in Wikipedia, and for a pronunciation guide including audio, see Help:IPA", or a similar sentence in that spirit? Ynagar (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually the page help:IPA is not specific for the usage of IPA in WP. Perhaps it's time again to discuss moving it to the main space. Anyway we could give it a separate hatnote like "for an extensive list of IPA symbols and their pronunciation including audio see ..."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstone (talkcontribs) 06:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree. (Went to implement the change on the page, saw you just did it... thanks!)(re: moving to main space - I assume that means Wikimedia commons, I agree with that too but don't know how to do it, so I'll leave that for someone more savvy. I'm just going to fix a typo now (link=links). Thanks for your help! Ynagar (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No, our main namespace isn't Wikimedia Commons, see Wikipedia:Namespace#Subject namespaces. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it should stay in the Help namespace. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, although, as I alluded to earlier, a page like IPA chart but with audio, merging the existing IPA vowel chart with audio etc., may be worth considering. Nardog (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IPA (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Deprecated in Unicode[edit]

Today User:Nardog removed a remark on the U+0334 ̴ COMBINING TILDE OVERLAY being deprecated in Unicode with the following summary: what's that even mean, "deprecated in Unicode"? U+0334 is present in the latest code charts

This is the answer their question: The term deprecated character is definined as D13 in section Characters and Encoding of the published Unicode standard itself ("A coded character whose use is strongly discouraged.", followed by four notes). Cf. Unicode Standard Annex #44 for the formal definition of the Unicode character property deprecated as used in file PropList.txt, as well as the recent subbmission Deprecation Inconsistencies in Code Chart Annotations by Charlotte Buff.

I am in favour of providing our readers with the information that using this character is strongly discouraged. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: Thank you for your explanation about the term "deprecated", but I can't confirm U+0334 is in fact discouraged in either the code chart or PropList.txt. Could you point to a source that confirms the diacritic is deprecated? If so, we should indeed note that with a reference to it and with better wording. Nardog (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't check and took it for granted that this piece of information in the article was correct.
However this still leaves the fact that the simple Unicode charcters ⟨ɫ ᵬ ᵭ ᵮ ᵯ ᵰ ᵱ ᵲ ᵳ ᵴ ᵵ ᵶ Ɫ ꭞ⟩ are not canonically equivalent to the sequences ⟨l̴ b̴ d̴ f̴ m̴ n̴ p̴ r̴ ɾ̴ s̴ t̴ z̴ L̴ ˡ̴⟩ composed of base characters plus U+0334 ̴ . Neither font designers nor search engines, rendering engines or any other software is required to treat them the same, and only [ɫ] (U+026B ɫ ) is the a correct Unicode representation for IPA while [l̴] (U+006C l plus U+0334 ̴ ) isn't, no matter if they display identically on your device/system or not. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)