Talk:Voiceless bilabial fricative

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

Untitled

What does this have to say about the nature of Korean /u/? It's not compressed like Japanese /u/, is it? kwami 19:38, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

The .ogg file for this ɸ or /p/ sound is all wrong. It sounds like "saw, a saw" and has no /p/ in it. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I can't hear any sibilation. A sibilant, especially [s], is characterised by a pronounced "hissing", i. e., high-pitched turbulence. Also, this sound is a fricative, quite unlike [p]. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phonemic?

'Occurrence' doesn't list whether it is phonemic or allophonic with /f/ in any language. Anyone know which are which? Kielbasa1 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Whenever the notes say it's an allophone of some other sound, it's not a phoneme, in all other cases you can assume that it is an independent phoneme. Therefore, in none of the cases currently listed, the sound is an allophone of /f/, while in two of the currently listed cases, it is not phonemic, but neither is it an allophone of /f/ at least, but of some other phoneme. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that according to Spanish phonology#Phonetic notes (at the end of the section), [ɸ] also occurs as an allophone of /f/ in non-standard Spanish, although it is not completely clear from the text whether both are in free variation or if there is some condition under which [ɸ] occurs. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so hard and fast. Part of the reason these sorts of tables don't make a habit of making that distinction is because the status of a sound as a contextual variant depends partly on analysis. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 04:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glyph

Whatever the default monospace typeface is for Wikipedia's mobile editor, it produces an "open" phi glyph for ɸ. The same is true of the article header at Wiktionary. Is this acceptable? I've only ever seen the straight glyph in an IPA context. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i'm an english speaker and

the two f's in pfft are not this sound. they are the same sound as the f you'd find in other english words. Masterball2 (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why

This is stupid. It's literally the exact same sound as /f/

Ultradestroya48 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

/ɸ/ is made with both lips (bilabial), while /f/ is made with the lower lip and upper teeth (labiodental). They may sound the same to speakers of a language that doesn't differentiate between them, like English. These two sounds are allophones in English.

Wikifan153 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]