Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet

Tilde is missing?

The tilde ⟨~⟩ is often used for free variation, but it's not mentioned on this page. Should it be added, or is it not part of the IPA? I just checked the handbook and didn't see it listed, but I'm only an amateur.

Relatedly:

• Tilde § International Phonetic Alphabet covers this usage, but doesn't cite any sources
• Free variation also doesn't mention the tilde notation

— W.andrea (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's used for phonetics more broadly, not just for IPA, but the same for most of the other symbols. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there an article that covers generic phonetic notation? — W.andrea (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be Phonetic transcription. Remsense ‥ 论 13:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a section for it here. I just haven't yet found a source for it.

BTW, at phonetic transcription, I don't know that we have a distinction between morphophonemic and diaphonemic delimiters. I've seen a double solidus for morpho. Not sure if all of the possibilities are used for both. — kwami (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

How to notate the Catalan l·l trigraph?

I've been cleaning up the markup at Diacritic, which has mainly been to replace italics with angle-brackets. But I'm not sure that I have done the right thing with ⟨l·l⟩ in Catalan. Any advice? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a diacritic. It's a punctuation mark intended to break up the digraph ll, much like the apostrophe in other languages, e.g. in pinyin Xi'an (disyllabic) vs xian (monosyllabic), or dang'an (dang-an) vs dangan (dan-gan). Or the hyphen in English co-op vs coop or un-ionized vs unionized. The only reason this is notable in Catalan is that it only occurs in this one sequence.

That said, I don't mind listing it among diacritics and digraphs, because that's where people might expect it. — kwami (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the IPA? Nardog (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both.

First, nothing to do with IPA as such, my question is about linguistics notation (which resides here at #Brackets and transcription delimiters).

Interpunct#Catalan documents its history and function, but doesn't give it any markup.

So coming back to linguistic markup, what is the appropriate Brackets and transcription delimiter to use? None? Italic?--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to do. Angle brackets are good for something small like this that might be hard to see if it were just made italic, but typography is a matter of aesthetics and what works for the reader, not any particular rules. — kwami (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What does Nörsk sound like?

Has anyone else noticed that there's no way to find anything on the Internet that can speak IPA aloud? 72.210.7.64 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You have http://ipa-reader.xyz/ which if you input the IPA transcription it will read it for you. If you want to transcribe 'Nörsk' into IPA, use https://unalengua.com/ipa-translate?hl=en&ttsLocale=en-GB-WLS&voiceId=Geraint&text= Nörsk in IPA is [nˈɜːsk] Saussure4661 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

What does this mean? "An IPA symbol is often distinguished from the sound it is intended to represent, since there is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between letter and sound in broad transcription, making articulatory descriptions such as "mid front rounded vowel" or "voiced velar stop" unreliable."

"...symbol is often distinguished from the sound..." Well, yes, a symbol is visual and a sound is sound. What is this intended to mean? It can surely be said more clearly.

Why are "articulatory descriptions such as "mid front rounded vowel" or "voiced velar stop" unreliable" in broad transcription? They are not precise (a mid front rounded vowel may be slightly lower or higher, more or less rounded, etc.) but within a broad transcription they are just as reliable as an IPA symbol, or more reliable.

"there is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between letter and sound in broad transcription": I can't even guess what this is supposed to mean. If it's broad transcription, we would not expect a 1-1 correspondence between symbol and fine-grained allophone, but there had better be a one-to-one correspondence between letter and phoneme (or unit at whatever level of abstraction is intended). That's what transcription is all about. Linguistatlunch (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

yeah, those descriptions aren't very clear.

the number of distinguished phones in broad phonetic transcription is very often different from those of phonemic transcription. especially in languages with small numbers of phonemes. but you also don't want to call 'e' a 'high-mid front unrounded vowel' if it's being used for a mid or low-mid vowel sound. There's reason people speak of 'schwa' rather than 'mid central vowel'. — kwami (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Lack of stress: " [aɪ̯ pʰiː eɪ̯]"

The current image and transcription shows no stress. Compare Wiktionary's entry for IPA , which shows /ˌaɪ.piːˈeɪ/, [ˌaɪ.pʰiːˈeɪ]. JMGN (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wrong notation: [iː] is actually [ɪi̯]

(examples in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtnlGH055TA)

1. linking r is not applied right before closing diphtongs (FLEECE and GOOSE count as closing diphtongs for this rule)
2. the only type of hiatus allowed is if all the vowels involved that aren't the last one are closing diphtongs (FLEECE and GOOSE also count as closing diphtongs here)
3. pre-L breaking with a vowel before the L is only possible if a that vowel is a closing diphtong (ditto)
4. pre-fortis clipping is stronger before a closing diphtong (ditto)
5. glide insertion happens iff the first vowel is a closing diphtong and in a way that matches the end of that diphtong e.g. /əʊ̯ə/>/əʊ̯wə/ and /aɪ̯əʊ̯/>/aɪ̯jəʊ̯/ (ditto)
6. smoothing (the kind that removes the ə) only happens with closing diphtongs (ditto) (examples in https://www.englishspeechservices.com/blog/smoothing-then-and-now/ this time)

that's all the evidence i have! 2001:9E8:E1F9:EB00:57B7:F343:6D5C:DBA0 (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:IPA pulmonic consonants has an RfC

Template:IPA pulmonic consonants, which is transcluded by this page, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Kanguole 21:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Phonemic representation "for legibility often uses simple and 'familiar' letters rather than precise notation"

Oh oh. Time for reciting what many preach to students? "Mean what you say, say what you mean"? True enough that e.g. /n/ and /m/ are more legible to the uninitiated than /ɱ/. But assuming that [ɱ] is allophonic only in the language examined (thus */ɱ/), using /n/ or /m/ in the appropriate instances of reporting phonemes is accurate, not imprecise at all, not "for legibility". Claiming that it is -- conflating epiphenomenon with purpose -- misinforms readers fundamentally. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Barefoot through the chollas: Can you take a look at your comment again? I'm having a hard time understanding it and I think there's a mistake in the penultimate sentence. Nardog (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nardog, maybe this will be clearer. IPA conventions dictate that the nasals as usually pronounced in Standard (North American) English sun and sunk are reported at the phonetic level [n] and [ŋ] respectively. Phonemically, the two are described as both containing /n/, not because /n/ is more familiar than /ŋ/, thus more easily legible, but because the phonetic [ŋ] of sunk is the result of a basic rule of partial assimilation /n/ → [ŋ]/_[k] (clearer across word boundaries, such as in Columbus, where either [n] or [ŋ] can result, depending on speed of speech, etc., and both are understood to be realizations of the same phoneme, /n/). On the other hand, sung leaves no choice. Normal standard pronunciation of the nasal in sung is [ŋ], and a version with [n] is a different word, sun, thus sung is analyzed as containing phoneme /ŋ/, pronounced [ŋ]. Those who established the IPA chose familiar graphemes whenever possible, but the selection of e.g. /n/ over /ŋ/ in IPA phonemic representation is in no way due to the analyst's preference for legibility, nor is /n/ in sun and sunk less precise than /ŋ/ in sung. (Hope this makes sense. I meant to answer your question re vocality today, but I've more than run out of time just now. Sorry; later.) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

how does this apply to the article? — kwami (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I misread "using..." as a dependent clause rather than as the subject and thought the verb never came. Nardog (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

the point is that authors will often use, say, /i e a o u/ even though phonetically the vowels are closer to [ɪ ɛ ɐ ɔ ʉ], or /ɪ ɛ ɐ ɔ ʊ/ rather than /i̙ e̙ a̙ o̙ u̙/ even though atr is phonemic, or tone numbers rather than ipa tone letters or diacritics. since phonemes are abstractions, not physical sounds, you can use dingbats if you like, and indeed people have.

do you have a better way to word this? — kwami (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC notice

Template talk:IPA#RfC: add option to disable link to IPA help page?

Hello, above is a WP:Request for comment about the template {{IPA}} that may be of interest to users of this page. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Small capital vowel icons never meant "lax vowels"

In the 1899 source I provided from the IPA, lowercase i/y/u are referred to as "very close" (now just "close"), while small-cap i/y/u are referred to as "close" (now just "near-close"). In the 1900 source, the near-close variants are described as being intermediary between their close and mid counterparts. It does not say that that they ever were intended to be "lax vowels".

The closest it comes to this is the categorization of half of the vowel inventory as "open" tongue position in the 1899 source and half as "close" tongue position, with all three small-caps falling under the "open" position category, but with seven other regular lowercase letters as well - so there is absolutely not even an unspoken rule that small-caps ever indicated this, as it has never held up. Oklopfer (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

As I said said in one of my previous edit comments, I am frustrated by the attempted perpetuation of a verifiably false statement, and am unsure why there is an insistence on maintaining the incorrectness of the Wikipedia page over the reality of the provided sources. Oklopfer (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

you provided a source that the distinction was originally tense vs lax [tendue vs relâchée]. a later conversion to french vowel equivalents isn't likely to word it that way, as french doesn't have such a distinction, and so that omission isn't evidence for anything. you also used wp as a source for wp, which is not encyclopedic. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Please show me where in the 1899 source the distinction is tense vs lax. [tendue vs relâchée] is written in French, so that would be from the 1900 source, which you keep removing.

The entire section is not encyclopedic, and only refers to Wikipedia by your standard. "Among consonant letters, the small capital letters ⟨ɢ ʜ ʟ ɴ ʀ ʁ⟩, and also ⟨ꞯ⟩ in extIPA, indicate more guttural sounds than their base letters – ⟨ʙ⟩ is a late exception." This has no sourcing, and "guttural sounds" is improper terminology. It may as well be removed entirely. Oklopfer (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

tendue vs relâchée is from the 1899 source, which you should know as you provided that source. it's in french because the author is citing a french source. so you provided a source for the very thing that you're contesting.

the fact that you don't like a word is irrelevant. 'guttural' has a long history in linguistics.

how can you claim that you adding a ref to the article is 'by my standard'. that's ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Capital letter iconography having distinct meaning does not have a long history in linguistics. Oklopfer (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

what does that have to do with anything? it's older than the IPA, which is the relevant time scale. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about using Wikipedia as a source. You are using Wikipedia as the primary source for the section. It should either be backed up with sources or removed, since this page is about the IPA and the section about its iconography. Oklopfer (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

you literally added a reference to this discussion — kwami (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

no, I used the feature, to prevent you from continuously reverting without discussing. Oklopfer (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

ah, you're right. my bad. — kwami (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

"tendue vs relâchée is from the 1899 source, which you should know as you provided that source. it's in french because the author is citing a french source. so you provided a source for the very thing that you're contesting."

I still cannot find this. Can you please show me the context where it says that they are lax vowels? Oklopfer (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

p 38 line 6 — kwami (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

that is referring to what I said before:

The closest it comes to this is the categorization of half of the vowel inventory as "open" tongue position in the 1899 source and half as "close" tongue position, with all three small-caps falling under the "open" position category, but with seven other regular lowercase letters as well - so there is absolutely not even an unspoken rule that small-caps ever indicated this, as it has never held up

There are many other vowels in the row provided, which are not caps, so this rule about lax vowels being small caps is nothing. it is only the near-close vowels which receive the treatment. Oklopfer (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

there's a logical error there. no-one ever said this is what small caps mean in an absolute sense, only that small caps are used for this meaning - which they are. whether other conventions are also used for this meaning, or small caps also mean other things, is beside the point. you've made this over-generalization before. an equivalent would be me saying that people keep dogs as pets, and you saying that's false because some people have cats, or because there are stray dogs that are not pets. whether all pets are dogs, or all dogs are pets, it is still true that people keep dogs as pets. whether all small caps are lax vowels, or all lax vowels are small caps, it's still true that those three lax vowels are small caps. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Currently, the page reads:

“Among vowel letters, small capital ⟨ɪ ʏ ʊ⟩ indicate what had been intended as lax vowels; ⟨ʊ⟩ had originally been ⟨ᴜ⟩”

as a reader, this says to me, “Among vowel letters, small capitals indicate what had been intended as lax vowels”; or conversely, "the vowels that had been intended as lax are small capitals". It ignores the formerly dubbed "lax vowels" which are not small caps.

Saying i am making a logical error or an overgeneralization is an admission of poor wording, and should not be blamed on the reader. I am fixing your logical error of making the claim that this was the intention. Oklopfer (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

And their laxness is not relevant to their small caps-ness any more than their near-close position. Why is their historical categorization taking precedence over their current categorization? Oklopfer (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, in the consonants section, it reads:

"indicate more guttural sounds than their base letters"

However, for the vowels, you do not make any connection to their base letters. The point of even mentioning "⟨ʊ⟩ had originally been ⟨ᴜ⟩" is that ⟨ɪ ʏ ᴜ/ʊ⟩ are the "lax" variants of ⟨i y u⟩, showing a clear correlation between the two. Mentioning their position, as is standard for vowels, is helpful to show this connection (near-close vs close). Oklopfer (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

My latest edit attempts to remedy this, with the rewording:

"-- Among vowel letters, small capital ⟨ɪ ʏ ʊ⟩ indicate what had been intended as lax vowels;"

"++ Among vowel letters, the small capitals ⟨ɪ ʏ ʊ⟩ indicate what had originally been considered more lax articulation than their base letters;"

I do not wish to further any edit warring, only to have this wording be clarified. Oklopfer (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems my edit was reverted - please take a look at my suggestion above to reword. Oklopfer (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

yes, your wording works for me, and it is clearer; i restored it as consensus since we don't have other opinions in this thread — kwami (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)