Indecipherable[edit]

Ugh, I HATE that Wiki uses this IPA crap. I don't know why they can't show pronunciations like the dictionary does. It's so much more intuitive that this gobbledygook. IPA was created by drunken sailors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.240.42 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most english words on wikipedia use respelling as well, take for example Victor Wembanyama. It has the gibberish, and then a spelled-out more understandable version. If you see an article that should have one of these, add it!
For a more drawn-out explanation, this talk page has a question just like this in the FAQ section. Coulomb1 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ˈnɒnsᵊns, ðɪs ˈɡɪbərɪʃ ɪz ˈiːzi tuː riːd, ænd ˈdɛfɪnɪtli nɒt ˈsʌmθɪŋ juː ˌɔːtəˈmætɪkᵊli skɪm ˈəʊvə Local Potentate (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link/embed ipa-reader.xyz[edit]

Apologies if this is a well worn topic, but I’ve wondered why the IPA notation in many articles doesn’t link to an audible pronunciation. I don’t have an issue with the notation itself, but the vast majority of readers are likely interested in guidance on how the word sounds more than an explanation of the phonetic notation. I’m sure there are practical considerations to any integration, but it seems like it’s a lot more steps to get to hearing the word than it should be, and many readers won’t find a site like ipa-reader or won’t bother. 24.241.32.226 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is that this key is supposed to be dialect-neutral, though that hasn't deterred transcriptions occasionally accompanying audio. WMF is to develop software that will enable instant generation of audio from IPA, but it doesn't seem active at the moment so it'll likely take years. Once that becomes available, we might ditch the key in favor of dialect-specific ones (or who knows what happens). Nardog (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Gauff[edit]

A minor dispute on whether IPA-en should be included for this tennis player. I maintain that Gauff is a very unusual and non-intuitive name in the English-speaking world, but the other editor disagrees. We have IPA-en for Jessica Biel, Alicia Silverstone and Joe Biden, so why should her article be any different? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the normal pronunciation for those who have "cot-caught merger" plus "father-bother merger"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: But for those have neither merger (like me), it would be helpful. Is it /ɡaʊf/, /ɡɔːf/ or /ɡɒf/? Bazza 7 (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This key is WP:DIAPHONEMIC. Nardog (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog: I'm not sure how that's pertinent. As discussed elsewhere by Mac Dreamstate, my British English stumbled on that name: /ɡaʊf/ (gowf) came first, then /ɡɔːf/ (gawf), then /ɡɒf/ (gof).
I see that User_talk:Fyunck(click) reinstated the referenced original guide /ˈɡɑːf/ GAHF, which is just as well as it wasn't on my internal list of three distinct pronunciations. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to AnonMoos. /ɑː/ is indeed the vowel for those with father–bother and cot–caught mergers, but it's a non-option for a diaphonemic notation. We need what those without the mergers pronounce it (the LOT–CLOTH split is also potentially relevant here, but given the subject is American—from the South no less—we could assume its presence; see the note at the end of the "Key" section). Nardog (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nardog: My apologies for not paying attention to your accurate indentation. And thanks for your concise and understandable explanation. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, American speakers without the cot-caught merger pronounce the name as /ɡɔf/, not /ɡɑf/. This makes sense as it corresponds to the spelling. I have therefore changed the pronunciation guide to this. Referencing Gauff's own pronunciation is useless as she has a PALM-LOT-THOUGHT merged accent, so her /ɑ/ phoneme corresponds to three separate Wikipedia diaphonemes. Offa29 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between /æ/ in "trap" and "bad"[edit]

The latter is extended in most accents I've heard, so surely should include : like in /ɑː/ and /iː/. I'm not seeing it on the table. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mac Dreamstate: Checking three reliable sources:
So although the "a" may vary in sound between English variants, the same sound is used within a variant for "trap" and "bad". Bazza 7 (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. To me they sound as different as /ɪ/ and /iː/. I'm not going to call into question anyone's linguistic credentials, but it's like someone's missing a trick somewhere. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate: Someone else might want to contribute here and provide some better references. I was, I confess, surprised by the sources. I think I know what you're alluding to; we might, from our seats on this side of the pond, respectfully call it a "drawl". Bazza 7 (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a phonemic difference. A speaker's phonetic realizations might be transcribed as [træp] and [bæːd] but it's one phoneme, written /æ/. On the other hand, considering only my own (eastern US) speech, I don't see why, in contrast, the phonemes /ɑː/ and /iː/ are marked long. To me, the vowels in "beat" and "bead" differ in length in the same way as "bat" and "bad", so it isn't clear to me why the phoneme behind one pair would be explicitly marked long and the other one not. Perhaps there are enough examples of English around the world with long vowels in both "beat" and "bead" and short vowels in both "bat" and "bad" that it makes sense. Largoplazo (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a phonemic distinction made in some accents of English: the Pronunciation of English ⟨a⟩#Bad–lad split. However this is not accounted for in the transcription system, presumably because it is not featured in most dictionaries. It is far from the only possible phonemic distinction omitted; cf. the horse-hoarse and fir-fur-fern distinctions in Scottish and Irish English. Offa29 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
200 days ago? 50.231.115.70 (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double entry[edit]

Why is ɪ appearing twice, both under "Vowels" and "Weak vowels"? If we need two entries here, I would expect separate symbols (even if one is a modification of the other with a combining mark of some kind).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the double entries for //ɪ// and //oʊ// are mainly there for historic reasons, back from the day when we were propagating our own idiosyncratic symbols for the weak vowel versions of the two. I have tentatively unified the symbols, keeping all the content. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 06:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colons for length symbols[edit]

In the 3rd bullet point of the Dialect variation section colons are used in place of length symbols:

Most speakers of North American English (with the exception of Eastern New England) do not distinguish between the vowels in father /'fɑ:ðər/ and bother /'bɒðər/, pronouncing the two words as rhymes. If you speak such a dialect, ignore the difference between the symbols /ɑ:/ and /ɒ/.

I think they need to be replaced. 2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:B1A9:DA55:640A:FC65 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nardog (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories