This is an archive of past discussions about Help:IPA. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Could someone please add those sources lest outsiders think we made up our own transcription conventions (WP:OR)? Currently, there are no sources, while the footnotes for ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ mention a source that uses different transcriptions, namely, ⟨ɪ̵⟩ and ⟨ʊ̶⟩. --mach🙈🙉🙊09:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I have not found the sources for the usage we are making of ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ in the articles. Some have claimed that it is an Americanist usage, but I have not found any sources. Are we certain that this is not WP:OR? --mach🙈🙉🙊17:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It's actually OK if the specific symbols we use are our own. In-house conventions aren't subject to nearly as strict a following of WP:OR as article content. Help:IPA conventions for English outlines which dictionaries mark which contrasts; it is these contrasts that we must make sure are sourced, not necessarily the symbols we use. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]17:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, we are free to invent whatever in-house rules we want on a page such as Help:IPA for English (or are we? – it appears that the only place where WP:OR does not apply is talk pages). It is quite different, though, when real article content in the article namespace features a transcription that is WP:OR and that we cannot WP:VERIFY because we have invented it ourselves.
Now I am not accusing you guys of having invented the way we are using the symbols ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩. However, unless we finally provide a source that accounts for this use, numerous articles such as curriculum or Appalachian Mountains appear to contain information that infringes both WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. That is real article content, and not just in-house conventions.
Imagine the following: An interested linguist wonders where the strange usage of the signs ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ comes from. They click on the link that leads to Help:IPA for English. They do not find a source that account for ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ but, instead, a source that accounts for ⟨ɪ̵⟩ and ⟨ʊ̶⟩. They will rightly conclude that Wikipedians do not care for sources but invent their own material. – – That is not how I want it to be. Therefore, I think we must provide sources for ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩. --mach🙈🙉🙊22:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK the only reason we're using ⟨ɨ,ʉ⟩ instead of ⟨ᵻ,ᵿ⟩ is that the latter are non-IPA symbols, nothing more. Peter238 (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OR applies to the pronunciations themselves, not to how we convey them. As long as the pronunciations for curriculum or Appalachian are sourced, we are free to indicate the pronunciations in any way we wish. By using ⟨ɨ⟩, ⟨ʉ⟩, and ⟨ɵ⟩, we are not claiming things about the pronunciation of English that aren't sourced elsewhere, even if the choice of symbols is novel. In other words, WP:NOR applies to facts, not how we represent them. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]05:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Why? Also, I think the way of representing facts is also a fact or, in other words, there is no clear-cut distinction between the two. If this were maths, you wouldn’t invent a new notation either.
I cannot believe there is no precedence for our usage of ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩. Is that really what the two of you are saying? --mach🙈🙉🙊08:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It's an in-house convention, not a fact, and is part of MOS. It's the same thing for Wikipedia's respelling scheme. Some of our more controversial choices were made before we even thought to find sources that did the same. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]15:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not think that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style trumps the Wikipedia:Core content policies, however dear and old of an habit it has become. Denying that these transcriptions are a fact does not lead anywhere. It is a fact we have created. Due to Wikipedia’s high notability on the internet, this fact propagates.
By allowing this kind of WP:OR, we run into annoying problems like the following: Should articles such as ɨ and u bar or close central rounded vowel and close central unrounded vowel mention the idiosyncratic way the signs ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ are used on Wikipedia? If they do not, then we have the untenable situation that Wikipedia fails to explain the fact how these signs are used; if they do, then we have an equally untenable case of WP:OR (also see MOS:SELFREF). Either way, it is highly unsatisfactory.
And consider that, at the moment, the articles close central rounded vowel and close central unrounded vowel are at odds with our transcription system. According to these articles, the sign ⟨ʉ⟩ is used for a peculiar way of pronouncing the word choose in a number of English varieties ([t͡ʃʉːz]) and for the (Eastern) Canadian pronunciation of about ([əˈbɛʉt]), while the sign ⟨ɨ⟩ is used for a peculiar way of pronouncing the word rude in a few other English varieties ([ɹɨːd]). So according to Wikipedia, the way ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ are used in representing English has nothing to do with the way ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ are used for representing English on Wikipedia. --mach🙈🙉🙊19:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing that MOS trumps core policies. I don't think they come at odds at all, actually. When it is used in its intended fashion, the transcription system is neutral, as it accommodates the pronunciations of multiple dictionaries (particularly between British and American ones); the contrasts we give are verifiable, as they can be checked with said dictionaries; and so long as our transcriptions indicate pronunciations that are not of our own manufacture, they are not original research.
In answer to your question: we would only include that sort of information if a third party reported on it, otherwise we would be guilty of original research. We actually do explain how these characters are used in our English transcriptions right here at Help:IPA for English. If you read the explanatory guide, you'll see that our transcription system is diaphonemic and therefore a much more abstract, diasystemic representation than the phonetic ones found at the phone pages you've pointed to.
Arguing that our transcriptions are, in themselves, claims or facts independent of the pronunciations they indicate rings of sophistry to me. What is/are the fact(s) that we're presumably claiming? — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]20:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The original research is the following: 1. The English vowel system has the diaphonemes /ɨ/, /ɵ/ and /ʉ/. 2. The signs ⟨ɨ⟩, ⟨ɵ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ are used for representing such diaphonemes. These claims need a citation to a reliable source.
To me, it rings of sophistry when you argue that the core policies do not apply because some facts count as content and others count as form. First, I think that a division between form and content is a myth – the choice of one representation over another is always an interpretation. Second, I do not see any grounds for your point of view that the core policies only apply to content, and not to form (such as notations etc.).
Of course I know of this help page. However, MOS:SELFREF says: “do not assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia”. Now when we create facts by inventing our own transcription systems, the transcriptions are no longer useful outside the context of Wikipedia. That is what makes them WP:OR – there are no sources outside of Wikipedia that would explain them. --mach🙈🙉🙊02:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have completely missed the point of of MOS:SELFREF, which says not to mention Wikipedia in a self-referential way in article space. It does not even imply that we should avoid conventions that require an explanatory guide. Fixating on attribution in the context of copied pages is a bit nonsensical, since the problem of an article being copied over without a proper link to the explanatory guideline isn't fixed with having a system attributable in some way to sources; whether or not such guidelines are sourced, a hypothetical third-party reader won't understand the system unless it's already clear to them what the system is.
Regarding the fact claims, your first fact requires some unpacking. Since the term diaphoneme is largely deprecated in contemporary literature (with no replacement term AFAIK), we wouldn't expect to find a source that argues for the diaphonemic structure of English at all from the last 40 years. Instead, the statement "English has a diaphoneme /ɨ/" would be better stated, "there is a body of words in English that some people pronounce with /ɪ/ and others with /ə/." Since we cite dictionaries that, either within themselves or between each other, mark this variance, this implicit claim is sourced. The same goes for the other two vowels.
Your second fact (as well as your initial post) seems to belie a terribly naïve assumption that, if we can just find one source that transcribes in the same way as we have, then we are resting on solid ground with a strict application of the core policies on in-house conventions. But if we are reading our transcription system as a claim of others' conventions, then we invite the question, "used by whom?" Is this transcription common or part of a fringe outlier of transcriptions? If we are applying a strict reading of core policies to our in-house conventions, then we must also worry about transcribing English pronunciation in a way that is neutrally representative of how sources transcribe English. What does this mean for other MOS conventions? Does that mean that the proscription against putting links in the bold text of a lede (per MOS:BOLDTITLE) is original research if we can't find a source that says the same? Should our MOS demonstrate that it strikes a balance with the MOS's of similar projects?
Do you see the can of worms this strict reading of core policies unleashes? This is why WP:OR doesn't need to be so strictly adhered to here. We're applying WP:IAR and injecting common sense into addressing the issue of how to transcribe English pronunciations that gets to the spirit of the core policies, rather than their letter. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]03:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
1. You are saying yourself that the term diaphoneme is deprecated. Then why do we rely so heavily on it (I mean on the help page, not in your above reply)?
2. Whatever you like to assume about my terrible naivety, I think we better use solutions that are also used outside of Wikipedia. Inventing our own solutions is original research. Apparently, it is not as if there were no solutions out there. Why would you rather invent our own solutions – under the danger of being accused of WP:OR – than use the solutions that exist outside of Wikipedia?
As a sidenote: The rules in other fields where notation matters also say that our conventions should remain understandable outside of Wikipedia, see for instance MOS:MATH#Mathematical conventions:
Each article should explain its own terminology as if there are no conventions, in order to minimize the chance of confusion. Not only do different articles use different conventions, but Wikipedia's readers come to articles with widely different conventions in mind. These readers will often not be familiar with our conventions, which may differ greatly from the conventions they see outside Wikipedia. Moreover, when our articles are presented in print or on other websites, there may be no simple way for readers to check what conventions have been employed.
Your citation of MOS:MATH prompts me to repeat what I've already said: when articles with IPA transcriptions are copied over to third-party web sites, using sourced systems still doesn't help the reader understand the transcriptions if they have no way of looking at the help key. Even if we found an established transcription system to our liking, places that copy our articles would be just as "unusable." If we are to apply the MOS:MATH policy to transcriptions, we would have to put a help key on every page that has an English IPA transcription, no matter what our system is. The closest we get to that is {{IPAc-en}}, though I don't know if third-party web sites copy the mouseover feature that helps readers with the transcriptions. Is this point clear?
We rely on the concept of the diaphoneme because it's helpful for the reader to understand what we're doing. The system we've got here represents English pronunciation in a neutral fashion, which other resources don't do. When you first came here, you were apparently fine with a synthesis of other resources' representations; if we're really going to avoid these accusations of OR, we'd have to pick one source, which then violates NPOV. Perhaps you can find a neutral source that others have missed; until then, this is the best solution that gets at the practical problem of efficiently indicating English pronunciations.
It should be clear by now how WP:IAR applies here. As long as we're invoking IAR, I don't think it makes sense to be worried that someone will come along and charge us with violating the rule or rules we've decided to ignore. That's not a good reason to follow rules in ways that violate their spirit. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with syntheses of other sources, and I understand that we cannot have an in-house transcription system without compromises (which are a good thing). I just think it is a bad idea that we invent our own idiosyncrases that are not used anywhere else but on Wikipedia.
Also, WP:IAR has an if condition. It is a kind of last resort when the rules do not allow for a better solution. The question is: Do we have to violate the core rules? Must we resort to WP:IAR? Is there no other way? – Yes, there is another way: Instead of our idiosyncratic use of ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ that we made up by ourselves, there are the signs ⟨ɪ̵⟩ and ⟨ʊ̶⟩ (or ⟨ɪ⟩ and ⟨ʊ⟩) that are attested (the sources are already cited on this help page). Of course, they are not IPA, but our way of using ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ is not IPA either (worse: while they figure in IPA, we use them in a way that goes against any IPA); and of course, there are browser issues with representing the proper Unicode characters, but that can be solved with an intelligent template. --mach🙈🙉🙊18:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Not being IPA is not as big a problem as the display issues that come up. Either way we try to transcribe them, they don't appear correctly on all displays. Incorporating strikethroughs also has the problem of being terribly awkward to include. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]18:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
When the template can handle translations from SAMPA, then it should be possible to add some tweak so it can produce the stroke. And here I would really act according to the maxime: ‘When there is a choice, prefer the option that does not violate any Wikipedia:Core content policies.’
I see that article such as HTML link to the help namespace. I have now included the same sort of link to the relevant articles, e.g. close central unrounded vowel. That resolves my immediate concern that an article such as Appalachian Mountains uses the sign ⟨ɨ⟩ in a way that is nowhere to be found in the article about that sign. – – This was really my initial concern. I stumbled upon Wikipedia transcription that used ⟨ɨ⟩ and wondered where that usage came from, so I looked it up under ɨ (which led to close central unrounded vowel) and grew very concerned when I found no explanation. --mach🙈🙉🙊19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
A small matter for improvement. The drop-down comment (#24) for “barred i” <ɨ> says that many phoneticians use the “pseudo-IPA symbol ⟨ɪ⟩” (barred ɪ), and refers readers to ref 3. All we are given there is the names of the authors of some presumably relevant work that I have never heard of. More than this is needed to back up a claim about “many phoneticians” using this symbol. RoachPeter (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting this. I think refs 3 and 4 (Bolinger and Ladefoged) ought to have full bibliographic references, too. I expect I could figure out what publications are referred to here if necessary. With regard to the "barred i" and "barred u" issue, I wonder why WP didn't opt for copying OUP's practice here, and use barred ɪ and barred ʊ instead of barred i and barred u. OUP have set up these conventions in a clearly diaphonemic way, so there would be no need to agonize over OR. RoachPeter (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I couldn’t agree more – my thoughts exactly.
As to alleged display issues, that was an error on my part. The issues disappear entirely when we use the precomposed Unicode characters U+1D7B LATIN SMALL CAPITAL LETTER I WITH STROKE ⟨ᵻ⟩ and U+1D7F LATIN SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH STROKE ⟨ᵿ⟩ instead of relying on untrustworthy overlay characters. I am sorry for not having thought of this before.
It seems there is only one argument left that still speaks for keeping our idiosyncratic solution with ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ instead of the OED solution with ⟨ᵻ⟩ and ⟨ᵿ⟩: the force of inertia. With regard to IPA, either solution equally violates it; with regard to display, either solution is equally unproblematic; with regard to inputting the characters, either solution is equally inaccessable; the only difference is with regard to WP:NOR, where the OED solution is clearly preferrable. --mach🙈🙉🙊10:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with changing ⟨ɨ,ʉ⟩ to ⟨ᵻ,ᵿ⟩. The question is: will these display correctly in all browsers? A few years ago, they didn't. Peter238 (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The signs were introduced into Unicode ten years ago. Windows XP is older than that, so chance are good that they will not display in Windows XP. The same holds true, as it were, for the sign ⟨ⁱ⟩ that is already out there on the help page.As is to be expected, they
I suspect it is more likely that a browser generally fails at displaying higher Unicode characters than that it specifically fails with these characters. Up-to-date versions of Windows, Ubuntu or Mac OS X have no problems with these signs. On the IETester I occasionally use, the signs are displayed all right from IE7 on, while IE6 fails to display them, just as it fails to display the other phonetic characters. On browsershots.org, there seems to be nothing unexpected – text browsers and IE6 cannot display any of ⟨ɨ ʉ ᵻ ᵿ⟩, while less stone-age browsers have no problems. So in my preliminary look at different browser versions, I have not found any difference between our idiosyncratic ⟨ɨ ʉ⟩ and the OED ⟨ᵻ ᵿ⟩. The angle brackets I like so much appear to be more troublesome really. --mach🙈🙉🙊12:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm also OK with ⟨ᵻ,ᵿ⟩ as long as they display correctly. My desktop and tablet display them correctly, while my phone (an android) doesn't show them. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]16:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So we’ll just wait a few more years for Google to catch up so we can finally dump our WP:OR transcription … ? Incidently, can the phone display the character ⟨ⁱ⟩? --mach🙈🙉🙊11:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't. It's weird, too, because it doesn't even display a box or anything. It's just blank, which makes it hard to tell that something is missing if you don't already know that it's there. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]14:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
1. We don’t care about (some?) Android phones that cannot display the characters and use the OED characters. 2. We care about (some?) Android phones and replace ⟨ⁱ⟩ (the reason why nothing at all is displayed might have something to do with the character’s properties). – What shall it be? --mach🙈🙉🙊07:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I've already argued above against the use of superscript letters like ⟨ⁱ⟩. I think ⟨ⁱ⟩ is kind of sloppy, inconsistent with the rest of the format of the system, and unnecessary (I've never seen it used). That it doesn't display on my phone is icing on the cake. I wouldn't mind its removal at all. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]14:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I do fully understand the IAR argument, and fully support the existence of this page and its templates. But if we have to use some non-IPA symbols, don't make up new ones, use existing ones that can at least by looked up by copy-pasting into Google. And certainly don't use stuff that directly conflicts with real IPA usage. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
rhotic diaphonemes followed by vowels
How am I supposed to indicate these? You treat /ɔr/ as a (dia)phoneme, indicating either /ɔ˞/ or /ɔː/, depending on the rhoticity of the dialect. So does that mean I need an additional /r/ to indicate the linking-r found in non-rhotic accents?
My guess is no, based on the use of "Laura" as an example, but, either way, you really need to describe linking-r somewhere on this page, and give some example with two syllables in the hovertip in {{IPAc-en}}. (Unfortunately, my accent does not differentiate between /ɔr/ and /ɔːr/, so I don't know what common English word would be appropriate.) — trlkly22:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
If you are talking about the linking r found among non-rhotic speakers in phrases like cheater eater, we indicate that with the /r/ after the /ɔ/. If you're talking about the intrusive r found in phrases like cheetah eater, we don't indicate that in the diaphonemic system.— Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]04:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Opinion needed, and maybe correction?
I tried to add pronunciation to one article, Bill Doran (motorcyclist), the first attempt I had made and will probably be the only attempt, formatted as (/ˈdɒrʌrn/DORR-UN). It was deleted within two days with the edit summary "not possible pron".
Could someone please check what I submitted [1] and show a corrected format here as necessary, so that I can amend the article? I guessed that the deleting editor was better-positioned than I, but I was disappointed that no correction was offered. The only thing I can see now is that the unstressed syllable is shown in upper case, and maybe should be DORR-un? I don't need to greatly understand what I've done wrongly, but I need to clear up this loose end. Thanks.-- Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I am the one who deleted. The reason I didn't fix is that I had no idea if the o vowel was ɒ, ɔː, or oʊ. (That is, DORRən, DAWRən or DOHRən.) — kwami (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, much obliged to you both. Remember I am a beginner and this was nine months ago - I need to re-add it, and to another similar article Doran's Bend. I believe the schwa should be included. For respell, Dor as in moribund, an as in run. Formatted as {{respell|DORR|{{sc|un}}}}, the template will only show the second syllable as upper case DORR-UN --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Should be a schwa. I seriously doubt it's like "run", unless he pronounces his name as a compounded "Dor-Un". And I don't understand why you're adding in the {{sc}} template. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I'm using a 1960s interview given to the journalist by his daughter, and I've not looked at it since December 2014, so it's always going to be a matter of interpretation from the source. I don't know why the {{sc}} is there, either; it's something I worked out at the time, seemingly wrongly. The TV commentator used the exactly-correct pronunciation, IMO and interpretation of the 1960s article, recently on UK television's ITV coverage. I can sort out the exact quote and put it here, Sunday UK daytime, if that might help. I think you're not far off with Dor-un, but with the emphasis on a slightly-long rr. If I don't do it, the chances are it will never get added to the articles, and it would be assumed to be Dor-Ann.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Regrettably, I was unable to trace the citation I used which is embarassing - turns out to be 1973 newspaper-format, not a 1967s magazine as I thought...maybe I have a scan somewhere on the 14-year-old computer that is groaning with research stuff...Getting back to basics, the example of 'sporran' would be most appropriate. I had a conversation with my brother (who lives in US) some years ago regarding their pronunciation of 'Fillet' (fish, meat) as Fee-lay, or sometimes contracted to F'lay; I know Wikipedia deprecates the use of apostrophe, but in this vein I would write Doran as Dorr'n. rgds.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
BBC/RP pronunciation
The article states: "even amongst educated speakers. BBC English is moving away from the older RP [æ] towards the more open vowel [a]".
I think this is seriously out of date.
At first I couldn't make any sense of it, but then I remembered hearing some very old (50's/60's) public information films where the narrator spoke in such a way that 'lad' could conceivably rhyme with 'lard'. To give an idea of how old this is, people start laughing as soon as the narrator speaks - the accent is considered hilarious.
Nonetheless, I'd like to hear if there are other opinions before changing the tense of that fragment, particularly as it's hard to back up with references. PRL42 (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it would be more someone doing a verbal caricature of an absurdly 'hoity-toity', old fashioned, upper class accent. I see you've now removed the mention of the word. PRL42 (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Source? You must be confusing vowels. In the old-fashioned upper-class accent of UK (which is a form of RP, called Upper Crust RP or Conspicuous General British), /æ/ had a [æ~ɛə̯] quality, often with some pharyngealization, so that bad and bared had a quite similar vowel (the latter tended to be longer and lack the pharyngeal quality of /æ/). /ɑː/, on the other hand, was back [ɑː] or central [äː] (but not front, unlike /æ/ which is always front in RP), without the pharyngealization, and had a similar quality to the vowel in the word nurse (which was [ɐː]). The [a] quality of /æ/ is a fairly recent innovation, first described in 70's/80's (e.g. in Wells's "Accents of English", which is from 1982). Peter238 (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
PRL42, perhaps you're confusing [a] with [ɑː]? The two are different. In technical phonetic usage, [a] is front or central, [ɑː] is back. The point about lad being pronounced as [lad] is that it's open rather than near-open [æ] or open-mid [ɛ], not that it's back open like lard[lɑːd]. — Eru·tuon15:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I am quite uneasy about this innovation. I haven't seen it used elsewhere, and I think it's unlikely many WP users will understand how it works. They would have to grasp that it's OK to transcribe 'bath' as /ba:θ/ but not OK to transcribe 'cat' as /ka:t/. Can anyone give a reference for where this convention is used? RoachPeter (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
A few of our variable vowels are technically original, though AFAIK the variable pronunciations are represented in dictionaries. If variable a represents BATH, then things are still fairly clear (at least as far as finding sources to back up our transcriptions). I'm not so certain about the way it's been extended, though. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]20:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The footnote about ɵ gives a self-referencing pronunciation
Only rarely in RP. There are quite a few words that might contain this sequence but only (according to the dictionaries) as an alternative, e.g. 'natural' is usually /'nætʃ.ə.rəl/ but could be /'nætʃ.ʊ.rəl/ (giving an /ʊr/ sequence). But cases of /ʊr/ within a stressed syllable, as in 'courier', are very rare and are mostly in recently imported words or names (e.g. Fourier, guru). Other words containing /ʊr/ but not in a stressed syllable are tureen, purpura (second syllable), Touraine, Jurassic, kurus. RoachPeter (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Note on variable vowels
@J. 'mach' wust:, I like your idea of alerting readers familiar with the IPA that we use some IPA symbols in unconventional/novel ways. I've modified it so that it's one note, rather than three separate ones. I think we could also include mention of our other variable vowel symbols in that note. I'm not wedded to my particular wording, though "not used according to the IPA" did rub me the wrong way a bit. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]05:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand that "not used according to the IPA" does not sound very nice. But that is just what it is: The symbols are not used for the sounds they represent according to the IPA. I think honesty to the readers demands that we notify them of this fact. It is unusual and thus highly noteworthy. Consider that the symbol “r” also gets a note about an unusual usage, even though it is used in major dictionaries.
And I do not quote understand why you have moved the symbols “̵̵ɨ, ʉ, ɵ” to the variable vowels. Of course, they are variable. But so is “i”. I would rather keep all the reduced vowels together, and use the variable vowels section only for those that can receive stress. --mach🙈🙉🙊06:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem I have with "not used according to the IPA" is that it sounds like we are the only ones who deviate from the strict phonetic usage of, e.g. [ɨ] as a close central unrounded vowel. We aren't. What is notable about our in-house convention is that we are using one symbol to represent a difference in phonemic incidence, rather than a separate phoneme.
I also disagree with your splitting this information into three separate notes. There's already an explanatory note for each of those three symbols and what they mean. Having a separate note for each one seems excessive and unnecessarily makes the information more difficult to access for the reader. I won't revert your (partial) revert at this point; let's come up with the wording we all can agree on. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]15:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, since this use of ɨ is apparently based on the latest practice of the OED, why do we not choose to use the exact same symbol that they do? W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ƶ§œš¹: I have of course no objection against having a single note for the three signs. That is why I have kept a single note like you did. I just think the links to the note are more appropriately placed with the individual signs: One note – three links.
I do not think that "not used according to the IPA" sounds like we are the only ones who deviate from the IPA. To me, it just says that the signs are not used according to the IPA. I think the deviation from the IPA is equally notable as the use of diaphonemes and should be made explicit. Not declaring the deviation from the IPA looks to me as if we were trying to hide it, hoping we get by without anybody noticing our deviation.
In our in-house convention, a sign like our ⟨ɨ⟩ can stand for several phonemes – /ɪ/, /i/, or /iː/ – but it does not stand for IPA /ɨ/. The sound of IPA [ɨ] apparently exists in some Southern English pronunciations of /uː/, but these would not even be spelt with ⟨ɨ⟩ in our in-house conventions. I think our ⟨ɨ⟩ is more problematic than our ⟨aː⟩ for the vowel of words like bath. At least the individual components ⟨a⟩ and ⟨ː⟩ are really being used in certain transcriptions.
It looks as if our ⟨ɨ⟩ were chosen because of its graphical similarity to ⟨i⟩, just like the OED ⟨ᵻ⟩ (or ⟨ɪ⟩) looks as if it were chosen because of its graphical similarity to ⟨ɪ⟩. The OED ⟨ᵻ⟩ is less misleading, though, because it does not belong to the IPA in the first place. A person who knows about the IPA will notice that the strange thing about a transcription such as /ˌæpəˈlætʃᵻn/ is the non-IPA sign. When they see a transcription such as /ˌæpəˈlætʃɨn/ (as in the article about the Appalachian Mountains), they might assume that the strange thing about it were an obscure Appalachian dialect. --mach🙈🙉🙊21:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I see that I mistook your edit as a revert to your three-note version, my apologies.
It's apparent that you see the situation in relation to IPA usage in a different manner than I do. As you are okay with not using the phrase "not used according to the IPA" in regards to the explanatory note for the English rhotic, presumably because this is standard practice across scholarship and is therefore not simply an in-house practice, you are equivocating two separate things: phonetic accuracy of our symbols and the use of symbols to represent more than one phoneme across dialects. Since we are striving for clarity, even for those familiar with the IPA, we want to focus on the latter, since this is the more unusual thing about our system.
In this system, we use ⟨ɔː⟩ and ⟨ɑː⟩ to represent a vowel contrast that not everyone makes. To oversimplify the matter, some people contrast [ɔː] and [ɑː] (with a minimal pair being cot and caught) and others pronounce both as [ɑː]. In a similarly oversimplistic manner, some people (including myself) contrast a lowered [ɨ] with [ə] (with a minimal pair being roses and Rosa's). This is discussed in article space here. The former vowel is often analyzed as an allophone of /ɪ/, and our focus here is on grouping phonemes, but the central pronunciation is certainly there and may actually be the justification for using the capital barred I symbol in the OED.
Your preference for the phrase "not used according to the IPA" for /ɨ/ but not for /ɔː/ seems to be due to a misperception that people don't have a central pronounciation for the vowel we transcribe as ⟨ɨ⟩. If I'm incorrect in my assessment of your understanding, then I'm at a loss as to what justifies your disparate approach. IMHO, because there is phonetic justification for the use of the symbol, this would be more closely in accordance with the IPA, which technically eschews using ⟨r⟩ for the English rhotic.
If it's about phonetic imprecision, then it shouldn't be an issue, as ⟨ɨ⟩ is the most accurate IPA symbol we can use. If it's about representing two different sounds, no note is even needed as the whole system does that. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]15:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I had overlooked your “here” link that leads to an article with a source. I have no objection when you replace my "not used according to the IPA" by a proper citation. The use of ⟨ɨ⟩ in a diaphonemic transcription continues to be a violation of WP:NOR. And ⟨ʉ⟩ and ⟨ɵ⟩ continue not to be used according to the IPA. --mach🙈🙉🙊23:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
We've already discussed this matter ad nauseum and I've explained in detail how the information we present is grounded in sourcing, even with a unique and/or unconventional in-house system of presenting this information. I have also explained, in the very conversation you cite, how a strict application of NOR undermines our goals in a way that necessitates an WP:IAR approach. Remember, we're trying to be practical here. Our desire for a practical solution hasn't changed and you are still bringing up faults that are more theoretical than practical concerns. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]06:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record: You had agreed that you ⟨ɪ, ʊ⟩ were OK to you if it were not for your Android phone.[2] My big mistake was that I forgot your Android phone has no trouble with displaying ⟨ɪ, ʊ⟩ so the matter died off once more. Nobody has produced any source for ⟨ɵ⟩ ever being used in phonemic transcriptions. --mach🙈🙉🙊21:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I shouldn't be used as a spokesperson for technical issues. I was just saying what works on my devices. ⟨ᵻ, ᵿ⟩ seem like perfectly fine choices if they work. ⟨ɪ, ʊ⟩ are a kind of awkward to type, so between the two pairs I'd prefer the former. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]23:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I would think that ⟨ᵻ, ᵿ⟩ are more awkward to type than ⟨ɪ, ʊ⟩ because it seems unlikely that the former exist on any keyboard layout. The latter may at least be typed with IPA keyboard layouts. Plus your Android phone is worth considering, after all. I admit I would personally prefer ⟨ᵻ, ᵿ⟩ because they are a cleaner Unicode solution, but I think that ⟨ɪ, ʊ⟩ are more practical. I also think there is no reason for getting all prescriptivist over this simple matter of styling. --mach🙈🙉🙊00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know there were IPA keyboard layouts. All of my IPA contributions have been clicking the links at the bottom or copying and pasting from a reference document on my computer. What do you mean by prescriptivist over styling? — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]00:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess the most popular IPA keyboard layouts are the SIL’s IPA Unicode Keyboards. I see they indeed contain the sign ⟨ᵻ⟩, so I was mistaken about that. My point about prescriptivism is that we should not care whether people prefer the styling ⟨ɪ⟩ or the Unicode character ⟨ᵻ⟩. Both are fine choices, even though the former is slightly more accessible (on devices like your Android phone). --mach🙈🙉🙊08:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Our choices were not based on what was easy for us as wikipedians to type (after all, we can just type "i-" in the IPAc-en template and it will display whichever symbol we like), but rather on what the reader was more likely to have font support for. ⟨ᵻ, ᵿ⟩ are (or at least were) not universally available, while html strikethrough is inadequate because it is not copy&paste-friendly. (Note that all of our symbols copy true. That was a design feature.) We settled on ⟨ɨ⟩ because it suffered from neither of those problems. That is, the choice was purely practical.
⟨ᵻ, ᵿ⟩ are the letters I advocated until other editors convinced me they would not work well. If we can now use ⟨ᵻ, ᵿ⟩ without readers with old OS's and browsers seeing boxes, I'd be happy to switch over. — kwami (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The page currently says that the variable vowel /i/ represents either /ɪ/ or /i/. This is an error, because /i/ without the length symbol isn't listed elsewhere in the table. It isn't listed because there are only two close front vowels, /iːɪ/; /i/ isn't a third close front vowel phoneme, it's just an unstressed vowel that can be one of the two depending on dialect, though in most standard pronunciations today it's really just /iː/. See Geoff Lindsey's post on this.
I changed the text to reflect this, but Dbfirsreverted me, saying that the OED uses /i/ in serious. Actually, the version of the OED that I can access through my library says /ˈsɪərɪəs/, but yeah, the OED does use the symbol /i/ in city/ˈsɪti/. Still, this doesn't mean there's actually a phoneme /i/ separate from /iː/; the use of a separate symbol is just a nod to the fact that more old-fashioned speakers said /ɪ/. The last vowel in city is identical to /iː/, as it's often diphthongized to /ɪj/. At least, this is what Lindsey says and he makes a convincing case. — Eru·tuon17:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that there is some equivocation going on between phonetics and phonology here. As far as phonetics, it is my understanding that the final [i] of city is both short and tense, which makes it different from a long tense vowel or a short lax vowel. This pronunciation contrasts dialectally with those who pronounce this vowel as [ɪ]. So, phonetically speaking, there is variation between [ɪ] and [i].
However, this is a diaphonemic transcription and we are largely bypassing phonetics. As such, the issue is more about whether this final vowel can be grouped with the allophones of /ɪ/ or the allophones of /iː/. For those who pronounce this vowel as [ɪ], the issue is clear. For those who pronounce it as [i], it's ambiguous. This seems to be the way we want to present the issue to a lay audience. So it makes sense to keep the length mark in. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]20:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at the big OED. To me, the use of /iː/ is unreferenced and misleading (given the table in the article), but I agree that there is a lot of disagreement over the interpretation of this. In what version of the language is "The last vowel in city ... identical to /iː/"? I've never heard it (except in Michael Crawford's Bettee), and I can't find any dictionary that uses the long version. Dbfirs08:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Ƶ§œš¹: Actually, the final vowel of happy isn't necessarily short. As you can hear in the soundfiles in Geoff Lindsey's post, speakers of "Standard Southern British" (Lindsey's term) often diphthongize it, so that happy is [ˈhapɪj] (or as I wish Lindsey would write it, [ˈhapej]), not [ˈhapi]. The same is true in Australia, where it is often pronounced with a centralized onset: ˈhæpəi]. (This comes from personal observation, not from Lindsey, since I've been watching an Australian show.) American English might have a short and tense vowel, but probably just because there's less diphthongization of fleece and vowel length isn't usually considered as phonemic. But in SSB (modern RP) and AuE, the vowel is most often diphthongal, not short.
Dbfirs: I'm not that familiar with the transcriptional practices of dictionaries, so I can't provide any counterexamples to your point about the OED. However, please read the article by Lindsey above, to see why the OED's practice is misleading. The final vowel of happy isn't actually different from fleece in dialects with happy-tensing, despite the way the OED implies it is. — Eru·tuon01:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the sort of problem that is caused by the in-house tradition of using diaphonemes. They are a relatively obscure concept that is not used in many analyses. However, they are (implicitly?) used in some major dictionaries. --mach🙈🙉🙊01:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel like the discussion is going way off topic, onto what the vowel of happy sounds like. I'm a little out of my depth in trying to prove that HAPPY is like FLEECE. I'm not a professional phonetician or phonologist, and in all my wordiness it seems like nobody's getting the point.
I'll try another line of argument; maybe I'll make more sense this time.
The table currently says the variable vowel /i/ is equal to /ɪ/ or /i/. /ɪ/ occurs elsewhere in the table, but /i/ only occurs in the variable vowels section.
So, the variable vowel is equal either to a regular vowel or to itself. x is equal either to y or to x. Then what is x? x is never defined. The statement is tautological and therefore meaningless.
Similarly, the variable vowel /i/ is never defined, since it's said to be equal to itself. What the table is supposed to say is that /i/ represents either /ɪ/ or /iː/. This would be meaningful, because /ɪ/ or /iː/ occur outside of the variable vowels section. — Eru·tuon05:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I sort of see what you are getting at, but there is so much regional variation in the actual pronunciation of some vowels that I don't think we will ever agree. You seem to be convinced by Geoff Lindsey's opinion. I'm not. Here in northern England, I don't even hear what he seems to be hearing in his sound extracts, especially for Kasia Madera's party, and I think he has been very selective in his choice of lengthened vowels from Prince William's speech (though I would regard William's accent as slightly "off" from standard BBC English anyway). Personally, I prefer to stick with the OED where /iː/ is used only for truly long vowels. Dbfirs07:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A compromise could be “(either /ɪ/ or /i/ or /iː/)”. I would keep /i/, since there are phonemic analyses of English that use /i/ precisely for this reduced vowel. It is not uncommon that a phonemic analysis may assume different sets of vowels for stressed syllables and for reduced syllables (think /ə/). At any rate, it is important that we use the slashes for indicating phonemes. --mach🙈🙉🙊08:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't like that as a compromise. It would be like saying the second consonant in butter is /t/ or /ɾ/ or /d/. Alveolar flapping is a notable feature of a number of dialects, but there is no separate alveolar flap phoneme. From what I gather, there is no linguistic analysis (or, at least, none in major dictionaries) that would regard this vowel as a separate phoneme. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]
J. 'mach' wust: Your compromise still doesn't make sense. You're saying we should say x is equal to y, x, and z. Now, y and z are defined on this help page, but x is defined in the OED and other dictionaries. That doesn't make sense. This help page is supposed to be a self-contained logical system. It has to refer to itself; it can't refer to symbols defined in other transcriptional systems. If we refer to other transcriptional systems, why don't we note that the symbol /æ/ is equivalent to the symbol /a/ used in the current online edition of the OED, that /ɛər/ is equivalent to /ɛː/, and so on? We don't, because this page is supposed to be a self-contained transcriptional system, not a list of all the alternative transcriptions used in other dictionaries. — Eru·tuon20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought a bit, and there's one thing that could be done to resolve the logical inconsistency: moving /i/ out of the variable vowels section and into the unstressed vowels section. That would express the fact that several people here think it's a separate phoneme, not just a disjunction between two other phonemes, and it would remove the ridiculousness of saying that a variable stands for itself. What do you all think? — Eru·tuon21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not a variable, but a variable vowel. I see no obstacle in it standing for itself. But I agree that moving it to the reduced vowels is a good solution. After all, it cannot ever be stressed. Here follows the answer I was about to post when your own reply came first:
Most symbols on this help page are defined by referring to themselves. Where it says: “ʌ | STRUT, bud, dull, gun”, you might as well read: “ʌ STRUT, bud, dull, gun (always /ʌ/)”. This would be analogous to saying: “i | HAPPY, serious (always /i/)”. However, the symbol “i” can not only stand for itself (like most other symbols), but it can also stand other symbols (like the other variable or reduced vowels). It is variable, and one of the variants it may stand for is itself: “i | HAPPY, serious (sometimes really /i/, but alternatively also /ɪ/ or /iː/)”.
The entire thing is an overly complicated mess because everything is forced into the Procrustean bed of a diaphonemic analysis that includes several violations against the IPA usage and has been originally created on the English Wikipedia (I fear it is diffusing into the internet). --mach🙈🙉🙊21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
J. 'mach' wust: I defended the Wikipedia diaphonemic system in a previous discussion, but I'm beginning to see your point of view. I recently responded to someone (Peter Greenwell) who was confused because the vowel of Australian English bed is listed in the article on the Close-mid front unrounded vowel. He thought, because the Wikipedia diaphonemic system transcribes the vowel of bade as /eɪ/, that the vowel article is saying that Australian bed[bed] rhymes with bade, which would be transcribed as /beɪd/ under the Wikipedia diaphonemic system. But phonetically Australian English bade has a different vowel sound, [æe], so bed[bed] and bade[bæed] do not rhyme. The Wikipedia transcription is based on a now very old-fashioned–sounding posh British pronunciation, and doesn't represent the pronunciation in AuE.
His confusion is a direct result of the Wikipedia diaphonemic system, which he was interpreting as literal phonetic fact, rather than as diaphonemic abstraction. He's only one person, but if there are others like him, the system is causing problems, as W. P. Uzer suggested it would in the discussion earlier this year (now to be found in Archive 13). I stand by my statement that we needed evidence of reader confusion, but now some evidence is coming in. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent quite unrelated to the topic of this thread. Sorry. — Eru·tuon07:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think many people are confused by any diaphonemic system when they first meet it (I know I was, and occasionally still am). Any such system can only be an approximation, and each of us applies our own "corrections" to match our own pronunciation; for example, I always read /æ/ as /a/ for modern British English. Dbfirs08:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I got a ping from this discussion, so will just quickly add my usual 2p - we ought to use standard notations in standard ways, preferably not invent non-standard ones, but certainly not use standard ones in non-standard ways. Use of /i/ for the happy vowel is standard as far as I'm concerned (part of the IPA-based system used by major dictionaries). It's things like /a:/ for the BATH diaphoneme, a misleading/incomprehensible Wikipedia invention, that need to be eliminated. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is misleading because I don't know of any region that pronounces it [baːθ]. In northern England and Wales it's [baθ], of course, and [bɑːθ] in southern England, and on the other side of the pond it's often a variant of [bæθ], but /baːθ/ seems to be a Wikipedia invention. Dbfirs13:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
/aː/ is not meant to be a phonetically accurate symbol, but a symbol that means "either /æ/ or /ɑː/" (phonetically (in case of the whole UK and Ireland), /æ/ is also not very accurate anymore). We couldn't use /ɑː/ for that purpose, because it is already used to transcribe, well, /ɑː/. That said, /ɑː/ is central [äː] or front [aː] in Australia and New Zealand, and supposedly also in Norfolk (only the central variant). Peter238 (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yes — apologies to our antipodean friends (and Bernard Matthews?) for forgetting their pronunciation. I suppose the symbol looks correct to them. I realise it's not supposed to be phonetically accurate, so I'll just get used to shortening it to [a] for my local dialect, just as I read /æ/ as [a]. (Your conversions will be different.) Dbfirs14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The underlying problem is that it is NOT a symbol that means that at all. Where did Wikipedia linguists get this strange idea that they can just appropriate standard IPA symbols for their own ad hoc purposes? The intended meaning will only be understood by someone who clicks through to this page and somehow deciphers its content. And since IPA is allegedly familiar to people already (at least, that's the rationale for our using it), there's absolutely no reason why anyone would click through to this page. The situation is absurd, as I've pointed out countless times, but for some reason it still appears not to have been changed, there are just tweaks made to the page that many users are not going to look at in any case. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
All I did is described how this page and transcriptions linking to it use the /aː/ symbol. You don't have to list all of the problems this transcription might create (or does create), because I'm aware of them. Trust me, I read a large portion of the countless discussions you're referring to. Peter238 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Not addressed to you specifically; others might not be aware of them. If enough people become aware, something might finally be done about it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually I've just looked and I've seen something even more ridiculous has happened - the /a:/ symbol now no longer means RP /æ/ GAm /ɑː/, it now apparently means either that OR THE REVERSE. Like, what?? How is anyone now supposed to derive any information from that symbol at all, even if they do happen to have chanced on the page that explains it? W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that appears to be a problem. Maybe let's reserve /a:/ for just the words with the bath-trap split, nothing else? As far as I can remember, that's what I proposed when /a:/ was introduced. Peter238 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, better, but in fact /a:/ should never have been introduced at all. Can you not see that no-one will possibly know what it means until it's explained to them (and that most users will not be seeking an explanation, since it looks like a standard IPA symbol)? And what is the possible need for such a notation anyway? W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no real need for them. The only reason /aː,ɒː/ are used on this page is to have one transcription instead of two. Which may be really confusing in non-BATH words. However, /i,u/ should stay, as e.g. Longman Pronunciation Dictionary uses them in all of its transcriptions (albeit only in unstressed positions). Peter238 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
From past discussions and this one, I believe there is general agreement, albeit sometimes reluctant, that at the very least this /a:/ and /ɒ(:)/ convention is wrong on several different levels (OR, misleading, etc.) We should eliminate them from the system, I think, and agree to use multiple transcriptions for such words - there is really no other way to effectively convey that information to readers (and remember we are not only conveying information about pronunciation, but to some people we are conveying - currently wrong - information about the IPA and normal use of it). Another question the problem of where pronunciation differs due to non-rhoticity - others have disagreed, but it seems very wrong to me to give only General American (or mid-Atlantic) pronunciations of place names in Britain and Australia, for example. I don't have any problem with the reduced vowels, though, since as Peter says, we are following what standard sources do (though if we are choosing to use slightly different symbols than they do due to rendering issues, it would be good to check that those issues really exist for large numbers of people). W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
At least with ⟨ɵ⟩, we are not following any standard source. It is pure WP:Original research. And so is the use of the symbols ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ instead of the OED’s ⟨ɪ⟩ and ⟨ʊ⟩. The use of ⟨ɪ⟩ ⟨ʊ⟩ is as unproblematic as the use of ⟨ɪ ʊ⟩. If anything, there might be display issues when using ⟨ᵻ ᵿ⟩. Other WP:Original research uses include the ⟨u⟩ for “variable” /ʊ/ or /uː/ or distinctive ⟨.⟩, maybe also ⟨oər⟩ for /oʊr/ and ⟨ɔɪər⟩ for /ɔɪr/.
It might be that for the first time since the creation of this help page, there is a window of opportunity for reverting its blatant violation of WP:OR that was criticized from the start. The user who most fervently advocated for this OR appears not to participate in this discussion.
I think we should prepare a reasonable proposal. Research what’s really being used – outside of Wikipedia so we do not end up in the WP:OR trap, and inside of Wikipedia (I suspect the controversial signs are not really used except by fervent advocates of this help page).
For things such as the rhotic/non-rhotic differences, the quarrel about dialect differences is an irrelevant straw man. The relevant question is: What is WP:OR and what is not? Are there dictionaries from non-rhotic regions that indicate the r’s and depend on the fine print for dropping them (as we do currently)? Are there dictionaries from rhotic regions that do not indicate the r’s and depend on the fine print for inserting them (such a solution would be equally viable)? Are there compromises?
We might also consider how many articles would be affected by removing /a:/ and/or /ɒ(:)/ or by restricting the former to just BATH vowels. Is there a way to check that? — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]17:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Something to consider with this proposal is that the key difference between our usage of /ɔː/ and /aː/ is that, for the former, those who do what we ask and ignore the distinction between /ɔː/ and /ɑː/ if they have merged the two vowels typically ignore this distinction in real life; cot-caught merging speakers like myself typically perceive no difference between the vowels. On the other hand, the distinction between /æ/ and /ɑː/ is marked for all speakers. With the former, we're asking readers to do what they normally do, while the latter we're asking them to do something new. This newness may be negatively impacting the readability of our system. I can't speak to /ɒː/ in this regard, though, it may be similar to /aː/. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]20:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Introducing the ⟨aː⟩ and ⟨ɒː⟩ symbols is novel and not backed by WP:SOURCES – which means it is WP:Original research. Also, it is potentially misleading because ⟨aː⟩ could easily be mistaken for /ɑː/ – there are indeed transcription system that use ⟨aː⟩ in that way. Using ⟨aː⟩ and ⟨ɒː⟩ is almost as ridiculous as using a hypothetical novel *⟨ɑeɪ⟩ symbol so we could transcribe two pronunciations of tomato in the same way as */təˈmɑeɪtoʊ/ (please never ever consider that seriously). ☺ --mach🙈🙉🙊21:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You may laugh, but {{IPAc-en}} currently encodes for a number of superscript letters that have the same logic as this and aren't even mentioned. I've called for their removal, though I don't think anyone has done anything about it. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]22:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a workaround for finding the articles that contain the contested signs. Unfortunately, you cannot use wildcard search terms like *aː* because using a wildcard character at the beginning of a search term does not work. However, it works perfectly well when the wildcard is prepended with another letter, e.g. a*aː*. This has to be repeated with every letter of the English phonetic alphabet (including signs such as ⟨ˈ⟩). It is laborious, but doable. By including an additional linksto:"Help:IPA for English", the results can be narrowed down considerably. This gives the following search terms:
This has spilled over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Use of ɵ for broad IPA transcriptions. I've suggested at both locations that this discussion should be re-centralized back here. I also note that two editors are making essentially unilateral changes to that guideline, despite the fact that the issue is not resolved. (I happen to agree with the edits, so I won't reverse them, but as a matter of WP:PROCESS this probably needs to be reined in until such time as a real consensus forms on this issue.) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Reduced and Variable Vowels
I hate to say this, but the problems with “variable” and “reduced” vowels have still not been fixed. If we consider the “happY” vowel, we find it in the “Reduced vowels” box, with ‘happy’ and ‘serious’ as examples. Published works which make use of the "/i/-for-happY" convention also use /u/ for a corresponding back rounded vowel. However, the /u/ symbol appears here in the “Variable vowels” box. The final example, ‘situation’ is typical of the words used to exemplify the use of /u/, but the other two words, ‘bedroom’ and ‘roof’ are quite different – these are examples of a Wikipedia diaphoneme, realized either as /ʊ/ or as /u:/. All the other vowels in the “Variable vowels” box are restricted to unstressed syllables, as are all the vowels in the “Reduced vowels” box, so /u/ (which can be stressed in ‘roof’, ‘room’) stands out as different. If asked to suggest a solution, I would say remove the heading “Variable vowels”, merge the two boxes and class all of these as “Reduced vowels”. Then /u/ should be used only for unstressed back rounded vowels. RoachPeter (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I can get behind that. My arguments against using /u/ are similar to those against extending /aː/ to non-BATH vowels that I said above: {{IPAc-en}} utilizes signal words to help readers understand which word in their own speech uses this vowel but it doesn't seem like bedroom or roof are part of a class of words that vary in a consistent way like BATH does. Without that consistency, there's no accurate way for readers to get which pronunciation they should be producing. — Ƶ§œš¹[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]15:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree we should restrict ⟨u⟩ to weak syllables. The use of ⟨u⟩ for ‘diaphoneme /uː/ OR /ʊ/ (in stressed syllables or in weak syllables)’ is a new and unsourced symbol invented on the English Wikipedia – what I (and others) call original research. In previous broad phonemic transcription schemes, it is only used for ‘weak syllable vowel that can be analyzed as /uː/ or /ʊ/ (exclusively in weak syllables)’.
It was DavidPKendal who has suggested this symbol on this talk page – citing Wells and providing the example words situation and bedroom (see Help talk:IPA for English/Archive 12#Proposal for new symbols). Since nobody had objected, DavidPKendal included ⟨u⟩ later on the help page (with the example words situation and bedroom[3]. Then, Peter238 suggested the additional example word roof on the help page, where the sound is unmistakingly in a stressed syllable (see Help talk:IPA for English/Archive 12#Variable vowels, and he added it on the help page [4]. The point that Wells only uses the sign exclusively in weak syllables was never raised.
Also, the use of ⟨ɵ⟩ in a broad phonemic transcription scheme seems to be our own invention. Unfortunately, the reference to Bolinger (1989) is not complete. It lacks a page number. I have searched for the mention in the limited preview on Google Books, but I have not found it. However, from what I have seen it seems unlikely that Bolinger would propose a broad phonemic transcription scheme – his book on intonation and speech melody has a very different purpose. But even if he had proposed a broad phonemic transcription scheme, I think we should stick to more mainstream schemes (think WP:NPOV), such as the ones mentioned on the incomplete list of Help:IPA conventions for English. --mach🙈🙉🙊16:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, /u/ should only be used in weak syllables. Also, in adding /aː/ I intended it to be used only for the BATH vowel, but it seems to have found its way into other words which have any kind of /æ~ɑː/ variation. I think it should be restricted only for use in BATH words. DavidPKendal (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems we have reached a consensus that ⟨u⟩ should only be used in weak syllables, as per the sources. Everybody has agreed, including the editors who had introduced the sign, and nobody seems to be opposed. I think we can apply this change to the help page.
Done — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
