Talk:Mid central vowel

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

The first three discussions below took place at Talk:Mid central unrounded vowel, before the article was moved here. See also Talk:Schwa. FilipeS 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese "a" a mid-central vowel?

According to the vowel chart here, the "a" sound from European Portuguese mentioned in the article is not a mid-central vowel. It's pretty close to being one, but it's slightly more open. FilipeS 21:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is between mid and open-mid, therefore can be listed either here, or on open-mid central unrounded vowel. I'd say leave it here. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 17:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

This article should be renamed Mid central vowel, and what is currently at Close-mid_central_rounded_vowel#Mid_central_rounded_vowel should be brought here. From the discussion here, it is clear that the IPA symbol ə can stand for a rounded or unrounded vowel. This includes both the mid central unrounded vowel and the mid central rounded vowel. FilipeS 14:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the ə used for a rounded vowel a schwa rather than specifically a mid-central vowel? I'm not sure if we need to merge the rounded and unrounded varieties. Do any languages contrast a rounded mid central vowel with an unrounded one? Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of Kwami's replies, in the discussion I linked to:

[ʊ] and [æ] are defined as rounded and unrounded in the IPA Handbook ("near-close near-back rounded vowel" and "near-open front unrounded vowel"), but [ɐ] and [ə] are not ("near-open central vowel" and "mid central vowel"). Open vowels seldom have rounding contrasts, so that isn't much of an issue for [ɐ], but [ɐ]* could be rounded too. With [ɘ̞] you're clearly saying that the vowel is unrounded. With [ə] you're not (it could be [ɘ̞] or [ɵ̞]), and moreover only [ə] has the connotation of being a reduced vowel. For example, the Handbook says of French [ə] that it has "some rounding". kwami 08:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

*I think he meant to write [ə]. FilipeS 21:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schwa

Please explain in the introduction how this is related to / different from the Schwa. As it is, the beginning of the article is very confusing for non-experts, and it gets worse when they look at Mid_central_vowel#Occurs_in for help. --Espoo 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, isn't this the vowel that is used in General American English for practically any vowel character (as in the <a> in "about", the <e> in "item", the <i> in "edible", the <o> in "common", and the <u> in "circus")? Why isn't General American usage listed here? Isn't this also the same "uh" noise from German that is used with an <e> at the end of a word (i.e., "danke" or "Porsche")? The way this article is written, it makes it sound like it isn't in those languages. Yet you are directed here from the schwa article. RobertM525 (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page indicates that it is used in both General American English as well as in German. I have added German to the article. I'm not quite sure what the best way to add GAE to the article would be... RobertM525 (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RP example

I'm planning on removing the example of RP to Open-mid central unrounded vowel. See Talk:Open-mid central unrounded vowel#Received Pronunciation for my booksnooping notes. – ishwar (speak) 05:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, as of this writing, the RP transcription does not contain /ə/! It's a bit of a problem... -sche (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count as a Mid-central vowel?

In the English word wood which is pronouced (wud) sound very similar too (wəd), and the Hebrew word יין "wine" which is pronouced (jajin) sound very similar too (jajən). does this mean that (wu) and (ji) are the same as (wə) and (jə)?, does those count also as Mid-central vowel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsa123 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the language. "Sounding similar" is subjective and doesn't necessarily mean the sounds are the same. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West Frisian

Did someone else noted that it is represented in both rounded and unrounded columns without explaining? Lguipontes (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French

Missing: le, de, ne,.... --Pierrejcd (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French is there in the second table. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 04:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish

Energi is very rarely pronounced as it says in the article. The majority pronounce it with a clear /ɛ/ and the N is not long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.182.142 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does look a little funny. I changed the example. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian

The sound example given for "măr" sound nothing like the word. If you would pronounce it like that to a Romanian all you would get is funny looks. The given example sounds more like "meârrr", â being ɨ, and the e being very short; the r is also unusually long and overly pronounced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.140.131 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen in title

The hyphen in the title (mid-central rather than mid central) is inconsistent with the titles of other vowel articles. In all other titles (I think), the hyphen is placed in the words for either height (near-close, close-mid, open-mid, etc.) or backness (near-front, near-back). Placing a hyphen between the height (mid) and backness (central) is confusing. The article should be renamed Mid central vowel for consistency. Do others agree? — Eru·tuon 17:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is also inconsistent with logic. The "mid" does not refer to "central", but to "vowel", as in mid vowel. A dash might make sense logically, but I don't know if that would fly. --JorisvS (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree. I actually thought about raising this issue a few months ago. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree too. I don't think a dash would help either. But I see from the logs that the page was originally titled "mid central", and was moved in 2010 - perhaps User:Kwamikagami, who moved it, had some reasons for doing so? W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let us ping, just in case: @Kwamikagami:. — Eru·tuon 21:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reason was that it is not a central vowel that is mid (a mid central vowel), as opposed to a mid vowel that is central (a central mid vowel), but a vowel that is simultaneously and equally mid and central, with neither taking precedence. I believe that hyphens are typically used for such things. In other vowel names, the frontness and height seem like to independent dimensions; here they're more like a single right in the middle. But I'm not going to argue if someone moves it. — kwami (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I am puzzled by your reasoning; we don't write, for instance, mid-front rounded vowel or mid-back unrounded vowel. I think the height and backness of a vowel are always considered to be coequal characteristics, with neither taking precedence. I suppose what you're saying is simply that the mid central vowel is equally central in both height and backness, but I'm not sure why that should make it unique as far as naming is concerned. — Eru·tuon 20:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded by Kw's reasoning either - well, certainly not by the first reason, which would apply to all other vowels as well, if it were valid. As to the second reason, I'd only be persuaded if it could be shown that significant reliable sources use a hyphen in this case while omitting it in the others as we do. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By kwami's reasoning we should use a dash (in all these articles), not a hyphen nor a space. --JorisvS (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you write "a nice–warm day" or "a big–ugly dog"?? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, is there a general consensus that moving it back to Mid central vowel makes sense? Any objections? It looks like it can be done without administrator's help. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently no objections, so I've done it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italian

Hi, does anyone know if Italian use the same vowel (ɘ ~ ə) to reinforce or emphasize final consonants as Central Valencian? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian and French, final voiced consonants can have an "exaggerated release" (not sure how to call it...) with a short [ə]-type vowel, but I'm not at all sure about its exact quality. Maybe it's variable, maybe it's not. Peter238 (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ɘ/ë in Italian because it's unstressed (perhaps it could become ə in some cases). — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 05:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily a good argument, because it's just a short, epenthetic vowel that has no phonemic status (it's just a part of release of final voiced consonants, and psychologically (or subconsciously, not sure to call it), native speakers treat it as such). I'd expect it to be variable in quality. Maybe Canepari has more to say about that, try to dig up that info on his website. AFAIK, he's not considered a reliable source here, but he makes some interesting points in his writings. Peter238 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check this ([1]), it explains some cases in Italian. ([...] filobus [ˈfilobus] diventa localmente [filoˈbusːə], lapis [laˈpisːə], cognac [koˈɲakːə], vermut [verˈmutːə]; tale adattamento avviene anche nei nomi propri come in David [daˈvidːə]. Questo fenomeno è distribuito in tutto il territorio italiano, Toscana compresa (Tagliavini 1949).) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 10:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems it's variable:

Anche nei dialetti italiani l’epitesi è presente e si realizza in maniera differente da nord a sud. Ad es., i prestiti stranieri subiscono epitesi: in Toscano bus e frac diventano [ˈbusːe] e [ˈfrakːe] con epitesi della vocale -e e rafforzamento della consonante finale; in calabrese club diventa [ˈglubːu] con epitesi della vocale -u; a Napoli lapis è [ˈlapːəsə]; in Salento, bar dà [ˈbarːa], film dà [ˈfilmi], ecc., con epitesi dell’ultima vocale; nell’Italia centrale tram sarà [ˈtramːe] [...]. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 11:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's your answer then, it seems I was right. Thanks for the link. Peter238 (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And you were right, but they can also occur after voiceless consonants. Shall we add Italian then? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 20:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is lapis a good example or perhaps we should choose another term? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 20:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean using it as an example word? Sure. Peter238 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ə̹ vs ɵ̞

This subject is only to talk about the edit wars that opposes me to ip 89.72.244.110.

So. My main argument is that ə being nearer of ə̹ than ɵ in the IPA chart, we should use ə̹ instead of ɵ̞ . BeKowz (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(89... speaking)

Not all possible vowels have a separate symbol. For instance, the unrounded equivalent of [ʊ] (which, unlike [ə], has a defined rounding ("rounded") in the official IPA) is best transcribed [ɯ̽]. The same applies to the so-called true-mid vowels (or simply "mid vowels"), which are often transcribed (see the established IPA transcriptions for e.g. Spanish, Hebrew, Finnish, Estonian, Turkish languages) with the symbols for the corresponding close-mid vowels ⟨e, ø, ɵ, ɤ, o⟩ (the unrounded mid central vowel tends to be transcribed simply with ⟨ə⟩). In our other articles (mid front unrounded vowel, mid front rounded vowel, mid back unrounded vowel, mid back rounded vowel) we transcribe them in our tables as [e̞, ø̞, ɤ̞, o̞], which is one of two valid ways of transcribing them narrowly, the other two being raised open-mid [ɛ̝, œ̝, ʌ̝, ɔ̝]. However, we're opting for [e̞, ø̞, ɤ̞, o̞] because (excluding ⟨ɤ̞⟩) [e̞, ø̞, o̞] are modifications of the symbols [e, ø, o], which, in case of transcribing the vowels that phonetically are between close-mid and open-mid, are preferred by the IPA itself (see Handbook of the IPA, cited in the article) due to the fact that they're the same letters as, respectively, English ⟨e⟩, Danish/Norwegian ⟨ø⟩ and English ⟨o⟩, which makes them very easy to type (especially in case of ⟨e, o⟩). Using ⟨ə̹⟩ instead of ⟨ɵ̞⟩ introduces inconsistency in this regard, though we could also think about changing ⟨ə⟩ to ⟨ɘ̞⟩. See also Wells (2009a), maybe also Wells (2009b).
As far as I can see, we have two languages (Danish and Luxembourgish) in both sections. It is, in my opinion, better to use a symbol that looks noticeably different (⟨ə⟩ vs. ⟨ɵ̞⟩) than to rely on one diacritic alone (⟨ə⟩ vs. ⟨ə̹⟩). The issue is much more serious in case of the Chemnitz German dialect, because not only is that dialect present in both of our tables, but the example word we use contains both rounded and unrounded schwas!
Because of the extreme similarity of the symbols ⟨ə⟩ and ⟨ə̹⟩, one can imagine the rounded allophone of /ə/ being transcribed with as [ɵ̞] (or simply [ɵ], with verbal clarification that the sound in question is phonetically true-mid) in narrow phonetic transcription. The reverse (e.g. transcribing New England English/Swedish /ɵ/ or Belgian Dutch /øː/ as [ə̹(ː)]), however, just does not happen (although such transcription would be valid). In case of e.g. New England English/Swedish, it makes no sense, because all you need to do is to apply a "lowered" diacritic to the symbol ⟨ɵ⟩. This argument may not be the best one though, because, for the sake of consistency and simplicity, in our vowel tables we often ignore the common transcription practices if they're at odds with the most common symbol the vowel in question is transcribed with, and consider a verbal explanation (e.g. "Typically transcribed in IPA with ⟨ɞ⟩.") to be good enough. Besides, "Diphthongized to [ə̹ə̯] (...)" - seriously? That looks really ugly...
You can't speak about "ə being nearer of ə̹ than ɵ in the IPA chart", as [ə] in the kosher IPA does not differ in anything but (potentially) rounding - [ə] in kosher IPA can be either rounded or unrounded, though more often it denotes an unrounded sound. Therefore, as far as the kosher IPA vowel chart is concerned, [ə] shares exactly the same place of articulation as [ə̹].
(Redacted) Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA: ʌ vs. ə

There also seems to be quite a bit of vagueness surrounding ə's nature. One book^[1] indicates that it is both an indeterminate vowel and is actually used in the stressed syllables of the General American words, "cup" and "luck" (despite other sources insisting that ə is used exclusively for the unstressed version of ʌ.)

Also, I must say, I hear no distinction between the vowel in "about" and the vowel in "stuff." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midi file man (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

⟨ʌ⟩ and ⟨ə⟩ used for the STRUT vowel both have more to do with phonology than with phonetics. Phonetically, STRUT is usually somewhere between [ɐ] and [ə] in both RP and GA, but it used be more back, so ⟨ʌ⟩ reflects that. Some people consider STRUT in American English to be an allophone of /ə/ that surfaces when stressed, so ⟨ə⟩ is often used for STRUT. See English phonology. Nardog (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, should this be noted in the English part of occurrences section of the article? Midi file man (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that already covered by the notes and the example bust? Not sure what exactly you're suggesting. Nardog (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Clark, John; Yallop, Colin; Fletcher, Janet (2007). An introduction to phonetics and phonology (3. ed. ed.). Malden, Mass. [u.a.]: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-3083-7. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

Audio file for rounded variant not working

The audio file for the "Mid central rounded vowel", represented as [ɵ̞],[ə̹], or [ɞ̝], appears not to work. I don't think it is an issue with my computer or headphones, as I can hear the unrounded audio file, as well as the audio files for related pages, just fine. A look at the file history indicates that this is the only version of the file that has ever appeared here. Here's a direct link to the audio file on Wikimedia: Mid_central_rounded_vowel.ogg. Oddly, despite my browser (Firefox 64) giving no warnings about a corrupted file, clicking "play" does nothing, in contrast to working audio files of similar length. That is, it appears to be a corrupted version of an audio file, as opposed to just an audio file with no sound. Finally, the user who created the file, User:Sigmath_Bits/sandbox, has one other contribution in their sandbox---an audio file for the "Near-close back unrounded vowel"---and it works just fine. GreatBigDot (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging the recent edits by Kbb2, especially concerning German

Kbb2 has recently edited a number of articles about central vowels. Basically, the edits consist in removing several languages from the articles Mid central vowel [ə] or Near-open central vowel [ɐ] and instead describing them at the articles Close-mid central unrounded vowel [ɘ] or Open-mid central unrounded vowel [ɜ].

I am a bit worried by all these changes. As far as German is concerned, the changes appear not to be backed by the sources provided. My expertise is limited to German, so I cannot vouch for the other languages. However, since the changes concerning German are not backed by the sources, I wonder whether the changes concerning other languages really are.

So the question is: are these changes really justified?

With regard to German, the most important changes are the following:

#	Article	Diff	Edit summary
1	Mid central vowel [ə]	866989800	rm - most modern sources seem to describe it as more close-mid than mid, which is how it sounds to me
2	Close-mid central unrounded vowel [ɘ]	866990538	most modern sources describe this as close-mid, there's no need to list it at mid central vowel
3	Near-open central vowel [ɐ]	866987785	rm - this is open-mid
4	Open-mid central unrounded vowel [ɜ]	866988103	+Standard German (this is open-mid)

More in depth critique of the sources provided for German [ə]: All the sources provided so far transcribe German [ə] as a mid central vowel by using the sign [ə]. None of the sources identify it as a close-mid central unrounded vowel or use any one of the corresponding transcriptions [ɘ ë ɤ̈ ə̝]:

Hall, Christopher (2003) [First published 1992], Modern German pronunciation: An introduction for speakers of English (2nd ed.), Manchester: Manchester University Press, p. 98, 107, ISBN 0-7190-6689-1 (cited in Close-mid central unrounded vowel)
- Page 98 says that “/ə/ is a lax central vowel with a tongue position between half-open and half-close […].” It goes on to say that “[i]n final position, however, English /ə/ tends to be much more open than the German sound.” This is followed by an illustration showing “G. ə” in a central position of the vowel space (slightly above, but clearly not close-mid) and “E. final ə” in near-open position.
- Page 107 shows again German “ə” slightly above the central position, but not in close-mid position.
Dudenredaktion; Kleiner, Stefan; Knöbl, Ralf (2015) [First published 1962], Das Aussprachewörterbuch (in German) (7th ed.), Berlin: Dudenverlag, p. 34, ISBN 978-3-411-04067-4 (cited in Close-mid central unrounded vowel)
- Page 34 shows “[ə]” a little bit above the central position, but not in near open position. Note that other vowels such as [eː e], [ɛː ɛ], [oː o] are are shifted a similar distance from their default cardinal vowel place, and [yː y], [øː ø] considerably further.
"John Wells's phonetic blog: ɘ". Retrieved 28 January 2016. (cited in Standard_German_phonology as a source for the statement that German “/ə/ has been variously described as […] close-mid central unrounded [ɘ]”)
- This is not a reliable source, but a blog entry. John Wells certainly is a English linguist of some renown, but as a mere blog entry this is just an opinion and does not overthrow the plethora of reliable sources that identify German [ə] as a [[mid central vowel [ə]]]. Plus as far as I know he has never published anything about German phonetics.
Further sources identifying German [ə] as mid central are found in Standard German phonology.

For German [ɐ], the picture is pretty much the same.

@Kbb2: Unless you can provide reliable sources that explicitly identify German [ə] as a close-mid central unrounded vowel and German [ɐ] as a open-mid central unrounded vowel, I will revert your changes soon. The current situation is untenable, where the articles Mid central vowel [ə] and Near-open central vowel [ɐ] do not even mention (standard) German any longer, even though this is how the entire body of literature on German phonetics refers to them. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@J. 'mach' wust: Thanks for starting the discussion, I was about to do the same but you beat me to it. I'll reply in a short time. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbb2: I have now removed the claims not found in the sources given that I have highlighted, both in this article and in Close-mid central unrounded vowel. I know you have promised to reply. Three weeks have passed, though. It is better not to keep the unsourced material in the article. If you find sources, you can always add it again. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i call bullshit

american english has schwa Dankpods (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch

Dutch notes mention /ʏ/ which links to /ɵ/. IDon'tFindAName (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Clark, John; Yallop, Colin; Fletcher, Janet (2007). An introduction to phonetics and phonology (3. ed. ed.). Malden, Mass. [u.a.]: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-3083-7. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

[1]