Talk:Portuguese phonology

Palatal vs palatalized(In European Portuguese)

I posted about this on ɲ and ʎ

Just my opinion, but i think the portuguese "lh"(as in alho) and ("nh" as in arranhar) are not palatal consonants. Instead they're palatalized alveolar consonants. Lh=lʲ and Nh=nʲ.

PS: They can also be post-alveolar consonants. So someone who knows what he's doing, please change ʎ, ɲ and Portuguese Phonologypages. Too bad because the lambda(ʎ)symbol looks badass! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raydred (talk • contribs) 00:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We can't change information regarding phonetic particularities based on opinions. Even those of native speakers. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ʎ is not lambda! It's a turned y. Lambda is λ. Please look everything up before writing such rubbish!--2.246.17.72 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

huybjfzcdhgczfjfgvd 212.174.79.169 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Mateus' Gramática da Língua Portuguesa

Hi,

I added a reference to the book "Gramática da Língua Portuguesa" by Maria Mateus et al., but most of the references here use the {{Harvcoltxt}}, with which i am not familiar and which is currently not documented. Feel free to convert this reference to {{Harvcoltxt}} to make the article look more consistent. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Intervocalic fricativization of voiced stops in Portuguese?

Yes or no? I'm pretty sure I hear it, but I find no mention here.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned as the second point under "Further notes". +Angr 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It only happens in northern and central Portugal; in the South they're always pronounced as stops. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Trill?

This article calls the onset-initial allophone a trill, yet it transcribes it as a uvular fricative /ʁ/ (rather than /ʀ/). IMO this is inconsistent and confusing. Mateus & d'Andrade (2000), for example, use /ʀ/ (arguing that even though the pronunciation [ʁ] is increasingly common, the rhotic still behaves phonologically as a sonorant and not as an obstruent). --91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In books written in Portugueses these rhotics are called as "R forte" (strong R) for what the article calls of trill and "R brando" (weak R) for the flap, but I didn't change because I don't know how English speakers may interpret a "strong R". Luizdl (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We could change the wording of the rhotics section so that it says "The rhotic is a trill (R forte) when it is word-initial or syllable-initial preceded by a syllable-final consonant (e.g. palra [ˈpaɫʁɐ]) as well as when it follows a nasal vowel (e.g. honrar [õˈʁaɾ]) and the flap (R brando) occurs in syllable onset clusters (e.g. atributo [ɐtɾiˈbutu], respectively)." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, except that the fact remains that the sign [ʁ] stands for a fricative in IPA. If it really is a trill, it should be [ˈpaɫʀɐ] and [õˈʀaɾ].--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong footnote in the section "Minimal pairs"

In the section Portuguese_phonology#Minimal_pairs, there is a footnotes saying:

"1 Spelled with a silent c in the European orthography, and without it in the Brazilian orthography"

that footnote is correct for the words "ta(c)to" and "ja(c)to", but is wrong for the word "cacto", which is spelled and pronounced in BP but just spelled in EP, and soon will be optionally spelled in the EP, and the others not pronounced 'c' and 'p' in EP will not be spelled anymore due to the Portuguese_Language_Orthographic_Agreement_of_1990, which is already running in Brazil since January of 2009 and in Portugal will be used in the Portuguese media in January of 2010 [1] [2], can I change the spellings to the Orthographic Agreement and/or correct the footnote? Luizdl (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it's true now but not true in January 2010? How do you want to word it? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to fix the footnote which say that "cacto" is "cato" in BP because it is the opposite, it is optional only in the new orthography, and I want to change the words "ta(c)to" and "ja(c)to" to "tato" and "jato" according the Orthographic Agreement, but before change the orthography I'd like ask if someone disagree for avoid conflict. In the Portuguese Wikipedia it is still accepted the three orthography, they privilege the new orthography and use it in all the official Wikipedia pages such as the menus, pages about Wikipedia policies, help guide etc. as described here pt:Wikipedia:Ortografia, but they still don't allow to change the orthography in the common articles respecting the opinion of the editor who disagree the Agreement. I want to change it because it is correct in both countries. Luizdl (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The page isn't protected; be bold and make your change. If anyone disagrees, they'll revert. +Angr 11:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Vowel count

Not for nothing, but, why the count of Brazilian oral vowels is seven if the article says it has [a, ɐ, e, ɛ, i, o, ɔ, u]? in this count there are eight vowels. Luizdl (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about vowel phonemes, so [ɐ] appears in BP, but there isn't a separate phoneme /ɐ/. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but we still use the vowel ɐ (or highed to ɜ) in words borrowed from foreign languages, some borrowed words from English wich in English uses the vowel ɜ or ʌ here is ɜ, for example, rush [ʁɜʃ], curry [cɜɹi], upgrade [ɐpˈgɾejdʒ], upload [ɐpˈlowdʒ] etc, and as source I can let this online dictionary of Brazilian Portuguese http://aulete.uol.com.br/site.php?mdl=aulete_digital where if you serch for any of this words above, will return the meaning with the pronunciation, for example, that says "upgrade" is pronounced "âpgreide", "rush" is "râch" etc. Luizdl (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that we interpret the letter "â" as the phoneme [ɐ ~ ɜ], but the linguists don't report it because all of the Portuguese words wich have this letter, it always precedes a nasal consonant, and as you probably know, in Brazil generally the vowel preceded by a nasal consonant becomes nasal, so "decâmetro" and "Ucrânia" is [deˈkɐ̃metɾu] and [uˈkɾɐ̃niɐ] respectively, but in these borrowed English words to the Brazilian Portuguese these vowels is not nasal, so, though this vowel as a phoneme is rare, but exists. Are you still opposite for add this vowel to count? Luizdl (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Although the statement of Brazilian Portuguese's complementary distribution between [ɐ] and [a] isn't sourced, the vowel chart is, so I'm pretty hesitent to deviate from that statement without using another equally reputable source. Because of what you say and because this vowel is considered a phoneme in European Portuguese where the distribution is similar, it could be the case that this is an instance of former allophony that has fossilized. Until enough relevant loanwords come into the lexicon or until other changes occur that show this phonemicity, it may be the case that sources will continue to say that [ɐ] is an allohone for the time being and we'll just have to stick with our sources-over-truth policy. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

These informations seems a little a biased information written by a Portuguese, just now I noticed it was saying there are the same quantity of diphtongs in both dialects though in Brazilian the vowels e, ɛ and ẽ in diphthong do not becomes ɐ and ɐ̃ as it happens in Portugal and I just fixed it, but only the oral vowel count which is higher in European is told the differences, I also noticed that recently an IP also tried to change the vowel count from 7 to 8 probably by the same reason than me and was reverted, if the vowel ɐ only appears in Brazilian Portuguese in unstressed position, the European vowel ɨ also does but even so it is counted.Luizdl (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The importance difference with [ɨ] may be that there are minimal pairs with related vowels. This is the point where more sources may help us out in this regard. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mataus & d'Andrade say of [ɨ]: "Usually, [ɨ] alternates in unstressed position with stressed [e] and [ɛ] (for instance selo [ˈselu] 'seal' and selo [ˈsɛlu] 'I stamp' vs selar [sɨˈlaɾ] 'to stamp')." (p 19) and "In EP stressed [ɛ] and [e] correspond to a high central vowel [ɨ] (either in pre or post-stressed position) which, in most cases, is deleted in colloquial speech..." (p 20) So it seems as though 8 is the correct number for EP, especially if we're going to apply the same standard to both dialects but I'm not sure of M & d'A explicitely give that number. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that in the table of Oral diphtongs and the count of oral diphthong is missing 4 diphthongs: those of words with "qu" and "gu" as in "quase", I will input that in the table and add in the count of oral diphthongs, but before I do this, I'd like to know if I should represent the semivowel in the IPA sample with a "w" or "u̯" (u with a semivowel diacritic), becouse actually in the table the semivowel is not marked, and the "ui" in "linguiça" (where the u is semivowel) would be confused with ui in fui (where the i is semivowel). By the way, I'd like to ask which is the group that belongs the diphthongs wich the semivowel is not nasal though the vowel is, for example, in the word "quando"? Luizdl (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My preference is for [w], partially for typographic reasons but also since that's how we transcribe it at WP:IPA for Portuguese. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Only comparing the most divulgated Portuguese pronuncies

Whoever said that in Portugal diptongs are said a way and in Brazil another doesn't know the language in its totality - he/she just mentioned the massmedia influentiated lisbon-like pronunciation. Per exemple, in Portuguese nothing's mentioned about the original r (at the beggining of a word; in de middle "rr") is like in spanish, galician, catalonian, etcetera. Then it started changing to a french-like r, used practically in all Brazil. In Portugal it started changing towards the same sound but the vibrating r is still being used. A portuguese polititian is sometimes reason of laughing in lisbon pronunciating-like communties because his speaks the r like it has always said. About me, I personally use the original portuguese vibrating r like in spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.146.11 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The article says that diphthong happens in central Portugal instead all of the Portugal, and feel free for add this note too in the triphthong note. --Luizdl (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, I fixed the triphthong too, is now saying that happens only in central Portugal, and about the hard R, we are using the symbol of french R because it, and common allophones of it, are most widely spoke, about 200 million speakers pronounce the a guttural R instead alveolar trill. --Luizdl (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree to all of you. Plus, the BP pronunciation of e. g. raça (which makes the r sound like a soft h) is not covered at all, either. -andy 77.7.6.222 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is. See footnote 2 under "Phonetic notes". +Angr 16:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"x" sound

deixar, faixa. Is it just me or isn't there any example of this "x" sound in the table found in the article? Well, it could also be that the article is so incredibly chaotic that I just overlooked it. In this case: apologies. -andy 77.7.6.222 (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the sound [ʃ], which is listed in the table. I don't if it needs to be really discussed separately. +Angr 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Trill (?!) again

The article says:

"In the syllable coda, there is some variation: while the flap [ɾ] occurs in European Portuguese, in most dialects of Brazilian Portuguese this sound is either a trill or is deleted altogether. For example, amar is [ɐˈmaɾ] in European Portuguese, but [aˈmaʁ] ~ [aˈmaχ] ~ [aˈmah] ~ [aˈma] in most Brazilian Portuguese dialects."

The text says it's a "trill" in BP, but the example transcriptions show fricatives, not trills. The correct sign for a uvular trill is a non-inverted capital R. As I pointed out in an earlier section, there's a similar problem in the whole article, in that the trill is transcribed with the symbol for a fricative.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can either put trill in scary quotes a few times or we can use another term. What would be a good choice for the latter? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what one is trying to say - I'm not sure what it is in each particular case. Maybe some BP varieties do have true trills for "R forte". Some EP varieties certainly do, indeed it can apparently be regarded as the quasi-standard realization, although I understand it's currently receding in favour of a fricative. So I don't know if it's the word or the transcription one ought to change, the only clear thing is that one of them has to change, they can't both be right. I think that, given all the different realizations of each of the two rhotics, it seems impossible to generalize over them and it's better to just call them with the traditional names "R forte" and "R brando", or, if one is comfortable with inventing new names, r1 and r2 are as good as anything else.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's typically an uvular trill in Europe, this may happen, but at least when I watch European television by Internet, it's typically uvular fricatives, voiced or voiceless, there is a good amount of European television channel streaming at http://www.tvtuga.com. What would you think if we use the terms 'hard' and 'soft' in English? Is there any problem with them? --Luizdl (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's what the Portuguese terms translate into, I'd say it's entirely appropriate. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As I said, this seems to be one of these special cases in which you really have to use the traditional terms, because the discussion covers so many different varieties that any phonologically meaningful term would be misleading. As for the European R, the source given in the article says that it used to be a uvular trill, but is currently becoming a uvular fricative in Lisbon, which could explain why the latter variant may be heard more often on Portuguese TV.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

/e ~ ɛ/ - a very productive distinction

There is a mistake in the article: «There are very few minimal pairs with /e ~ ɛ/ (except for monosyllabic clitics)» On the contrary: it is a very productive distinction. Just a few minimal pairs: seco [e] (dried) - seco [ɛ] (I dry) pêlo [e] (hair) - pelo [ɛ] (I peel off) rego [e] (ditch) - rego [ɛ] (I water) aperto [e] (pressure) - aperto [ɛ] (I compress) 89.180.46.174 (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed — it is a very productive distinction in tonic vowels. The article is correct that the contrast is largely lost in unstressed positions, however it states that in BP the unstressed /e ~ ɛ/ is raised to [i]. This is only in certain dialects, largely from the centre and the south, and often only in restricted contexts (prior to the tonic) and/or with a vowel harmonic trigger (in which the tonic vowel itself must be high: [i] or [u]). In the north-eastern dialects this raising barely happens, and indeed the favoured realization of the unstressed mid-vowel is the open [ɛ], rather than the closed [e], which predominates in the south and centre (when raising has not occurred). Lots of descriptive studies on this: for sources (mostly in BP itself) see my list of articles. If I can remember one in English, I’ll add that too. --Taguagringo (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

'Nasal vowels'

This will sound brazen, but are there any sources that would describe those vowels (spelt 'an', 'en' etc., not 'ão', 'õe' etc.) accordingly to there pronunciation, i.e. as descending diphthongs with ɯ̯̃ for the second element? This seems to be the common problem in the three old European languages that have such diphthongs, namely Portuguese, French and Polish. Those units are traditionally called "nasal vowels" there (which is no problem in the absence of real nasal vowels) but phonetically aren't, and most probably must never have been them (there are many known cases of a reverse process, e.g. densum --> rom. des, þank- --> takk-, zǫbъ --> zub, but nasal vowel --> nasal diphthong is rare, perhaps only possible before a nasal consonant). I only know some sources for Polish and I'm going to start this topic on Polish phonology when I've got more time, but I'm indicating the problem here as well -- I remember that one of the previous versions of this site used the accurate transcriptions, with three types of nasal diphthongs instead of two and 'nasal vowels'; perhaps they were unsourced. The current narrow transcription, if I get it right, uses the same signs (ɐ̃ etc.) for both the ɯ̯̃-type diphthongs and Brazilian true nasal vowels (allophones of oral vowels before nasal consonants). 46.186.37.98 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In the current version of the article it's clear that they're actually nasal vowels in some cases and nasal vowel + nasal consonant sequences in others. 195.187.108.130 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Posh European Portuguese; Diphthongs

Who today speaks posh European Portuguese? Who did so in the past? Are there any actors, for example, who cared about careful and precise pronunciation?

Allophone [ɐj] in central and southern Portugal, when unstressed before another vowel.

Does this mean that [aj] is [ɐj] when unstressed and preceding a vowel in central Portugal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.109.235 (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. For instance "maior" is pronounced [mɐjɔɾ], rather than [majɔɾ]. FilipeS (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Do consonant sandhis actually exist?

I'm bothered by the section on consonant sandhis. I'm a native brazilian portuguese speaker and I've never heard these modifications in my life, in any (brazilian) dialect. I am unfamiliar with dialects from Portugal, though, so these sandhis may happen there, but I think we should at least qualify these statements in that the effect is too small to be heard or restricted to some dialects. I can't be bothered to look for a source, though, so I'll just let it be as it is. Mateus Araújo (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The following source might be relevant, but I can't access it myself: Leda Bisol (2006). "Sandhi in Brazilian Portuguese". Probus. 15 (2): 177–200. doi:10.1515/prbs.2003.007. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Gabbe (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Regional accents in Brazilian Portuguese

Apparently someone has been making anonymous edits and adding a lot of transcriptions of words here and there in various Brazilian accents, and using rather dubious conventions like <ɕ ʑ tɕ dʑ> instead of the usual <ʃ ʒ tʃ dʒ> and any of <x ɣ χ ʁ ħ ʕ h ɦ> when just <ʁ> will do for our purposes. Shouldn't this kind of material be deleted? Not only is much of it unsourced, it's not really relevant to this article, which is supposed to give a broad overview of the major differences between the two standards (European vs. Brazilian). For another example, look at this this article on one Brazilian dialect: literally nothing in that entire section is sourced. It all smacks of original research and needs to be substantially revised or else it should be removed. AlexanderKaras (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, remove it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Triphtong missing

The -iei- triphtong is not listed, and it is no less common than others (mapeei), even in quite vernacular words (vieira).213.60.20.204 (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Phonetically, those are all instances of the same diphthong. FilipeS (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Referenced but wrong information

This phrase is referenced but becomes wrong because of the use of "totality": "In the totality of Brazilian dialects, including the overwhelmingly majority of the registers of Rio de Janeiro (from where this process is said to have expanded to elsewhere in Brazil),[17] other fluminense-speaking areas, and São Paulo, as well some rural areas of Portugal, the dental stops are affricated to [tʃ ~ tɕ] and [dʒ ~ dʑ] before /i/, /ĩ/ and [i ~ ɪ]." It is a very well known fact in Brazil that some areas of the country the [t] and [d] is not affricated before [i] at all, especially in the Northeast of the country, but also in Santa Catarina and parts of Rio Grande do Sul as well as in São Paulo (especially, in this case, older inhabitants). This phonetic characteristic of those regional dialects is notorious and is often used as a remarkable feature of those regions' peoples in movies, TV etc. So it is absolutely wrong to state that "the totality of Brazilian dialects" have that affrication process. Actually, a very large population, accounting for more than 20% of the entire Brazilian population, must speak a non-affricate dialect, so it's not a very marginal phonetic characteristic in Brazil. That information should be changed and corrected, emphasizing that "In MOST Brazilian dialects, with the exception of some Northeastern and Southern dialects" or something like that.201.9.56.179 (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with that, so I took the liberty of making that change in the article. Unfortunately, I have no reference for it, so I've flagged it as needing citation. While this claim is awaiting a reference, though, it's not too hard to verify it, considering you can find videos of Northeastern accents online (e.g. excerpts from a movie set in the Northeast, such as "O auto da compadecida"). Not a perfect proof, I know, but still better than nothing... Tanynep (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't even needs referencing, it is blatantly false. There are popular jokes and sayings remarking this dialect difference. Everybody knows that in Pato Branco "Os parentes da gente não bebe mais leite quente, porque doi o dente da frente."187.2.177.152 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The Symbol 〈ⁿ〉

What does the symbol 〈ⁿ〉? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.113.15 (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question. It appears only in section Nasal vowels, and according to the text there, I would expect the "offglide [ɪ̯̃]" there. Superscripts are sometimes used (non IPA standard) to express optional sounds, too, but that would only partially fit the text here. — Sebastian 14:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In IPA, a superscript nasal symbol is usually used to denote a prenasalized consonant. This differs from a full homorganic nasal (that is, just [n]) by duration. I still have a copy of the source, even though the link is now dead. I don't think I would have transcribed it this way if the authors used the symbol differently. But I can double check the source when I get home to make sure that this is the case. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Aeusoes1 is right it can represent pre-nasalisation or a nasal release, but I don't agree the author should've used a different transcription method (even if he confuses the symbols) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's the relevant material:

The archiphoneme /N/, in words such as canta /kaNta/ '(s/he) sings' or irmã /iRˈmaN/ [iɾˈmɐ̃] 'sister', triggers the nasalisation of a preceding vowel...There is a phonetic contrast of five nasalised allophones in stressed position before the archiphoneme /N/ (which induces the so-called phonological nasalisation, illustrated by [the table in question]), as well as before heterosyllabic nasal consonants (which triggers the so-called phonetic nasalisation): [ı̃ ẽ ɐ̃ õ ũ]. The latter condition is exemplified by the following list: (em) cima [sı̃mɐ] 'above', sema [sẽmɐ] 'seme', sama [sɐ̃mɐ] 'pine tree leaf', soma [sõmɐ] 'sum', (em) suma [sũmɐ] 'to sum up'...Nasalised vowels in this position surface either before /N/ (e.g. temporal [tẽ^mpoˈɾaʊ̯] 'temporal') or before /ɲ/ (e.g. ganhar [ɡɐ̃ˈɲaɾ] '(to) win').

This is not very clear-cut and if other editors feel like the superscript nasal symbol in the table in question is insufficiently motivated from this, I wouldn't fight its replacement with nonsuperscript symbols. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Except for the centralization/raising of "a" towards ɜ̃, this analysis is also found in many Spanish dialects and languages. Emphatic (or more "stressed") accents (like Traditional Castilian) always fully pronounce final nasals. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me)

Epenthesis in Brazilian Portuguese

Lguipontes added the example [ujˈzɔju] to the article Palatal approximant‎. This just got edited by Srtª PiriLimPomPom to show the epenthesis of the second syllable, which is in accordance with Brazilian Portuguese#Epenthesis. But why is there an epenthesis of yod in the first syllable? Was that maybe just an original typo that got overlooked? — Sebastian 14:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply, and since it's WP:EXCESSDETAIL, I'm removing it. — Sebastian 19:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add: I also searched the reference for "olhos", but did not find the word. — Sebastian 20:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Monosyllabic words (and most words stressed on the last syllable) ending in /S/ tend to be "strengthened" by a yod in most dialects. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Oral diphthongs

"In Brazil it is mostly nasalised to [ɐ̃ȷ̃]. In central and southern Portugal, it is the standard pronunciation for the "ei" sound."

The last sentence is unclear. Does it refer to [ɐj] in the table or does it refer to [ɐ̃ȷ̃] mentioned in the sentence before? Moreover, what is the "ei" sound? Does it refer to the letter combination "ei"? Then it's not a sound, but a graphical depiction of some sound. And if you mean the pronunciation [ei], you should make it clear that it's IPA. --147.142.185.206 (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

In Brazil it is closed and it can be nasalised due to environment, and in some dialects they are always nasal, and in some Northern dialects it is open [aj] with probability of to get nasalised due to environment. In Portugal it is open too as well as in some Brazilian Northern dialects, but in many European dialects the /e/ can be centralized before palatals /ʎ/, /ɲ/ and /j/, sounding like Brazilian [ɐj] diphthong, and before post-palatals EP also may centralize /e/ with an epenthetic [j].--Luizdl ^Talk 20:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Weird use of prepositions

> southeastern dialects such as [...] the fluminense, along Rio de Janeiro < (intro)
> conservative dialects down São Paulo < (Brazilian rhotics)
> throughout coastal Brazil down Espírito Santo < (Brazilian rhotics)

What are the words "along" and "down" supposed to mean in these phrases? -- Picapica (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Another example: > As phonemes, /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ occur only in loanwords (e.g tchau and dee jay), with a tendency for speakers to substitute into fricatives in Portugal.

What on earth does substitute into mean? -- Picapica (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This may not be perfect English because it was probably not written by a native speaker, but the meaning is quite clear to anybody who's not a total idiot (or playing dumb, as you seem to be). "Substituted into" obviously means "substituted by" or "changed into" (which is the same). Equally obviously, "along Rio de Janeiro" means "around Rio de Janeiro", "in the areas close to Rio de Janeiro". The only question which does admittely arise is about "down". I'd suppose "in and south of", but that's just a guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.201.0.62 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Portuguese phonology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706155022/http://aulete.uol.com.br/site.php?mdl=aulete_digital&op=loadVerbete&pesquisa=1&palavra=iate to http://aulete.uol.com.br/site.php?mdl=aulete_digital&op=loadVerbete&pesquisa=1&palavra=iate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091223215106/http://aulete.uol.com.br/site.php?mdl=aulete_digital to http://aulete.uol.com.br/site.php?mdl=aulete_digital&op=loadVerbete&palavra=s%E1bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Aspiration

Voiceless stops, but especially /p/, may be aspirated in some varieties of European Portuguese, though perhaps not all. I don't personally speak Portuguese, so I don't know if this is an ideolectal or regional thing. But there can be no doubt about it. In fact, some of these aspirating speakers have extremely strong aspiration that borders on affrication. Take the first newsreader in this report as an example of that. Right at the beginning she says both /p/'s in "para Portugal" with a sound that is at least strongly aspirated [pʰ], but seems actually closer to [pɸ]. Also in the rest of her speech she aspirates several voiceless stops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.201.0.62 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation for syllable structure

I was trying to find the citation but the book I think it is in one that costs money (some of the pages of "The Phonology of Portuguese" by Maria Helena Mateus, Ernesto d'Andrade listed are not in the preview). I am trying to put the phonotactic structure in the Portuguese language phonology section but I can't without a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewokpedia (talk • contribs) 20:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

European Portuguese name Neves

I'm seeking help, please, on the pronunciation of Neves as a family name in Portugal, for the article about Rúben Neves, who now plays football in England. I speak no Portuguese, and in particular my knowledge of IPA does not extend to analysis using [ɨ] (or [ɯ]).

I ventured an IPA transcription [nɛvʃ] some time ago, which User:Xyzzyva has in good faith twice changed to [ˈnɛvɨʃ], commenting: "Per the Forvo listing, you're right that ([nɛvʃ] is) an option, but we want to keep the transcriptions consistent with the linked key..." and referring to the European Portuguese "e caduc" section here in Portuguese phonology. I cannot find clear support for the [ˈnɛvɨʃ] transcription, but nor do I have a reference for [nɛvʃ].

My concern is to keep the transcription consistent with what people say. I have listened to:

• Forvo at https://forvo.com/search/neves/pt_pt/
• YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI9v5ucPvEM
• YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XHme9y3DkQ&feature=youtu.be&t=32
• YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8Ie6e1fBE&feature=youtu.be&t=2802

None of these convinces me that there is an articulated vowel sound between the [v] and the [ʃ] in European Portuguese, but it isn't my language so I don't know the conventions and I might not be hearing nuances that a speaker of European Portuguese would.

What would be a good IPA transcription of Neves to guide readers of the English Wikipedia article? And whatever the answer, does anyone know a good reference for it?

Thank you -----Frans Fowler (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Frans Fowler: I have no idea how to use Wikipedia's IPA transcription (came here because Rúben's page has seen a bit of action today); however, I thought I'd warn you that the guy from your second Youtube link is Brazilian (w/ a very strong accent). Try these instead:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXOgNzSXJdc&t=9
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhqwlY5aetw&t=58

We say it like Nev-sh, the slight vowel sound that you hear comes from the "v". RetiredDuke (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The UEFA pronunciation guidance for Rúben Neves is also Nev-sh (that is, [nɛvʃ]), and presumably that is a reliable reference. Wikipedia's IPA Help for Portuguese notes: "Neither [European Portuguese nor Brazilian Portuguese] is preferred at Wikipedia, except in cases where a local pronunciation is clearly more relevant, such as [...] an individual from Portugal." Rúben Neves is from Portugal, so the European Portuguese pronunciation is relevant, and on the evidence it does seem to be one syllable (not two syllables with the second syllable unstressed): [nɛvʃ]. Before I change the IPA in the Rúben Neves article back to [nɛvʃ], can anyone (User:Xyzzyva, for instance) offer any more advice? --Frans Fowler (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

/ɨ/ is often elided in European Portuguese. Whether the surname is transcribed [ˈnɛvɨʃ] or [ˈnɛfʃ] (it has a voiceless [f], per Cruz-Ferreira) is a matter of convention - do we transcribe the elision, or do we not? The consensus should be reached at Help talk:IPA/Portuguese, not here. I'd choose a more phonetically explicit IPA, so [ˈnɛfʃ]. The correct phonemic transcription is, of course, /ˈnɛvɨʃ/ (or perhaps /ˈnɛveʃ/, if you think that the 'e caduc' is essentially an allophone of /e/) - but transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/Portuguese are phonetic, not phonemic. Then, there's also the issue of our recordings. [ˈnɛvɨʃ] is a more careful variant so we'd either have to re-record some (or more than some) of our pronunciations with an elided [ɨ] (to reflect the normal, rather than careful pronunciation), or remove those recordings that disagree with the transcription with elision assumed. Or, choose the middle ground, which would be to put the vowel sign in parentheses [ˈnɛv(ɨ)ʃ], with the note that devoicing happens automatically ([ˈnɛvɨʃ] → [ˈnɛfʃ]). Sol505000 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Organizing/splitting the page for BP/EP?

The article is becoming very confusing and hard to read. In each section there is a jumble between European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese. Should we clean this up better or better yet, as with the English and Spanish phonology pages add pages for the two major dialects? 129.98.42.178 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

is this right?

i find the Portuguese_phonology#European_Portuguese_"e_caduc" section confusing, specifically the second line. i might just be not reading it right, as with this very similar question i asked a while ago. can someone please check and make sure it's right? thanks, —Soap— 05:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Coimbra accent

Coimbra is not mentioned once in this article! However, the article then proceeds to randomly throw in a column for Coimbra in the last IPA table without explaining anything, which is weird given the prestige of the speech. The table shows two things ("ei", "ou") Coimbra apparently does differently from Lisboa, which aren't actually characteristic of Coimbra anymore. Although there are still differences between the two cities, the selected text doesn't contain the word sequences to show them, so it's a poor choice. You would need ocurrences with E before palatals and vowels following final S. --2001:16B8:3121:2500:59A9:E11C:CF30:141E (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Loss of ʎ-phoneme in Brazil?

The article says that in Brazil /lj/ and /nj/ may become [ʎ] and [ɲ] respectively. I understand that no merger occurs in case of the nasal, because /ɲ/ is in fact a nasalised approximant. But regarding the lateral it would seem that /ʎ/ merges entirely with /lj/ for those speaker who use the first-mentioned pronunciation, and hence ceases to be a distinct phoneme. Is that correct? 77.13.220.41 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that in Brazil we tend to break the diphthong if there is a "l" consonant. Like the word "gálio" in portugal is /ga.lju/, in Brazil is /ga.li.u/, while "galho" is pronounced /gaʎu/ (or /gaʎo/) by both. So we could say that in Brazil the phonotactics prevent the diphthong /iw/ after the consonant /l/. But yeah, I don't think we can distinguish /lju/ from and /ʎu/. The italian car brand Palio, I see people say /paʎu/ (myself included), but in ads you can hear /pa.li.u/, while in italian it is /pa.lju/. 2804:14D:78B1:8CD8:0:0:0:2 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

So, words with /lj/ like Palio can be pronounced [li.u] or [ʎu], right? And words with /ʎ/ can only be pronounced [ʎ]? Erinius (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Phonemicity of /ɲ/ in Brazil

Not directly related to the former, but: Isn't /ɲ/ also of doubtful phonemicity in Brazil? Couldn't "anho" be understood as /ãjo/, "vinho" as /vĩju/, etc.? Thus in the sense, that phonemically speaking (!) <nh> represents a nasalised vowel followed by /j/? 77.13.220.41 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but the phonemic analysis here should encompass both dialects as often as possible. We should probably introduce the archiphonemes /N, S, L, R/ per Balbosa & Albano 2004 and maybe switch to phonemic transcription in places where phonetically explicit IPA isn't essential. In phonetic IPA, the unstressed close vowels can be written with ⟨ɪ ʊ⟩ as that's their phonetic value not only in (some) BP but also EP - Cruz-Ferreira says that all vowels can be (mid-)centralized when unstressed, so I think ⟨ɪ ʊ⟩ should be used in transcriptions of EP as well. Sol505000 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Or not /L/, the vocalization to [w] happens automatically before consonants and pauses (I think) - unless there are compounds in which [w] (phonemic /L/) and [l] (phonemic /l/) contrast in BP? There doesn't have to be a minimal pair by the way, just a pair of words where /L/ occurs in one word and /l/ in another). I'm leaving that as an open question (I admit that I don't know much about Portuguese, so I can only do so much to improve the article). Sol505000 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

Why does the introductory paragraph (before Contents) get into such arcane detail about local dialects? The basics should come first, with exceptional items given in a section at the end. The intro paragraph is a real turn-off.

And the "Consonants" section is just as bad. Can't the article present the PHONOLOGY OF MODERN PORTUGUESE without all the digressions into historical trivia? Save it for a separate section at the end. Good grief! This is about the worst place to look to get an idea of how modern Portuguese is pronounced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC08:A600:497:BFC4:C599:BC05 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we need an article Portuguese regional phonology, in analogy to North American English regional phonology and describe only standard Portuguese here. This article reads as if it was written by someone who couldn't just focus on the big picture - and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who feels a headache after reading it. The various notes in articles about Brazil that I've encountered (such as this one) only seem to confirm my observation.

We need to figure out what Standard Brazilian Portuguese is and describe only that dialect (sure, there's going to be some variation in it), rather than include 673 references to various regional dialects. Instead of that, I'd like to see African Portuguese (and Asian Portuguese, too) described here in more detail. These too must be considered "standard", no? Sol505000 (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

European Portuguese "e caduc"

In traditional EP, /i/ was never retracted to [ɨ]. I can't find it, but as far as I remember, one of the wikiarticles about Portuguese claimed the reverse: all unstressed /i/'s used to be retracted to [ɨ], but nowadays it's perceived as rural. If it's true, then the story went like this: 1. Unstressed [e] merged into [i], analogically to the way unstressed [o] merged into [u]; 2. unstressed [i] was retracted to [ɨ]; 3. spelling pronunciation kicks in: [ɨ] gets "corrected" to [i] only if spelt i rather than e; 4. the situation described in the article. Any sources? 195.187.108.130 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits and the mass revert

@Ryou14: I'm all for discussing my edits/deletions but a mass revert with the following edit summary: this information might not be in a book, but based on my studies of the phonetics of spanish, galician and portuguese, this sounds do indeed works and are founds on the words written. It does not required a source since the one who wrote it knows how phonetics works, please do not deleted information because it is not found on books, or other references. This information was added maybe from personal notes on phonetics which sometimes is impossible to officially publish. thank you is a no-no. This is a (poor) justification of keeping WP:OR (such as the transcriptions of Os Lusíadas) in the article. I see that you're a fairly new user so those edits must've come from earlier accounts, which is fine by me (I'm just trying to clarify the situation). My edits often (not always) have edit summaries so you can address those directly if you find it easier, or just address the edits themselves. Sol505000 (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jonh20991:, you seem to be a single-purpose account. Please discuss your changes here. You have just undone my edits without changing all of the relevant transcriptions, both phonetic and phonemic. The article must be consistent in that regard - either we transcribe things one way, or the other way. Especially in phonemic transcription. Sol505000 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jonh20991: I repeat, please discuss the changes here or I will be forced to report you. Sol505000 (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)