Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleInternational Phonetic Alphabet was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 27, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
June 10, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 13, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
August 6, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
July 1, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Community reassessment[edit]

International Phonetic Alphabet[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delist I agree with Colins position that not everything in a GA needs to be cited, but Fiamh has acknowledged this and given an example of something which needs a citation. Since this has not been rectified and this has been open for over 4 months I am going to delist it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are long chunks of unreferenced sentences. I have identified and tagged, removed or corrected some OR and inaccuracies from time to time,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] but problems persist. IMHO it does a poor job particularly of differentiating what is the official, canonical IPA as set out by the International Phonetic Association and what are applications of the IPA; for example, [brackets] and /slashes/ are the only enclosing symbols recognized by the IPA, but the article only distinguishes them and other conventions as "principal" and "less common", with hardly any citation.

It may have deserved GA in 2006 when it became one, but I don't think it meets the standards we now expect from GAs. Nardog (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not seeing reason to delist. It seems understandable that a fairly prominent article like this would get some noisy contributions from time to time, but the diffs you linked don't seem like major issues. Something like this for example is a fine correction, but it's quite a small detail - the 'wrongness' of the previous wording isn't such that it would affect my thinking about GA status. The content you showed that you had removed for being unsourced or tagged with {{citation needed}} don't seem like they belong to one of the categories of statements for which the WP:GACR require inline citations. You clearly have a lot of expertise on this topic. On the one hand, that gives you a better ability than me to sniff out factually questionable claims or missing coverage. But it might also lead you to hold the article to higher standards than an average reader (or reviewer) would. I don't think I follow your issue about differentiating "official, canonical IPA" and "applications of the IPA" in the current state of the article - but I'd be interested in reading more if you'd like to elaborate. Colin M (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Nardog. The essence of verifiability as I understand it is that the average reader can read any sentence in the article, find the source, and verify the information. Inline citations are not required for GAs, and that can be verifiable if it's a short article with relatively few sources. Some of the passages missing inline citations, such as the paragraph starting with "For example, while the /p/ sounds of pin and spin are pronounced slightly differently in English ..." are something you could find in any intro linguistics textbook, and I'd be willing to let that slide for the purpose of GA reassessment. But what about more obscure facts? For example, the passage "Superscript diacritics placed after a letter are ambiguous between simultaneous modification of the sound and phonetic detail at the end of the sound. For example, labialized ⟨kʷ⟩ may mean either simultaneous [k] and [w] or else [k] with a labialized release. Superscript diacritics placed before a letter, on the other hand, normally indicate a modification of the onset of the sound (⟨mˀ⟩ glottalized [m], ⟨ˀm⟩ [m] with a glottal onset)." Of the sources listed for this article, which of these has this information? How do I find it? And if I can't, how do we call it "verifiable"? Delist, since this has been sitting here for months without improvement. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 05:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General classification of consonants and vowels of speech[edit]

People of all races and nationalities have the same structure of the entire body, including the speech apparatus and the same structure of the nervous system. Therefore, the sounds of speech must be combined into a single classification of consonant and vowel sounds-signs of speech-thinking-worldview-ideology-faith.

Such a classification (6 types in each of the 5 zones of physiologically optimal articulation) has already been developed by the Russian physician Alexander Makeev during 1984-2010 and clarified the details in subsequent years. The result of this long-term scientific work has been published: Общая классификация согласных и гласных звуков-знаков речи-мышления / А.К. Макеев // Культурология, искусствоведение и филология: современные взгляды и научные исследования: сб. ст. по материалам XXXIV Международной научно-практической конференции– № 3(30). – М., Изд. «Интернаука», 2020. - 108 с. С. 65-75. ISSN 2541-9870 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex makeyev (talkcontribs) 09:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ɒ instead of ɑ for American English[edit]

Why does Wikipedia consistently use a symbol for a rounded open back vowel when most Americans do not use that sound? If the answer is that some Americans do, then some accommodation should be made for many regional and other sub-group pronunciations. If the answer is that the rounded sound is standard in England, then some accommodation should be made for Ireland, Scotland, Wales, South Africa, and India, which all have sounds divergent from American or British sounds. 2602:306:C587:B64F:DD36:D2EF:7069:ED3C (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it used for American English? — kwami (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
> "Why does Wikipedia consistently use a symbol for a rounded open back vowel when most Americans do not use that sound?" — Because Americans are not the only speakers of English, or users of en-Wikipedia. – Raven  .talk 02:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record...[edit]

I am Strongly Opposed to any move of this page calling it a "script" rather than an "alphabet", based on the current version of WP:NCWS#Alphabets stating the latter pertains only to "language-specific" alphabets. The discussion on WT:NCWS had made clear: (1) the usage intended was to "one or more languages"; and (2) an alternative qualification was the tiny two words "or use" [-specific]. Neither of these made it into the edit by one sole editor. That omission may not even have been noticed until recently. If the WP page is corrected to express the consensus intention, that issue should vanish. Meanwhile, I cite two RSs:
• Clair, Kate; Busic-Snyder, Cynthia (2012-06-20). "Key Concepts". A Typographic Workbook: A Primer to History, Techniques, and Artistry. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 347. ISBN 9781118399880. alphabet: a set of visual characters or letters in an order fixed by custom. The individual characters represent the sounds of a spoken language. ... In addition to English, there are... International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA),....
• "alphabet". Merriam-Webster [online]. 1.a. a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order
– Raven  .talk 02:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you playing stupid? Do you think that you score points by doing so? — kwami (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argument by insult and implicit accusation (abusive ad hominem): "This kind of argument, besides usually being fallacious, is also counterproductive, as a proper dialogue is hard to achieve after such an attack." – Raven  .talk 23:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has such a move been proposed? —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Raven's been making POINTy edits and pretending not to understand anything for weeks. They appear to be spreading their disruption here; it doesn't actually mean anything. They had to be threatened with a block before they'd stop trolling at ANI. — kwami (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and in the absence of any such RtM, Raven's post is unambiguously WP:Disruption. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought kwami's multiple surprise undiscussed/nonconsensus page moves, which (once reverted as WP:RMUM) kwami re-reverted to keep the changes despite opposition, might have been viewed as disruptive. Since kwami had also declared the IPA to be a "script" and not an "alphabet" (see quotes below), it was entirely possible there would be another WP:RMUM page move based on that declaration or opinion. No point waiting for an RtM, since kwami didn't create any for those other moves. Posting pre–emptive opposition on the talkpage seemed merely prudent. Why kwami now denies making the earlier declarations, ask kwami. – .Raven  .talk 03:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "They had to be threatened with a block before they'd stop trolling at ANI." – Perhaps kwami refers to this exchange:
Please stop. --128.164.177.55 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
When you put it like that... okay. – .Raven .talk 14:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The "trolling" characterization is kwami's own. I for one do not mistake a courteous request for a "threat". – .Raven  .talk 03:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Theban alphabet#Requested move 3 April 2023 to undo kwami's surprise undiscussed/nonconsensus move (and, after it had been reverted as WP:RMUM, kwami's re-reversion to retain the now clearly opposed move) to 'Theban script', wherein multiple other such undiscussed page moves by kwami were mentioned. Excerpts mention his opinion of the IPA:
Yes, the IPA is a script. In its case, "Alphabet" is an integral part of its name -- we even capitalize it -- as e.g. with the NATO Phonetic "Alphabet", which isn't a writing system at all but instead a set of code words for the letters of the Latin script. There are times when COMMONNAME will override our other conventions, but I'm arguing this shouldn't be one of them. — kwami (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
————————————————
To which language do the ISO basic Latin alphabet and International Phonetic Alphabet belong? Do you intend to change those article titles too?
I note that, off-WP, Merriam-Webster defines "alphabet", primary meaning (1a): "a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order" – .Raven .talk 04:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
They're not alphabets under our convention. 'Alphabet' is just part of the name. Same with the NATO Phonetic Alphabet. Not so for Theban, any more than for Cyrillic or Tengwar. Anyway, your pointed refusal to understand what everyone else is capable of understanding suggests this line of discussion is pointless. — kwami (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
[underlines added] Since kwami had made undiscussed (no-request-section) moves of other articles based on such claims, it seemed prudent to put opposition to such a move on record on the talk page. – .Raven  .talk 02:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overarching diacritic?[edit]

At Talk:Circumflex#Sylvius' circumflex, Muleiolenimi asked did anyone know of an overarching diacritic. I've just come across this:

  • /d͡ʒ/

Would someone explain how the arc is achieved? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to reproduce it with MS Word, unsuccessfully so far, but where (ie online or ?) did you come across it? Muleiolenimi (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voiced postalveolar affricate, I guess (no idea how I got there). I see that Wiktionary has it too, maybe they can help? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muleiolenimi:, I have reposted the question here: I mistakenly posted it at the disambig talk page, which is maybe why no-one responded. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See wikt:◌᷍◌. I'll answer on original post. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ʁ is WRONG on every single wikipedia page[edit]

Major issue in my opinion. The voiceless uvular fricative [ʁ] is automatically inverted when used on Wikipedia. It is very confusing. On the page of that sound itself, it’s blatantly displayed to be mirrored in in the text but correct in the image.

If you try to edit it, the correct symbol is already there, so it really has to do with weird formatting settings that ordinary users can’t change. 2003:CB:8737:F678:50E3:BC10:8D30:AD2B (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the voiced uvular fricative [ʁ], what do you see? If you don't see an inverted smallcap R, it might be an issue with your device. –Austronesier (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed an issue with their device, the culprit being Apple's San Francisco. The obvious solution is to change the browser's default sans-serif font to something else (not Helvetica, which has a similar bug with ɶ), or to register an account and set a font for the .IPA class in your personal CSS. Nardog (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Dental Stops[edit]

why aren't they on the table :( 49.182.86.196 (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because ⟨t, d⟩ represent dental, alveolar, or postalveolar stops. The lack of border between cells indicates this. Nardog (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About grapheme rotation[edit]

Multiview_orthographic_projection Sabrina.ponsi (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? Do you reckon this article could be improved by a link to that one? —Tamfang (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

grapheme ≠ letter[edit]

A letter is a grapheme in a grammar - syntaxis and lexicon, cfr. lemma - system, which means that the letter is conventionally defined according to logical-mathemathical rules beyond hearing, phonation, and vision, that is beyond physics. Gnoseological and onthological rules, that is psychological and scientifical observations according to which lexicon, grammar and syntaxis are constructed. Sabrina.ponsi (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have in mind a specific improvement to the article? —Tamfang (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

order ≠ sequence[edit]

A word is a conventional sequence of phonemes and/or graphemes and/or letters.

Cfr. Bijection Sabrina.ponsi (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? —Tamfang (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The chart here is different from the official IPA chart. Shouldn't that be pointed out?[edit]

At least the consonant chart in this article differs in many ways from the most recent one published in 2005 and shown on the IPA's homepage (apart from insignificant layout changes in the years since then). For example, there are separate rows for sibilant and non-sibilant fricatives and the main difference between the meaning of the signs ɕ and ç is shown as being between the presence and absence of a sibilant quality, rather between an alveolopalatal and palatal place of articulation as in the official chart. Since the readers would naturally assume the chart they see in an article on the IPA will be one endorsed by the International Phonetic Association, shouldn't there be a note saying that this is a modified version that Wikipedia's editors have created? 87.126.21.225 (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong transcription in pic[edit]

The [p] in "IPA" is unaspirated, e.g. the correct transcription is [aɪ piː eɪ], not [aɪ pʰiː eɪ]. ― Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just about every source I can find indicates that voiceless stops are aspirated word-initially in most English dialects. Do you have a source for your claim? It could ultimately be that you speak a dialect in which this is not the case. AviationFreak💬 18:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P is called [ˈpiː] according to Oxford and Merriam Webster. ― Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 16:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those dictionaries are both using a broad phonemic level of transcription; they never mark aspiration since English speakers know voiceless stops are always aspirated in this position. The image is using square brackets, with a narrower level of transcription. Umimmak (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Iconic extensions of standard IPA letters that are implicit in the alphabet"[edit]

I've read "Iconic extensions of standard IPA letters that are implicit in the alphabet" three times and still don't know what it means. ("Extensions" in which sense? "Iconic" in which sense? In which alphabet? What does it mean, to be implicit in an alphabet? Is it the extensions or the letters that are implicit?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ypsilon as a consonant in Greek[edit]

The most extreme difference is ⟨ʋ⟩, which is a vowel in Greek but a consonant in the IPA.

Is it worth mentioning that that's not strictly true? It functions as a consonant in the digraph ⟨αυ⟩ as in "αυτός". — W.andrea (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]