Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects/Archive 3

message: I'm sorry, Ijust wanted to ask a question. I noticed that this article seems to be in conflict with Wikipedia concerning "guides" (WP:NOT#GUIDE), in that it's only purpose appears to be as a guide to reading the International Phoenetic Alphabet. Now, I'm just wondering what the opinion of the article's editors is about this. I'd nominate the page for deletion, but I have a strong feeling that there's something here I'm missing. So if you could just clarify that for me, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Calgary 04:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be against deleting it outright, of course, but see #Move out of article space above for a half-assed discussion of moving it to Wikipedia: or Help: space. —Angr 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the discussion you mentioned, although brief and involving only a few people, essentially ended in favor of a move, didn't it? I mean, I agree, the information should be on Wikipedia, as it is a guide to understanding a system that is standard in Wikipedia articles. But it definitely has no place in the main namespace, and cmes in direct vilation of Wikipedia policy. So is there a way we can actually do something about moving it? Calgary 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RM? —Angr 05:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it really need to be requested? I mean, as far as I see it there isn't really any significant opposition (technically this has been under discussion for the past 5 months, simply with no one continuing the discussion). Do you think there's need for a request? Or could it just be moved using the little tab at the top? Also, does the tab allow you to change namespaces? Calgary 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you actually look at WP:NOT#GUIDE, it mentions that Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikitravel are better places for some kinds of info. The charts in this article belongs best at Wikipedia IMHO. And I agree with Woodstone that it is encyclopedic. --Kjoonlee 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the information is scientific, and is indeed very useful. I don't see how that makes it encyclopedic. This article, as it stands, is a pronunciation guide. It's a table that has literally no purpose other than to teach the reader how to interpret the IPA when it is applied to English. I agree that this is very interesting and informative, but it is supplementary information, not encyclopedic content. I'd suggest either a move in namespace, as this is in a way a guide to using Wikipedia (IPA is standard for pronunciation). I don't see this content as being at all encyclopedic. Calgary 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article deletion

message: Would someone consider expanding this article to cover all IPA symbols? Occasionally, where articles use IPA symbols that are not intelligible to readers, I've added a respelled pronunciation. But some editors have objected because such a respelling does not reproduce the pronunciation accurately enough.
In my view, the problem is that most people (myself included) don't know how to read a large number of IPA symbols. Unfortunately, the article "IPA chart for English" doesn't explain how IPA symbols not used in English are pronounced, and the "International Phonetic Alphabet" article is too technical and unhelpful for this purpose. What is really needed is a simple, clear chart along the lines of "IPA chart for English" but comprehensively explaining and providing examples for every IPA symbol (or combination of symbols, such as ""), either by reference to a known word (e.g., "like the 'ur' in 'burden'") or by description (e.g, "like 'er' with pursed lips"). Print dictionaries usually have a page like this to help readers – Wikipedia should have one too. See the discussion that is taking place at "Talk:Ötzi the Iceman#ur'-tsee". Cheers, Jacklee 12:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I find most of the IPA pronounciations provided in articles to be unintelliagable because I dont know how to read IPA and this chart seems to be missing symbols. every article seems to rely on IPA to provide pronounciation but wikipedia doesnt appear to provide a clear guide to reading these symbols. Mloren 09:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think why anyone would have any problem with a seperate but more comprehensive IPA chart... Wikipedia, even following notability guidelines as it does, is a haven for the obscure.  And this would be one of the more useful types. The question is; who is comfortable enough with the non-English-use IPA symbols to start it? --Talionis (Shout me · Stalk me) 09:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bad idea. The table was specifically created to supply information on the application of the IPA to English only. Expanding it to full IPA would defeat this purpose. It would be better to work on a separate more general page explaining how to pronounce the IPA symbols. −Woodstone 11:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand this chart to include all IPA characters 

message: Is there are reason for all of the diphthongs being written without ̯ ?
Would it not be nicer to have them with ̯ ? And does anyone know who to contact for the inclusion of ̯ in the IPA lines below the editing window? Currently, there is only 
 t̪ d̪ ʈ ɖ ɟ ɡ ɢ ʡ ʔ   ɸ ʃ ʒ ɕ ʑ ʂ ʐ ʝ ɣ ʁ ʕ ʜ ʢ ɦ   ɱ ɳ ɲ ŋ ɴ   ʋ ɹ ɻ ɰ   ʙ ʀ ɾ ɽ   ɫ ɬ ɮ ɺ ɭ ʎ ʟ   ɥ ʍ ɧ   ɓ ɗ ʄ ɠ ʛ   ʘ ǀ ǃ ǂ ǁ   ɨ ʉ ɯ   ɪ ʏ ʊ   ɘ ɵ ɤ   ə ɚ   ɛ ɜ ɝ ɞ ʌ ɔ   ɐ ɶ ɑ ɒ   ʰ ʷ ʲ ˠ ˤ ⁿ ˡ   ˈ ˌ ː ˑ ̪   •  
Jasy jatere 09:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is that most published sources don't use the nonsyllabicity mark under the nonsyllabic portion of a diphthong. I don't think I've ever seen an English-language dictionary or pronunciation dictionary that did use it, in fact. (German-language ones often do.) —Angr 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  diphthongs 

message: In Australian English 'winner' wouldn't end with a schwa but an a, 'win-ah', same with words like 'here'/'near' ('he-ah'/'knee-ah'). +Hexagon1 (t) 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AuE 

message: I admit I've never seen the following in print (and with-out such support, it shouldn't be added to the article, but maybe some-one else has read about it and can support me with a ref) , but to my ears there is a clear difference between two forms of "short i" (given here as the dipthong aɪ).  Here are some examples of contrastive  pairs:
Hi  / highchair
wide  / white
my  / might
Kdammers 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are very right. (Sometimes /i:/ is held longer than /i/, but not consistently.) IMO, this page should forgo that distinction as well, for the same reason (i.e., phonemic/broad/lay-friendly goal rather than phonetic/narrow/TMI). (BTW, did not mean to be combative in my last comment—meant it as a general response to narrow transcription, not to denigrate specifically your phonetically valid example.) I may try pruning back the narrowness of transcription soon—and see whether it gets shot down. — ¾-10 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem:  I didn't take Your comments as combatative.  But, by the way, the two long i-s are not (always [if that restriction makes sense) allophones to my ear, since "high chair" ( a chair stacked onto others ) and "highchair" (a baby's eating chair) are distinguished by the two phonemes.  But I agree with Your efforts to keep the page as trim as possible while still imparting adequate help.
Kdammers 03:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  aɪ in GA 

message: You are phonetically correct about long (not short) i. However, the main goal of this page is to make EN-Wikipedia's use of IPA in transcribing English words as phonemic and lay-friendly as possible. A drift toward painstakingly differentiating allophones that laypeople perceive emically as "the same thing" is phonetically accurate, but is counterproductive to the point of this page. We should not start giving people linguistic lessons on the etic differences between /k/ and /kh/ or between the allophonic diphthongs in wide and white. As more and more trees get added to this page, we are going to lose sight of the forest. If people need linguistic pedagogy, they can pore over the IPA article. The reason this page was created was to give them a lay-friendly alternative to that page, about which many have said that it's too long and technical for what they are trying to get out of it: simply to know how a certain word sounds. — ¾-10 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are very right. (Sometimes /i:/ is held longer than /i/, but not consistently.) IMO, this page should forgo that distinction as well, for the same reason (i.e., phonemic/broad/lay-friendly goal rather than phonetic/narrow/TMI). (BTW, did not mean to be combative in my last comment—meant it as a general response to narrow transcription, not to denigrate specifically your phonetically valid example.) I may try pruning back the narrowness of transcription soon—and see whether it gets shot down. — ¾-10 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem:  I didn't take Your comments as combatative.  But, by the way, the two long i-s are not (always [if that restriction makes sense) allophones to my ear, since "high chair" ( a chair stacked onto others ) and "highchair" (a baby's eating chair) are distinguished by the two phonemes.  But I agree with Your efforts to keep the page as trim as possible while still imparting adequate help.
Kdammers 03:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drifting away from phonemic, lay-friendly transcription 

message: I changed RP to RBP so that if anyone was not to look up Received pronunciation they would not be Offended and or would know that The British pronunciation was not missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiedman (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 October 2007
:I reverted your change, because RP is the standard abbreviation. The accent is simply never called "RBP". And why would anyone be offended by the abbreviation "RP" anyway? —Angr 19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RP to RBP<

message: Are the flags really necessary?The flags expand the columns out to much. Plus, flags are to do more with nationality rather than dialect spoken. --203.94.135.134 00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made them smaller. Better?--agr 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I still think the flags are unnecessary. --203.94.135.134 01:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they are not necessary, but I think they are helpful in clarifying the meaning of RP, GA, etc, without requiring the reader to look up at the explanation above. Many readers just skip to the tables.--agr 03:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're pure flagcruft. —Angr 04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with 203... and Angr. JPD (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why, because  and  are so visually distinct? —Angr 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The codes AuE and NZE tell which is which. The flags make it clear the columns refer to countries, and the US and UK flags suggest what GA and RP refer to. Between the flags and the codes, a general reader can easily understand the tables without going back to the key in the paragraph above. That's a good use of flags. Adding a little visual interest to the page, isn't a bad thing either.--agr 03:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags? 

message: Now there is the broad Help:IPA English pronunciation key, the function of this page in article space has changed. It is now the page describing dialectic differences in English, using IPA to do that.
So I propose to rename this article. First thought is "English dialects (Pronunciation)" −Woodstone 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's anywhere near detailed enough for that - it only mentions one British Isles dialect.  (If it's felt that it should go in that direction, a bit of use of Wells's Accents of English could probably expand it a lot.)  It's true that it's now not entirely clear what it's for.  As well as the one you mention, another page whose information overlaps somewhat with this one is Pronunciation respelling for English, which discusses IPA as well as non-IPA respelling schemes.--JHJ 12:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to mention "dialect" 

message: Insertion of "x" pronunciations just deleted, with explanation: "revert representations of orthographic "x" - that's not the point here".  I don't understand this...
The column is headed "English consonants".  "X" is a consonant in English, exactly as "c", "q", "sh" and "ch" are.  In my experience, many English speakers are only vaguely aware that the pronunciation of "x" is the same as "ks", and rarely aware at all that it can be "gz".  The chart is surely showing how the various sounds can be transliterated into English and back, and is it not therefore important that all the English consonants should be given in the English consonant column?
Incidentally, "q" is in a similar position, and I'm not sure the example given of  in "queen" is quite correct.  "Q" is only  in words such as "unique and queue".  In "queen" etc it is surely ?  Arguably, as with "ch", I suppose the consonant is actually "qu", not just "q", as this never occurs alone.  --Richard New Forest (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The column refers to consonants (and vowels) in the sense of sounds, not the sense of letters. "X" is a letter of the English alphabet, but it isn't a sound (or even two sounds) of the English language. The column showing example words is just there to give readers an indication of which sound is intended in each case. In "queen", I'd say the "q" is representing the /k/ sound (as it does in, say "Iraq") and the "u" is representing the /w/ sound (as it does in, say, "suave"). The sound /x/ is very marginal in English, and the sound /q/ doesn't occur in English at all. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "X" (& come to that, "q"...) 

message: It is nice to be able to know the difference between pʰ and p, between tʰ and t, and between kʰ and k. All of these sound appear in the English language, with the aspirated form occurring when the letter appears at the beginning of a word, and the unaspirated form occurring when the letter appears at the end of a word. A native speaker of standard American or British English always says "pʰɛn", never "pɛn". Saying "pɛn" would sound like a type of Italian, French or Spanish foreign accent. Noting these differences is fun, helps foreign speakers learn to pronounce English better, and, most importantly, helps Americans like me with foreign languages. I have just realized that in Latin I was always aspirating all my initial stops, pronouncing puella as pʰ'ueːla instead of p'ueːla, pronouncing Catullus as kʰa'tʰuːlus instead of ka'tuːlus, and tamen as  'tʰamen instead of  'tamen. If I had learned the difference between these sounds, I wouldn't have been mispronouncing them.
David G Brault (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other pages, such as English phonology, for that. This page has always restricted itself to phonemic transcription. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 05:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aspiration (phonetics)]]