Talk:Spanish phonology

message: Perhaps we should include the fact that some native speakers, perhaps in an attempt to be "educated", pronounce both the b and the v in Spanish as a voiced labiodental fricative (English v).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can find a reliable source that says so, I don't see why not.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It all depends on the dialect you're speaking about and mostly if the speaker had learned another mother language at the same time which does distinguish between the two sounds. But for standard spanish there is no distinction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.174.167.23 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, - distinction is widespread in Paraguay, so it probably could be said that it is a part of Paraguayan Standard Spanish. Peter238 (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: b/v as a voiced labiodental fricative (ie English v)

message: Bowen & Stockwell (1955) say (p 237) "In normal transition, two unstressed vowels are " with the first being shorter than the second and gives the following examples.
:  beatitud ('beatitude')
:  maestrita ('little teacher')
:  leonés ('Leonese')
:  poetisa ('poetess')
:  ahorita ('right away')
:  toallita ('little towel')
Does that mean that Martínez-Celdrán et al (2003) are incorrect in transcribing maestro as ?  Bowen & Stockwell also seem to transcribe  and  where Martínez-Celdrán et al as well as Sparkman (1943) and Harris (1969) have transcribed or implied  and  respectively.  Sparkman also cites Navarro Tomás (p 64) in pointing that ui is  northern Spain (meaning it is  elsewhere).  
I'm not really sure what sort of generalization to make/accept in regards to the process of Spanish diphthongization.  Any Thoughts? — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the work by Martínez-Celdrán you are referring to is Castilian Spanish, in this article the authors explicitly state that they are studying formal pronunciation of Spanish. Other authors might rather be speaking of everyday speech. In some parts of the Spanish-speaking world differences between formal and informal pronunciation can get strikingly large. --Jotamar (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but I'm wondering if Martínez-Celdrán et al might be incorrect in their transcription of maestro, not that they're describing a hyperformal variety.  It seems fishy to me.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the diphthongs from hiatus, but  or  is definitely a diphthong in Spanish as in the word "muy" ('very')  which I have never heard pronounced with a rising diphthong /mwi/. –Jmolina116 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In my understanding of the Spanish dialects covered, muy is the only word where ui/uy represents .  Otherwise (fuimos, cuidado, etc) it is .  This could be something that varies or varied in different Spanish dialects.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Diphthongs from Hiatus

message: It has occurred to me that the recent series of reversions and counterreversions might seem like an edit war between two uncompromising editors.  If it were simply an issue of sources, I would be willing to mark certain statements with .  However, the anon editor has shown on this page and others to be deliberately dishonest in attributing sources.  Here are some examples:
* at voiced labiodental fricative, they attempted to add Spanish as an example by citing Martínez-Celdrán et al (2003).  However, this source does not mention [v] as an allophone of /f/
* at voiced velar fricative, they added Spanish, again citing Martínez-Celdrán et al though the source specifically states that they're approximants.
* Here at Spanish phonology, they again falsely attributed Martínez-Celdrán et al to /f/ -> [v]
* Also here, in this string of edits, they
**falsely attributed Martínez-Celdrán et al to a claim about dialectal variation, 
**changed the Andalusian allophone of /as/ from  to  (despite what the source says).
This false attribution is enough for me to do blind reverts and to not trust any anon editor who behaves like the series of IP addresses who have been adding and re-adding these and other edits.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Onslaught of unconstructive edits

message: Per this article, the voiced stops in club de fútbol are all frics. Are they really? Also, I would expect some assimilation in fútbol, with the tb maybe [db]. kwami (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really difficult to predict how a Spanish speaker will utter that sentence, as it includes 2 foreign consonants, the 'b' in club and the 't' in fútbol; in practice I think you would get a very wide array of different pronunciations. --Jotamar (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd transcribe club de fútbol , though my transcription is pretty standard-centric.  It's kind of strange that these sounds are really more often approximants but are transcribed phonemically as voiced stops.  Perhaps it's typographical constraints that keep us from seeing them as prototypically approximants that are "fortified" (rather than being stops that are lenited) in certain positions.  I've never heard of Spanish assimilating voicing for stops across syllable boundaries, but I wouldn't be too surprised.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The /b/ wouldn't be fortified by the adjacent /t/? kwami (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be.  Fortification doesn't occur after liquids (unless they're homorganic), nor does it seem to occur after fricatives (e.g. desde).  But now that you mention it,  sounds more correct.  Is that sort of cluster common in Spanish?  It could be the case that fortification also occurs after other stops but that this only occurs in loanwords.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  stops 

message: I quote from above:
:As the article's primary contributor to its present state, I can say that of the resources I've had access, there is more attention on Standard Spanish.  This is one of the reasons this article focuses on Standard Spanish.  [...] — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Por su carácter de lengua supranacional, hablada en más de veinte países, el español constituye, en realidad, un conjunto de normas diversas, que comparten, no obstante, una amplia base común http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/
167.107.191.217 (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If focusing on Standard Peninsular Spanish is ethnocentric, then the body of research used for this article reflects academic ethnocentricity.  I don't think either is true, but it doesn't really matter.  Complaining that a page such as this has POV problems won't fix them if we don't bring additional (pluricentric?) sources to our contributions. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Diccionario panhispánico de dudas (quoted above) is pluralistic (if nor perfect at that). See for example http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltGUIBusDPD?lema=seseo I'm very surprised to see in your user page that you are American: I thought that only in Europe was held the vision that peninsular Spanish is the only variant to be taught to foreigners. Americans normally teach many variants, or if only one is used, they typically choose the one from Mexico (the country with more Spanish speakers) and not the one from Spain. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How will that dictionary help? — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard Spanish 

message: It would be nice to have a link to any Spanish dictionary which has actual support to show the user the Spanish phonology in IPA. Unfortunately I am not aware of such a dictionary. All dictionaries I know (rae.es, EUDict, SpanishDict) do not have this. SpanishDict actually does but only a (subjective) non-IPA version e.g. denunciar [day-noon-the-ar’].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobiaswunner (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Dictionaries With IPA Support 

message: :These dropped consonants do appear when additional suffixation occurs (compases [komˈpase] 'beats', venían [beˈnian] 'they were coming', comeremos [koˈmeɾemo] 'we will eat'). 
What is dropped in [beˈnian]?
--Error (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ven , venían . — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venían 

message: Under "Phonetic notes", at the end of the third paragraph, the phonemic renditions of "ley" and "leyes" unfortunately look like lowercase versions of "LEL" and "LELES".  Wiki's sans-serif font makes it impossible to distinguish between the uppercase vowel "I" and lowercase "L".  The footnoted apology seems like an inadequate response to the problem.  Can Wikipedia access a serifed font?  What other solutions are available? Kotabatubara (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Classic skin uses a serifed font, if you can accept a personal solution. --Error (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Classic skin is available at the preferences page that I linked, section appearance. It will work for you but not for people with other skins such as the default one. --Error (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font problems 

message: There used to be a very detailed description of allophones etc. in this article. Where is it?--90.179.235.249 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article.  Have you read it? — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  detailed phonology 

message: While the actual phonology is an interesting topic, there is nothing on this page that would give someone the basics. Spanish pronunciation links here, but when the average person searches for that, they just want to know how to pronounce a word. A phonemically correct pronunciation is simple to explain, and can be sourced from nearly any Spanish/English dictionary.
While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus the current content is suitable, it is a general purpose encyclopedia. If at all possible, each article needs to be made where a layman can get a basic idea of the subject. This appears to be written for phonologists.
It won't take much: just that basic list of the closest English representations of the Spanish phonemes. While there are some esoteric dialects of English, it is fairly simple to get one that works for 90% of speakers. And the remaining 10% with a different dialect usually at least know about the dialect of the other 90%, so they would also be helped.
Finally, I could see this being part of the introduction, or a separate article. Pronunciation and phonology are not typically used to mean the same thing, so a basic article at Spanish pronunciation that links to this one for more information would be useful.
Then again, it could pretty much be a table, like the one used in Wikipedia:IPA for Spanish. Heck, if that were a proper encyclopedia article, I'd just make Spanish pronunciation redirect there, since that's what the average person will want to know. — trlkly 17:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a basic version of this 

message: This article uses non-IPA pronunciation symbols, namely [s̠ s̄ θ̦ θṣ]. It would be nice if these were corrected to proper IPA symbols. -- machᵗᵃˡᵏ👍 06:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that would indeed be nice, but there simply aren't any unambiguous IPA symbols for these sounds.  In particular, there are no IPA diacritics for tongue shape characteristics.  The first symbol above is in fact IPA, and the others are quoted from the original literature.  The IPA is sorely lacking when it comes to sibilants, which is why even the phonetics bible "The Sounds of the World's Languages" uses ad-hoc symbols like . Benwing (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: The first one is an IPA symbol - it is , the symbol for a voiceless alveolar sibilant fricative, combined with the diacritic symbolising retraction. Therefore,  is a voiceless alveolar retracted sibilant fricative, articulated between "normal"  and . — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA-ify this article please 

message: I see now that Martinez-Celdran et al are claiming that trilled r occurs syllable-finally.  Maybe, possibly, in highly exaggerated formal speech like you might hear from radio announcers, but hardly in normal circumstances.  Most sources claim that trilled r only occurs initially, when written <rr> or after /l/, /n/ and /s/ (and in these latter circumstances it's somewhat questionable; citing from memory, one source said that a normal trilled r is something like 3-5 taps while after /l/, /n/, /s/ it's only 1-2 taps; also, the Spanish-Portuguese dictionary link that someone else gave has a tap in Israel -- as well as, of course, syllable-finally in words such as carta and amor).
I'll have to go see what Martinez-Celdran et al actually say, but if they don't qualify what they say about r, I'd take a great deal else of what they say with a lot of salt as well. Benwing (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 1–2 contacts would still be a trill. You can have a one-contact trill. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't a one-contact trill simply a tap? Peter238 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I've never thought of it, but it's really interesting. The strongest /r/ would be "rr" ("perro"), word initial "r" ("ruido"), and postconsonantal syllable-initial "r" ("Enrique", "Israel"). The "r" before /l/ or /n/ is halfway between the mentioned /r/ and /ɾ/, while before /s/ it's even softer, but still not fully /ɾ/. At least that's my take on my native Mexican Spanish.--200.57.197.151 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  allophones of <r> 

message: I don't think we need a separate Spanish pronunciation article that is, in essence, a content fork that repeats WP:IPA for Spanish and duplicates the format that this article was in before the large bulky tables were converted into actual prose.   — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A user requested an easier version of the Spanish phonology article.  I did copy it from WP:IPA for Spanish but I meant to get around to reorganizing it by letter, which I just did.  This now expresses something rather different from WP:IPA for Spanish, in that it specifically indicates how to pronounce written Spanish, which WP:IPA for Spanish doesn't do very well. Benwing (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite what the user asked for anyway, but it still shouldn't be a separate article.  That table can easily be put into Spanish orthography. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merging, this looks like a copy of WP:IPA for Spanish. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have merged the content that was at the Spanish pronunciation fork to Spanish orthography.  This way, the novel display of information is maintained in article space (though I tweaked it a little).  I think the addition of the table makes the Spanish orthography page look more like Irish orthography, which I have found useful in the past. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The article currently states: A common pronunciation of /f/ in nonstandard speech is the voiceless bilabial fricative [ɸ], so that fuera is pronounced [ˈɸweɾa] rather than [ˈfweɾa]. Are [f] and [ɸ] in free variation or is there a condition?
The example currently used could be taken as indicating that [ɸ] occurs only before bilabial constrictions such as [w], which would make a lot of sense phonetically. (Or perhaps [ɸ] was historically an allophone of */h/ before liquids and glides, and its retention in this position is an archaism, while /f/ is a later reintroduction from Latin, with which [ɸ] was subsequently merged? Just wild speculation.)
Moreover, I've noticed that Voiceless bilabial fricative#Occurrence lists an additional source of this sound, namely as an allophone of /b/ after [h] as an allophone of /s/, not only the devoicing of [β̞] (or the phoneme /b/) in syllabic coda position. Perhaps this might also merit mention? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that it's a free variant.  If there's a condition, the source used didn't go into it.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voiceless bilabial fricative 

message: "Even in formal speech, /m/ is disallowed in word-final position, so a word such as Islam is regularly rendered as /isˈlan/."
"Slim is pronounced /es'lim/". These two statements conflict. Should the article explain? TomS TDotO (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that was an oversight.  The article Carlos Slim transcribes it with an [m], but it's in the fuller name that follows Slim with Helú.  So far, I haven't seen any sources talking about alternations between  and  with suffixation.  I've fixed the transcription (not the translation, as I said in the edit summary).  Do you think it would be a good idea to transcribe both Slim and Islam in phonetic brackets just to be safe? — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

text: That might be in Spain, but in Mexico (and I would think most of Latin America), final /m/ is used: /'kar.los es'lim/ and /el is'lam/.--200.57.197.151 (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "Slim" 

message: There is an example given: Examples of maximal codas: instalar /ins.taˈlar/, perspectiva /pers.pekˈti.ba/
I was under the assumption that Spanish can't have s in syllable final position unless there is a vowel before it.  For example, you have goles "goals" but you don't have *gols.  Shouldn't it be per.spek.ti.ba? 190.237.91.214 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true (can't think of any counter examples) but Spanish also can't have /sp/ or /st/ in the syllable onset.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

text: In loanwords from Classical Latin, groups of more than 1 consonant in coda can appear, especially ns, ks and rs. All of them are considered tautosyllabic. Jotamar (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Phonotactics: Spanish syllable

message: Not mentioned in this article, nor on its own elsewhere, is the phenomenon of enlace.  Is this an oversight or has it been determined that this doesn't exist in the wikiworld?  71.87.23.22 (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly should be included, in the Phonotactics section, I guess. Your link looks good, but a more academic source would be better. Jotamar (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlace/Encadenamiento 

message: In the Consonants section, the table for phonemes has a Continuants row. All of the sounds in that row are fricatives. There are no approximants. Why doesn't it just say Fricatives? Mechanic1c (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Phonetically, the non-plosive allophones of  vary between fricatives and approximants. Peter238 (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuants 

message: I really liked how many sources were used in this article. Plus, it was very specific in that it described the various sounds and sound combinations in the Spanish language, but also had a huge list of notes and references discussing even more sound phrases and certain words and their pronunciations. I also found the use of visuals helpful as well. This made for a very interesting read, and describes Spanish phonology very thoroughly. --Sakuragalaxxy (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input. I'm sure a lot of editors appreciate your kinds words. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class Assignment 

message: Anybody know what undertack means? Kortoso  (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected and wiki-linked.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undertack? 

message: Much the allophony is needles in any phonology article. that's a given in any language. Otherwise, this 'd be titled "spanish phonetics". Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 11:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a bit strange to have a separate article on a language's phonetics, given the close relationship that phonetics has with phonology. Both are in the scope of the articles titled "XX phonology." If there were a better name given this scope, we'd use it. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When we say "the phonology of language ____", "phonology" there means not the distribution and variation of phonemes as juxtaposed to phonetics but the sound system of the language as a whole, including both phonetics and phonemics. See e.g. . Nardog (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Overly Long and Lengthy 

message: I noticed that syllable- or word-final dropping of /s/ in Spanish-speaking Latin America, Iberian Peninsula, and Africa (Canary Islands) are prevalent, along with YouTube clips on so-called "how to speak Spanish like a native". And there is also word-final dropping of /ɾ/ in some speeches. These days, I noticed that this information is well-expressed in many Wikipedia articles pertaining to Spanish dialects. I think all of theses should be addressed in a new separate article. I'm not a Spanish speaker myself, so I'm requesting this. Thank you. --Komitsuki (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if that would warrant a whole article. Perhaps you could draft something in sandbox and we can go from there. If we decide not to do a full article, content that you draft might still be relevant here. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have a dedicated Wikipedia article on the coda simplification in Spanish spoken around the world? 

message: The voiced bilabial approximant and the voiced labio-velar approximant are certainly very similar sounds. They could easily merge and they are in fact allophones of each other in some languages, e.g. Flemish Dutch. Regarding Spanish, I also think that the functional load of the distinction is very low. The only minimal pairs I can think of right now would be words with initial hu- + vowel, but these are pronounced  in some accents. So at least for these latter accents, is the distinction relevant at all? (I'm not an expert on Spanish, I'm just wondering.) 90.186.72.23 (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, there's not much risk of the two merging in Spanish. You might be interested in Ohala & Lorentz's "The Story of : An Exercise in the Phonetic Explanation for Sound Patterns" (1977), cited in the article. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I've never heard  in that context. It has a velar counterpart not present in the plosive allophone of  and, AFAICS, requires a more precise articulation than the bilabial approximant (compare  and * for jabón). In careful pronunciation this  can be turned into a plosive: . Remember that the difference between  and * is nothing more than velarization. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible allophony of [β] and [w]? 

message: Why would the first vowel in "madre(s)" would change in plural if there is no change in its surroundings? It doesn't make sense.
--200.57.197.151 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It assimilates to the frontness of the first vowel (apparently,  becomes more front instead of more open, which it can't become as it's already an open vowel). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

text: It is a type of vowel harmony. --Jotamar (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  la madre [la ˈmaðɾe] ('the mother') vs. las madres [læ̞ː ˈmæ̞ːðɾɛː] ('the mothers') 

message: In section "Realization of " the notation  is used several times to represent a voiceless apico-dental grooved frivative. Though  is characterized as an "ad hoc symbol" I believe this is an unfortunate choice because in IPA, the macron above a segmental symbol is used for a different purpose: It denotes a mid level tone. (This is not the place to discuss whether voiceless sounds can carry tone.) As there is no single IPA diacritic to turn a dental slit fricative  into a grooved one, the notation  or simply  with the diacritics for (apical and) dental seem to be the appropriate IPA notations. Both  and  display fine in my browser, but this is certainly not a requirement as long as the symbols are the correct ones. — Also note that slit  and grooved / don't seem to contrast in any Spanish dialect ("It occurs only in dialects with ceceo."), and that the IPA symbol  doesn't necessarily denote a slit fricative, but is defined as any pulmonic dental fricative, so we might as well use  throughout and explain the occurrence of two phones in words. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of using . Outside of whatever sourcing that parses the phonetic distinction between  and Spanish's voiceless apico-dental grooved frivative, the overwhelming tendency is to use  for the sound of Spanish. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{IPA|[s̄]}} 

message: Where in Spain do they pronounce ‹ch› like /ts/? I've heard this several times, but I have never found mention of it anywhere. I actually quite like it because it makes the system more symmetric :) For examples, listen here (e.g. "escuché" at ca. 10 seconds, "luchan" at the very end). 178.7.217.119 (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: At least in/around Madrid. Erinius (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  /ts/ for ch 

message: How does someone pronounce this correctly? Is it like D and R (English) pronounced at the same time? I hear through Wiktionary sound files that it's something like between a Z, R, and D. 61.247.7.157 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find it useful to describe one sound as a combination of two or more sounds.  In English, the sound nearest to [ð̞] is the "th" of "this, that, these, those".  For more precision:  give the tongue a "lighter touch" than in English. Kotabatubara (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [ð̞] 

message: I added the text "Morphologically, a word-final rhotic always corresponds to the tapped [ɾ] in related words" to the section about rhotics on this article. This is accurate for the entire lexicon of almost the entirety of the Spanish-speaking world, however, there is one present-day exception, and there may have been some historical exceptions which as far as I know are unattested.
The present-day exception consists of demonyms used in the Roncal Valley, an area with a population of little more than 1000 people where a Basque dialect used to be spoken. These demonyms take the form -ar in the masculine singular, -arra/-arres in the feminine and plural.
The historical exceptions would've been some words ending in -rre, where the final -e was supposedly dropped and later restored. My source for this is Hualde's "Quasi-Phonemic Contrasts in Spanish" which quotes Penny's "A History of the Spanish Language" as saying an alternation "probably once existed between singular tor and plural torres".
I feel like these exceptions are so marginal that, if mentioned on some general article about the Spanish language, they should be mentioned one about its history or something, and not this page or even the one about dialectal differences, but I'm looking for feedback. Erinius (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I put this politely?  It's a fascinating fact, and might show up in a comprehensive treatise—but does it really belong in any encyclopedia article?  Wikipedia should have (though I haven't seen it) an explicit policy on just how marginal a piece of data can be and still be appropriate to include in the type of introductory article an encyclopedia provides. Kotabatubara (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely marginal exceptions to word-final -r corresponding to a tap in related words 

message: Not using the most precise symbols is misleading. Right now I am teaching a class and this article, as it is now, cannot be used as my students get confused and I had to tell them that the "correct" vowel table is in the Spanish article. That solved their confusion.
In the Spanish Wikipedia article they use ,  and .
But here, my students read a, e and o, which ARE NOT the same sounds. Despite the fact the correct wikilinks are being used in this article for all the vowels, the symbols used are not the required ones and, unless they follow the links, they won't easily realize the difference. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some compromises made in our transcription for readability and accessibility. If you would like to revisit the question of transcription conventions, I suggest that you find something more compelling than that you are personally not capable of instructing your students in the pronunciation of Spanish vowels in a manner that allows them to use this article. Personally, I don't find that line of reasoning very compelling. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Narrow transcription does not necessarily lead to accurate transcription. Humans aren't consistent, and if you actually measure the formants, the "correct" symbol for an instance of e.g. /a/ could be any of [ä, a, ɑ, ɐ, æ], if not more. That level of detail is impossible to maintain and ultimately irrelevant except where the specific quality is the focus of discussion. Nardog (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA vowels used here vs. those in the Spanish article 

message: I reverted [des.w̝eˈsaɾ] back to [dez.w̝eˈsaɾ].
The point of citing deshuesar (as a minimal pair with desuello) is that the [w] of hueso can alternate with [ɣʷ], a voiced consonant, and that /s/ before a voiced consonant is syllablle-final and realized as a voiced [z]. Kotabatubara (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just that it can alternate with [ɣʷ], I think that the one without [ɣ] is nothing but a spelling pronunciation, another one of so many in Spanish. --Jotamar (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "deshuesar"

message: I just noticed that the edit I made in regards to this is related to a reverted previous edit I made in September. I find it unclear to describe the use of Spanish /e/, /o/ and /ie/, /ue/ as " similar to the distinction between the close /e, o/ and the open /ɛ, ɔ/" of other Romance languages: the connection is historical (the vowels /ɛ, ɔ/ developed by sound change into Spanish diphthongs) but the current phonetic outcome of those sound changes is not especially similar phonetically to /ɛ, ɔ/. However, I see that my previous wording was described as "an utterly wrong sweeping statement" in this January revision. While the correspondence is not perfect, due to separate sound changes in separate languages, I don't understand exactly why that makes it preferable to use the wording "similar to" instead of "correspond to". @Sol505000 are there alternative wordings that would address my concern while avoiding the inaccuracy that you found with my wording? Urszag (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing the relationship between  /ɛ, ɔ/ and Spanish /ie/, /ue/ 

message: regarding Spanish phonology: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
@Nardog, the words from Listado de lemas que contienen «dl» | Diccionario de la lengua española | RAE - ASALE can be either /dl/ or /d.l/, just as intervocalic /tl/ can be /t.l/. this is also noticeable in foreign words or names like sandler or chandler where sometimes it's /d.l/ and other times it's /dl/ Brawlio (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you conclude those are not /d.l/? Nardog (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not that they aren't /d.l/, it's that they can also be /dl/. ¿what makes you conclude that they're not /dl/? Brawlio (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: /tl/ is considered a possible onset in certain varieties of Spanish because they have words beginning with /tl/. Nobody is going to regard sandler or chandler as having /dl/ as an onset unless there are Spanish words that begin with /dl/, just as nobody analyzes English indict to have the onset /nd/ because there is no English word that begins with /nd/. Nardog (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The /ndl/ sequence in Sandler and Chandler has to be divided as /nd.l/ or /n.dl/. In native vocabulary, Spanish has neither words that start with /dl/ nor words that end in /nd/. Spanish does have borrowed words that end in /nd/; however, on the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a theoretical reason why it couldn't have syllables that start with /dl/ in borrowed words (and an absence of word-initial examples could be accidental). Ultimately this is an empirical question (as much as matters of syllabification can be) where we should follow what reliable sources say.--Urszag (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Then let's remove the claim of nonexistence, which seems unsourced anyway (not to mention proving a negative). Nardog (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should generally say nothing rather than making claims of nonexistence that are of dubious accuracy, but the problem with just not mentioning /dl/ is that then the introductory sentence ("If and only if the first consonant is a stop /p, t, k, b, d, ɡ/ or a voiceless labiodental fricative /f/, a second consonant, either /l/ or /ɾ/, is permitted") makes it sound like "dl" is permitted (even if it doesn't quite say that). Furthermore, at least some reliable sources do seem to say that /dl/ is unattested as an onset (I added one citation now; I'm not sure whether the sources already cited at the end of the sentence about /tl/ were also supposed to apply to the claim about /dl/). So I think that in this case, what would be ideal is to find a source that discusses examples like those that Brawlio brought up and addresses if they can be analyzed as marginal exceptions to the general absence of onset /dl/ in Spanish.--Urszag (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  /dl/ does exist 

message: Hi @Brawlio, I appreciate your contribution regarding the occurrence of /ʎ, ɲ/ after other consonants. However, I think we'll both agree that the article shouldn't be left in this state, so let's discuss what the best end state for the article would be. Do you think nothing of this kind should be mentioned, or do you think the current statements are indefensibly broad but have some kernel of truth to them?
It's obvious that these consonants are not strictly prohibited in that position, but I wonder if you would concede that they are at least uncommon, or not found in native vocabulary (other than compound/prefixed words)? huaiño, aclla, lliclla are borrowings from Quechua: I assume that Baker 2004 intended to exclude words of this type. As a thesis, the paper by Baker is not a top-rate source, so I'd be fine with removing it, but I think Morales-Front 2018 deserves some weight as an academic source, although its coverage of this topic is brief and not very clear (All I found to go on was the statement that "[ɾ] and [ɲ] are restricted word-initially"). Urszag (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: there are words like panllevar which we could surmise is a compound word but I'm not sure whether we can say so for certain. or enllentecer which comes Latin with no "un-prefixed" form in Castilian. there's also piesllo from vulgar Latin, aullar from Latin, traillar which is just the verb form of another word, and maullar. but yes, i agree that they're uncommon. Brawlio (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Brawlio, what do you think of the current phrasing? It is not fully sourced, but I'd like to remove the "dubious" tags from the statements cited to Baker 2004, Hualde 2022, and Morales-Front 2018, given that I think the article now provides enough context that a reader is not in danger of misinterpreting these statements as referring to ironclad prohibitions on word-initial /ɲ/ or postconsonantal /ɲ/ or /ʎ/.--Urszag (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonotactic "restrictions" (not strict) on word-initial/post-consonantal palatals, etc.