Talk:History of the International Phonetic Alphabet

message: Why is the 1900 year table in French? - 81.15.146.91 22:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hi. that is the language it was published in. – ishwar  (speak) 04:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The charts uniformly give  as the symbols for the near-close vowels. I'm pretty sure they were officially  before 1989. This is confirmed also by Obsolete and nonstandard symbols in the IPA, so I'm changing it accordingly. User:Angr 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they were, I have a resource that shows the old forms in the 1949 version of the IPA. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near-close vowels 

message: Another thing that's changed in the IPA is the symbol for the close-mid back unrounded vowel. The symbol used to be "baby gamma", with a flat top, which looked exactly like  except without a descender. At some point (1989? 1993?) it was changed to "ram's horns", with a rounded top. The problem with showing this is that Unicode doesn't have separate characters for these: U+0264 LATIN SMALL LETTER RAMS HORN  can, despite its name, be either "baby gamma" or "ram's horns" depending on the font. User:Angr 19:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article close-mid back unrounded vowel uses actual images to distinguish the two. We could do that, but it may be easier to just create a link to close-mid back unrounded vowel. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrounded o 

message: Where did the "Formation of Aims and Goals" section come from? It seems to be uncited. Would it be reasonable to assume that it comes from the 1888 article by Paul Passy, cited in the bibliography? --Siva 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at that section yet, but I would bet either Principles or Handbook would cover it. --Kjoonlee 16:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aims and goals 

message: Hi, I think it would be better to use a more chronological format, kind of like a changelog. The 1989 section mentions what changed with the 1993 version; this can be confusing, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking I would have to get Pullum's Phonetic Symbol Guide to polish up this article, but Handbook seems to cover a lot of the history (at least indirectly) in the appendices. I'll see what I can do... --Kjoonlee 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History unclear 

message: The ancient Tamil Grammar Tolkappiyam defines alphabet as the names of the places of articulation. Each place of articulation can produce a number of phonemes. The foundation for IPA is this principle of "Places of artiulation". One of the major functions of IPA is to identify, decribe and represent all of the possible phonemes under the title "Phonetic Alphabet". Sisrivas (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation of IPA: Places of articulation as alphabet 

message: I would have thought that A Grammar of the Dialect of Windhill in 1893 by Joseph Wright would be a contender for this title?  Does anyone know of other early linguistic works that made practical use of IPA?  Epa101 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First work to use apply IPA throughout

message: Tsutomu Akamatsu, "A critique of the IPA chart (revised to 1951, 1979 and 1989)" has a copy of the 1951 revision. Should we fix the following sentence?
: The alphabet has undergone a number of revisions during its history, with the 1932 version used for over half a century, until the IPA Kiel Convention of 1989.
: And replace it with the following :
: The alphabet has undergone a number of revisions during its history, with the 1951 version used for almost thirty years, until the IPA Kiel Convention of 1989.
The differences with the 1932 revision are:
* ʓ and ʆ are in IPA-1951, not in IPA-1932
* ř (IPA-1932) is replaced by ɼ in IPA-1951
* ƞ and ɧ are in IPA-1951, not in IPA-1932
* already ɪ (small capital i) in IPA-1932
* ƾ and ƻ as alternatives to ts and dz are in IPA-1951, not in IPA-1932
* the r-coloured eɹ, aɹ, ɔɹ, ... and alternatives eʴ, aʴ, ɔʴ, ... and ᶒ, ᶏ, ᶗ, ... are in IPA-1951, not in IPA-1932
* the r-coloured əɹ, əʴ, ᶕ or ɚ are in IPA-1951, not in IPA-1932
* tongue raised e˔ or e̝ and tongue lowered e˕ or e̞ in IPA-1951, but only tongue slightly raised ˔ and tongue slightly lowered ˕ in IPA-1932
* tongue advanced u˖ or u̟, t˖ or t̟ and tongue retracted i˗ or i̠, t˗ or t̠ are in IPA-1951, not in IPA-1932
--Moyogo/ (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also revisions for 1938 and  1947 in Le Maître phonétique. I'll note the differences. --Moyogo/ (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  revisions of 1938, 1947 and 1951 

message: I removed the illustration of Wulff 1888. There were many phonetic transcription systems back then, IPA borrowed from many. We are not going to illustrate all those here, at least not with full charts. --Moyogo/ (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an example, to clarify that the IPA was not created ex nihilo. We don't need to list them all just because we have one example. If you have a better example, great, but otherwise better this than nothing. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It think including the full charts of Wulff is misleading, as it would be for the systems of Müller, Lepsius, Powell, Böhmer, Ascoli, Rousselot, or Lundell. Also is Wulff's system relevant? Did anybody use it? Did IPA actually borrow from it? An illustration from Sweet's Romic alphabet would be much more on point since IPA did borrow from it. --Moyogo/ (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  non IPA 

message: I think someone should add a few notes on the latest revision of 2015. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the differences? — Sebastian 07:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are hardly any, see the Association's page Full IPA Chart: "The 2015 chart makes minor changes to wording and layout, but otherwise reproduces the appearance of the 2005 chart. A few symbol substitutions have been made: [...]" As far as wording is concerned, the line of text underneath the pulmonic consonant table now reads "Symbols to the right in a cell are voiced, to the left are voiceless. [...]" instead of "Where symbols appear in pairs, the one to the right represents a voiced consonant. [...]" — Maybe the article should just mention that although a revised version was published in 2015 no symbols were added or withdrawn, but the appearance/glyphs of a few symbols has very slightly changed. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see; the text you quote is at https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/full-ipa-chart. I like your wording and will add it to the 2005 revision section. I will also rename that to  in analogy to the preceding section, with "chart", rather than "revision" or "update", being the name used at the full-ipa-chart. — Sebastian 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the 2015 revision? 

message: This edit by Umimmak seems to contain several errors. The French is simply ungrammatical. The following might be the corrected versions:
#  Décisions du conseil relativesment aux propositions de la conférence de Copenhague
# Il décide de remplacer les signes ꜰ, ʋ with par ɸ, β. Le signe ʋ sera désormais disponible pour représenter le la consonne labio-dentale non-fricative telle qu'elle existe dans certaines langues indiennes et en hollandais.
Can somebody please check? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's what I get for editing while sleepy :p. Thank you for catching those. The only thing that I think got over-corrected was that the original text definitely has "rəlativmɑ̃" , but all the other corrections make sense. Umimmak (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit by Umimmak 

message: It is strange to see even non-IPA parts of the article's charts in the IPA font defined in my global wiki stylesheet. I would very much prefer a clear distinction between metalanguage and object language. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nardog for correcting this. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA markup for charts 

message: Before International Phonetic Association Kiel Convention got merged with the present article, I had gathered a few JIPA papers about that conference and added them as Further Readings. For convenience, here are papers about or presented at that conference which are not yet used in the article.
* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
* 
* 
Hopefully these are of use to someone to expand the section on Kiel. Umimmak (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading / references on Kiel convention 

message: I'm no linguist but surely the English example words 'full', 'eye', and 'how' in the first table are at best confusing and at worst wrong. Could someone check? 
For 'full', I expect /fʊl/ not /ful/. I see that /ʊ/ doesn't seem to be an option at the time, but was no distinction made? For 'eye' /aɪ/ and 'how' /haʊ/ I wish there was a note that the /a/ was only there as part of a diphthong.
Bobagem (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean in the table in the  section? The same intention as that of your suggested note is already expressed by putting the letter corresponding to the phone in italics. (That is not a very reliable way, though. E.g. if I marked the personal pronoun ‘I’ in italics, it would correspond to two phones.) I wouldn't worry about the /ʊ/ in the word ‘full’, since what matters there is the letter ‘f’. But if you find it distracting, you're free to change the sample word; it doesn't seem to me that these sample words need to remain unchanged. (Caveat: I can't access the whole reference, but I think any such need should have been expressed in our article.) ◅ Sebastian 13:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please do not change the table as it is a quote. The source is available here, which is linked in the last section, and here, among other places. full is seen not only for  but for . The prevailing practice at the time (which lasted until around 1970) was to represent lax and tense vowels as short and long versions of the same vowels, which is why you don't see FLEECE and THOUGHT on the table either. Nardog (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Nardog, I included your references accordingly. It might also help to add a note to the section like ‘the sample words are from the original, so they may not be reflecting modern distinctions.’. ◅ Sebastian 14:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English sample words 'full', 'eye', and 'how' 

message: The conversation at Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet#Principles of the IPA contradicting the Council of the Association? made me aware that that article's section Letter_g is largely duplicate with text here. However, that section has two advantages:
# It covers the history of this one character across the years
# It contains a nice illustration
By contrast to the first point, this article divides the information in the two sections  and , squeezing 1948 into 1949 as if it were the same. This is a case where the (mostly) chronological structure of the article is not helpful. Would it be OK to start a new section for such diachronic information? It could be called ‘History of individual issues’, ‘History of selected values’, or some such. There already is a section for , but that is under the headline ‘Summary’ and consequently only has summary tables, not allowing for the prose and picture we have about the letter g. ◅ Sebastian 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put diachronic information?