Help talk:IPA/Bulgarian and Macedonian/Archive 1

ъ
Is the reduced vowel really supposed to be [ɘ], rather than [ə] as in the Macedonian phonology article? If so, why is it linked to schwa rather than close-mid central unrounded vowel? — Emil J. 19:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It varies through . <> is a common transcription. kwami (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding Bulgarian. No reason for a separate chart, as differences are minimal and can be handled through footnotes. kwami (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If Bulgarian is included, then Bulgarian words should also be featured. Kostja (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Be my guest! Preferably, of course, we'd choose words that work equally well for both. It would also be nice to use the same word to illustrate M. /lj/ as we do for B. /ʎ/. kwami (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ɤ and ə
According to Bulgarian phonology is often written as  - could be worth mentioning here, in case there are any 's floating around on WP. Lfh (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Split
The purpose of these "IPA for [language]" pages (as I understand them) is to assist in the phonetic transcription of a language into IPA notation. Given the orthographic and phonological differences between these two languages it would be wiser to have two separate articles, anything else would just be an ugly sea of confusing (for many) footnotes and markings. Just my two cents. --124.150.51.238 (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to elaborate a little more:


 * "дзифт, ѕвезда" — in this case the Bulgarian digraph дз represents an affricate, while in Macedonian this combination represents a [d.z] (for example одзема).
 * джем, џем — same as above (надживее).
 * There is no palatal lateral approximant in Macedonian.
 * The case of the schwa is just too complex, which is why an "IPA for Macedonian" article should link to this and an "IPA for Bulgarian" article should link to this.
 * The problem of differing orthographic traditions (morpho-etymological versus morpho-phonological) bring about all sorts of other problems.

Without getting into too many details, the differences far exceed those of Czech/Slovak, Estonian/Finnish, etc. There's no reason why Bulgarian or Macedonian shouldn't have separate articles (read: no good reason why they should be a single article), and it's the best solution to avoid any possible ambiguity. --124.150.51.238 (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bulgarian and Macedonian are standard registers based on divergent dialects of the same language. The minor details you point out are less than those between the principal dialects of Irish, which only has one key. Bulgarian is often transcribed as ə, but if we want, we could certainly decide on ɤ instead. We can link regardless. The other details are likewise things we can cover in footnotes or even in the key itself.


 * There are 7000 languages in the world. It isn't practical to maintain IPA keys for very many of them. kwami (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the contributions by the anonymous IP are very much mistaken
 * It's made perfectly clear that дз is used to write the Voiced alveolar affricate in Bulgarian, while s is used in Macedonian. That's why exactly those letters are bolded in the examples (which, as explained above, are listed in the order Bulgarian, Macedonian). Same is true about джем, џем.
 * There is no Palatal lateral approximant in Standard Macedonian? Then what is љ for? And why does it says so in the article about the [[Macedonian language?
 * Orthographic traditions are unimportant here, as this is about pronunciation. Kostja (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"... the differences far exceed those of Czech/Slovak, Estonian/Finnish"? Particularly the second part shows little understanding of the subject. Other errors in the arguments by the anon were already pointed out above. The point about orthography makes no sense either, to give you an example Hindi and Urdu share the same "IPA for..." page and they use entirely different scripts. Given the other examples (Czech/Slovak, Dutch/Afrikaans, Estonian/Finnish, Hindi/Urdu, Serbo-Croatian, Swedish/Norwegian and Turkish/Azerbaijani), the page should remain as "Bulgarian and Macedonian". Todor→Bozhinov 21:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Split immediately. It was very good previously. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian and Macedonian are standard registers based on divergent dialects of the same language.


 * This isn't true. Perhaps you are thinking of Serbian/Croatian which are separate standards of shtokavian. Macedonian and Bulgarian have their own diasystem with their respective standards being based on one particular dialect area. The claim that Macedonian and Bulgarian are of the same diasystem is a political one popular in Bulgaria.

''There are 7000 languages in the world. It isn't practical to maintain IPA keys for very many of them.''


 * Then why have these articles at all? Are you going to pick and choose which languages are represented and which of those are to be grouped together into a single article?

It's made perfectly clear that дз..


 * My point was that these charts show how IPA represents a particular language's phonology with respect to its orthography (i.e. the bolding of letters).

There is no [[Palatal lateral approximant in Standard Macedonian? Then what is љ for? And why does it says so in the article about the Macedonian language?


 * That article is wrong. Please see Macedonian phonology which has references for there being no palatal lateral approximant.

Orthographic traditions are unimportant here, as this is about pronunciation.


 * Then why the bold letters? If you were right, then these articles would be duplicates of these.

to give you an example Hindi and Urdu


 * Hindi and Urdu differ in script. Macedonian and Bulgarian both use Cyrillic, however their respective spelling rules differ (the only significant difference with Hindi/Urdu is the representation of vowels). While it's easy to list дзифт, ѕвезда together, it's just misleading. "This particularly shows your little understanding of the subject".


 * If the registered users still brutishly insist on keeping the article as it is, many amendments need to be made. --203.206.87.138 (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not add Serbian and Croatian as well? --203.206.87.138 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Another problem is Bulgarian vowel reduction and palatalization... can we now overcome our political biases and split these into two accurate articles? --124.169.79.79 (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem, nor any bias. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Split
I am proposing a split for the following reasons:
 * Macedonian and Bulgarian, while using variants of the same alphabet, have differing spelling rules:
 * Example: Bulgarian digraphs are pronounced differently than they would be in Macedonian. This is misleading in for a "IPA for X language" page which attempts to demonstrate correspondence between letterforms and phonemes for easy transcription.
 * Bulgarian distinguishes "hard" and "soft" (palatalized) consonants. Macedonian does not.
 * Bulgarian has vowel reduction. Macedonian does not.
 * Bulgarian possesses < 10 phonemes not present in Macedonian.

Therefore I am proposing this page be split into 'IPA for Macedonian' and 'IPA for Bulgarian', and I have offered what I believe to be more accurate table layouts above. --124.169.79.79 (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If merging these pages is a priority, then a merge to 'IPA for Serbo-Croatian' (for Macedonian) would be more sensible given the greater phonemic (and phonetic) similarities. --124.169.79.79 (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of neutral on this, though leaning toward status quo. I disagree that this page is to demonstrate a correspondence between orthography and phonemes (that would be Bulgarian alphabet); instead it's a guide on how to read and produce pronunciation in the IPA.  It's fairly easy to list both languages, as we do for Czech/Slovak, Dutch/Afrikaans, Estonian/Finnish, Swedish/Norwegian, Hindi-Urdu, and Portuguese/Galician.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  16:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps for the sake of simplicity and clarity, we could have 'IPA for Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian'... or even include Bulgarian if someone has enough time and patience for adding footnotes. --124.169.79.79 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How would that look? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  23:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, a lot tidier. Are some users pushing to keep the current state of the page out of political bias? To test this, why not merge with Basque or Romanian? --124.169.79.79 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC) So what exactly is covered in these pages that isn't in Bulgarian/Serbo-Croatian/Macedonian language/Serbo-Croatian/Macedonian phonology/Serbian/Macedonian orthography? --124.169.79.79 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article, this is a pronunciation guide for the languages in question. This means that there will be overlap with article content.
 * Combining Macedonian with Serbian makes less sense than with Bulgarian as Macedonian dialects were considered to be part of the Bulgarian language until relatively recently.   — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  23:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What significance does that have in the 21st century when trying to produce pronunciation guides for artificial standards? Should Belorussian, Ukrainian and Russian be merged and a mess made of the page as has happened with this one? The fact that a unified Bulgarian-Macedonian standard never came about in the 19th century if proof enough that these two languages are too divergent. Back to the point: it remains that the phonologies of these two languages and the conventions for their notations differ enough to warrant a split. --124.148.227.27 (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary. The fact that there have been no problems using a single key demonstrates that there's no problem using a single key. Give us an example of a word that would not be adequately handled by this key. — kwami (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be quite confused as to the purpose of these pages. kwami, you're asking for a word but Aeusoes1 claims orthography is irrelevant. --124.148.227.27 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no contradiction. Word doesn't equal orthography. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  16:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * /bʲas/
 * /dʲadɔ/
 * /ˈkʲɛlner/
 * /mʲuɛzin/
 * /ˈsʲanka/
 * [svrakə]
 * [bɤɫɡɐrski]
 * [bajno]
 * [bɛɫa] vs. /bɛɫa/ vs. /bɛla/
 * дзифт/надзор
 * джем/надживее

Macedonian and Serbian differ in two phonemes - Macedonian and Bulgaria differ in < thirteen (not to mention schwa and phonetically unstressed vowels). --124.148.227.27 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Those words don't even fit your Macedonian key, so I don't see the point.
 * Macedonian shares tone/pitch accent with Serbian? — kwami (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the number of phonemes is not particularly relevant in a transcription system that isn't phonemic anyway. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  01:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Phonemes or phones?
The introduction to the article talks about phonemes, but then it lists phones. What is the intention here, to list which of the two? I think a large part of the confusion in this talk page is due to the lack of clarity on this question. I think this needs to be settled before any other matters are decided. The links in articles that link to here usually have square brackets, which indicate phones. There are additional complications due to disagreements over, for example, what phonemes exactly exist, and what their canonical representations are. The traditional analyses of most dialects of Bulgarian have palatalized consonants as separate phonemes. But then they inconsistently use /gʲ/ as a phonemic representation, although it is always pronounced [ɟ]. I guess influenced by the orthography? Macedonian linguists, it seems, use /ɟ/ as the phonemic representation for that consonant. 82.137.72.33 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC) On further thought, the current approach of only listing consonants which have a pronunciation at a different point of articulation when palatalized seems sane to me. After all, that's all the symbols users clicking on the IPA in articles will need explanation for. 82.137.72.33 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be phones; to list phonemes would require that the reader be familiar with Bulgarian and Macedonian phonology. That said, it is reasonable to provide a fairly broad phonetic representation, so we don't need to represent every allophone, particularly those that require complicated diacritics.  We can also represent a phone in a way that may be phonetically imprecise if we feel like it would be less confusing for the readers or more in keeping with literature on the subject.  This is something we do with Catalan's postalveolar fricatives. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, I think we don't need to have a dental diacritic below the dental stops, for example? 82.137.72.33 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Secondary stress and palatalization sign
Secondary stress is an interesting problem: in the continuum, it occurs most prominently in dialects spoken in what is currently Bulgaria, in which the primary stress is weakest, which dialects the Macedonian state claims are Macedonian whatever they might mean by that; but in the standard languages, it occurs in Standard Bulgarian, although to a much lesser degree, and does not occur at all in Standard Macedonian. Also, just for completenes' sake, I think we should include the palatalization sign also. In dialects spoken in Macedonia, there is a gradual reduction in the degree of freedom of stress from East to West, and more freedom correlates with weaker primary stress and more secondary stress, I think?

Anyway, I think with the addition of these two we will have covered all the symbols users are likely to encounter. 82.137.72.33 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Also, can anyonse say something about the L's? It looks wrong to me now. Maybe some Macedonian user can provide links to the official Macedonian government position on the status of л and љ and their allophones? There seems to be disagreement on whether in Standard Bulgarian non-palatalized л before non-front vowels is supposed to be velarized or simply dental? Whatever the case is, the л in лаф and бяла is basically the same. 82.137.72.33 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Дзифт is also obscure slang from the middle of the 20th century, it's only known today becuse of a recent film, and is likely to be soon forgotten, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia as a recentism. 82.137.72.33 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that we were representing Standard Macedonian and Standard Bulgarian, and not necessarily intermediate dialects between the two. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  17:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, that's the assumption I'm working with. I was just giving some context. I just don't know enough about the status allophones of л and љ in Standard Macedonian. And I'm not even completely sure about Standard Bulgarian. 82.137.72.33 (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * About the secondary stress thing, I just wanted to give some justification to me including it in the body of the article. You can see I marked it B for Standard Bulgarian. Sorry for the digression. 82.137.72.33 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Laterals
According to the article on Macedonian, it has the same pattern of allophony of alveolar lateral before front vowels and dental otherwise as Bulgarian. Reading those articles, I can see that this allophone is not universally recognised as being velarized in Bulgarian. But it is in Macedonian. So I don't see why it is marked with a B, he anything it should be an M. Furthermore, the Macedonian article suggest that some scholars consider Љ to be identical to the alveolar realization, not a palatal one like in Bulgarian. Also, only syllablic R is mentioned, not L. 213.226.63.148 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, does anyone have any suggestions about how to handle this in the table? 87.121.162.135 (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

<л> represents the phoneme /l/ which is [l] before /i/, /e/ and /j/, but velar in all other positions. So where the velar is expected but [l] occurs, then <љ> is used (e.g. <детаљ> [detal]). The palatal lateral occurs (at least phonetically) only in the root <љуб->. --58.7.167.180 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And there is no vowel reduction in Macedonian. --58.7.167.180 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Messy
The differences between the two (letterforms and spelling (digraphs, etc.), palatalization, vowel reduction, realization of schwa) make this look very messy. --58.7.167.180 (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Joke
This article is an absolute joke. Whatever people's political views on what constitutes a language and what constitutes a dialect, the fact is that the literary standards of the two languages are based on dialects which have several completely incompatible sounds. For example the Macedonian ќ (this is pronounced roughly halfway between the English sounds "ky" & "ch", however strange that may seem) is non-existent in Bulgarian; the Bulgarian combinations "кй/кь" are NOT the same. There are several such sounds in Macedonian. Also, Mac. doesn't have the exact same ъ sound that BG has. Please, someone split this into two articles if you want them to be taken seriously. We don't have a single WP IPA page for German and Dutch, now, do we?! BigSteve (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The differences between them are so small that we should be able to account for them in the table. This is done for a number of cases, such as WP:IPA for Portuguese and Galician.  Do you think there's a better way to present those differences in one table? — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  11:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - if we insist on having one table then let's actually do it like the Dutch and Afrikaans or the Portuguese and Galician pages! - i.e. with the little flag icons on top and the splits down the table next to each letter where there are differences. because some of the sounds, like the ќ and ъ that I mention above, are different (the ъ isn't even pronounced properly in Mac - in such cases there should be a bar "—" in the table showing that, say, one of the 2 languages doesn't contain/omits a certain sound). And, since the writing systems are different (as BG & Mac use 2 different versions of Cyrillic) there should be language examples from both languages in cases where incompatible letters are involved. BigSteve (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  16:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * nice. let's do it :-) BigSteve (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given it a start. I'm not familiar with either language, so I can only stumble in the dark regarding correspondences.  This is what it seems to me
 * Macedonian (ќ) corresponds with Bulgarian  (щ}
 * Macedonian corresponds with Bulgarian  (лъ)
 * Macedonian corresponds with Bulgarian {{IPA|[rɤ]} (ръ)
 * Bulgarian corresponds with Macedonian {{IPA|[l]}
 * Still, there are things I can't even guess at:
 * I'm not sure what Macedonian (ѓ) corresponds to in Bulgarian
 * I'm not sure what Bulgarian corresponds to in Macedonian
 * I'm not sure what Bulgarian corresponds to in Macedonian
 * The article currently presents Bulgarian as corresponding with Macedonian, though I'm pretty sure this is false.
 * This is all assuming that such correspondences can be easily presented in the table format we've got now. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  00:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's do this. First of all, nice work on setting up the table with the columns! I'll try and help with the article at some point but it'll take me a while to figure out the technicalities, so for now i'll just give some explanations. It's been a few years since i was into phonetics/phonology so i may well get some of this slightly off, but generally the stuff i'm sure of is this:
 * etymologically, you're right that ќ = щ, even though the pronunciation is completely different (eg. "house" = къща (~kashta) in BG / куќа (~kucha) in Mac.) Like I said earlier, the pronunciation of ќ is between "ky", "ch" and, actually, probably closest to "ty", ie. куќа =~ "kutya"
 * The Mac letter ѓ is the voiced equivalent of ќ, and is pronounced somewhere between the Eng sounds "gy" and "j" and "dy" (similar to Spanish "y" [ʝ] as in "leyenda"/"peyorativo"), and is generally found in cases where Bulgarian would have "г" followed by a "soft" vowel (i.e. "e", "и" or "й"/"ь" - or, phonetically - [ɛ], [i] & [j]), e.g. ѓеврек (~jevrek) Mac / геврек (gevrek) BG (=donut-shaped pretzel), or Ѓорѓе (~Djordje/Dyordye) Mac / Георги (Georgi) BG = George.
 * BTW this is the same rule for the pronunciation of л  in BG - which is pronounced [ɫ] in most cases, but [l] before [ɛ], [i] & [j]. I could be wrong on the following point, but i think that [ɫ] occurs in both BG and Mac in mostly the same places;
 * where it doesn't, i.e. where BG has [l] (which in BG can only occur before [ɛ], [i] & [j], and never at the end of a word), Mac would wither still pronounce it [ɫ] or else write it as љ in order to get the [l] pronunciation (just as in Serbian). Tho i'd need confirmation on this.
 * don't worry about the [lɤ] and [rɤ] combinations, these are only the names of the letters, only pronounced like this when spelling out the alphabet.
 * the big problem is the BG letter ъ (similar to English "turn", but pronounced shorter). In Mac this occurs as either -
 * "у" (eg. Bulgaria = България / Бугариjа)
 * "o" (wolf = вълк / волк)
 * "а" (way/road = път / пат)
 * or even missing altogether (heart = сърце / срце) - i.e. a syllabic consonant, only occurring with "р"/"л", where in Mac the accent falls on the letter р/л as if it were a vowel, like in Serbian.
 * In the case of [ɐ], i think Mac only has pure [a] or, if [ɐ] occurs, it's probably not phonemic. In BG this sound occurs when an "a" is found as a verb ending - e.g.:
 * лъжа (stress on the first syllable ['ɫɤʒɐ]) = the verb "I lie"
 * лъжа (stress on the last syllable [ɫɤ'ʒa]) = the noun "a lie"
 * лежа (stress on the last syllable [lɛ'ʒɐ]) = the verb "i lie down"
 * ((which, coincidentally, is a striking similarity between verbs with completely different meanings being extremely similar to one another in both BG and Eng)) (btw, kids in schools get taught that 'if a verb ends in "a" you pronounce it like an "ъ"', but that's wrong, as the "ɐ" sound is actually half-way between a & ъ.)
 * There may be a difference between [ɤ] & [ə] in BG but it's also not phonemic and therefore negligible - i think it depends on whether the syllable is stressed or not. In Mac i'd say it probably only occurs in cases where there is a syllabic consonant and therefore wouldn't really be pronounced, so again, negligible. I'd need confirmation on this, but i think i'm right in saying it.
 * i dont think there's any discernible difference between [o] and [ɔ], maybe that the [o] at the end of a word is slightly more closed, i.e. closer to an [u], but it's not phonemic in any way. I dont think a difference exists in Mac either.

That's as far as (i think) i can say for sure, and i've mentioned where i'm unsure. If anyone feels i've got anything wrong or explained anything in a too-complex way, please feel free to correct or elaborate. I'm sure of the stuff relating to BG, not 100% certain on some of the Mac stuff. Thanks for your help on this, Æµ§œš¹! BigSteve (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! I've edited the table to reflect some of the distinctions you've elaborated on. above.  For some of the other things, we may need to use footnotes though we don't want to have too many.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  13:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Still a joke
No matter how hard you all try, any result will always be clumsy and horribly inaccurate: http://bg.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D1%8F%D1%80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.237.89.24 (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC) http://www.makedonski.info/show/%D0%B4%E2%80%99%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0/%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B2 This is so goddamn fucking clumsy and inaccurate, and you can't see that through your respective Balkanian rubbish. Macedonian and Bulgarian are very similar, yes. But one cannot justify making a mess of this chart just because they happen to be each others' closest relatives. Genetic similarity ≠ similarity in pronunciation. --101.112.179.241 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bulgarian orthography does not represent assimilation, so <б> can also be /p/: <бабски> |babski| /bapski/. Macedonian orthography does: <бапски>.
 * /c/ (Macedonian) and /ʃt/ (Bulgarian) are analogous in terms of historical sound changes; <ќар> does not exist in Bulgarian, let alone pronounced */ʃtar/.
 * /c/ is a phoneme in Macedonian, in Bulgarian it is a variant of /k/ before front vowels. Macedonian distinguishes between /ce/ and /ke/, Bulgarian does not.
 * /dz/ and /dʒ/ can be an affricate (<џ>) or stop + sibilant (<дж>) in Macedonian.
 * Macedonian has two lateral phonemes. Bulgarian has an allophonic alternation. The chart shows Bulgarian with two laterals but Macedonian with only a clear variant.
 * Macedonian has /lj/ (<лј>) only intervocalically, <љубов> is pronounced [lubof] (i.e. with a clear /l/).
 * Standard Macedonian (the written variant of the language) does not have a schwa. <к’смет> is substandard and only occurs in direct dialogue in prose when, for example, it shows that the person is speaking a dialect. Why show the schwa and not [ɣ] which occurs in some dialects? /tɕ/ and /dʑ/ also occur dialectally. Some dialects even have diphthongs (ex. /o̯a/), but these aren't represented. Why pick and chose which substandard, regional features are shown?
 * Then fix it, man. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  05:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was angered the first time I saw this page but I think Æµ§œš¹ is right - since Dutch and Afrikaans are on the same IPA page (and they have diverged significantly since the middle ages) than I guess BG & Mac can be, we just need to lay it out well. I keep meaning to help but i kno it'll take me ages to do, so i keep putting it off - but i will! Nice work, Æµ§œš¹ by the way. To User 101.112.179.241 - calm down :-) you're right on principle and i'll take your points in mind when i sit down to do it. If the table ends up looking too forced, then we might need to consider making two tables - because you're right, just because two langs are too close doesn't always justify forcing them together. Spanish and Portuguese are almost identical in about 90% of their grammar, but their pronunciations are SO different that no one thinks of counting them as the same language. And, even tho BG & Mac do sound similar, they do have minor differences that, when they pile up, perhaps do matter. So, i dont know for now, but we'll see as we go along. Peace, fellas! :-) BigSteve (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For those who know BG and MK the examples and classification of the sounds /ɟ/ and /c/. In Macedonian these are consonants which cannot be found in BG. In Bulgarian they are equivalents to consonant groups /ʒd/ and /kj/. Therefore is totally inaccurate to write that the Macedonian sounds can be found in BG. Consonant is not the same as consonant group. The IP address user is right in all instances. Thanks for the understanding. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC).
 * MacedonianBoy, you don't seem to understand the layout of the table. The first column indicates Bulgarian and the second column indicates Macedonian.  Only when the two columns are combined does it indicate that the sound in question occurs in both.  So when you changed the table to combine the columns, you implicitly made the opposite case than you meant.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  22:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand it perfectly, but you are making mistakes. Ќќ (Ḱḱ) or IPA /c/ is Macedonian, not Bulgarian. The same goes for Ѓѓ (Ǵǵ). I am not arguing about the layout or the table, I am arguing about the inventory of the languages. There are a lot of differences that you are mixing on Wikipedia. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: By joining these two languages you made a bigger confusion of the phonological inventory of the languages. Macedonian is a lot of simpler than BG when phonology is concerned. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seemed by your corrections that you didn't understand the intended format. Still, putting the Macedonian sounds in the Bulgarian column was a strangely stupid thing for me to get wrong.  My apologies.
 * Macedonian being "simpler" phonologically doesn't necessarily mean we can't represent both languages in a single table. The process of accurately representing both languages is incomplete, but do you think you could point out where our misrepresentation of either language is due to an inherent flaw in the layout? — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  01:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The introduction states that the table includes the sounds of standard Macedonian and Bulgarian. But these sounds are not considered as part of the standard in Macedonian: /ŋ/ and /ə/. The sound /ə/ appears in isolated dialectal words and foreign words (usually Bulgarian and Turkish words and names).--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed a joke. I read above the table "When two examples are given, the first is in Bulgarian and the second in Macedonian. When one example is given, the word has the same spelling in both languages." And then there is "прст". But in Bulgarian it is "пръст". At least correct that. In my opinion the table should be split. Zliv (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am removing [ɱ] from the table, as it has been decided on multiple other IPA keys not to include it because it is not phonemic and is an unnecessary detail. To Zliv I would point out that the Bulgarian column is grayed out. Perhaps it would be best to clarify the sentence. (suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 21:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Help talk:IPA which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

ɐ missing?
in many articles (for example Bulgaria, Bulgarian language) there is listed /ɐ/ but it's missing here for some reason LICA98 (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)