Help talk:IPA/English/Archive 24

/r/ replacement with /ɹ/
I'd like some kind of discussion revolving around the topic of /r/ being replaced with /ɹ/. My fuller personal thoughts on this issue can be found here. In that time I brought it up, only one person ever responded to me. So! I annoyingly bring it up again. Thoughts, please. Wolfdog (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a chain of these sorts of discussions, which I'm sure you recognize, so bringing it up without responding to points made in previous discussions can make it seem tiresome.
 * You say Foreign readers (and editors, it seems) can be easily confused by this sound and symbol, but I don't see that being the case just because $⟨r⟩$ would be more phonetically precise in their native language. Periodically, people challenge our use of a less phonetically precise rhotic symbol, but this is irrespective of their native language and says more about their expectations of phonetic accuracy than any actual confusion with our transcriptions. I've seen no evidence that any reader or editor, foreign or otherwise, has looked at our transcriptions and legitimately believed that English has a trill or tap rhotic instead of an approximant one. As a thought experiment, it doesn't pan out either, because foreign readers and editors with sufficient competence in English to read and edit the English Wikipedia and who know the difference between an approximant and trill/tap rhotic, will already understand the nature of the English rhotic. No one who reads our transcriptions will come away thinking that English has a trill rhotic.
 * You say, Better to use a symbol representing or approximating a majority of English dialects rather than a symbol that represents perhaps not even a single native dialect. However, that's a line of reasoning this system rejects. As a transcription system that reflects an attempt at dialect neutrality, picking $⟨ɹ⟩$ would mean that we are choosing one dialect (British English) over another one (American English, which uses $⟨ɻ⟩$). Using $⟨r⟩$ allows us to be dialect neutral without being confusing in our transcriptions.
 * In addition to dialect neutrality, we are also trying to make sure that this system is as accessible to non-experts without losing meaningful information. It's better to use a symbol that everyone will recognize as a rhotic; if we use $⟨ɻ⟩$ or $⟨ɹ⟩$, people will stumble and get confused more than if we use $⟨r⟩$ because no one is confused about what $⟨r⟩$ means for English.
 * You say The best-sourced argument for retaining /r/ is based firmly in habit or tradition, rather than convenience or accuracy but this is a mischaracterization (and a tautology). Pointing out that $⟨r⟩$ is used in scholarship has been in defending against the charge that we are making a "wrong" choice or somehow violating NOR. As the previous thread shows, scholarship is mixed. Our choice to use $⟨r⟩$ is based on the practical benefits. It also happens to be grounded in scholarship as well. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is quite hard to imagine someone somewhere knows what an alveolar trill is and that [r] in IPA represents it, yet doesn't know how the English rhotic is commonly realized. Nardog (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I indirectly addressed your suggestion when I made the FAQ, which summarizes previous arguments against it as well as my position. Also see this post by Wells, which makes similar arguments.
 * IMHO, any argument that a symbol chosen in a phonemic notation is inappropriate on the grounds that the sound the symbol represents is not the realization of the phoneme comes from an inadequate understanding of the whole point of a phonemic notation and IPA in general. As the Second IPA Principle lays out, every IPA symbol represents not (necessarily) a particular sound but an intersection of phonological categories. In phonemic representation, you may go even further. As Roberts (2017) says, phonemes are not sounds. As such, we could in fact choose to write /l/ and /p/ as /3/ and /4/, or /@/ and /#/, or /Mary/ and /Dick/.
 * [ˈbɛɾi] being a realization of Betty in some accent and of berry in another is a non-issue because that just means that [ɾ] is an allophone of /t/ in the former and of /r/ in the latter, so we can just transcribe them accordingly, as /ˈbɛti/ and /ˈbɛri/. And even if some accent neutralized intervocalic /t/ and /r/ and realized both words as [ˈbɛɾi], that wouldn't be any different from the situation we have with sought vs. sort etc.
 * As in many languages, the English rhotic varies quite a lot. Even $\langleɹ\rangle$ or $\langleɻ\rangle$ wouldn't be a precise phonetic representation for RP or GA because what is usually described as postalveolar approximant is realized with various tongue shapes, from retroflex to pre-velar (unlike what Aeusoes1 suggests, both apical and dorsal variants are found in both the UK and US: ). I would be even in favor of switching $\langleʁ\rangle$ in our IPA for French and Standard German to $\langler\rangle$ because the rhotics in both languages vary across speakers in both place and manner. Nardog (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the conversation, and I don't feel I've avoided points made in previous discussions. I simply disagree with the weight placed on certain points. And I hope me making this all "tiresome" is not as true for you as you let on -- after all, you have put a great deal of work in responding to me now, which I appreciate, and so I hope you actually (secretly) get a bit of kick in educating others, as you rightly should. Anyway, I suppose if someone has enough English competence to read this Wikipedia article, then you're right that they already know that the trill is not the typical realization.
 * I have to say that you're incorrect on your second point though. $⟨ɹ⟩$ is both a common and obviously a phonetically closer (you must agree!) representation of both British and American dialects in the scholarship, largely thanks to the fact that $⟨ɹ⟩$ is already a useful catch-all, covering dental, alveolar, and post­alveolar approximants. I also disagree that the retroflex variant is the American norm, and bunched variants are even quite marked, often indicating to American ears a Southern or rural speaker. (Ah, I've now read, at a later time, Nardog's comment on this matter. Thanks for finding those Wells and Haskins sources.)
 * You say picking $⟨r⟩$ allows you to be dialect-neutral, but it's only dialect-neutral in the misguided sense that picking $⟨♣⟩$ or any other random shape would be too. I think alludes to this point with his Roberts (2017) quotation. The problem though is that, as Nardog says, a phoneme is "not (necessarily) a particular sound but an intersection of phonological categories". Aha!... but the cautionary inclusion of the word "necessarily" reveals the reality that phonemes are indeed chosen with the intention to approximate sounds (or, yes, "intersections" of sounds, if you prefer). This is why, in fact, $⟨♣⟩$ or $⟨Mary⟩$ or $⟨Dick⟩$ are never actually used and never will be.
 * Aeusoes, you're right I engaged in a tautology with my final point; it was poorly worded. My meaning was, as you mentioned, that the scholarship is mixed, and we don't need tradition or habit to be our only guiding light.
 * Nardog, I appreciate your Betty/berry argument and have put that to rest in my mind. However, again, I disagree with the idea that just because "the English rhotic varies quite a lot" means there is not a better or worse way to represent English phonetically. I can't buy that. Just in terms of the phonetic part of my argument, $⟨ɹ⟩$ certainly is a better (i.e. more closely-approximating) symbol for the majority of English dialects than $⟨r⟩$; that's simply not disputable. Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I can see a lot of effort went into them. Wolfdog (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added "(necessarily)" because an IPA symbol may represent "a set of phonetic categories" even in a phonetic transcription. In phonemic transcriptions, it of course never represents a sound—always an "intersection". Nardog (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as a case of WP:DONTFIXIT. Is there any practical harm—or even theoretical incompatibility—to using $\langler\rangle$ instead of $\langleɹ\rangle$? AFAIK there is no dictionary aimed at the general public that uses $\langleɹ\rangle$, and since dictionaries are about the only places where laypeople may encounter IPA transcriptions, it is using $\langleɹ\rangle$ that could possibly be confusing to readers if anything. On theoretical grounds, the use of $\langler\rangle$ is totally sound within IPA's principles as detailed in the Handbook; and like you say, $\langler\rangle$ is used in not just lexicography but other fields of scholarship, so it can't possibly count as OR. The IPAc-en transcriptions are in slashes, so even those who know what $\langler\rangle$ represents in literal IPA will not mistake it as representing a trill. (Unless they don't know what slashes are for despite knowing what [r] is...? If so I'm sorry but that's on them.) I just cannot see what harm using $\langler\rangle$ does or what benefit replacing it with $\langleɹ\rangle$ brings. Nardog (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that my "tiresome" comment was more an explanation for why there wasn't a strong community response beforehand. I do indeed enjoy discussing these sorts of things.
 * My perception of the distribution of the various diaphones of English might be mistaken in fact, though that would take some teasing out of dialectological data that I don't have access to. However, I have seen plenty of sources (e.g.,  [p. 187], ) that make claim to something like this AME/BrE distinction. If the actual distribution of these diaphones doesn't quite line up to the American-British distinction, that perception (even by experts) is certainly present.
 * You say that picking a random shape to represent the English rhotic is "misguided" but there's a step missing in your rationale for why we don't pick e.g. $⟨♣⟩$: it's confusing. IPA is typically used for phonemes because, as a grouping of sounds, a phoneme has a relationship to phones in our minds that makes picking IPA symbols convenient. Someone, especially a layperson, will have no clue what to make of $⟨♣⟩$. Similarly, a reader or editor may have trouble seeing the motivation behind using a random symbol. But there is a logic to $⟨r⟩$ that is orthographically convenient to readers and editors that $⟨♣⟩$ is missing. $⟨r⟩$ is thus dialect neutral and clear to readers. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The benefit to is to clearly indicate that the English r is quite different from the usual allophones of the sounds represented on most other IPA help pages by  or . At least the approximant symbol has the right manner of articulation, even if it's not completely precise about the place of articulation (because there's additional stuff going on behind the tip of the tongue). — Eru·tuon 00:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Native English speakers already know the nature of their own rhotic and learners of English reading or contributing to the product would have already learned this as well. Who would benefit from this indication?— Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Among your "plenty of sources", unfortunately, I cannot gain access to even one, though I believe your good intentions. But I'd be willing to bet these sources discuss the higher likelihood of retroflex "r" in AmE and the more fronted variant of "r" in common in BrE (that seems to be a motivation in even some speakers towards a labiodental "r" that is not simply a speech impediment), and they they do not across-the-board place AmE and BrE outside of the umbrella of the general-phonetic [ɹ], which represents a spectrum of approximant realizations. Just typing british ɹ american or similarly-worded queries reveal supporting evidence on Google Scholar. I strongly believe my own GenAm accent for example uses a postalveolar [ɹ] (certainly more backed than a typical Londoner's [ɹ]), but still not retroflex (with the tongue turned back).
 * And your point about $⟨♣⟩$ being confusing... that is my point. Exactly. And of course /ɹ/ is still lightyears easier than /♣/ in representing an $⟨r⟩$ sound; it just looks like a special type of $⟨r⟩$, different from the Italian/Spanish/Russian one.
 * One group that would benefit is English language learners with [r] in their native phonology and/or who have never been exposed to something as in-depth as a course in English phonetics yet who still have a cursory knowledge of IPA. That may sound like a hyper-specific scenario to you, but I can think of several types of people for whom it wouldn't be unusual at all, ranging from musicians to amateur linguists to English-language students of all kinds and at all levels. Wolfdog (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a language-learning guide. Our English-language transcriptions are designed for native speakers and people with a working knowledge of English phonology. If our transcriptions also happen to benefit English learners, that's an added bonus, but we should not make decisions that benefit English-language learners at the expense of our target demographic. As you've articulated, the benefit of using $⟨r⟩$ would be for a very specific set of ESL readers, but this is such a small group and, again, is peripheral to our transcription goals
 * With that in mind, for our target demographic, there is an order of confusion for these symbols. The most confusing is $⟨♣⟩$, which I think we all agree on. It seems to me that, for our target demographic, $⟨ɻ⟩$ and $⟨ɹ⟩$ are more confusing than $⟨r⟩$. Switching from the least confusing symbol to a more confusing symbol would thus be poorly motivated. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, so you and I continue to disagree about the confusingness of $⟨ɹ⟩$ versus the confusingness of $⟨r⟩$. That's OK. (It largely stems from my own bafflement when I first started learning IPA about why a trill was being used to represent the English rhotic, but I admittedly am self-taught in English phonology so I learned about the precise nature of phonemes only gradually and laboriously.) No, Wikipedia is not a language-learning guide, but it is also not a place for presumed experts. Anyway, I appreciate all the discussion. It's been interesting to appreciate some points I didn't before. Wolfdog (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from, and I agree that our transcriptions should not assume that readers and editors are linguistic experts. This is actually another reason for avoiding $⟨ɹ⟩$. A good portion of our readership is completely unfamiliar with the IPA and so they must learn enough IPA to understand our system. Adding $⟨ɹ⟩$ to the list of unfamiliar symbols makes learning the IPA harder for these readers. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, using requires readers to learn to read the symbol  in at least two ways: the more semantically narrow way, as a trill; and the broader way, as some kind of rhotic. I personally care more about this semantic complexity than the number of symbols, but don't know which is more difficult for readers. I guess Wolfdog answered your earlier question directed to me. I recall reading posts somewhere of people confused by the semantic difference between  used to transcribe English and the same symbol used to transcribe other languages, and using  would benefit them. I don't have examples and don't know how many such people are. Probably there are some people whose minds incline them to be more confused by the different meanings of a symbol than other people would be. But I don't feel like pushing this argument because I don't have very much evidence. — Eru·tuon 23:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've probably seen the same post you have. This "semantic" difference problem sounds a lot like the difference between phonetic and phonemic representation. There is a range between two extremes here: at one extreme, there are linguistic experts who already know the phonetic/phonemic distinction; at the other extreme, there are those so clueless to the distinction that they don't even recognize that there is a semantic difference. Neither of those situated at these two extremes will be confused, but there's a point somewhere between these two extremes where someone gets enough knowledge about phonetics that they might start to understand the semantic difference but not the phonetic/phonemic one. This, IMHO, is the source of confusion with these people and, as I've said already, says more about someone's expectations regarding phonetic accuracy than an understanding of the English language. At no point in the process are they confused about our transcriptions, but rather the choices we've made for our transcription system. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In response to Adding ⟨ɹ⟩ to the list of unfamiliar symbols makes learning the IPA harder for these [unfamiliar] readers, well how about the fact that with some symbols even native English speakers themselves must completely re-learn what a symbol is expected to mean? Take $⟨r⟩$, which any naÏve English speaker would expect to be the sound at the start of jay, jewel or gist but the IPA uses as the sound at the start of yap, yes, or youth. We don't use $⟨j⟩$ to mean the jay consonant just because that would appeal to IPA-unfamiliar native-English readers. We are not trying to invent our own new system that diverges from the IPA and its established representations.
 * And in terms of there being a range between two extremes here, aren't there a great deal of people who will fall between the two extremes? The symbol $⟨j⟩$ will be understood by the people at the most knowledgeable extreme as well as by people who fall in the middle of this spectrum. The only people who will not recognize it, according to your own description, are those at the "clueless" extreme. Yet these people, upon seeing the symbol $⟨ɹ⟩$, can just look up what it means (or simply read the rollover box that appears) or even literally type ɹ into their Wikipedia search to glean the symbol's meaning: there's a redirect to the appropriate page. So, that, in my opinion, is why $⟨ɹ⟩$ is, in fact, the least confusing symbol for everybody. The symbol $⟨ɹ⟩$, meanwhile, can confuse English language learners and people along the vast middle of the spectrum who only recognize it as a trill. Wolfdog (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how your example with $⟨r⟩$ goes against what I've said about unfamiliar symbols. I've said that there is a list of such characters that readers and editors not already familiar with IPA will have to learn and you've pointed out one such example. That dynamic of a character used in English orthography with a different meaning in IPA is also true of many of the vowels. Each one of those makes learning the system just a little bit harder, as does a new symbol they have to learn. If we can avoid adding more on the plate of someone learning this transcription system, we'll keep it that much more intuitive and easier to learn. If you're trying to create some sort of parallel between using $⟨j⟩$ for  and using $⟨j⟩$ for English, I should remind you that there is a strong tradition of the latter in IPA transcriptions, but not the former. There are also orthographic ambiguities with $⟨r⟩$ that would make this letter not ideal. The more we ask someone to look up unfamiliar symbols as you've articulated, the more of a burden the system becomes.
 * I don't think it would be accurate to assume that this "some point" confused state I've identified would have a wide range between two extremes I've laid out. You don't need to be an actual expert to understand phonemic vs. phonetic transcription and I don't see why there would be a great percentage of people who recognize $⟨j⟩$ as a trill, know the contrast between trill and approximant, and not know that the English rhotic is the latter, particularly given the English-many learning guides that use $⟨r⟩$ for the English rhotic. IMHO it's likely a fairly narrow range, simply because of the particular set of facts known.
 * By the way, our sister project Wiktionary uses $⟨r⟩$ for English. Does anyone know if they get confused readers with their transcriptions? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You again bring up tradition, which is again what I am openly going against. Our diaphonemic Wikipedia IPA already goes against several traditions in other IPA systems. (And a side-note that I was actually using $⟨ɹ⟩$ to represent in the above examples.)
 * You mention "orthographic ambiguities" of $⟨j⟩$, yet $⟨j⟩$ is still used anyway, right? So I'm missing the point there.
 * Again, I think the "burdensome" argument doesn't apply when there's a rollover feature we already use, not to mention that $⟨j⟩$ certainly still looks like an "r" -- just inverted. It's not bewildering, as the clover symbol would be. Its benefit is it's phonetic approximation to the reality of English dialects, which has been my main argument.
 * We're both just conjecturing about the range/spectrum argument, so I think we've also run out of discussion there unless someone has something new and enlightening.
 * Good point, bringing up Wiktionary's usage of $⟨ɹ⟩$. Would it benefit us to see if they've had any discussion on that or why they've settled upon that symbol? I suspect, related to what I think has said below, that it's because Wiktionary acts as a dictionary for all kinds of languages, not just English, and so wants to avoid the interpretation of a trill, which is a much more common sound in languages worldwide but is distinctly not the rhotic heard in most English dialects. (And maybe English Wiktionary also has a more global audience, though who knows?... and I tend to doubt it.) Wolfdog (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You said We are not trying to invent our own new system that diverges from the IPA. I took this to mean that using $⟨ɹ⟩$ for would be diverging from the IPA. But, because of the aforementioned tradition, it does not actually "diverge from the IPA." We've already agreed that what matters more than tradition is whether it makes sense for our readers and editors, and it seems like you're rehashing the same point that's been thoroughly debunked. If you meant something else by this, I'm at a loss as to what.
 * The orthographic ambiguities I was talking about refers to what $⟨r⟩$ means in English orthography. It could mean (which is what I meant to type above), as well as . There are also other ways to represent this sound in English orthography. Using $⟨j⟩$ for  is not only consistent with IPA practices, but helps clear up those ambiguities by concretely distinguishing between  and  that we would have an awkward time doing if we were to use $⟨j⟩$ for . Yes, this is the same sort of challenge that learning $⟨j⟩$ would entail, but the payoff for using $⟨ɹ⟩$ instead of $⟨ɹ⟩$ is less than using $⟨r⟩$ instead of $⟨dʒ⟩$ for  and, if we can avoid stacking up these challenges, it will be a better experience for readers. I agree that the mouseover feature and visual similarity that $⟨j⟩$ has with $⟨ɹ⟩$ help mitigate this burden, but that doesn't mean that there's no burden. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  17:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess by "you're rehashing the same point that's been thoroughly debunked" you actually meant to say "you and I continue to disagree, both of us rehashing the same points and yet getting nowhere". It would be friendlier to have worded it as such. Again, you're bringing up points ("rehashings") that are simply based on feelings and personal preferences, as have I, because neither of us has any data to support this "burdensome/challenge" argument, which for now remains a completely subjective one. We need to hear from other users or make new points. Wolfdog (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I had thought the notion that $⟨r⟩$ is not used in IPA transcriptions for the English rhotic to be quite thoroughly debunked, what with the scores of prominent examples spanning the better part of a century. This point has been so firmly addressed, that someone continuing to argue, without evidence or extrapolation, that using $⟨r⟩$ for the English rhotic is not IPA would be delving into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Talking out of both sides of one's mouth by claiming that using $⟨r⟩$ for the English rhotic is not IPA while also acknowledging that there is a firmly established transcription convention of doing this very thing would be delving into WP:GASLIGHTING territory. Stonewalling and gaslighting would certainly prevent conversation from advancing further, but acting as though this is something "both of us" are doing or that I'm being unfriendly by implying that the one stonewalling and gaslighting is acting poorly (itself a form of gaslighting) does more to unseat the thread than actually work to shake me from my position. If stonewalling, gaslighting, and tone policing is your go-to method of discussion, I'm not interested. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I read Wolfdog's "inventing a new system" as talking about using for . I certainly think he knows that  is used in IPA transcriptions of English. — Eru·tuon 19:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point, I find that an extremely unlikely reading of what he meant. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh?? No, tone-policing is obviously not my go-to method for discussing. I'm thinking I misinterpreted the exact thing that has been "debunked", so I apologize if that's the case. But in fairness to me, what ever made you think I've been arguing in favor of "the notion that $⟨r⟩$ is not used in IPA transcriptions for the English rhotic"? Of course I know  has been used in English IPA transcriptions for nearly a century. I'm trying to find where you think I've said anything to the contrary. Wolfdog (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. I see now I've worded that one sentence terribly: "We are not trying to invent our own new system that diverges from the IPA and its established representations". Right, of course that is confusing because we are currently using established representations in employing the symbol . I acknowledge that was an idiotic way to word it. I should have said something like "IPA phonetics" (in which [r] is firmly established as a trill) but clearly we're talking about "phonemics" here anyway. So then: strike that sentence! Wolfdog (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'm also guilty of what you're describing. Sorry. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems as though there's been some misunderstandings here. To rehash what this particular line of discussion has gone through, I had said that adding $⟨j⟩$ to the list of symbols unfamiliar to the IPA illiterate makes the English IPA transcription system harder for said "unfamiliar readers" to learn. Wolfdog's response was to point out $⟨d͡ʒ⟩$ as an example of something these unfamiliar readers have to learn. Since that was in keeping with my point (that there are already things unfamiliar readers have to learn), I pointed out that using $⟨r⟩$ for would not be justified, not only because of the intrinsic downsides but also that doing so would not be consistent with IPA practices. Wolfdog's response to this is that the visual similarity $⟨r⟩$ has to $⟨ɹ⟩$ and the rollover feature eliminate any burden that would come from having to learn this additional symbol, but when I pointed out that this doesn't completely eliminate this burden, I was told that I was basing this on "feelings and personal preferences."

In response to this, I would say that I'm actually basing this on logical deduction. A new symbol, visually similar to a familiar letter or not, still has to be learned. I'm also basing it on the limitations of the rollover feature, particularly that a good portion of readers will not know about this feature in the first place and that nearly half of our readers won't be able to use it since they're reading on their handheld devices. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually advocating using $⟨j⟩$ for ; it was just an example of how some representations are inherently unfamiliar to nonexperts. So, we are both in agreement that some symbols are already unfamiliar.


 * OK. Now, yes, my "response to this is that the visual similarity $⟨j⟩$ has to $⟨ɹ⟩$ and the rollover feature eliminate any burden" and your response is this doesn't "completely eliminate this burden". True: it doesn't completely. (And, admittedly, I didn't realize about the differences on handheld devices.) So what are we left with? Some grey area for which your preference leans one way ("the burden is too big") and mine leans another ("the burden isn't that big and has other benefits"). From my point of view, the "feelings and personal preferences" of both of us are very much based in logical thought processes. When I say "feelings" and "preferences", I don't mean this as an insult whatsoever; after all, recall that I used this phrasing to refer to both you as well as myself. The phrasing "feelings" and "preferences" does, however, highlight the fact that I don't have any actual hard data to prove that $⟨r⟩$ is more burdensome, just as you don't have any actual hard data to prove that $⟨j⟩$ is more burdensome. We've both posed points that are logical and intelligent, but still merely our preferences. You're focusing on $⟨ɹ⟩$ being easier for the IPA-illiterate in line with the English IPA tradition; I'm focusing on $⟨r⟩$ being closer in its representation to the phonetic reality of most English dialects. These different emphases, both of them quite logical, still remain our "personal preferences". Wolfdog (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't tradition (or "recognizability", one may say) precisely the reason we use $⟨r⟩$ instead of $⟨ɹ⟩$ or $⟨r⟩$, for example? Nardog (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * sounds much more similar to (or ) than  does to . $⟨ɹ⟩$ is, frankly speaking, an awful choice for this sound and to me it borders on misusing the IPA - the phonetic difference is that huge. The principle that says that $\langleʌ\rangle$ can be used for any rhotic consonant in a language sounds to me non-21-century. It's an arbitrary decision that has little justification in modern times. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say the exact same thing as Kbb2. Different dialects' phonetic realizations of /ʌ/ at least fall under the constellation of sounds represented by the open-mid back unrounded vowel [ʌ]. This is not so for /r/, most of whose realizations actually fall under an approximant sound. Anyway, I've said this already. Wolfdog (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Two points: 1. Using in an encyclopaedia that covers the phonology of many diverse languages and not only English might make readers believe that the sound or class of sounds represented by this symbol of the seemingly sophisticated and precise IPA must be similar if not identical whether applied to English, Welsh, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Russian, Standard Chinese or Japanese. This is basically a matter of whether laypersons can be expected to fully understand the principles of our (dia-)phonemic transcriptions. 2. One drawback of using is that the pronunciation of those mono- or bilingual English speakers who avoid pronouncing an approximant in Spanish or other foreign loans is difficult to account for. (I am not implying that those speakers have several rhotic consonant phonemes, though this is an interesting question.) Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Great points, especially the first one. We're not just using IPA for English transcriptions but also for transcriptions of a multitude of other languages. In Spanish, we use $\langleɐ\rangle$ exclusively for an alveolar trill which contrasts with a tap, whereas in Italian it can indicate either a trill or a tap (as it can in many other languages - Russian, Polish, etc.). This variation should be considered hard enough to learn. For this reason alone I strongly support the change to . Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

On the top of the talk page we write:
 * In fact, is arguably the more traditional IPA notation; not only is it used by most if not all dictionaries, but also in Le Maître Phonétique, the predecessor to the Journal of the IPA, which was written entirely in phonetic transcription, $\langleɜ\rangle$ was the norm for the English rhotic.

I'm assuming that most of the English transcriptions were in RP, no? If so, how is this relevant? Before the era of the Journal of the IPA RP had a wider range of allophones than it does today, as a tap  was far more common. This provided a stronger justification for using $⟨⟩$ for the RP rhotic than we have today. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: I think /r/ is the better choice because that is what most dictionaries use, including the important pronunciation dictionaries. These are the best possible sources that can be used for pronunciations in the article space. Departing from them makes providing sources harder. (The bigger /r/-related problem I see with our transcription system is that it is not suitable for non-rhotic pronunciations – and yes I know about our “diaphonemic” approach, but that approach is unique to Wikipedia.) --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 19:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's definitely not how sourcing works on Wikipedia. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

/ɜː/ vs /ɜːr/
I'm sorry I missed the debate above. When we set this all up, the IPA-endia template was intended to handle things that fell through the cracks, like. One of the reasons for that was so IPA-en wouldn't be abused the way some of the people above were concerned about. I think it still might be a possibility to handle it this way. — kwami (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support that solution.  Db</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  11:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects which IPA-endia links to has become something entirely different since the template was created—the page started as a phonemic chart and now it's an incredibly detailed phonetic chart almost to the point of being useless. If we were to create a chart illustrating differences between national varieties that is mostly phonemic, perhaps we could use a template that links to such a chart, but IPA-endia as it stands now is pretty useless—I bet none of its usages adhere to the chart it links to anyway—or if they did, the chart is so narrow they would be of benefit to virtually no one. Nardog (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If we used IPA-endia the way MOS:PRON instructs, the RP pronunciation of Betelgeuse must be transcribed as, bœuf bourguignon as , and so on. Would that really benefit readers? Nardog (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Since this has stalled the implementation of /ɜː/, I want to ask again. Does this affect your opinion? Had you known about IPA-endia, would you have !voted differently? Nardog (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My only concern was to avoid implying an incorrect pronunciation that is not supported by major dictionaries. I'd be happy to substitute IPA-endia if it was clear and people wouldn't revert the change.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  11:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My standpoint would have stayed the same as it is based on a wider principle. The template should never obscure or reject a valid (single) IPA symbol, where I consider /ɜː/ a single symbol. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think IPA-endia is not acceptable as an alternative. Think of the consequences. An article opening as the following:
 * A föhn or foehn is […]
 * would have to be changed into the following:
 * A föhn or foehn is […]
 * This different treatment of British “dialect” and American English makes it look as if we had a bias towards American English. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How so? Still lists British first, so if anything the opposite is the case. I favor using a specific, single symbol, and not implying the requirement of an r in there, which many people do not use (either because they know it doesn't belong there, or because they use a non-rhotic dialect where such a poor approximation of the German sound would never arise). It's not our job to account in detail for r-inserting and/or r-dropping dialects. We've been over this many times before, e.g. for cases where words (native English ones) properly have an r but some dialects drop it.  In short, WP just does not care that the Stone Roses sing "the Messiarrr is my sistahhh".  People from a r-reversing dialect already naturally compensate in their mind's ear.  It's just not encyclopedically important to make a big deal out of the fact that "the lawr is the lawr" in some places (except in one place: an article on pronunciation differences in English regional dialects).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think mach is pointing to the use of brackets for the British and slashes for the American. This can make it seem as though the latter is more important because it's phonemic while the former is exotic or local. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you're here, would you mind answering my question? Thanks. Nardog (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Returning from a long wiki-break, and I've kind of lost the thread a bit. I agree with you that the chart page you criticized in some detail has shifted far from its original intent and become less useful, but I'm not sure what effect that should/would/could have this particular narrow matter. I re-read my 12:51, 12 August 2018 take on it, and I don't feel it shifting.  But I may be missing something you were trying to convey.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks that is exactly my point. And even if one may argue that brackets are equivalent to slashes and there is no discrimination either way, I am certain that this different treatment will be corrected sooner or later by some perspicacious editor who will reinstate . --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 06:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I still think we should try using, and explain to any possible "perspicacious editor" that they have missed the point. An alternative would be to refer users to Wikitionary for the pronunciation, where they don't have this insistence on the restrictive IPAc-en.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  06:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume one of the UK pronunciation variants of Malmö should also be transcribed as, rather than ? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not like Nils Malmer.  <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  11:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Uh... so who has to the power to make these changes? It's been months. Wolfdog (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah right, the result of the RfC has not been implemented yet. The best way to proceed is to lay out the exact change on Template:IPAc-en/sandbox and then submit an edit request by using the button on View source for Template:IPAc-en, again carefully explaining the exact change to be made, and of course linking to the RfC. I could maybe do it in a couple of days. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 19:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do have the power, but I wanted to make sure those who were in favor of the proposal in the RfC acknowledged Kwami's point and the outcome of the RfC still stood because in no way do I want to abuse my privilege (frankly I'm disappointed in the low turnout to the pings I sent in August). For the moment I'll back off and leave it to you about submitting an edit request so that an uninvolved editor can review it. Nardog (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha, OK. Well, even I'm sick of continuing to see things like /fɜːr/ and /ˈmɜːrbiəs/ as transcriptions for pho and Möbius. My West Country-allied eyes and ears bristle. Wolfdog (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So are you going to? Nardog (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

optional schwa
Don't we have a way of indicating optional schwa as in https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/basalt ? --Espoo (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We write it <əl> (as opposed to <ə|l>), but that has no effect on how it is displayed. It only affects the text displayed when you hover the mouse over the symbols. As far as I'm concerned, we could introduce <ᵊl> for a syllabic lateral (and <ᵊn> for a syllabic alveolar nasal, etc.) But that's up to others to decide. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a pleasant compromise to me. Do sources ever use that? Wolfdog (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * John C. Wells uses raised letters including ᵊ in his Longman Pronunciation Dictionary for "sounds which the foreign learner is recommended to ignore (although native speakers sometimes include them)." And he uses italic letters including ə for "sounds which the foreign learner is recommended to include (although native speakers sometimes omit them)." Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Issues with ʊə and its example
Two related problems: 1.) when I mouse over a word that has this IPA character (ue) in it (via the IPAc-en template) the phonetic equivalent is shown as "our" as in "tour"— this is a terrible example! "Our" by itself sounds like "hour"!  Perhaps "oor" as in "boor" would work, but "our" as in "tour"?  Or  maybe it should say "Our" as in "tower" (which is patently incorrect, but I hope you get the idea).  And then 2.) when this IPA character set (ue) is displayed in a Wikipedia article, it gets changed to "uer"— shouldn't it remain as "ue"? I ask because I am looking at the Wiktionary entry for "Antinous" which has "/ænˈtɪnəʊəs/" as the IPA, but when I try adding this pronunciation via the IPAc-en template to the corresponding Wikipedia article it gets changed to /ænˈtɪnəʊərs/ which I am CERTAIN has no "r", real or implied. Can this be fixed? Is it wrong? A loose noose (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're parsing it wrong, the syllabification is /-əʊ.əs/, not /-ə.ʊəs/. RP /əʊ/ is equivalent to this key's /oʊ/ (hence  converts to ). The diphthong /ʊə/ that RP has is a remnant of historical /uːr/ and still pronounced with /r/ when followed by a vowel—and always pronounced with /r/ in rhotic accents like General American—so in the diaphonemic transcriptions linking to this key, it should never be used without /r/ and thus the IPAc-en template automatically converts it to /ʊər/. Accents that have /ʊə/ may still use it where it doesn't stem from /uːr/, but that should be transcribed as   or (if unstressed)  —see note #22. I guess there's no harm in using a word with $⟨⟩$ rather than $⟨r⟩$ for the tooltip for /ʊər/, although I can't really see how the current one can be so confusing when it immediately says "in 'tour'". Lastly, $⟨r⟩$, $⟨⟩$, $⟨⟩$, and $⟨⟩$ are distinct letters and convey different values in the IPA. Nardog (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that, the way the note is written, it primes the reader to think of the word our, which doesn't rhyme with tour. We've already got one person here who was tripped up by that, so I think boor would probably be better. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Are there any words containing that don't have a variant pronunciation with some other vowel in RP (e.g., according to Wells's Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, 3rd. ed.,  in tour and boor,  in Urdu and Ursprache, unstressed  in uranium and eurythmic)? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How's that relevant? Our key is diaphonemic. Nardog (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wells is recording a southern regional variant pronunciation there. In the OED, the traditional pronunciation of /tʊə/ comes first, but I can't think of any word with /ʊə/ that doesn't have a regional variant.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  23:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Transcribe Udoka Azubuike
Hey so I've posted here before and have gotten help with adding name pronunciations before so I'm hoping to get the same help again. I would like someone to add a pronunciation to Udoka Azubuike please. He's a basketball player at the University of Kansas (which I am a fan of). A source for his name pronouncation can be found here on his bio on the basketball team's website and it is accurate because I've heard him in interviews pronounce his name exactly the way it is on that source. Thanks in advance! I appreciate it.-- Rockchalk 717 00:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Please check that my transcription matches the actual way it's pronounced. I'd never heard the name before. Wolfdog (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks right to me! Appreciate it! I'm not suprised you don't know the name. You probably wouldn't know who he is unless you're a big college basketball fan. He's just barely notable enough to have an article. I mainly know who he is because he plays for my favorite college basketball team.-- Rockchalk 717 07:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whenever a written source for the pronunciation is available it might be a good idea to mention it in the article.
 * How about an attempt at template using the symbols in SAMPA chart for English (ASCII in left column) next time you need to provide the pronunciation of somebody's name? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

it'a pronounced: AH-ZHU-BI-KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:CC:8000:808:0:0:0:ACDA (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not by the subject of the article.  <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  00:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Simon Target
Watchers here may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Simon Target. Nardog (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

R

 * "In most varieties of English, /r/ is pronounced as an approximant [ɹ]. Although the IPA symbol [r] represents a trill, /r/ is widely used instead of /ɹ/ in broad transcriptions of English."

I'm super confused by this. I've always seen IPA for English correctly use /ɹ/ for my sources, which is not only correct, it was in my experience typical. Apparently not for the person who wrote this portion. Is it bad practice to be correct in this case?--Kaledomo(talk) 04:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Most, if not all, dictionaries use $⟨oor⟩$ for the English rhotic in phonemic transcriptions. Are you familiar with any dictionary that uses $⟨our⟩$? Using /ɹ/ instead of /r/ doesn't make it any more "correct", because we're representing a (dia)phoneme, not a phone, as indicated by the slashes enclosing the notation (see e.g. this blog post and IPA Handbook, p. 28). There have been a wealth of discussions on this, most recently at /Archive 24#/r/ replacement with /ɹ/. Nardog (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Unstressed NURSE
How should we represent the unstressed (assuming that's what it is) in the American IPA provided at Dunkirk? I think that it should be. I think that the minority of Americans who use something in the vicinity of for  would use that vowel in Dunkirk. The spelling $⟨u⟩$ suggests and the only words I'm aware of in which that isn't the case are Virginia and virginity (both are pronounced with  in RP,  seems to be a minority choice), but there may be more.

, remember that our American transcriptions don't cover just GA. For example, we use in our transcriptions to show that the vowel falls together with  in GA and with  in Boston (where  is still contrastive). We also use the non-phonemic symbol $⟨ʊ⟩$ for which is definitely  in GA (but a minority of non-GA speakers still use ). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously reliable sources should decide whenever available, as are in this case. LPD, CEPD, M-W, AHD, RH all transcribe the vowel with the symbol for NURSE, so I see no reason not to use /ɜːr/. Nardog (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point,, about the minority American view. So let's change it back to . Wolfdog (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Iwan Rheon
We need help with his first name. If you can help, please see Talk:Iwan Rheon. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Incorporating audio pronunciation files?
Has there been discussion about the possibility of incorporating audio pronunciation MP3s? Of course that's an entire cottage industry, but it seems like it'd fit perfectly at home on WP. I don't even know if this suggestion is reasonable here. If not, I give any editor permission to delete this section (if that's even allowed; after all these years, I'm still rather unaware of WP etiquette) or leave a suggestion and if I end up back here I'll delete it myself. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "incorporating"? For what it's worth, templates like IPAc-en and IPA-es, which are used to show pronunciation in IPA in articles, already support accompanying a recorded sample, as in . If you're talking about adding audio samples on Help:IPA/English, I wouldn't support it because our guide is meant to be dialect-neutral. Nardog (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Separate RP English and GA English?
It is predicted that RP and GA could split into two different languages. Although that might seem a bit “out there,” there are significant differences between the two. E.g., the derhotization and lengthening of vowels in RP vs the rhotization and shortening in GA, and also /t/, /d/ and others morphing into /ɾ/ in GA. There are so many differences, and I think at least these two (which could also be responsible for other dialects which came from those two main ones) deserve their own pages.

What do you guys think?

-Logan Sherwin Logan Sherwin (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They're not actually that different. We've discussed having separate transcriptions in the past and the best approach we've come up with is this diaphonemic system that allows for a single transcription that encodes for multiple dialects. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is the letter "a" missing?
Why is the letter "a" missing from the chart? as in: "/ˈfaː.ðə/" from the line "(General Australian) enPR: fä'thə, IPA(key): /ˈfaː.ðə/". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/father#Pronunciation Misty MH (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We transcribe that vowel with ⟨ɑː⟩. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Deprecate /ən, əm, əl/
I don't think we need in this guide. Transcribing them with ⟨ə⟩, ⟨ə⟩ and ⟨ə⟩ is, IMO, good enough.


 * These sequences are exactly the same phonemically. When are analyzed as syllabic consonants, they're often (though correct me if I'm wrong) analyzed as syllabic also in positions where an actual syllabic pronunciation isn't possible (IMO such an analysis is objectively less correct than analyzing them as , but that's just my opinion).
 * We don't distinguish ⟨ən⟩, ⟨əm⟩ and ⟨əl⟩ from ⟨ə⟩, ⟨ə⟩ and ⟨ə⟩ in IPA (nor in the respelling system) but only in this guide and in the notes available to those readers that have access to the mouseover feature. This is utterly illogical, as we're effectively distinguishing and not distinguishing ⟨ən⟩, ⟨əm⟩ and ⟨əl⟩ from ⟨ə⟩, ⟨ə⟩ and ⟨ə⟩ at the same time. I could get behind writing "button", "rhytm" and "bottle"  (though I wouldn't necessarily support ,  and , ,  and  or ,  and  - the last option is truly awful, don't you think?).
 * ...but there are two types of syllabic consonants: those commonly used by native speakers (which are recommended to non-native speakers), as in "button", "rhytm" and "bottle", and those that are only possibly syllabic (such as "children" and "barrel", but see below), with being the recommended pronunciation for non-native speakers (you can infer from that that such words are normally pronounced with  in careful speech, which isn't necessarily the case with words like "button", "rhytm" and "bottle"). Dictionaries may or may not differentiate between those two groups, or mix them up while leaving out some words from the latter group. That is a problem in my view.
 * The rules for writing ⟨ən⟩, ⟨əm⟩ and ⟨əl⟩ vs. ⟨ə⟩, ⟨ə⟩ and ⟨ə⟩ aren't fully straightforward and are different for each sequence. For instance, can't appear after  (unlike  and ) and only  can appear after.
 * Not only the rules themselves but also the exceptions to these rules are different; for instance, is mandatorily full  in "Southampton" (because  is preceded by ) and  the orthographic $⟨e⟩$ is varisyllabic after vowels - "mail" can have two syllables like "royal" or just one syllable (a pronunciation closer to spelling), which triggers different allophones of  in much of North America ( before  and  before ); also, the vocalized pronunciation of  makes the disyllabic pronunciation mandatory - if I want to pronounce mail in the Estuary accent I have to say, disyllabic like "royal" . "Mail" is clearly reinterpreted as  in accents (spoken by tens of millions of speakers) in which  (= ) is a possible pronunciation - see.
 * -vocalization makes words like "barrel" (which can be monosyllabic in traditional RP) mandatorily disyllabic.

(LPD transcription) in words like "Canberra" can be instead transcribed as ⟨ə⟩. I see no problem with that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that ⟨ᵊ⟩ is the Handbook of the IPA's symbol #218 meaning "mid central vowel release"? Though ⟨ᵊ⟩ is frequently used in English phonology for an optional schwa it's probably better to stick to "official" IPA and not use ⟨ᵊ⟩ for a possible nasal or lateral release. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm not proposing that we use that symbol, though we could (per LPD and other dictionaries that use it). I'm proposing that we deprecate the distinction between ⟨ən⟩, ⟨əm⟩ and ⟨əl⟩ and ⟨ə⟩, ⟨ə⟩ and ⟨ə⟩ in favor of the latter. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're supposed to be distinguishing e.g. ⟨ən⟩ from ⟨ə⟩ any more than we're distinguishing ⟨ər⟩ from ⟨ə⟩. In both cases, the former is how we should be transcribing so that the mouseover features the correct example text. As far as I know, we don't ever ⟨ə⟩ except maybe in cases where there's a syllable boundary between them (like with fundamental, perhaps). The phonetic details for these sequences seems like a non-sequitor. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're taking this too seriously. The difference between  etc. and   etc. only exists in tooltips, which are only available to half the visitors, and most of the other half don't even realize they're there. So this strikes me as a problem that doesn't exist. I guess we could move the dipahoneme codes of the syllabic consonants to the bottom at Module:IPAc-en/phonemes, like we did /juː/ etc., but that's it. Perhaps /əl, ən, əm/ can be treated like /ɪl, ɪn, ɪm/ and /iə, uə/, which are essentially diaphonemes but are not distinct codes in IPAc-en.
 * I would strongly oppose using the superscript schwa. Like I said before, we'd have to agree on where exactly a syllabic realization can occur before doing that. Dictionaries aren't consistent: organ is considered to be able to have a syllabic /n/ by LPD but not CEPD, and only in RP by RDPCE. This is also one of the reasons I think taking the distinction between  etc. and   etc. seriously is doomed to failure. Nardog (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Change /ɛər/ to /ɛːr/
Our article Help:IPA/Conventions for English lists six dictionaries that write the vowel with ⟨ɛər⟩ (actually ⟨ɛə⟩ - from now on, I'll ignore the following approximant for the sake of simplicity). These are CEPD from 1930 (which now uses ⟨eə⟩, like most British dictionaries), the second edition of Oxford English Dictionary (more recent Oxford dictionaries use ⟨ɛː⟩ instead), Dictionary.com, A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English and the Macquarie Dictionary (but see Australian English phonology - a reformed phonemic orthography for AuE uses ⟨eː⟩). I think that none of our readers use the first one and not many use the second-to-last one, which leaves us with OED2, dictionary.com and the Macquarie Dictionary. That's three (or at best four) dictionaries that use ⟨ɛə⟩ for. Most British dictionaries write it with ⟨eə⟩, but there's an increasing number of authors who opt to transcribe it with ⟨ɛː⟩, which is a more appropriate transcription (out of our ⟨ɛə⟩, British ⟨eə⟩ and the innovative ⟨ɛː⟩ the second symbol is the worst one - if you pronounce like a literal  in Britain it'll often be understood as . AFAIK,  was never a part of RP, the first element of the diphthongal variety of  has always been open-mid or even lower - ⟨eə⟩ is just a simplified transcription, like ⟨r⟩).

Non-rhotic dialects that differentiate from  +  often feature phonemic vowel length because of that. In England, Wales, Australia and South Africa the monophthongal pronunciation is already the norm. It's only in New Zealand (where the vowel tends to be the same as ) and in some American and (mostly southern) English dialects in which the diphthong is still in use. By writing with ⟨ɛːr⟩ we could help speakers of other dialects (as well as the non-natives) understand the nature of the phonemic contrast between  and  +. It's not diphthongization but length (also, in the environment where contrasts with  +, the monophthongal realization is mandatory in all dialects - the diphthong is possible only before other consonants and in the word-final position, which can create pseudo-minimal pairs [I can't name any off the top of my head though, which is too bad]. Pseudo, because they clearly have different syllabification).

In rhotic dialects that contrast with  +  (meaning:  +  with  + ) the realization of the former is predominantly monophthongal and close-mid, with any schwas being a mere phonetic detail - though correct me if I'm wrong here.

I guess that we use ⟨ɛə⟩ instead of ⟨eə⟩ because we write with ⟨ɛ⟩ rather than ⟨e⟩. All six dictionaries I've mentioned do not differentiate between the first element of and, both are written with ⟨ɛ⟩. Help:IPA/Conventions for English currently lists 3 dictionaries (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, OED3 and Lindsey's CUBE) that use ⟨ɛː⟩ for, and all of them use ⟨ɛ⟩ for as well. So I guess that using either ⟨ɛə⟩ or ⟨ɛː⟩ for when we write  with ⟨ɛ⟩ is logical and consistent with the sources.

The 8th edition of Gimson's Pronunciation of English (2014) also uses ⟨ɛː⟩. EDIT: And so does the Routledge Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English.

My point is that ⟨ɛː⟩ is already as recognizable as ⟨ɛə⟩. It's somewhat less similar to ⟨eə⟩ than ⟨ɛə⟩, but enough sources write with ⟨ɛː⟩ to make this change unproblematic. It's an established transcription in a minority of sources, and the amount of sources using it will only increase, which likely won't be the case with ⟨ɛə⟩.

When we change ⟨ɛə⟩ to ⟨ɛː⟩ the speakers of GA-like accents can then simply ignore the length marks just as they ignore the distinction between ⟨iː⟩ and ⟨i⟩. In that regard, my proposal is consistent with the way our guide already works.

I wouldn't propose this if ⟨ɛə⟩ were an established symbol used by the majority of sources, but it's not. If we don't want to use ⟨eə⟩, then it's probably better to jump on the bandwagon and write ⟨ɛː⟩ instead. I don't think it will affect readability, not in 2019. If it was going to affect readability, I think that we'd already be receiving complaints about ⟨ɛə⟩, which is sort of a "mix" between ⟨eə⟩ and ⟨ɛː⟩.

I'm aware that we've already discussed this more than a year ago. Mach forgot to mention that Oxford dictionaries that are more recent than OED2 use ⟨ɛː⟩ and the CEPD has switched to ⟨eə⟩ decades ago. He did mention that, my bad. Also, Nardog, see where JWL says that  "now seems to be increasingly regarded as more satisfactorily described as normally monophthongal . Accepting this view, I now normally write it as  with the economy of avoiding any length mark as unnecessary to distinguish it from ".

Again, the choice between ⟨ɛə⟩ and ⟨ɛː⟩ seems to be to a large extent arbitrary - so why not choose a symbol that's more correct as far as the actual pronunciation is concerned? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d rather keep the diphthongal transcription. Another important aspect of phonetic symbols is their traditional use. We currently use Gimson’s system for transcribing English vowels (except for [ɛ]). It has a long tradition and a wide adoption, and it is still being used by the dedicated pronunciation dictionaries, which I would consider the best authority on such matters. When discussing Upton’s new system with signs like [ɛː], John Wells has said that “the supposed gains did not make up for the sacrifice of an agreed standard”, cf. IPA transcription systems for English.
 * Also, what about Upton’s other symbols? For sake of consistency, I think we should not introduce Upton’s [ɛː] without at least discussing [a], [əː] and [ʌɪ]. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 19:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The established (British) transcription of this vowel is ⟨eə⟩ (with ⟨e⟩ used for the starting point), rather than our ⟨ɛə⟩. Both denote centering diphthongs in IPA, but the latter seems to be almost as rare as ⟨ɛː⟩ in dictionaries/in the literature in general. That's the point: it's unlikely that the amount of sources using ⟨ɛə⟩ is going to increase. The amount of sources using ⟨ɛː⟩ is, on the other hand, almost definitely going to increase (Gimson's Pronunciation of English, one of the most recognizable works on English phonetics, has made that switch five years ago, also see English After RP and Vowel sounds of Received Pronunciation). Our readers that are familiar with the IPA are certainly familiar with all three transcriptions, and my hunch is that they already see ⟨ɛː⟩ more often than ⟨ɛə⟩ and both of them more rarely than ⟨eə⟩ (the latter part is self-evident, though).
 * We already deviate from Gimson's system in the way we transcribe, (I'll make a separate thread about changing ⟨oʊ⟩ to Gimsonian ⟨əʊ⟩ when we reach a consensus here and in the discussion above, three open discussions is at least one too many) and with the way we treat the weak , using it only in the prevocalic positions.
 * I'm not proposing that we implement Upton's system. I'm only proposing that we replace ⟨ɛə⟩ with ⟨ɛː⟩ (note that we already use Uptonian ⟨ɛ⟩). Only some sources that use ⟨ɛː⟩ also use ⟨a⟩, ⟨əː⟩ and ⟨ʌɪ⟩. I tend to disagree with using ⟨a⟩ for English as the vowel is fully front in most standard dialects, so it's better to use a special ⟨æ⟩ symbol for it (not to mention that raising it before nasals is very common in North America and Australia, in which case ⟨a⟩ is probably an objectively worse choice). In many languages other than English which have only one open vowel (most often transcribed with ⟨a⟩) its allophonic range is just too wide (some of these allophones would be interpreted as English  or, in extreme cases, ). ⟨əː⟩ is logical but most sources don't use it and ⟨ʌɪ⟩ makes no sense from a phonetic perspective (and again - most sources don't use it). The difference between ⟨ɛː⟩ and ⟨a⟩, ⟨əː⟩ and ⟨ʌɪ⟩ is that while all of those aren't the established transcription used in the majority of sources, we write the last three sounds with ⟨æ⟩, ⟨ɜː⟩ and ⟨aɪ⟩ which are used by the majority of sources. ⟨ɛə⟩ isn't, and it's only somewhat more similar to ⟨eə⟩ than ⟨ɛː⟩.
 * I've just realized that the the Routledge Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English (one of the three most recent pronunciation dictionaries for English) also uses ⟨ɛː⟩. I think that my theory about ⟨ɛː⟩ being already more recognizable than ⟨ɛə⟩ is true. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right that our using [ɛə] instead of Gimson’s [eə] is no automatic consequence from our using [ɛ] instead of Gimson’s [e]. If anything, I think we should use Gimson’s [eə].
 * Our system is already largely based on Gimson’s, and the small deviations only serve to make it more acceptable beyond England: We do not use simple [e] because of the American tradition of using that symbol for the lexical set, and we retain [oʊ], thus preferring Jones’s older use over Gimson’s most idiosyncratic innovation (it is the only case where Gimson did not use a neighbour sign to Jones’s system). These two half-deviations (one sign in each pair still coincides with Gimson) do not change our deep roots in Gimsonian tradition.
 * Only some sources that use ⟨ɛː⟩ also use ⟨a⟩, ⟨əː⟩ and ⟨ʌɪ⟩. – What sources are these? In the sources gathered in Help:IPA/Conventions for English, there is only one that uses [ɛː] without fully adopting Upton’s system. It is the CUBE, which uses an idiosyncratic system devised by Geoff Lindsey. Unlike Gimson or Upton, Lindsey has never been adopted by any major dictionary. That is why I do not think that this major dictionary should use him as a reference. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 06:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My observation was that wherever is written with ⟨ɛː⟩ or ⟨ɛə⟩, ⟨ɛ⟩ is used for . So there is a correlation. I'd argue that transcribing the former with ⟨eə⟩ and the latter with ⟨ɛ⟩, while not "wrong" per se and not unintelligible, will raise some eyebrows, though I don't think it'd take more than a couple of minutes (or a bit more than that) to get used to it. It's somewhat like transcribing the open vowels in German with ⟨ɑː⟩ and ⟨a⟩. It's not wrong, but nobody or hardly anybody does that (at least in modern literature). That's why I'm indifferent as far as the change from ⟨ɛə⟩ to ⟨eə⟩ is concerned.
 * I take your message as a no to ⟨ɛː⟩. Is that correct? Because we're not discussing changing ⟨ɛə⟩ to ⟨eə⟩, which is a closely related but still different topic. Changing ⟨ɛə⟩ to ⟨eə⟩ does make some sense, but to me it makes more sense to change ⟨ɛ⟩ and ⟨oʊ⟩ to ⟨e⟩ and ⟨əʊ⟩ along with it (as you can see I don't really buy that ⟨e⟩ could be a problematic notation) - but that, again, is a different topic (as is changing ⟨oʊ⟩ to ⟨əʊ⟩ regardless of the other two vowels).
 * The books I've mentioned. They also should be taken into consideration, IMO. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tl;dr but meh for $⟨ə⟩$, strong oppose $\langler\rangle$. Introducing $\langleɹ\rangle$ at this point disrupts the harmony where long vowels and centering diphthongs match the GA counterparts when $⟨⟩$ or $⟨⟩$ is removed. Replacing $⟨l⟩$ with $⟨ɛː⟩$ solves this, but that's obviously worse because $⟨eə⟩$ is a common symbol for FACE.
 * I don't buy the argument that if we were to introduce $⟨eə⟩$ we should switch to Upton's scheme completely, because our system encompasses both RP and GA, and Cruttenden has only adopted $⟨ː⟩$ and $⟨ə⟩$. Rather, it is when Wells, Roach, and Ashby (OALD)—or their successors—make a change that we'll need to seriously reconsider our set of symbols. But that doesn't at all seem imminent.
 * By the way, it is Windsor Lewis who devised $⟨ɛ⟩$ for SQUARE, not Gimson. Gimson used $⟨e⟩$, probably following Jones, in his Introduction to the Pronunciation of English (1962), but used $⟨e⟩$ in EPD14 (1977) following Windsor Lewis's Concise Pronouncing Dictionary (1972). Windsor Lewis's recent use of $⟨ɛː⟩$ for SQUARE doesn't prompt me to reconsider what I said last year, though, because that entails one uses $⟨a⟩$ for DRESS. Nardog (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have convinced me that there is no need for changing our [ɛə] to [eə]. I still would not change it to [ɛː]. If I am not mistaken, then it is only Cruttenden who is using [ɛː] without fully adopting Upton’s system. However, Cruttenden’s solution is not used in any dictionary. I believe we should follow the dictionaries. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 22:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Finnbogadóttir
Do Americans really say for Finnbogadóttir? That's a lot of unstressed syllables following the stressed one, two of which have full vowels. I'd expect ( in the UK) to be the assimilated pronunciation. Icelandic doesn't have phonemic stress anyway. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course they don't "really". It's one of many possible approximations of that particular jaw-cracker Icelandic patronym which Merriam-Webster has chosen to publish. That doesn't mean we should replace it with another, unsourced approximation and present that as "the English pronunciation", preferably it should be removed altogether so as not to mislead our readers into thinking that there is an established English pronunciation. For the record I expect that name as spoken by a British sports commentator would probably come out as /fɪnˌboʊɡədɒˈtiər/. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, my opinion on these "English pronunciations" is that they should only be added to articles if multiple sources attesting the same pronunciation can be found. There is such a thing as there being no established pronunciation in English and in such cases we should not give off the impression that there is, nor should we clutter the lead with every possible approximation. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, my opinion on these "English pronunciations" is that they should only be added to articles if multiple sources attesting the same pronunciation can be found. I agree. I also think that we should provide the lowest amount of variants possible, especially if sources agree on what is the most common variant. In such cases (Istanbul is an example of that) one transcription might be enough. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)