Help talk:IPA/Hindi and Urdu/Archive 2

Dental diacritic
I also brought up this issue at Wikipedia talk:IPA for Sanskrit. I don't think there's a good reason for the dental diacritic in Hindi-Urdu, as it is redundant. This is why we don't transcribe Spanish with the dental diacritic. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Æµ§œš¹, keeping the dental diacritic would be a good idea for the sake of newcomers to IPA and Hindi, and also because:
 * IPA chart (vowels and consonants) - 2015. (pdf file) has /t/ in the alveolar; /t̪/ with dental diacritic will make it clearly in the dental.
 * Devanagari shows it in dental. (Although Hindustani_phonology shows it dental/alveolar). /t̪/ will be better in contrast with retroflex /ʈ/. (which seems not to be the case with Spanish_phonology, just looking at the chart, Spanish has only dental 't' and no retroflex 't')
 * The discussion about 'retroflex versus dental' here in this 'Help talk:IPA for Hindi and Urdu' talk page here & also here, talks about the difficulties for newcomers in actual pronunciation difference between dental /t̪/ and retroflex /ʈ/ . May be keeping the dental diacritic will make it a bit more easier.
 * Devanagari is from the Brahmic family of scripts. Others from the same Brahmic family are Tamil_language, Malayalam, which have 3 't's (dental /t̪/, alveolar /t/, retroflex /ʈ/, common usage in Tamil 2 't's: dental /t̪/,retroflex /ʈ/,) and 3 'n's (dental, alveolar, retroflex as in /n̪/,/n/,/ɳ/). For people trying to 'place' these corresponding consonant's sounds, dental diacritic will be helpful.Thanks, by contributor 2know4power (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC).
 * FYI, I am in favour of keeping the dental diacritics. I'm wondering, though, shouldn't /n/ also have one? 2know4power you seem like you'd know if there was a reason it's not? Shaav (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO /n/ seems to often be alveolar, especially in the vicinity of /t͡ʃ/ and friends. Also, we should keep the dental since we used phonemic square brackets, also to distinguish from the retroflex series and alveolar /n/. Aryamanaroratalk, contribs 00:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Square brackets are phonetic, not phonemic, and we don't differentiate between dental and alveolar variants of in this guide. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keeping it isn't a particularly good idea. The IPA doesn't define $⟨⟩$, $⟨⟩$ etc. as exclusively alveolar, but rather dental, alveolar or postalveolar, depending on the language. This means that alone represent dental stops in IPA transcriptions of Hindustani because they're transcriptions of Hindustani and that's how  are articulated in that language. (Pinging the OP: )


 * etc. is just too narrow a transcription. IMO, there's no good reason to keep the dental diacritic. Anyone familiar with the principles of the IPA should be aware of the fact that phonetic transcriptions are very rarely fully narrow. Plus, it's not like is a fully narrow transcription of Hindi stops - it's not. They're denti-alveolar rather than purely dental.


 * Hindustani isn't Tamil. The fact that Tamil contrasts dental and alveolar  doesn't mean that we have to transcribe Hindustani voiceless dental stop with $⟨⟩$.


 * I'm strongly in favor of removing the diacritic. Using it is against the principles of the IPA. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it is redundant. Except where sounds represented by the same letter are contrasted in the given language, diacritics are always best avoided. Same could be said for the keys for other Indian languages, such as Bengali, Gujarati, Malayalam, and Sanskrit. The coronal plosives of Mandarin and Japanese, for instance, are also denti-alveolar, but our keys for them do not use the diacritic. Nardog (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with 2know4power. He is correct in the sense to differentiate the denti-alveolar with the alveolar . There is obviously still a difference between the two type of stops, and it is much more user-friendly for newcomers to the IPA. I strongly agree that the dental diacritic is worthy of keeping for IPA beginners to be able to differentiate the two phonemes. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hindustani doesn't have a voiceless alveolar plosive as a phoneme, so there is no other "phoneme" to compare the dental one to. (Phoneme is an entirely language-specific concept.) And can indicate any of dental, alveolar and postalveolar—look at the IPA chart. It is a misconception that there is a single symbol-to-sound correspondence to each IPA letter. See the IPA Principles (especially #2). Nardog (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Hindustani retroflex is in actuality quite close to the alveolar ridge (in some contexts I have even heard it as an alveolar consonant), so there is a good reason to keep the dental marking to differentiate between dental and "retroflex". You are wrong in saying there is no phoneme to compare with. I completely oppose removal of the diacritic. And besides, IPA guides are for English speakers (since this is the English Wikipedia) and not including the diacritic does not convey correct information to English speakers who aren't as familiar with Hindustani and use Wikipedia as a reference for learning about it. AryamanA (talk, contribs) 20:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's an allophonic realization of what underlyingly is a retroflex consonant. Don't mistake allophones for phonemes.


 * You're another person who falsely believes that $⟨⟩$ etc. are by definition alveolar. They are not.


 * [N]ot including the diacritic does not convey correct information to English speakers who aren't as familiar with Hindustani and use Wikipedia as a reference for learning about it. Yes, it does. Users who think that it doesn't need to familiarize themselves with the principles of the IPA. Also, you can never expect IPA transcriptions to be fully narrow (and $⟨⟩$ can be considered a fully narrow transcription of any dental, alveolar or postalveolar voiceless stop that isn't retroflex).


 * I'm sorry but it seems to me that you've ignored the entirety of Nardog's post. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if every person did familiarize themselves with IPA. You seem to focusing on the absolute rules of IPA without regard to what is convenient and useful for the user. I know that by definition they are not alveolar, but the end user of Wikipedia may not. Why should the reader have to go through Hindustani phonology articles just to figure out if $⟨⟩$ is dental, alveolar, or post-alveolar? I want to limit ambiguity and make the IPA actually useful for the casual reader who may not have familiarity with IPA. AryamanA (talk, contribs) 21:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because that's what is done in the case of other languages. The reader has to not only go through the Hindustani phonology article but also (most likely) through a book dedicated to teaching Hindustani pronunciation in order to pronounce the language properly.


 * There's no need for Hindustani to receive a special treatment. Swedish retroflexes also are apical post-alveolar and etc. are dental, yet we don't use dental diacritic in transcriptions of Swedish and Norwegian (and neither does any source I'm aware of).


 * You can never expect IPA transcriptions to be fully narrow. Besides, it's not like the dental realization of etc. is the only difference between English and Hindustani.  etc. sound different from their English equivalents and  has a different allophonic range (and so does ). Singling out the dentality of  etc. is an arbitrary (and unnecessary) decision. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, using the diacritic is not really "special treatment", it is the status quo for Hindustani pronunciation. On the contrary to the your Swedish and Norwegian sources, almost all papers and books that deal with Hindustani phonology that I have read do use the dental diacritic pretty consistently. I know that there is a limit to how narrow IPA transcriptions can go and I totally agree that we should only have the transcription reasonably narrow. But, I feel that the dental diacritic is useful for clearing the ambiguity initially caused by using, and in my experience using that diacritic is customary for Hindustani IPA in many sources.
 * You say "Singling out the dentality of etc. is an arbitrary (and unnecessary) decision." and also "You can never expect IPA transcriptions to be fully narrow." which I think represent very different sentiments. Your transcription without the dental diacritic is just as arbitrary as mine with the dental diacritic. And I'm not trying to be "fully narrow", I just want a reasonable amount of narrowness. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make in your second paragraph, you seem to be saying keeping the dental diacritic is a slippery slope to an excessively narrow transcription which just doesn't make sense to me.
 * Also, "The reader has to not only go through the Hindustani phonology article but also (most likely) through a book dedicated to teaching Hindustani pronunciation in order to pronounce the language properly." is taking a very optimistic view of the reader. The average person who knows the basics of IPA is not necessarily going to do all this work to figure out what exactly represents in Hindustani, they will assume it's alveolar (in my experience most people do, and in fact I used to think so as well) and move on. The fact that it is a dental consonant should be easily accessible to the reader, IMO. AryamanA (talk, contribs) 21:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * But it is, and I've already explained why, giving Swedish and Norwegian as examples.


 * Can you list a few of them? I assume all of the sources you're talking about use IPA (because if they don't, the principles of the IPA obviously don't apply to them). Also, IMO, we should look at languages from that region that contrast dentals with retroflexes (either true retroflexes or apical postalveolars) as a whole, meaning that if anything, we should consider the way dentals are transcribed in all of them, not just Hindustani.


 * But that's the thing: whether they're ambiguous or not is totally subjective. To me, they're not ambiguous and it doesn't take a long time to get accustomed to the fact that languages that contrast retroflexes with more front coronal consonants realize the latter as dental (this seems to be almost universally true, AFAIK).


 * It's not as arbitrary, and we've already explained why (the principles of the IPA).


 * It could be a slippery slope to that, but that's not what I wanted to focus on.


 * I'm saying that if one wants to sound like a native speaker (or close to that), then that's what he needs to do. There's really no other option, the IPA is too imperfect to account for all of the minute differences between English and Hindustani while still keeping the transcription reasonably broad. Besides, English aren't always alveolar - they're interdental before  and postalveolar before . So not only do they have different main allophones but also different allophonic ranges.


 * That'd be a rather amateurish assumption of someone who's not well-acquainted with the IPA. It's not our role to teach every reader the minutiae of the IPA. Generally speaking, you should never assume the exact phonetic value of a sound from broad transcription. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It’s not that the sounds are “dental”, they are denti-alveolar. But that is still obviously a legitimate difference between showing an alveolar  versus the ones with the diacritical marks.  you just don’t seem to get it through that what we are discussing about is (again) to make it more user friendly for people who are newer to the IPA. And yes it is more correct, because when you display just plain “alveolar” rather than the type of alveolar (in this case denti-alveolar), yes people are not going to be pronouncing the two stops correctly. I know to you it seems a bit excessive to display it, but it is not excessive for newcomers who are curious as to why the stops  sound a bit different than the ordinary alveolar  sounds. There are no “rules” or “principles” on how to display a phonological IPA chart, you’re probably just saying that because you’re understanding of the IPA is so advanced to the point that you feel “inconvenienced” by seeing diacritical marks. Well diacritical marks are also part of the IPA chart too, fyi. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it seems to me that you've understood very little of what we've been discussing, including Nardog's response to you. You might also wanna read phoneme and allophone since you're another person who's mixing them up. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A phoneme is the overall sound that the consonant or vowel makes. An allophone is what the sound of the consonant/vowel can also range to in various speech. But in Hindustani or in any of the Dravidian languages of India, there are no “alveolar” stop consonant sounds nor allophones. The typical “t/d” sounds are either denti-alveolar or retroflex. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not. A phoneme is a container for non-distinctive phones (actual sounds) that make up a phoneme, a language-specific entity that (most often) differentiates words in (near-)minimal pairs.


 * Once again, is not alveolar by definition. It can signify a dental, denti-alveolar, alveolar or postalveolar stop, depending on the language. I'm not sure why we need to keep repeating this. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * no is not alveolar by definition, and that's why if you actually use the diacritical marks, they will make the difference more easier for beginners-level IPA people to recognize, but yes by putting just plain  rather than, it is not easy for people to spot the difference. No, just putting a  only represents an alveolar . It does not at all represent a denti-alveolar  unless it has the diacritical mark. So the answer is both yes and no to your statement. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For those who want to put the dental diacritic, I invite you to look through all of the language-specific Help:IPA guides and look at the use of diacritics. We basically don't use them unless omitting them would completely eliminate a phonemic contrast. This includes the many languages that have dental stops and even languages like Spanish that have dental and alveolar allophones. If you want to treat Hindustani differently, you've got to make a case for why it should be treated differently. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 00:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, just putting a only represents an alveolar . It does not at all represent a denti-alveolar unless it has the diacritical mark. It does, and we've already proven it to you. I'm sorry, but your behavior seems to have become a bit disruptive. You're making up transcriptional rules that don't exist and are at odds with the principles of the IPA. If you're gonna reply again then please stick to the facts. Also, $⟨⟩$ represents a dental stop that can be purely dental or denti-alveolar. It's also not a perfectly narrow transcription. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So based on my further understanding it is correct in that the symbol represents either a dental, denti-alveolar, alveolar, or postalveolar stop. That is all correct and I understand your point, however; it is more-so vague for viewers with some knowledge of the IPA chart, in that some languages only have the dentalized-type alveolar stops, like the Hindustani languages and the Dravidian languages, and they don't have the plain alveolar stops. Both plosives in those two languages are once again either denti-alveolar  or retroflex . They are then transcribed as either t or ṭ. There does not exist a non-dentalized plain alveolar stop  in those language families, so therefore, it is still a bit misleading. There is absolutely nothing wrong still with keeping the diacritical marks within the phonological display chart. There are still no "rules" or "principles" on how the charts "should" be displayed. It is once again user friendly, and appears to be more precise in explaining the phonetic value of the consonant sounds. In that sense, you are correct, but you are still incorrect on debating whether or not the diacritical marks (at least in the Hindustani and Dravidian languages) should be displayed. From my knowledge, it is really those two language families that do not have a plain alveolar allophone of the dentalized  sound that exists in those languages. Those are the languages that truly have only the dentalized alveolar stop for an alveolar stop, and not the standard alveolar stop. So it is not incorrect to display the alveolar, but more so rather vague to the Wikipedia viewers with an understanding of the IPA chart, who are currently viewing the language profile. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should familiarize yourself further with the IPA. You keep repeating stuff that simply isn't true (you've also contradicted yourself in the last post - compare the first sentence with the rest of the message) and I don't think I want to keep explaining why it's not correct. Also, read International Phonetic Alphabet. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But we use IPA, not IAST (or whatever you are talking about when you say "They are then transcribed as either t or ṭ"), because it is the international standard. Something similar to your argument can be said about almost any other language-specific IPA key of ours. For instance, much like Hindustani /t/ and /ʈ/, Mandarin has denti-alveolar /s/ and retroflex /ʂ/. But we transcribe the former as $\langles\rangle$, not $\langles̪\rangle$, because its difference to $\langleʂ\rangle$ is already enough for the disambiguation. The IPA Handbook says:
 * And on Wikipedia, the "conventions" which provide implicit realizational information are the keys placed under Help:IPA, which readers can visit simply by clicking on the transcriptions. Nardog (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sensing that you did not even read through my last comment. This one I did not contradict myself, and I simply said that you are right that the symbol represents either a dental, denti-alveolar, alveolar, or postalveolar stop, but when it is displayed as just a  it is vague in that the language could possibly only have a denti-alveolar stop, and not a plain alveolar stop, so it is rather confusing to display the sound as just . You two just want to make up a bunch of different rules simply based on your opinions on "how you should display phonological charts". I don't know, I tried to compromise with both of you, now you are sounding rather opinionated and stubborn regarding how you want phonetic charts to be displayed. How I believe it should be displayed is not just me, it is of a lot of Wikipedia users. You simply just edited the part of the page International Phonetic Alphabet yourselves, to have the information adhere to how you think it should be, and to show your bias upon other Wikipedia users. Now why don't you both just simply read my last comment through again to better understand my point, and read other users' similar viewpoints in this thread to understand where exactly our points stand. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There does not exist a non-dentalized plain alveolar stop in those language families, so therefore, it is still a bit misleading.
 * when it is displayed as just a it is vague in that the language could possibly only have a denti-alveolar stop, and not a plain alveolar stop, so it is rather confusing to display the sound as just.
 * How in the world would that be vague or misleading? If a language has only one type of [t], that is all the more reason to transcribe it simply as $\langlet\rangle$ with no diacritic. It is using $\langlet̪\rangle$ that would be confusing and misleading, because that would be to suggest there might be another type of [t] in the language's inventory. Nardog (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You simply just edited the part of the page International Phonetic Alphabet yourselves, to have the information adhere to how you think it should be, and to show your bias upon other Wikipedia users. That is an interesting accusation. I'd like to see the diffs from the history of the article that support it. Nardog (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is using $\langlet̪\rangle$ that would be confusing and misleading, because that would be to suggest there might be another type of [t] in the language's inventory., Well, there is an apical alveolar (not postalveolar) which is a possible allophone of  (AFAIK, the same applies to  but correct me if I'm wrong). Nobody is gonna use it in transcriptions that link to this guide, and that allophone can be unambiguously transcribed as, with its apicality being obvious from the fact that it's alveolar (AFAIK, Hindustani  is never alveolar, it's always dental (or denti-alveolar if you want to be fully specific) and laminal). We really don't need the dental diacritic and frankly, most of the arguments for preserving it seem rather weak and they show a misunderstanding about how the IPA works.
 * I won't even comment on the ridiculous accusation that we edited International Phonetic Alphabet specifically to gain an advantage in this discussion. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, replace "another type of [t]" with "another sound represented by $\langlet\rangle$ (with or without a diacritic)". Nardog (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, replace "another type of [t]" with "another sound represented by $⟨⟩$ (with or without a diacritic)". Nardog (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What should we do with Malayalam? It contrasts dental and alveolar, but  don't have alveolar counterparts. Should we make a small exception for them? Because transcribing them with $\langled̪, t̪ʰ, d̪ʱ\rangle$ could suggest that they're alveolar. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should have the dental diacritic for Malayalam for the reason you articulate. I believe that's how we do it at Help:IPA/Irish. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So should we also use the diacritic with ? Because apparently, it's also dental. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's one good reason to use a diacritic. For /s/, though, I don't think it's necessary. $⟨ʋ⟩$ make sense because they share the manner of articulation with /t/. Nardog (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * that's what I've been trying explain. In languages like Malayalam, they only have the dentalized alveolar plosive and do not distinguish it with a plain alveolar plosive. And just like Irish, there is no distinction with a plain alveolar consonsant allophone. Just a denti-alveolar. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I literally said otherwise. Are you seeing what I'm seeing? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * you just argued about keeping the diacritics for in Malayalam. I saw what you saw. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that in the first message about Malayalam I said that in that language a dental does contrast with an alveolar, which you contradicted in your response. Look, just tell me whether you're actually serious about this discussion. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm as serious as I am. I had never even said that a dental does not contrast with an alveolar . I feel that you are contradicting yourself when for the longest time you argued about not keeping diacritics for denti-alveolar consonants, now you are saying that there should be an "exception" to Malayalam. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that we should use narrow transcription (as [t̪] and [d̪]) because it saves one the confusion. I, personally, couldn’t understand the absence of the bridge at first. Isn’t it better to avoid confusion and transcribe as narrowly as we can without making it too complex. More vagueness arises as t and d are assumed not to be dental in English as a lingua franca. Is it worth to avoid complexity at the cost of being misleading? (If the transcriptions are to be kept simple, we should also start using / / instead of [ ]. Idell (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the dental/alveolar distinction is too subtle to make the effort of getting readers to make it worthwhile. The distinction between a dental stop and an alveolar one is not salient in either English or Hindi, as neither language makes a phonemic contrast between the two.
 * Based on your report of your experience, it seems as though you were confused more about a transcription choice than about the information we're conveying. You were expecting a certain degree of narrowness and grew confused as to why we made a different choice. From the perspective of someone unfamiliar with Hindi and Urdu who is trying to understand our IPA transcriptions, the dental diacritic gets in the way of conveying the closest English analogues to the Hindi sounds.
 * And phonemic slashes are not a good idea. Even if our transcriptions are relatively broad, this transcription system does indicate some allophony. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The only readers who are confused are those who think that "⟨t⟩ stands for an alveolar stop" in the IPA. It doesn't. Per Handbook of the IPA (p. 8): Note that except in the case of fricatives only one symbol is provided for dental / alveolar / postalveolar; if necessary, these three places can be distinguished by the use of extra marks or 'diacritics' to form composite symbols (...). There's no such necessity here. Also, going by that quote alone ⟨t⟩ itself is a pretty narrow transcription. No diacritic is necessary. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"Removed Urdu letters used for loanwords"
This is regarding your edit (revision ), could you please explain why you think those similar sounding Urdu letters shouldn’t be included? Idell (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was the one who originally added them. These letters are only used for Arabic and Persian loanwords otherwise normally س، ز، ہ، ت (etc) are used. I removed them because the Urdu side of the page seemed cluttered with letters, so to organise it, I removed them. If you wish you can add them back. Taimoorahmed11 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Table redesign
I have done a dramatic reworking of the tables and thought I would explain some of my changes. It was excessive to have columns that detail the orthographic representations of particular sounds and an examples column. Remember that these IPA for X tables are designed to help readers understand our IPA transcriptions and editors to know our conventions. Readers wanting to know the sound-to-grapheme correspondence of Hindi and Urdu are better served by the corresponding articles on their writing systems (Devanagari, and Urdu alphabet). If an editor is so unfamiliar with the languages that they don't know these sound-to-grapheme correspondences, they probably shouldn't be providing IPA transcriptions in the first place. I have also removed a lot of the unnecessary phonetic notes in the English approximation column, split up the rs so that there is a separate and  (Presumably this is something that we can transcribe. If we don't want to do that, then we shouldn't have the note about them), and split up v and w (there is no direction given on when to use which one, but I imagine that if they are allophones, rather than free variation, that such direction can be provided. If not, we can go back to using $⟨ə⟩$ for both). — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that I appreciate the work done by in providing the examples. I haven't modified the romanization column and I suspect I would make mistakes on it, so anyone can feel free to fill those in. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  19:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

ɛ Footnote
Hi, just thought I'd raise this because I'm not sure the footnote for ɛ ("[ɛ] also occurs as an allophone of /ə/ near an /ɦ/ that is surrounded on both sides by schwas. Usually, the second schwa becomes silent, which results in an [ɛ] preceding an /ɦ/.") is entirely accurate, especially for Urdu, because this seems to apply more for Hindi rather than Urdu. The reason why I say this is because most of the consonant letter sounds for the Devanagari script in Hindi include a schwa immediately after the letter sound e.g. द (də), घ (ɡʱə) or र (rə) so the footnote in this article seems to match for Hindi (so I can see the schwa [ə] becoming [ɛ] in proximity of an [ɦ] in Hindi words). However, the consonant letter sounds are pronounced differently in Urdu (looking at the Urdu alphabet page) and they don't seem to be immediately pronounced by a schwa like in Hindi e.g. پ (pē), ت (tē) or ر (rē) which in IPA (providing the ISO's were correct) would be peː, teː or reː. Not to mention Urdu has a separate symbol for words containing a schwa according to the Urdu alphabet page at least in word-initial or medial positions (اَ or ـَ) which is not shown in the spelling رہنا (rahnā) as this page seems to indicate, so that footnote doesn't quite match with Urdu.

Now I think that symbol had been added earlier by Taimoorahmed11 to make that spelling رَہنا (rêhnā as the ISO mentioned at the time) but it later got removed by Idell on the basis that the footnote already explained it, but as I've explained here, I'm doubtful if that footnote is accurate and covers Urdu as well as Hindi. I have also listened to an audio sample for the word رہنا (rahnā) spelled in Urdu and the vowel sounds much closer to the [e:] vowel rather than [ɛ] (a similar thing is present in the Urdu spelling of Delhi - دہلی and the initial vowel from what I've listened to online and in Urdu news reports also sounds closer to [e:] rather than [ɛ] with the Delhi article transcribing it as [ˈdeːɦli] rather than [ˈdɛɦli]) whereas for Hindi, it seems to sound closer to [ɛ] (रहना). So I'm just wondering whether we either need to clarify this footnote more and mention whether it is present in Hindi, Urdu or even both, or if it would be better to replace the example of rahnā with something more accurate? I would be very grateful if anyone can please point me in the right direction (especially if you speak Hindi, Urdu or both), many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Your initial analysis is correct, however the footnote hold true for both Hindi and Urdu. In Urdu, the optional diacritic ⟨◌َ ⟩ can be used for a schwa, but I removed it from ⟨رَہنا⟩ since the word is unambiguous and the mistaken use of any other diacritic in that place would not make any other Urdu word. The schwa /ə/ exists, the diacritic exists whether we write it or not, and the footnote holds true. I’m not sure why you think it sounds like [eː], the first vowel sound in ⟨رہنا / رَہنا⟩ is too open closed to be that. I’m currently trying to think of some other example for the vowel, but I think it’ll be the same story with all of them. Idell (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply Idell, the reason why it sounds close to [e:] in my ears and not [ɛ] is probably due to my different perception (partially because in English, depending on the variety, both [e] and [ɛ] can be used for the dress vowel, which is usually transcribed as [ɛ] and speakers can realise each vowel slightly different phonetically) and because I've heard some audio samples where speakers pronounced it closer to [e:]. Of course I may well be wrong as I don't speak Urdu or Hindi and I am happy to correct any mistake accordingly (I'm assuming the initial vowel in the Urdu spelling of Delhi - دہلی - is actually [ɛ]?, because if so, then that should be changed, and funnily enough, Wikitionary transcribes that as [e:] as this link here shows ). However, I might mention that while you say [ɛ] is too closed to sound like [e], [ɛ] is actually a more open vowel than [e] because [ɛ] is positioned between an open and mid vowel, unless you mean closed in a different concept? Broman178 (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The vowel shift, as explained by the footnote, is probably called imala. However, the far-from-perfect Urdu article on imala (ur:امالہ) doesn’t mention this particular vowel shift.
 * The prolonged vowel [eː] does not occur in the words 'rehna' and 'Delhi'. Some Hindustani speakers do incorrectly pronounce /ɛ/ as /e/ because of their regional accents (still not /eː/); these people also pronounce the English word 'bag' /bag/ as /beːg/. Anyway, you're right about Delhi and it should be changed. And thanks for the correction. Idell (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this explanation, I think the audio samples I heard for these words in Urdu were probably from people with regional accents because they did sound closer to [e] rather than [ɛ]. I will make the changes in the Delhi article. Broman178 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Think I might have to request an edit for this in the Delhi article because it has just recently been awarded full protection so I can't make this change myself as only admins can edit it now. Broman178 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Idell, I'm just wondering whether you know any admin who edits IPA and Language-related articles because I requested this edit on the Delhi article on 30th October to change the IPA symbol for the Urdu IPA (along with the ISO's there) based on this discussion here however, there has been no response whatsoever and the full protection in the Delhi article means only admins can edit it now (meaning I can't change it myself) which is rather unfortunate. Broman178 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the protection level changed after my point above (therefore allowing me to edit there again), I've now done these changes accordingly to the Delhi article. Broman178 (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"Shortened" [a] / [i] / [u]
What's the rationale of introducing "shortened" -  -  as allophones of  -  -  in the key? And which source says that there is a difference in length between e.g. final and non-final ? –Austronesier (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hindustani phonology cites this source for the high vowels. I've added a citation request for . Insofar as we are reflecting this allophony in our transcriptions, we should include them in the table to help readers and editors. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The source in Hindustani phonology (Shapiro 2003) only says that the distinction between tense vs. lax  ( ~  etc. in our notation) is neutralized in favor of  (= ) etc. in final position. Note that Shapiro does not mention length at all. The introduction of shortened  can thus not be based on Shapiro (2003).
 * Kachru (2006, also cited in Hindustani phonology) also distinguishes tense vs. lax  etc. and then writes "all tense vowels are phonetically long and all lax vowels are phonetically short". Again, there is no mention of shortened tense vowels. –Austronesier (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, well it looks like we should remove them then until we find sources that say otherwise. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still browsing for sources which might say otherwise. The standard sources that I am familiar with (e.g. the "Hindi" chapter in the Handbook of the IPA, McGregor's Outline of Hindi Grammar, Schmidt's "Urdu" chapter in the same volume as Shapiro 2003) always only distinguish 10 native segments for the oral vowels (3 short/lax and 7 long/tense). –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The mention of the short [a] occurring in word-final position was recently mentioned by Idell (who claimed in the edit summaries that it also occurred for [a:] as well as the other vowels - would love to hear what Idell says about this) in this IPA Help page and I just gave it mention in Hindustani phonology to keep it consistent (even though there was no source for that claim) while the other ones were mentioned in the Hindustani phonology with the Shapiro source for quite some time. If the Shapiro source isn't good enough, it would be good if another source can be found which supports the word-final shortening of these vowels (especially for [a]) otherwise if a source cannot be found, I would suggest that this is removed from mention from this help page and Hindustani phonology. Broman178 (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting this discussion. One of my reasons for having [a] included was exactly what this discussion is supposed to clarify: the existence of short final vowels [i] and [u], if they are listed so should [a]. I have been looking at a few studies for the last hour and I have no issue with having all three of these removed, unless they are included, as I first wanted, in footnotes (probably to recognize the tenseness and laxness). Urdu speakers, under Arabic or Persian influence, tend to think of the final [aː] as [əɦ] or [aɦ] in some words. For the same reasons, another editor changed my transcription of Rekhta from [ˈɾeːxt̪aː] to [ˈɾeːxt̪a]. I find the sources to be inadequate for an in-depth analysis but I have personally found several reasons for the confusion particularly among Urdu and Hindi speakers, one being the differences in orthographies. Hindi speakers tend to "neutralize" the final vowels because of the similar convention used in Hindi transliteration. I'm all for whatever reliable sources suggest, but a these things will need to be clarified in footnotes to avoid arguments between Hindi and Urdu speakers. Idell (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have rephrased the material based on Shapiro, it looks like it has been misunderstood a bit in the old version. We would still need a source which says that final tense vowels are pronounced shorter than non-final tense vowels. The case of might be different, but even then I wonder if there is any difference between  and  in any (near-)minimal pair. –Austronesier (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

झ़ vs श़
If you think that झ़ is a spurious wiki artefact, then you can tag it as unsourced, or delete it entirely. But don't replace it with another letter without any sources. The WP:burden is on you to justify your claims. And per WP:BRD, you should not insist on your version if it's contested. –Austronesier (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * श़ is way more related than jh with nuqta for the transcription of Zh sound. No source claims Jha with nuqta would make Zh sound. Kushalpok01 (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No source is not quite correct; this source does. I know that Omniglot is not a reliable source, and most probably the information there is WP-based (WP:CITOGENESIS). But again, where are your sources for doing this mass change in two Wikimedia projects? Replacing unsourced information with other unsourced information is no remedy. –Austronesier (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Austronesier, I am also troubled by this change. I see that User:Kushalpok01 is making this change across multiple projects, including Hindi Wikipedia and English Wiktionary too. I am going to ask that User:Kushalpok01 self-revert. We have multiple sources that clearly mention झ़ / ژ, such as this one; we can't change the predominant usage on Wikipedia just because User:Kushalpok01 personally feels that श sounds more similar to झ़. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This was just discussed with an administrator at English Wiktionary, with the input of other users and User:Kushalpok01 has decided to self-revert. I trust that this issue is resolved now. Thanks, AnupamTalk 17:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for bringing this up in English Wiktionary and Hindi Wikipedia, and for your feedback. We should however improve our sources for झ़ to ensure that this is not a "made-up" convention that somehow found its way into WP. It's clearly not Unicode standard (otherwise it wouldn't be a composite letter), but then, it's common usage that counts. –Austronesier (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome User:Austronesier! We do have papers in academic journals such as this one that list the Hindi phonemes ष /ʂ/ ख़ /x/ ग़ /ɣ/ ज़ /z/ झ़ /ʒ/ फ़ /f/, along with क़ /q/ and ञ /ɲ/. Popular instructors of Hindi-Urdu who educate others on the language, such as this program teach it as well. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Final [a], again
Please help me out: do you really pronounce the final vowel in ڈبہ and بچہ differently as in کمرا? In that case, we should probably just look for alternative examples for and. Final short was based on the (unsourced) idea to transcribe the slightly shorter duration of /a:/ (as in کمرا) in absolute final position with a separate phone. But we still have see a source which actually distinguishes between non-final and final /a:/. –Austronesier (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. From what I understand, is actually just a corrupted form of, which can usually happen when Hindi speakers try to write in Urdu, (Check Urdu Dictionary if you are able to read Urdu), since as it has been mentioned before - the final form of choṭi he is always represented in Devanagari with a ा. In addition to this the schwa in Hindi words (loanwords from Sanskrit), for instance those which end in य, will always have choṭi he at the end (, to make sure that the schwa is represented. For me at least, there is definitely a difference between an ā and a in the final form. : >> Taimoor Ahmed(Send a Message?) 18:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification/correction, that was sloppy on my part. And thank you especially for bringing the sound samples of the dictionary to our attention. Maybe I should try it with this pair: بچہ and لڑکا. But frankly, I hear no difference in the coda. In the examples in connected speech, it's a clear long, in absolute final position (as in the first sound samples of the lemmata), the speaker realizes it as a slightly shorter with a vocal fry, in both words. But in any case, I have found a good source for Urdu short [a] (Schmidt's "Urdu"-chapter in Cardona&Jain (2003), The Indo-Aryan languages), which we can add to Hindustani phonology and here. Schmidt even explains: "Not all speakers distinguish between final -a (ہ) and final -ā (ا) in pronunciation"; apparently this includes the speaker of the sound samples in the اردو لغت :) –Austronesier (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly natural for long vowels to become shortened in unstressed positions. Phonetic vowel length is usually directly correlated with stress after all, no? Sol505000 (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Unstressed position is indeed a natural environment for vowel shortening, both synchronically and diachronically. But in many languages with phonemic vowel length, there is no direct correlation. (Fun fact: there are languages that distinguish vowel length only in unstressed position, e.g. Saluan and most dialects of Buginese.) And even if unstressed vowels are pronounced slightly shorter than stressed vowels in some languages, the ranges  of duration do not necessarily overlap to the extent that unstressed long vowels are as short as stressed short vowels. And where some degree of audible shortening optionally occurs, as in Hindi–Urdu, this usually happens before a pause. So I don't think that we should introduce special phonetic slots only to reflect this variation (plus we still would need a source if we wanted to do so). –Austronesier (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have just added something to Hindustani phonology (section "Vowel [aː]"). I think this will help to clarify a lot of things that have been subject of dispute on several occasions, e.g. in Rekhta. Based on Kelkar (1968) (which is a treasure), we can probably add short to the key in order to properly transcribe Urdu. –Austronesier (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some sources who maintain that final -ā and -ah in Urdu are homophones. For example, David Matthews in his Urdu article on Iranica says the following about Urdu and Indo-Persian:


 * “Final –â (i.e., –a followed by “silent h”) as in tāzâ (in Mod. Per. pronounced tāze) is pronounced -ā. Hence dānâ “seed” and dānā ‘wise’ are homophonous.”


 * However, there is no reason to doubt that some Urdu speakers would now pronounce them differently. Urdu education has probably emphasized a difference between final (ا) and (ہ). I would liken this to how some educated Hindi speakers now pronounce न and ण differently.


 * The Urdu final -ah doesn’t always correspond to Hindi -ā. In some cases, there is -ah in both Urdu and Hindi. For example, “fifteen” is usually spelled “pandrah“ and the Perso-Arabic loan for “etc.” is usually spelled “vag̠airah” in both languages (often “vagairah” in Hindi).


 * So if the proposal is for a separate IPA /a/ it would have to be for both Urdu and Hindi given the above use of -ah in both. However, in my view, the best way of representing final -ah is to use IPA /əɦ/. Foreverknowledge (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is uncontroversial that -ah (with final Urdu ہ = Hindi ह) in pandrah (etc.) is to be transcribed as . But the point I have gathered from a couple of sources is that in marked Urdu pronunciation, final short -a in words like بچہ bacca is not pronounced like final -ah in پندرہ pandrah, even though both are spelled with the same grapheme (ہ). So it's quite a different thing that merits to be described with a separate phone when explicitly transcribing Urdu words/names.  –Austronesier (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the -ah in Urdu “baccah”, “kamrah”, “rājah”, and “rextah” is different in marked Urdu pronunciation from the -ah in Hindi-Urdu “pandrah”, “jagah”, and “vag̠airah”, then I agree there should be a separate for Urdu that’s distinct from . Foreverknowledge (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No one else has commented on this even though it’s been almost 2 months. It seems no one objects to the notion of IPA /a/ for Urdu. Do you want to take the impetus and add IPA /a/ for Urdu to the chart?Foreverknowledge (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Errors in English approximation!
There are lots of errors in the English approximations, please make suitable changes.

❌ Your proposed changes are inaccurate. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed all examples for the murmured consonants. Any half-assed "English approximation" of that type we could come up with would be dead wrong and would end up sounding voiceless due to the voiceless nature of (except in some South African speech). The closest pseudo-approximation you'll ever get is a plain intervocalic lenis stop/affricate in words such as abide, ado, adjust and ago. To my ears at least, that is much closer to the murmurs than a lenis stop/affricate followed by  which can only devoice the preceding sound. Sol505000 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Turned v vs schwa
Is there a reason why a schwa ə is used in stressed syllables, whereas, generally, it is only used in unstressed syllables and a turned v ʌ is used in stressed syllables? I’d recommend adhering to the prevailing convention. Idell (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Hindustani phonology, the vowel in question is pretty close to cardinal . What is commonly used in literature? — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Hindustani phonology, /ə/ is often realized more open than mid [ə]. Now if you look at the vowel chart, you’ll see that /ʌ/ is actually more open than [ə]. Furthermore, both ⟨ʌ⟩ and ⟨ə⟩ represent almost the same sound, except that /ə/ occurs only in unstressed syllables while /ʌ/ occurs only in stressed syllables. Idell  (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The phonology article actually says that is more accurate in such circumstances, not . Yet that article uses $⟨a⟩$ to represent this sound. What is common in the literature that talks about the sounds of this language? Do you know? — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  23:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this phonetic word list for Urdu by UCLA. It’s not entirely accurate for complete transcriptions of words, but I think we can rely on it for following one of the basic phonetics’ rules ie using ⟨ə⟩ and ⟨ʌ⟩ in the way I’ve previously mentioned. To answer your question, I don’t remember ever seeing the character ⟨ɐ⟩ to represent this sound... just maybe, it’s too narrow a transcription. Idell  (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we can't rely on it. I'm talking about journals and books. What do linguists generally use when transcribing Hindi and Urdu? — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ⟨ʌ⟩ is way off as it's too back. It's safe to assume that sources that use it actually mean . With that being said, ⟨ə⟩ in IPA transcriptions of Hindustani is actually used in accordance with the old definition of the symbol ⟨ə⟩, which was used for a central vowel that varies from near-close to near-open, depending on the language. The symbol ⟨ɐ⟩ wasn't used unless the two schwas were actually contrastive (as they are in German and Danish). AFAICS Hindustani is no different from Romanian in that the schwa is on the opener side. Sol505000 (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's an overview (detailed refs in Hindustani phonology and Hindustani grammar): I think is still the default choice for the key. –Austronesier (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kelkar (1968):
 * McGregor (1995): ⇭⇭⇭ ("a low-mid or mid central unrounded vowel")
 * Ohala (1999): ("often pronounced as ... [ɐ]"; simplified, but faithful quote)
 * Shapiro (2003): ("phonetically  or ")
 * Schmidt (2003): =  (unless in absolute final position, where short  is equated with this phoneme)
 * Kachru (2006): ("a lax half-open unrounded mid vowel")

Move to Help:IPA/Hindustani
Consistent with other IPA pages like Help:IPA/Persian, Help:IPA/Punjabi, Help:IPA/Serbo-Croatian, and Help:IPA/Malay, this page should be moved towards the name of the broader vernacular (Hindustani), not its standards (Hindi and Urdu). Hindustani is the preferred term in linguistic circles and Hindi and Urdu notably carry strong political connotations that do not base themselves in scientific or historical realities (most speakers of the language prior to the mid-20th century were illiterate and only began to carry an emotional reaction towards specific scripts/lexica in the 15 years prior to 1947; conversely, literate speakers in the Mughal and British Raj eras would learn and write in both scripts interchangeably). Even the strongly elaborated standards of Malay and Indonesian only have one IPA page (named Malay). Tajik and Persian/Dari (digraphic varieties of the same language with distinct lexical substrates) also only occupy one IPA page (named Persian). Regardless of the linguistic consensus surrounding the political division of Hindi and Urdu, a move towards Hindustani would codify great consistency across IPA pages. Esmost  talk   14:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hindustani is the preferred term in linguistic circles and Hindi and Urdu notably carry strong political connotations that do not base themselves in scientific or historical realities I contest both parts of these statements. 1. In general and descriptive literature, Hindi and Urdu are very commonly used. Also in historical linguistics, Hindi–Urdu is often used alongside Hindustani. 2. There is no "neutral" Ausbausprache Hindustani. It's not just a matter of script, but also of vocabulary. Even at a moderately sophisticated speech level, modern speakers have very clear lexical preferences based on which Ausbausprache they identify with. This also includes different systems of target pronunciations for non-native phonemes. Standard Hindi is admittedly relatively new, but it's become very real and successful as a modern literary language. I'd prefer to leave things as they are, or rather – if we're in the mood for moving – change Hindustani language to Hindi–Urdu as common and most recognizable name; but that's a another story. –Austronesier (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

English approximation for /ɛː/
I have removed again the English word that contains the vowel /æ/. I am aware that /ɛː/ can be pronounced fairly open even leaning towards [æː]. The problem with equating (or approximating) this with English /æ/ is that in many common varieties of English, /æ/ is pronounced very open, and often in fact is simply front [a] for many speakers. This may potentially lead to fatal mispronunciations (like [kaːseː hoːtɑː haː]) which IMHO are less desirable than the realization of /ɛː/ with a vowel that is slightly too close, as many do in the vowel of fairy: [keːseː hoːtɑː heː] also sounds bad, but not as bad as the [aː]-realization. –Austronesier (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright, I understand what you mean with this, and I think with such an approach, it would surely make it much easier for non-natives to pick up on this. Thanks a lot for bearing with me here, and thanks for the User Talk page message. Also, anything regarding the other edits I made? AnmolDoesStuff (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Do native speakers pronounce 'ऐ' as æ or ɛː ?
I am trying to collect (and personally assort) the different vowel sounds of Hindi (Hindustani). For most other vowels, I have received clear results. For ऐ though, there seems to be no clear answer. I think my previous concern of why this IPA key should have æ was pretty well answered, but yet, I am trying to understand the IPA Vowel Chart better, using Hindi vowels as an example, and see some sort of disagreement about this specific vowel in different places. For instance, the Hindi Wikipedia page for ऐ (https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%90) mentions that ऐ would be written in the IPA as æ. It mentions the pen-pain-pan relation, saying that ऍ (ɛ) would be used in /pɛn/, ए (e[:]) in /pen/ and ऐ in /pæn/. I have found both ɛ: and æ as IPA transcriptions of ऐ. Is there an audio sample of ɛ: somewhere which could perhaps help me clarify the pronunciation. I believe that kaisa (कैसा) and dracula /ˈdrækjələ/ have the same vowel. All I am trying to understand is whether ऐ is transcribed as /ɛ:/ (as shown in this guide), /æ:/ (as shown in Appendix:Hindi pronunciation) or /æ/ (as mentioned in the Wikipedia page for ऐ). The appendix page mentions the first two pronunciations as valid pronunciations. Also, if one of the latter two pronunciations is correct, how much difference does the length of æ actually make. Any light shed on this would be welcome.--AnmolDoesStuff (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a very tricky question. Your user name looks Indian. Almost all Indian scripts have a diphthong called ai(pronounced as I in Ice). This ऐ represents 'I'. I'm not a native hindi speaker. But hindi ppl usually approximate it to something like 'ei'. Its smwer between e:, ei and ei with nasalised 'i'. U shud just hear them speak to understand. Difficult to xplain. Infact many non hindi speakers too pronounce it as 'ai'. Inquisitive creature (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

aː or ɑː?
I've always thought that it was 'ɑː' but according to this, it's 'aː'? نعم البدل (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , according to this you're right but I want to wait for others to comment.-1Firang (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources have either [ɑː] or [aː]. All of them are reliable, but probably we should give Ohala (in the IPA handbook) and Kachru (who specifically describes the sound as " tense open unrounded back vowel") more weight and change it to [ɑː] (see Hindustani phonology for the full references). –Austronesier (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)