Help talk:IPA/Russian/Archive 2

Consonant allophones
I see there have been recently a new addition to the table, /ɣʲ/ (or [ɣʲ]?). Considering the above topic about the allophones of /r/, I have been about to raise a question: what are our goals here? what are the goals of such pages? I believe the majority of cases (over 90%?) this transcription is used for Russian proper names, and much less frequently for simple Russian words (e.g. in articles about the Russian language or other languages). So when the reader sees the transcription, he or she goes here and sees what these "funky" symbols mean. Or the editor wants to add the transcription to a name/word.

Considering this, what is the use of ɣʲ? Where are you going to employ this symbol? Where are you going to employ dz and dʑ? The former is used only in a dozen of words, for the latter I could have only come to the word начдив. Not to say about the addition of two or more symbols for /r/.

Wouldn't it be better to clear the table of these?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC) As for [ɣ, ʑː] their presence is a little more controversial. From one point they are independent, even if marginal, phonemes: they are variants recommended by several dictionaries and orthoepists. From another point they are as rare as the above-mentioned allophones. [ʑː] is already mentioned under note [12]; so only [ɣ] may remain, or similarly may go under a note.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're certain that we won't need some of the symbols we list then remove them from the guide, sure. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you remove, beware, for there will probably be someone complaining that a Russian phone is missing and needs to be added. Perhaps the rare phones should be put in a note below the table with an explanation. — Eru·tuon 21:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to leave them in a table; either with a note about rarity, or in a separate table. Definition can be simple: if there is no letter for it — it's rare. So, there should be [dz, dʑ, ɣ, ɣʲ, ʑː]. Tacit Murky (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not encourage our readers to conflate spelling with pronunciation. They're closely related but not the same. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above [dz, dʑ, ɣʲ] are but positional allophones, which usage is extremely restricted and rare. Not that they are rare, they're extremely rare, that is [dʑ] does exist only in one (!) real well-known word начдив (plus Lopatin's spelling dictionary lists two little-known loanwords матчбол and мульчбумага, but I doubt that they are even worth mentioning). You haven't answered my question: where are you going to use them? What words exactly of what article exactly? You seem not to understand the goal of this page. It is not to collect all the allophonic rarities and oddities of Russian, but give a clear-cut reference for both the readers and the editors. Your overzealousness to add in here every allophone possible (as you've been trying with /r/ recently) seems to be counter-productive.
 * My feeling is [ɣʲ] has been added only to bring a "symmetry" to the table, rather than as if it is really needed. For complains we have the talk page; I'm alright to explain why we do not need to inflate the table.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

[ɑ]
Should we remove from the table? The JIPA article says that the main allophone of varies from central to advanced back, they don't specifically say whether the more back realization is restricted to pre- contexts (it's probably not). Transcribing it may be an overkill. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's better to compare stressed /a/, when followed by bilabial consonants, as they don't require change of tongue position: /á/ in па́па and ма́ма sounds just like in па́лка. So, back /a/ is quite frequent. Tacit Murky (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Do you have a source (preferably a modern one)? Neither Jones & Ward nor the JIPA article talk about bilabial consonants in the context of the backness of . Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They don't, because it's easier to compare isolated „default“ /a/ with contextual cases. Is it backed? Tacit Murky (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand. Can you rephrase it? Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean: nor Jones & Ward nor JIPA doesn't need to go in that detail (bilabial context etc.) to mention possible backness of /a/, in case they already mention it for more general cases like isolated «·V́·» or «CV́·»/«·V́C». Tacit Murky (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The JIPA article seems to say that the advanced back and central realizations are pretty much in a free variation, whereas Jones & Ward say that the advanced back allophone occurs before the dark, though I could be wrong in both cases. Someone should check those sources. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed /a/ (stressed or unstressed) acoustically is somewhat retracted before velar /l/, as shown by Halle (p. 165) who also refers this originally to Trofimov & Jones. This may be indeed too redundant, it's clearly allophonic and does not bear much functional load. But I'm not that sure.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My point was that the retraction from a perfectly central position may not be restricted to pre- contexts. Indeed, as far as I remember, authors of the JIPA article use the symbol in other contexts as well. Perhaps a case could be made for replacing  with, but that may be an overkill too. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot access the JIPA article, but I suggest they use [ɑ̟] because they treat [a] with its original IPA value (low front) rather than low central. So their [ɑ̟] is our [a], and our [ɑ] might be their [ɑ] as well. Am I right? But in no way plain /a/ is always as back as [ɑ] (like in English), this would be definitely wrong.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty sure they write for an advanced back vowel and transcribe the central vowel with  or . They probably transcribe the (near-)open front vowel with  which, as you know, is the most usual transcription. I'd send you the PDF but I probably don't have it anymore either, I'm just speaking from memory and what I've noted in my notebook.


 * That's not what I nor the JIPA article meant to say. I'm saying that may be a slightly better transcription because the vowel it denotes varies from central to advanced back, rather than from central to front. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, according to Trofimov & Jones it varies from mid-front (basic position) to mid-back, so either choice might be correct, but as the mid-back allophone is rather rare and restricted to only one particular environment, so better to leave it as is. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're also trying to figure out exactly what that environment is, because it may not only be /ál/. Tacit Murky (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and to do that we need reputable sources. Also, we already have one source (JIPA) that says that the central and advanced back realizations may be in a free variation. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By 'restricted to only one particular environment', do you mean the environment before the dark ? Also, what do you mean by "better to leave it as is?" Do you want to keep both and  in the table, or are you talking only about transcribing the main allophone of  with ?


 * Our note says appears between a hard consonant (or a pause) and, so is even rarer than I thought. I checked Forvo, and at least some of the audio files for па́па and ма́ма have back(ish) vowels. Unless there's a modern source that would tell us that a)  occurs in a complementary distribution with  and b) where exactly it occurs, I think the case may be pretty much closed and we should remove  from the table. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

are you talking only about transcribing the main allophone of with ? Yes. If we choose [ɑ] over [a] for the only sign for /a/, it would certainly give the wrong expression that Russian /a/ and English /ɑː/ are the same. Which is obviously wrong under any conditions. I'd rather say it is modern BrEn /æ/ (now often written /a/) which is quite close to Russian /a/. I'd say it is often somewhat troublesome for a Russian speaker to differentiate BrEn /æ/ and /ʌ/, unlike GenAm, where they are quite distinct, but on the other hand GenAm /ɑ/ and /ʌ/ may be heard similar.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's quite a stretch to say that it is obviously wrong under any conditions - millions of native speakers of English pronounce as central. Central  is a part of General American (in which it varies with a back vowel) and it's the standard pronunciation in Australia. It's also fairly common in Britain, especially outside RP. That's exactly why GenAm /ɑ/ and /ʌ/ may be heard similar is true - they may differ in nothing but height and perhaps length (though, as you know, GA doesn't have phonemic vowel length). On the other hand, Australian  is just a long  and both of them are open central.


 * I'd say it is often somewhat troublesome for a Russian speaker to differentiate BrEn /æ/ and /ʌ/, unlike GenAm, where they are quite distinct - this feeds into my theory that cardinal sounds more back than . Mr KEBAB (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * millions of native speakers of English pronounce /ɑ/ as central. Yes, but yet there is still an established tradition to write that English vowel with the symbol for the back vowel /ɑ/. While for Russian there is a tradition to write its central low vowel with simple basic /a/. Overall we still have not been given any proofs that that backed articulation is present in any environment but before velar/hard /l/. That means in the absolute majority of cases this vowel is articulated in the midway between cardinal /a/ and cardinal /ä/. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed from the table. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked here and there and the JIPA article does say that the default allophone of varies from central to advanced back. This is confirmed by their transcription of the North Wind and the Sun, in which they write  far more frequently than . So not only is  a quite restricted vowel (at least according to some sources), sources also disagree on where exactly it's used. To transcribe it is an unnecessary complication. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * they write far more frequently than Did you realy mean, or ?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . Maybe they drop the centralizing diacritic for simplicity, I'm not sure. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I wonder what they wanted to say with this. [ɑ̟] literally means a vowel midway between [ä] and [ɑ], but this is exactly the allophone of /a/ before [ɫ]. Do they want to say that папа is actually п[ɑ̟]па rather than п[ä]па? I've always believed it must be п[ä]па, but п[ɑ̟]лка (plus п[a]тка and п[æ]ть). I am reluctant to agree with them, do they have strong proofs for this articulation?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why «п[ä]па?» How can there be a centralized stressed vowel between hard consonants? And you probably mean «пʲ[a]тка» (пя́тка). Tacit Murky (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't mistake centralization from the default Russian pronunciation (as in the case of Russian ) with vowels centralized in relation to cardinal vowels. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The basic, that is in the (C)_(C) environment, allophone of Russian stressed /a/ is . We write for the low central vowel because of tradition, as with many languages.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll need to buy the pdf yourself or simply mail the authors. I don't know the answers to these questions. Either way, I'm pretty sure that we agree that is an unnecessary symbol. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I do not need this as such, as I know Russian phonetics very well without their source. I was wondering just because we use them here, not that I think their source is that important or 100% reliable (I start to doubt that, their views seem to be quite idiosyncratic).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Easy, you don't have to explain yourself. It's not unheard of that some of the JIPA articles have small inaccuracies or that they sometimes overgeneralize things. As far as I can remember, a large portion of their article is virtually identical to Jones & Ward's description of Russian. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

References to list
I believe I have to revert your deletion, as both Cubberley and Timberlake clearly cover the issue with the unstressed vowels as we have been discussing above; plus they support other peculiarities of the transcription. Jones&Ward are also not out of place here. So overall I do not understand why you have had a preference for some sources over the others. Two or five sources to list, what's the deal?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe my line of reasoning was wrong, but I've always treated X phonology articles to be 'mothers' of IPA for X guides and thought that we shouldn't list sources that are not cited in inline citations. I see that you've already reverted me, which is fair enough. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I lean toward Kebab's approach. Perhaps we could have a further reading section. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If we're going to include them, I think listing them in one section is the way to go. If 'further reading' is the only section in which we could place a citation without being dishonest about its scope/content, then we definitely shouldn't list it here at all. Russian phonology is the place for that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is these sources support several statements in the notes; plus they provide examples for our transcription and our choice of symbols showing we do not invent our own transcription but rather follow reliable authorities on the matter (e.g. Jones&Ward and Cubberley provide very explicit descriptions of the vocalism using the IPA). Deleting Jones&Ward, Cubberley and Timberlake would be as if they are of little or no importance to the page, while the remaining two are of the uttermost importance, though I do not know whether Halle is such an essential source, while the only advantage of Yanushevskaya&Bunčić is their novelty. I'm OK with deleting them all (by the way, who has added the section in the first place?), but why to bother, when it is just up to five short lines of text? Will the deletion help anybody?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't want that section to become bloated, though. As long as it's just a handful as it is, we should be fine. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Reworked
I've reworked the table making it more symmetric (the hard-soft opposition in both the consonants and the vowel), plus a few tweaks here and there. Any suggestions.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Words «сего́дня, сего́дняшний, итого́» have wrong audio links. And I don't like the idea of placing [ts] and [tɕ] in the same row. Tacit Murky (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fixed. I left итого redlinked hoping somebody would make an audio; alright I've hidden it.
 * [ʂ]-[ɕː] and [ʐ]-[ʑː] were paired together in the original, so why to make an exception for [ts]-[tɕ]? The greyed "stepped" empty cells looked ugly.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It would make more sense, by analogy with - and -, to pair with the nonexistent .  isn't postalveolar like, so the two don't belong together. — Eru·tuon 23:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we may leave such theoretical peculiarities for a sake of simplicity. Ч being the soft pair of Ц, and vice versa, makes perfect sense in Russian.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. An additional point is that ц does not become ч when followed by и; rather, the и is pronounced like ы. — Eru·tuon 19:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ц and ч are a little more different than the other pairs of unpaired consonants, but the issue of one sound replacing (or alternating) with another isn't all that salient (and technically is an orthography-centric approach that doesn't quite fit the language's phonology). Plus, ш does not become щ (a pairing I'm assuming you favor) when followed by и. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A fair point regarding ш–щ. But that has the clear connection of a postalveolar place of articulation; ц–ч does not. I don't see how it's an orthography-centric approach; if the letters were replaced with the phonemic symbols, the point would remain. — Eru·tuon 21:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It just sounds like you're saying that a consonant becomes soft with the addition of a vowel. That's not quite how it works in Russian phonology, only with the writing system (with the exceptions such as those we've already mentioned).
 * Pairing ц and ч is a little shaky, and I think is motivated more by simplicity than anything else. I could go either way, considering adding a couple gray boxes wouldn't make the table too unwieldy. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, in some cases hard and soft consonants alternate. ц and ч don't alternate in those situations, except maybe from historical sound changes? — Eru·tuon 23:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are too many such cases. Like «конец — кончик, конечный»; as usual, final consonant in the root morphs or alternates, including the presence of soft vowel. However, IMO there is no case for morphing of ч back to ц. Tacit Murky (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

stress marks
why in some words the stress marks are not placed according to how the word is broken down to syllables, for example Москва is [mɐˈskva] and not [mɐskˈva] and Ростов is [rɐˈstof] and not [rɐsˈtof]

but for example Иркутск is [ɪrˈkutsk] and not [ɪˈrkutsk] LICA98 (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The stress mark is placed according to phonology (even though we use phonetic, not phonemic transcription), not spelling. Basically, 'Иркутск' must be transcribed because no word can begin with the  combination in Russian, but 'Москва' and 'Ростов' can be transcribed  because Russian words can begin with  and . Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * but what is the reason of it not being [mɐskˈva]? LICA98 (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've said it: because is a possible syllable onset. If you can prove it's not, we should change the IPA to . Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * so you want to say that the ˈ should be as close to the previous vowel as it's possible without leaving a consonant combination with which no word can start with? LICA98 (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good description, yes. Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you read Russian? You may google for основной закон слогораздела and закон восходящей звучности (I won't give you a particular link, there are a lot of materials, read any you like). --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean I could try, but my Russian is rather poor and I read it like a snail. But I do recognize something like sonority hierarchy in the second name, if I'm not mistaken.


 * Was I wrong in anything I told LICA98? Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You were entirely correct, you just did not know how to say it properly, so I tried to help. Alright, I will know next time. There is not much about it in English, but maybe this will help.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

a couple of issues
there is эти listed for /e/ but it is pronounced /ɛ/

шея listed for /ə/ but я is pronounced /jə/ there

‿ and unstressed /ɵ/ can also be added LICA98 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Э case and replaced э́ти with э́тика. Wiktionary has 2 sound-files: . First one sounds like [e], and second — as [ɛ] (IMO, more common, so I added it here). The note says: « is realized as  before and between palatalized consonants»; but I'm not sure about abundance of „before“ case.
 * «Шея» is commented out as a temporal decision. And where can we find «unstressed /ɵ/»? Cёгу́н [sʲɵˈɡun]? It's probably the only one more or less known. As for the tie ‿ symbol, there is note 10 for this. Tacit Murky (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the problem is that stressed э is always pronounced as /ɛ/ so it shouldn't be listed under /e/
 * unstressed /ɵ/: for example трёхэтажный, сёрфингист, самолётостроение
 * by ‿ I mean the symbol like in какой-то /kɐˈkoj‿tə/ LICA98 (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * According to sources, the pronunciation of stressed э depends on context. Russian phonology goes into more detail. I'm not sure what purpose ‿ would have, since I don't know what it indicates in the example you've provided. Sources also explain that is an allophone that only occurs in stressed syllables. Do you have anything that contradicts this? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  19:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * in what word stressed э is not pronounced as ɛ?
 * read here: "The undertie is used to represent linking (absence of a break) in the IPA"
 * I already provided: трёхэтажный, сёрфингист, самолётостроение LICA98 (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it's Wikipedia, so you have to prove any claim with a reliable source (secondary one is preferred). (A secondary-stressed {ё} between soft consonants would be [ɵ], but that's a particularly rare and obscure case: самолётикостроение?) Undertie is rarely used in Russian language articles, so I see little point of mentioning it here. Tacit Murky (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * so if it's rare we can't mention it? /ʑː/ is almost obsolete and yet it is mentioned
 * besides undertie is not rare - it is used in words with -то, -нибудь, and -либо, as well as in some multiword expressions such as что ли or без толку LICA98 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just that it's rare. It's pretty pointless. If two words are pronounced without a break, we can just transcribe them as one phonological word. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * that's like saying we don't need ː either as we can just write 2 letters instead
 * and you didn't answer in what word is stressed э not pronounced as /ɛ/? LICA98 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added the undertie. Secondary stressed [ɵ] is still stressed, and unstressed [ɵ] used only for weakly adopted loans like сёгу́н, so Russian phonetics are not fully applicable here. Tacit Murky (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the undertie. Maybe someone can explain what point it has that necessitates an additional symbol that readers have to learn. Let's get a consensus before we change things.
 * As for a word with, both э́ти and э́тика would qualify. According to our article on Russian phonology, "a following soft consonant raises it to close-mid ." The open-mid allophone may appear word-initially, but this is, according to the source cited, only before a hard consonant. The source, Jones and Ward (1969) specifically transcribes эти this way. If you would like to provide a more recent source that says otherwise, feel free to share. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So, it was Jones&Ward (1969) who claimed about э=[ɛ]: «a following soft consonant raises it to close-mid [e]». Indeed, it was quite common at those days not only to hear that way, but also read in casual correspondence «ето(т)/ета/ети» etc. (even older „rural speak“ phonetic spelling was «енто(т)/ента/енти»), graphically and phonetically replacing initial э. Today, however, this pronounce (with initial [je-]) is almost extinct, as more words (mostly loans) are pronounced with a clear [ɛ], even if it's not initial and not following always hard ж/ш/ц. But you are right, we need a source. I thought, Yanushevskaya & Bunčić (2015) could have mention that… Tacit Murky (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't look like they talk about that level of detail. Even the precise phonetic transcription provided isn't helpful, since the context we're looking for (word initial before a soft consonant) doesn't occur. The issue of Jones & Ward's age comes up every once in a while. So far, neither I nor anyone else has come forth with anything more recent that contradicts them. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  03:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * about the undertie: I already explained what is the point of it, just saying it's pointless is not an argument
 * эти этика both pronounced with /ɛ/ LICA98 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I understand your argument. I'm just not convinced. Is there some phonological process that the undertie conveys? Is there phonetic information that might be useful to the reader that simply omitting a space wouldn't accomplish more cleanly? Help me out here. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * can you read? it clearly says "used to represent linking (absence of a break) where only one stressed syllable occurs across words or word parts"
 * just hoking "pointless" doesn't make sense LICA98 (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You can stop the WP:EDITWAR, you know. Just because you revert us it doesn't mean that you "win", you still need a consensus to include it in the guide.


 * I do see it as pointless. The absence of word stress is conveyed both by the absence of the stress mark and perhaps by the quality of the vowel(s) in any given word. If they're only of the type, it means that it's unstressed. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * and are perfect examples of what I'm talking about. There's literally zero need for the undertie in such contexts. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * so you wanna say that in all articles in wiktionary they are wrong because they include it?
 * and with the same "logic" you can remove ː as well as you can just write 2 letters instead LICA98 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Use of the symbol isn't wrong or phonetically inaccurate. It's just unnecessary. We're trying to keep this guide as simple as we can without losing information. I would be fine with replacing ː with doubled consonants, which is how Russian was transcribed for a while. But using ː isn't that outlandish and is a common symbol in other IPA guides. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * double standards
 * if the tie was unnecessary it wouldn't be used in the first place LICA98 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet you can't provide a meaningful reason to use it. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did, it's you who can't provide a meaningful reason not to use it LICA98 (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I've done that as well. If that's all you care to share for your rationale, then I remain unconvinced. I maintain that the information the undertie is designed to convey is more cleanly and simply conveyed without the undertie with the methods I've articulated above. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 13:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * only thing you've done is repeating "unnecessary" and "pointless" LICA98 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done more than that. And I've even prompted you to elaborate on your perspective with direct questions, which you have only answered by repeating yourself. This conversation is going nowhere. Unless you have something more to say, I think it's good to end it here. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * me: "The undertie is used to represent linking (absence of a break) in the IPA"
 * you: pointless unnecessary
 * me: it's used often with postfixes and multiword expressions
 * you: unnecessarypointless LICA98 (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Part 2

 * The only well-known usage of undertie I remember is in French where it is necessary to show liaison (I'm pretty sure historically this sign actually got into the IPA from transcriptions of French). I see no point of this for Russian as there are no similar processes involved.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For [e]: you all just needed to read the sources given. Timberlake explains this explicitly on page 35 of his book, so there were no need to allege the "outdatedness" of Jones&Ward (even if it's true in many ways, but not here). Tacit Murky was not correct with ети/енти/etc. Let's not to confuse Latin and Russian letters here. Probably the prosthetic /j-/ may have had something with the fronted pronunciation of the vowel, but clearly this is not the indication of that frontedness, neither the absence of /j-/ in modern speech is an indication that the vowel is not fronted.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * what do you mean by "read the sources given"? and you didn't give an example word where stressed э is not pronounced /ɛ/ LICA98 (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * LICA, they did give example words, as have I. Your failure to accept the arguments and evidence of other uses is getting into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, which is disruptive. If you don't change your behavior, you're going to get reported.
 * User:Любослов, feel free to edit Russian phonology section with Timberlake in mind. If anything, it would be nice to augment the older sources with newer ones for cases like this where editors claim that Jones & Ward might be indicating outdated pronunciations. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I already proved that those words (этика, эти) are pronounced with /ɛ/ and not /e/ LICA98 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You've literally proved nothing.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk)
 * эти этика LICA98 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add substantial, as this page seems alright to me now. The question is not about adding something new, but deleting.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but I can't confuse «Latin and Russian letters» by using only Russian ones. Initial [e-]/[je-]/[jen-] (for isolated pronounce) in these pronouns is the old-style speech, still occurring today, but considered non-literate. IMO, Jones&Ward would be correct, saying: «a following soft consonant raises it (/e/) to close-mid [e]» in fluent speech, when preceding word ends with a soft consonant — i.e. both /CʲeCʲ/ and /Cʲ·eCʲ/ cases end up in [Cʲ(·)eCʲ]; OTOH, phrase-initial /eCʲ/ would be [ɛCʲ] (see «эй» and «шесть»), just like cross-word /C·eCʲ/ is [C·ɛCʲ]. Once again, we have found that a morphophonetic rule is working across words; nothing new here. Moreover, cross-word influence may be stronger and render /e/=[e] even with the hard consonant following: «кинь эти мячи́» („throw these balls“) and «кинь э́тот мяч» („throw this ball“) both should have [-nʲ·e-]. Tacit Murky (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you've literally said that only in the past they pronounced [et-] for the эт- pronouns, and this was why they even wrote е(н)т-. In fact, and you know that, in Russian there is no way to discriminate [e] and [ɛ] in writing, so they as well could not do this either, writing е (Cyrillic) would not do the trick (note е(н)тот, that is before a hard consonant as well). The pronunciation with prosthetic [j-] (and further epenthetic [-n-]) and hence writing е(н)т- has had nothing to do with the frontedness or the openness of the vowel. It is rather a trace of some ancient variation between Slavic *e- and *je-. In modern speech the vowel is fronted as proved by Timberlake (or you may read any modern Russian sources you like, you'll find the same). Timberlake gives an example о мэре that is exactly after a hard consonant.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, «there is no way to discriminate [e] and [ɛ] in writing», but there is a difference between initial «э» [ɛ-] and «е» [je-]. So pronouncing ['etə] may present [e] as the allophone of /e/ (outdated dialectical variation), but pronouncing ['jetə] would be an attempt to „normalize“ it among other phonological rules of Russian, hence written form «ето». But did Timberlake concluded about «о мэ́ре» and «о ме́ре» to have the same pronounce for the stressed vowel? Tacit Murky (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I see two problems here: first, let's remember that allophones are written within square brackets, not slashes which indicate phonemes. It's a very important difference. Russian has one mid front phoneme of unmarked height that is typically written, but you can also encounter. Whether you choose to write it as the former or as the latter has zero impact on the actual phonetic realization, it's just an abstract symbol.

The second problem is that, at least according to Jones & Ward, Russian has five allophones of, which are (close-mid front, close-mid near-front, mid front, open-mid front and open-mid near-front). This guide transcribes first 3 as and the rest as. The fact that we would transcribe этика and эти as and  doesn't mean that the vowel is close-mid in these words, it means that it's higher (true-mid rather than close-mid) than the genuinely open-mid  in жест and э́тот, in which  has no contact with soft consonants.

Now, there's a question: is what Jones & Ward say about the allophones of also outdated? I remember that Yanushevskaya & Buncic say that is somewhat raised in contact with soft consonants (or between them? I can't remember the exact quote). So Aeusoes1 might be right that it's about time to update this page and Russian phonology. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Problem one: what do we define as "outdated"? How recent the work must be to pass for "not outdated"? Year 2018? English sources we have very few, but there are enough Russian sources which say the same "outdated" statement. I'm alright if somebody does not make the vowel fronted or refuse to/cannot hear the difference, but what about the Russian people who do (even if they are a little "outdated", I mean not children or teenagers who may indeed be in the process of changing Russian speech, but we have even less information about it).
 * Problem two: what we should decide is to what general group - [e] or [ɛ] - to assign the fronted variant of э-. Is it front/close enough to be within the [e] group, or is it back/open enough to be within the [ɛ] group? I'm for the former for the reasons I've explained. Plus it seems the rule "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It's an open question without an easy answer.


 * We sort of already did, probably years ago. We transcribe it with and I'm positive that it should stay that way. EDIT: Apparently we don't - see below. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So, it would be more precise to transcribe and  (or better: [ɛ̝], which is exactly «somewhat raised») — yes, but it wouldn't be so convenient for thousands of other pages with phonetic transcription. And because we are digging so deeply, more often personal speech variations would arise, as well as scholar's own presumptions, even when using sonograms, rather then „playing by ear“. Making transcriptions „too narrow“ (but strictly following some linguist' opinion) render them incompatible with other linguist' work because of minute variations. So, it wouldn't be possible to claim «what Jones & Ward say about the allophones of  (is) also outdated», because it's not possible (and there is no reason) to reproduce their work completely for a fact-checking; other linguists will differ in tiny details for sure (unless citing older work). Tacit Murky (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you misunderstood my message. I'm not advocating for using either nor  (which isn't better than, they mean practically the same) here. It's too narrow a transcription. What I'm saying is that as of now, / is transcribed as . EDIT: Apparently it isn't - see below.


 * So, it wouldn't be possible to claim «what Jones & Ward say about the allophones of (is) also outdated», because it's not possible (and there is no reason) to reproduce their work completely for a fact-checking; other linguists will differ in tiny details for sure (unless citing older work). - that's not true. We know that J&W analyzed standard Russian as spoken in 1969 (or 1968, etc.). This is enough to know what type of speakers you should be looking for. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that we were transcribing as . That's how it's done at Russian phonology. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  14:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. According to Russian phonology, is used before and between soft consonants, but not after them, where  occurs. We indeed transcribe the true-mid allophone with, not , and I think it can stay that way. If it ain't broke... Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * enough to know what type of speakers you should be looking for — Well, most of those speakers are no longer alive. Modern ones speak differently, but that difference can be expressed mostly in the narrow transcription, which is what we are trying to avoid; so, reproducing J&W wouldn't help us much. If Timberlake is any better at this, we should be quoting him using more than 2 allophones, like adding or . I wouldn't be so bold to do that. Tacit Murky (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There probably exist thousands and thousands recordings of them that can be analyzed. No offense, but I'm starting to feel like Captain Obvious. I mean, what's the difference between analyzing a recording you made and a recording you didn't make?


 * I thought it was clear that this discussion is *not* about adding or  to this guide, but about the way of transcribing the allophone of  in words such as предок, where  follows a soft consonant and precedes a hard one.


 * But you're assuming that just because normal transcription of Russian uses only the symbols and  that those are the only allophones of  that exist and that their quality is that of cardinal  and . Let's not mistake Russian vowels for cardinal vowels. They may or may not be the same thing. Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Judging by this discussion and the previous ones we've had, I'm afraid that you're not the best person to comment on the minutiae of the IPA transcription of Russian vowels. Some of the mistakes you're making are amateur ones. Sorry, but that's how I see it. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * you're assuming that just because normal transcription of Russian uses only the symbols and that those are the only allophones of — no! Maybe I said it awkwardly, but I do remember your remark about keeping translation simple for the sake of general WP readers. So, even if there are more allophones that we know of, it doesn't mean we should mark them all. However, occasionally this „allowed allophones“ list could be revisited, and I thought this may be one of those days, because I know there are more allophones of /e/. Tacit Murky (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Russian /l/
Just a thought: would it be better to transcribe the Russian "hard" (non-palatalized) /l/ as [ɫ]? That does better represent how it's pronounced, but I think it may be overkill. What do you think? AlexanderKaras (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it might be overkill. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  03:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO unqualified [l]s should not be used for Russian at all. East Slavic speakers always distinguish hard лъ (Dark l) and palatalized ль [lʲ]. What can you propose for the former but [] (or its synonyms like [lˠ])? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the decision made years ago: I think transcribing the darkness of the Russian unpalatalized l would be helpful. The note saying that the pharyngelization is not distinctive is puzzling. That argument would make sense if this page were describing a phonemic transcription system, but because the system is phonetic, distinctiveness is not relevant to transcriptional choices. (If we went by distinctiveness, we would not transcribe the different realizations of any of the vowel phonemes, for example. between soft consonants and elsewhere would both be transcribed as, unstressed  would be transcribed  rather than , and so on. None of these differences are phonemic, after all)
 * I think it would be useful to transcribe the pharyngealization because some varieties of English have both clear and dark l. Without it, folks might think (incorrectly) that Russian hard is pronounced similarly to Received Pronunciation clear l (as in leaf), rather than closer to the coda pronunciation of  or the North American pronunciation. The reason for transcribing the different pronunciations of the Russian vowels is because they are distinguished in English. So why not transcribe the distinct pronunciation of Russian hard ? — Eru·tuon 18:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. is actually a better choice for the palatalized l than the velarized/pharyngealized one, and that's because Russian  sometimes has a rather neutral (schwa-like) coloring, whereas the hard  is always dark. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a compelling case. From what I understand, all hard-consonants are equally velarized/pharyngealized in Russian, except for, which is even more velarized/pharyngealized. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 13:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When I hear the Russian dark 'l' I immediately think of Scottish English (which is sometimes said to have a pharyngealized ), so you're probably right. It's quite probable that the Russian dark 'l' is generally more dark than the dark 'l's of most English speakers.


 * From my experience, loses (some of) its palatalization especially in preconsonantal positions and perhaps also word-finally before a pause or a word-initial consonant. Before vowels, it has a much brighter quality and a palatal glide follows it pretty much all the time, especially in stressed contexts. The fact that  is more strongly velarized/pharyngealized than other hard consonants is probably an attempt to maximize the  contrast.


 * If we're going to start transcribing as  (as Russian Wiktionary does) then I think  should be transcribed as it is in order not to introduce confusion (many users are used to the transcription we use). Also, as I said, the palatalization of  is variable, not completely absent, so  doesn't seem like a terribly right fit for the soft 'l' either (but obviously it's more phonetically correct than when it's used for the hard 'l').


 * PS: What about other Slavic, Baltic and Romance languages? Perhaps a similar change from to  is justified in some of those cases too? Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's obvious, that fluent « loses (some of) its palatalization especially in preconsonantal positions», if the following consonant is hard: пыльца́ cf. пы́ли. Tacit Murky (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Padgett (2001), cited in the Russian phonology page, discusses the dynamic between palatalization, velarization, and adjacent vowels in Russian. The phonetics of the hard/soft contrast is a lot more complicated than I think we want to get into. Hard l is ok to make an exception to this (for the reasons stated above), but I would hate to complicate our notation with hard/soft consonant allophony by extending the nuance to how we transcribe consonants' hardness/softness any further. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but that source could be used to improve Russian phonology (which is the place for such information). Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There'd be less of a case for transcribing the secondary articulation of any hard consonants besides, because English doesn't make a notable distinction in secondary articulation for any other consonant that I can recall. — Eru·tuon 19:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed the symbol for the hard 'l' to . However, we need to run a bot to change the IPA in the article space (unless there's a masochist who wants to go through more than 1500 pages himself?! :P) I'm also requesting that the bot replace with  per one of the discussions at the bottom. EDIT: I did it the latter myself. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The same should be done on Russian phonology (which has an enormous amount of instances of the IPA and similar templates) and probably also on English Wiktionary. I'll look into the later case. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are the links to find (obviously, there are false positives with ):
 * {{Search link|hastemplate:"IPA-ru" insource:/\{\{IPA-ru[^\}]*l/}}
 * {{Search link|hastemplate:"lang-rus" insource:/\{\{lang-rus[^\}]*l/}} Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm all for implementing this plan, but remember that the IPA guide should be usable to readers. In other words, the guide is the last place we should remove the l without velar marking or the . — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * has already been dealt with, but you might be right about . I think we can revert the change from to  for now. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could create such a script? Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A bot script? No. I've only done Lua and a little JavaScript. It would be possible to create a module function that would then be invoked in IPA-ru and lang-rus to categorize all transcriptions that have plain, so that they could be more easily edited through with AWB. But finding a bot owner who can help might be simpler. — Eru·tuon 03:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding earlier, I'm trying to do too much at once and I keep forgetting things. Which bot owner would you recommend (if you know any)? Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't know any bot owners on Wikipedia. I would have someone to ask on Wiktionary. — Eru·tuon 22:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll do my own research. Thanks! Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So it's been a couple years, does everyone still agree that hard л is best transcribed as ? I know I am of that opinion.  If so, could someone with the knowhow get the transcription change in articles underway?  Perhaps ? — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Foot" or "bird" for [ɵ]?
What do you mean "foot" can't be pronounced with [ɵ]? Dozens of millions of native speakers of English (from Southern England and some areas of the US) pronounce it that way. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and since both rounding and r-coloring lower F2 and F3, NURSE wouldn't sound as back as [ɵ]. You also reverted an IP and reinstated bird, do you have an explanation for that? Nardog (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm probably the one who put bird in the first place. In general, I consider to be the closest English approximation to front mid rounded vowels. I chose it for this allophone because it's central, mid, and rounded like  is. I saw the change to, which seemed a little off to me because it's unrounded in a lot of dialects, but then close-mid central rounded vowel features a number of English dialects that have this vowel in , so I'm open-minded about this. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  15:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the typical American pronunciation of is rounded? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. As well as lett. I thought this was a well-known feature. I guess someone should find a source that says as much. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  02:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought NURSE/LETTER was unrounded. I guess General American and similar articles should be edited to reflect that detail, including using in narrow transcription., while it's not defined for roundedness just like the plain , is still ambiguous, not least because English  is rounded only when pre-lateral (unless I'm missing something). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that both labialization and pharyngealization vary in degree depending on position, dialect and speaker, just as it can be realized with one of two tongue shapes or anything in between. I would strongly oppose using $⟨ɵ˞⟩$ anywhere. $⟨ɵ⟩$ is not a symbol we can expect readers reading about English phonology to be familiar with, and moreover, the IPA defines rhoticity acoustically (Handbook, p. 16) so replacing it with $⟨ɵ˞⟩$ wouldn't be that narrower. If there is anything to note about allophonic realization of the r-colored vowel, it is best done in prose. Nardog (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in no way an expert on English dialects, but isn't [ɵ] very local for «»? Here's Wiktionary on «foot»: [ʊ] is much more frequent. Shouldn't we refer to the most usable pronounce and, therefore, not this word as an example? No phonemes in «тётя» and (especially) «плечо» produce [ʊ]. Tacit Murky (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's used in South East England (including RP, which is widely used in television and radio) and many American dialects ("some" is an understatement). Similar pronunciations are found in South Africa and New Zealand, and sporadically also in Australia (I've certainly heard "good" being pronounced in Australia).  is immediately recognized as  by native speakers. It's only the extremely fronted and unrounded realizations such as  that can be confused with.
 * BTW, the American recording of "foot" on Wiktionary to me sounds almost the same as the British (meaning: Southern English) one. is the most appropriate symbol for both of them. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, then unrounded [ɘ] sounds closer to /o/ in «тётя», at least when listening to Wiki sound files. Schwa is not fronted enough. Tacit Murky (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Schwa" isn't a sound but a group of sounds. Both and  are schwas - they're mid (meaning: not close and not open) and they're central. I don't understand your point. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Point is: judging by Wiki sound files (as most readers would do), better represents /o/ in «тётя». (Calling it schwa is irrelevant for this matter.) Phonetically this may be odd, since palatalized consonant surroundings usually doesn't make a vowel unrounded (unless we can find a source to back this up). Nor can I accuse of Wiki files sounds wrong… Tacit Murky (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There may be unrounding at the end of in "тётя" because it's stressed. Stressed  is a diphthong in Russian, something like  or even  (a triphthong). The centralized allophone could be  or  - don't quote me on that, though. The point is: it's not an unrounded monophthong. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Polyphthonging phones makes things more difficult, and we are trying to avoid narrow transcription. /ó/ may not be monophthong (and only in careful and/or slow speech), but it is for Wiki markup. We just need to make it unrounded. Tacit Murky (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't. No source treats it as an unrounded monophthong. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then readers may be confused to hear different sounds for same IPA symbols or word files. What's better?… Tacit Murky (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What's best is what we have, which is audio files of example words done (presumably) by native speakers. It is not a serious risk for someone to be confused about our use of ⟨ɵ⟩ over ⟨ɘ⟩, even if we are to accept that the latter might be more phonetically accurate (which I don't think we should). — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you treat margin of error of that size to be acceptable, then there is nothing to discuss. Although, if we can also put sound files for English approximations beside Russian words (like «тётя» + «foot», claiming that both have [ɵ]), there will be even more confusion… Tacit Murky (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Fronting
Should we explicitly show fronting of the vowels in the /Cʲ_C/ context, that is with /æ, ɵ, ʉ/? /CʲɛC/ definitely looks odd. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Russian phonology, only appears in that context. Otherwise, we'd need a Cʲ_Cʲ environment. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]  20:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not true, I've started a discussion there.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's keep this discussion over there, until we'll reach a conclusion. Tacit Murky (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

So... what do we do? A reform is coming, should this be a part of it? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts:


 * 1) /CʲVCʲ/ must be separate cases for all vowels, so it includes [æ ɵ ʉ] too.
 * 2) /CʲVC/ must be separate at least for /e/ («ле́то» = [ˈlʲetə]). As Lüboslóv said, Jones&Trofimov are using [ɛ̞], but other sources prefer [e]. (I'm not sure if all „others“ do separate /CʲVC/ from /CʲVCʲ/.)
 * 3) /(C)VCʲ/ tends to be more like /(C)VC/, so [ɛ] is needed («э́ти» = [ˈɛtʲɪ], unless preceding word starts with Cʲ).
 * Tacit Murky (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Russian phonology, /e/ in CVCʲ environment is, not . — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how one can distinguish that? I mean like «э́то» vs «э́тика» vs «де́ти». Article treats second pair as equal, but the first pair is much more alike, that's why Wiktionary spells «э́тика» as [ˈɛtʲɪkə]. Tacit Murky (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We would need to find sourcing that backs up CɛCʲ — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is from the JIPA article about Russian:
 * is central or advanced back  in  (they seem to be in free variation,  doesn't appear just before ), advanced central  in, retracted front in   and front  in.
 * Unstressed are  (in Saint Petersburg) or  (in Moscow) in the first degree of reduction and  in the second.
 * is closer to cardinal (though more retracted than that) in  than in,  and , where it's closer to the cardinal.
 * Unstressed, and  are near-close .  may be fully front.
 * is centralized (similar or identical to, which isn't a cardinal vowel). in , and.
 * is back in and centralized (similar or identical to cardinal ). in,  and.

is a non-option. Neither J&W nor Y&B endorse such a transcription.

Though I'm not sure about in the case of  and  - see  chart. Also, what about word-initial vowels? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with Timberlake and this chart. Formants are clearly different, but it's all about level of details, again. Word-initial vowels are assimilated by preceding word-final sounds (both V-s and C-s: «жена и муж» vs «муж и жена» = [ɪ] vs [ɨ̞] for «и»), but this is (or supposed to be) explained in corresponding paragraphs. Tacit Murky (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

soft n
do you think anyone non-linguist can understand this:
 * Alveolo-palatal consonants are subjected to regressive assimilative palatalization; i.e. they tend to become palatalized in front of other phones with the same place of articulation.

why not just write instead "n is palatalized in front of dʲ, tʲ, t͡ɕ, ɕː, and optionally in front of sʲ and zʲ" LICA98 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sound clip of часы́ sounds wrong
I have no knowledge of Russian, but the way this is pronounced is not at all like what it is in the other words, including the English approximation. I checked this because I was curious about Tchaikovsky's name. His name seems to be in the same situation described in citation 16. However, that was used for his name also "mispronounced" it.

So, what's the deal with this? Which one is correct? Is it dependent on dialect, or has it morphed only very recently? Hundvd7 (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And what seems wrong here? [t͡ɕɪˈsɨ] as it is. Unstressed «а» in this position is [ɪ]. Tacit Murky (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The English pronunciation is different from the Russian . Most strikingly, the first syllable has the vowel of buy in English and sounds to a native English speaker's ears to be the vowel of bee in Russian.
 * I have no idea why the earlier pronunciation given didn't follow citation 16, but it does seem like it's wrong. Unless there's something different about the name Tchaikovsky that I don't know about. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, is the issue in question is about sound file or its transcription? Is it «часы», «Чайковский», or both? Etymologically «Чайковский» is adopted Polish family name, derived from «Чай» (tea). Phonetically it sounds the same as other unstressed cases: «чаёк», «части́ца», «частота́» (almost homophonic with «чистота́»). Tacit Murky (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The ʑː sound
it's actually fairly common in the езжать stem (like заезжать, приезжий) even outside of "conservative Moscow" (e.g. in St. Petersburg I hear it often), but in the other words (дрожжи, позже) it's indeed kinda obsolete LICA98 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)