Talk:Extensions to the International Phonetic Alphabet

Unviewable symbols
I can't view some of the symbols. Is there any program or a patch to my Windows XP to solve this problem? --Acepectif 04:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A good browser should have them. Switch to Firefox if you are still using Internet Explorer. &mdash; Paul G 06:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Y'has a pœnt. (He has a point.) UniformMilk192 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

A number of the symbols are presently Private Use. See the last section on the Talk page ☹️😭 Sisima70 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Percussive consonants
What are Bilabial and Bidental percussives? Are they used in any languages? Could anyone who knows what they are create the articles about them? 68.76.105.196 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Extensions to the IPA
Hi, where does the name "Extended IPA" come from? Is it widely used in phonetics/speech pathology circles? I'm asking because the Handbook uses "Extensions to the IPA", not "Extended IPA". --Kjoonlee 00:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No sources? Is the title of this article OR? --Kjoonlee 10:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably a mix up. The Handbook refers to "extended IPA symbols" and the "extended IPA character set". I wouldn't call it OR, though: We have thousands of articles with de novo names due to one compromise or another. (Right now I'm looking at Brāhmī script, which was so named to avoid edit wars over whether or not it's an "alphabet". I would hardly call that OR.) It doesn't matter to me which title we choose for this article, and I seriously doubt anyone will object if you just go ahead and move it. kwami 05:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support the move. Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  07:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

wildcards
Somewhere I've seen turned small-cap K and U used (or suggested) to mean 'any consonant' and 'any vowel' respectively; but my Unicode browser doesn't show them at all. Are they heretical? —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In Unicode:


 * in block IPA Extensions
 * No turned U found, neither small nor capital.
 * IPA Extensions chart says:  * proposed for velar click * Withdrawn by IPA in 1970.
 * Only giving this information, I cannot conclude on the question. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not in Unicode as of v8, and are unlikely to be added unless someone picks them up for something else. They were mentioned in the 1949 Principles as *suggestions* for improvement, along with several other symbols (see Phonetic Symbol Guide for a partial list) but were never adopted. People normally use C for 'consonant' and V for 'vowel'. (The extIPA chart mentions C for 'consonant' and F for 'fricative'.) I added common wildcards to the IPA article. — kwami (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Disordered speech
Disordered speech is always bound to a language. That has nothing to do with denoting general symbols, which is the purpose of IPA. A sound that is considered a disorder in one language can be totally fine in another language. --2.245.110.98 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The IPA has the "phonemic principle", meaning it would only adopt symbols and diacritics whose phonetic values are known to be distinctive in some language or another―hence the name of the extensions. That doesn't mean, of course, the features symbolized by these extensions are not found in any "ordered" speech―they can be employed to denote differences among speakers and languages―it's just that they are not confirmed to be solely responsible for creating difference in meaning in any language, or at least so they say. Nardog (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues with combining characters and stress marks
I disagree with user Kwamikagami about their recent edits.

First, their example of the combining closing circle U+20DD is &#x2001;&#x20DD;ɱ in which the combining character precedes the base character ɱ. This is plain wrong. Unicode clearly states: "A combining character sequence is a base character followed by any number of combining characters." Therefore the correct sequence is the reversed one, first ɱ, then the combining U+20DD, and this character string displays (almost) correctly in some fonts such as Microsoft's Cambria.

Second, I think that the stress marks for monosyllables should be removed in accordance with common usage, as they provide no information and are completely superfluous. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in this recent discussion regarding the stress or lack thereof in monosyllables involving Kwami. As I expressed there, I agree with you, but not everybody does it seems. Nardog (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If stress has a phonetic realization, then in a phonetic transcription that indicates stress, we should indicate stress. The fact that it is (nearly) predictable in monosyllables is as irrelevant as would be marking aspiration. It's fine to leave either out, as long as we're consistent.
 * As for common dictionary usage, that can be quite confusing: a stress mark indicates not just stress but syllabicity (add stress to a monosyllable, and you get a disyllable - that makes it difficult to indicate an unstressed monosyllable). In our original discussion of this, we decided that syllable breaks, when we mark them at all, should be marked per the IPA, with <.>. — kwami (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ExtIPA chart (2015).pdf

Stop
Please stop reversinɡ my textifiyinɡ. Thank you.- Tɦe Textifier UniformMilk192 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For what reason? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Voiceless upper pharyngeal plosive has brackets
Why the symbol of voiceless upper pharyngeal plosive has brackets? Blockman9000 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The brackets are not part of the extIPA symbol but indicate that ⟨⟩ (the ordinary Latin letter ⟨q⟩ CSS-transformed to a small capital letter) is an alternative way of representing ⟨ꞯ⟩ (the Unicode character U+A7AF ). Ideally they should look the same, but U+A7AF was introduced in Unicode version 11.0 of June 2018, so many users still use devices with operating systems that shipped without font support for that character. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed symbol labiodental nasal m̪
I removed this symbol just because there is labiodental nasal ɱ that appears in the standard IPA chart. Blockman9000 (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerning your edit. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That was following a comment by the developers of extIPA, but I can't find it now, so rm it if you want. — kwami (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Unassigned Unicode code points
This article (and others such as Lateral consonant) uses the unassigned Unicode code points U+1AC3 and U+1AC4 from the Combining Diacritical Marks Extended block in the BMP as well as U+1DF00 through U+1DF07 from an undefined block in the SMP. The characters intended to be encoded at those code points are all in the pipeline as "accepted by UTC, but not yet in ISO ballot" and their "entry status in the Pipeline tables" is "Not Yet Stable", "ISO stage" "N/A". — I have two questions:

1. Why do we use unassigned code points for characters whose final assignment is not guaranteed to remain stable?

2. Is there a font out there that supports those code points and provides correct extIPA glyphs, so that the shaky information we present is of practical use to someone?

What do you Unicode experts think? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Code points for Unicode version 14.0 are not stable yet, so there is no guarantee that the code points for these characters will not be changed before Unicode 14.0 is released in September 2021. It is basic principle that we do not use Unicode characters until they have been officially released, so I would support removing or commenting out such unencoded characters in these Wikipedia articles. Pinging  for their opinion. BabelStone (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree: Remove or comment out the characters until they officially become encoded with the release of Unicode 14.0 in September. DRMcCreedy (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

U14α now published. They've passed the review & public comments period. The only thing that will change from here are errors like typos.

As for what use this is, people can now create their own fonts until Brill, SIL etc. catch up. — kwami (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As clearly marked, this is an "Alpha Review Draft", not the actual publishing of the Standard which will happen in September. It's unlikely the assignments will change but it's still possible.  Keeping articles and references accurate would be a nightmare if we go off of proposals/alphas/betas. Font developers, including  aren't constrained by the code points appearing on Wikipedia. DRMcCreedy (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No, none of the code points can be changed at this point. It's possible the UTC may remove a character if it proves to be spurious or has some other fatal flaw, leaving a gap in the block, but the code points are fixed.

I wasn't thinking of professional font developers, who don't care about WP, but of our readers who might dabble in fonts on the side. — kwami (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is the first time the UTC as done an "alpha" review prior to the normal beta review (due to the COVID situation), and the code points are not stable until after the alpha review period has been completed and the beta review has been issued. At this point in time characters may still be added, deleted or moved for Unicode 14.0. I strongly support the position that Wikipedia articles should only reflect the final published standard, and not reference alpha or beta versions. BabelStone (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you want to add a character, it will have to go into U15 for next year. They're not accepting any more for U14. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Beta has been posted, at which point you said the code points would be stable. Okay to add them to the table now? — kwami (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No. The beta review page includes this note which I strongly believe should also apply to Wikipedia, especially as some products and implementations may base themselves on information given on Wikipedia:
 * Note: All beta files may be updated, replaced, or superseded by other files at any time. The beta files will be discarded once Unicode 14.0.0 is final. It is inappropriate to cite these files as other than a work in progress. No products or implementations should be released based on the beta UCD data files—use only the final, approved Version 14.0.0 data files, expected on September 14, 2021.
 * Wikipedia should wait until the official release of Unicode 14.0 before including any Unicode 14.0 characters or data in any articles. No exceptions. BabelStone (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"The assignment of characters for Unicode 14.0.0 is now stable. [As of 2021-06-15.] There will be no further additions or modifications of code points and no further changes to character names. Feedback is invited on other technical or editorial considerations, particularly character property data, chart glyphs, or the implementation guidance in various Unicode Standard Annexes that are being updated for version 14.0. "

So yeah, the beta might be revised, but the characters are set, as Unicode had already announced. — kwami (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should wait until the official release of Unicode 14.0 before including any Unicode 14.0 characters or data in any articles. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  09:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Now we're on Unicode 15 the above discussion should be moot, right? However there are still several symbols in the diacritical marks section not showing up (including when using the gentium/andika fonts mentioned). If I understand the above correctly this shouldn't be the case? Apologies if I shouldn't have pinged you BabelStone, you seemed the most authoritative involved in the above. 82.11.195.62 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * SIL has had a hard time implementing some of the combining parentheses. Are those what you're having a problem with? AFAIK all the other diacritics are supported. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move
It feels like the name of this article is too long. I think a shorter article name like "extIPA" would be better and easier to handle. 2601:C6:D281:6710:AC69:E1CE:8B4C:82C7 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That's already a redirect. You can use it whenever you like. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * An argument could be made based on WP:CONCISE. If the abbreviation is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME in literature I'd support the move. Nardog (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We do have NASA and DNA, so unambiguous acronyms and initialisms are used for other articles. What I meant by my comment above is that wanting to use the abbreviation in other articles is not a reason to move this one, as we have the rd to handle that. I suspect 'extIPA' may be more common than the full name, but it will usually be explained with the full name, unlike NASA or DNA which are commonly used without explanation. — kwami (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)