Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet/Archive 11

How with IPA numbers in composed symbols?
When using IPA-numbers, what is the IPA-standard or -preferred way of noting a composed symbol? Example: = voiceless retroflex affricate, can be: 1. 105 136 2. 105 + 136 3. 105 (136) 4. 105 + (136) On the IPAchart that shows the IPA-numbers both 2. and and 3. are used.

The tie bar has no IPA number I understand; so the brackets are needed. Although, the same sound is described both with and without the tie, if I understand it well. -DePiep (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about Unicode values? r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I mean the "IPA-numbers", as published by IPA. E.g. 105 = (Unicode nor decimal HTML-entity involved). -DePiep (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

new
Here is a proposed new infobox IPA. It should replace both old boxes. Here are testcases/examples:. -DePiep (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good. — kwami (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the IPA symbol is in boldface, and I think it would look clearer in normal font weight. Dan ☺ 14:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, although it was not set to bold. Probably the 5em sizing did it. I have added demonstrations of normals in /testcases#Big symbol: bold or normal (turns out there are only two left, on my browser: normal and bold). Any preference? (Personally, I like the bold one) -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the normal (not bold) version - its what we are normally going to see. —Coroboy (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed into normal as requested twice here. Please let me know if there are other strange effects. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks better. The diacritics didn't position well on the the bold version. —Coroboy (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that earlier but didn't know the bolding did it. Two birds, one stone. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the examples for semivowels in an IPA template ? I see box-box-e-box-o-box. Dan ☺ 17:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed they are, and without the IPA template. Only the big symbol has the template usage build in. Feel free to experiment (like using that template at input). Especially the two notes are mean to be free text, so I did not frame too much. -DePiep (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Latin?
the article said the vowels a e i o u are based on their pronounciation in latin. but, in latin, e, i, o and u had diffrent sounds. short e was ɛ, short i was ɪ, short o was ɔ, and short u was ʊ. however, a e i o u do represent the pronounciation in Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heelsum (talk • contribs) 15:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, to be honest, I think IPA is based most closely on French. I'll have to check and see if I can find a source for that, though. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPAhelp2col
Template:IPAhelp2col has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DePiep (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Technical Anomaly With Consonant Table
I noticed some strange behavior when copying the table into LibreOffice Calc. While the subheadings ("Bilabial", "Labiodental", etc.) appear to be perfectly fine in the browser, they show up with a solid grey box under some letters in Calc. This isn't apparent anywhere else, but the text is "tainted" as long as it's copied around and not typed manually. I did a hex dump of the copied text and the typed text for the word "Bilabial". Here's the output: ?@?:~$ cat <<< "Bilabial" | xxd -c 256 -ps

42696c616269616c0a

?@?:~$ cat <<< "Bila​bial" | xxd -c 256 -ps

42696c61e2808b6269616c0a Someone might want to look into this anomaly.

71.247.120.30 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the row of this table labelled "manner", the character ZERO WIDTH SPACE (UTF8 E2 80 8B) appears where I have substituted exclamation points below:

↓ Manner	Bila!bial	Labio!dental	Den!tal	Alve!olar	Post!alv. Retro!flex	Pal!a!tal	Ve!lar	Uvu!lar	Pha!ryn!geal	Epi!glot!tal	Glot!tal
 * The solid grey boxes probably indicate that the font that Calc is using doesn't support these characters. They are not in the source, but they are in the generated HTML. Can anyone shed some light on where they come from? —Coroboy (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember putting soft hyphens (&amp;shy;) in those locations long ago in a precursor of this table. These served to allow narrow screens. The current version does not scale well. On a narrow screen, part of the table is not visible. Previously, when narrowing the window, the header words would be hyphenated progressively at predefined locations, and the table cells compressed. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The replacement of soft hyphens with ZWSP marks has no effect on the wordwrapping/non-wordwrapping behaviour. The remark on narrowing seems unrelated to the OP.
 * re Coroboy: where do the grey boxes come from? -- probably because an editor reproduced the grey boxes in the original chart File:IPA chart 2005 png.svg . Or do I misunderstand your point? -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original question: is it a bug at all that the copied text does not end up well that way? Does Wikipedia suggest or promise anything into that? Afaik the rendered result is correct & legal HTML text. -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see how soft hyphens from a "long ago" version of the table could be producing ZWSPs now.
 * I was referring to the grey boxes in the subheadings mentioned by 71.247.120.30, at the beginning of this section.
 * —Coroboy (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I get it. Dunno about the receiving side of this copy-thing, so I'll leave it here (apart from that question: what can and should be expected from Wikipedia in this?)). -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have only seen the gray box it in LibreOffice Calc so far. The text looks fine everywhere else. I never suspected any extra bytes hitching along until the gray boxes showed up. This might have broader implications for accessibility tools, and search engine parsing algorithms. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's priorities though. (I'm the original poster. I didn't sign in when I added the section.) LCS (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are observant, you can also catch yourself having to process an extra invisible character (pressinging the left or right arrows twice to move the cursor to the next visible character or backspace and delete twice to delete a character adjacent to the invisible character). LCS (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you clarified (I'm back again ...). May I repeat my main question: the Wikipage is true HTML source (& so like CSS). What expectation may a user have when copying (from screen)? What is the bug? -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It’s a matter of separating the content from the style. Though it’s a feature offered by Unicode, I find it more appropriate to encode formatting information like line-break opportunities separate from the text itself. Are there no such facilities provided by HTML or CSS to deal with this? LCS (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't answer you, but I can describe the circumstances. WP:Wikitable (like ) uses old HTML (simple table structure). Which is very good to get a table (that is: still content, but structured specilally). CSS (  and  ) is CSS style, and produces very good rendering (showing). But they don't combine too well, while we needed that for the IPA chart. So every mix is a compromise.
 * Now to create the IPA Consonants table, we (active editors at the time) had to compromise with: a strong table (even 4 tables), and well shaped cells (background, border lining, IPA-letter font showing great, ...). We did with HTML/Wikitable code basic cells, and CSS makeup & letter positioning.
 * In the end: it is HTML code using CSS. If it ends up wrong in 3rd party code, what can we do? To me, it is not a bug. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the current formatting prescribes fixed cell widths, causing scaling on narrow screens to be blocked. So actually I think it would make no difference if the ZWSPs were removed. However, on the contrary, in my opinion we should go back to a simpler scalable format. The current version is only optimised for wide screen and its styling is very deviant from standard wikitable styling. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On this scaling thing, I suggest you start a separate thread. Seems unrelated to the OP. -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So it looks like the ZWSP character produces the grey boxes (I cannot reproduce in OpenOffice). Afaik, adding ZWSP (or NBSP, a regular space, or RTL) is perfectly legal by the Unicode and HTML. Its rendering & handling is well defined. It is part of the textstream (content). The rendering programme should be able to cope with that (or at least not show unknown invisible characters). Since it is legal Unicode/HTML code, I prefer no further restrictions on usage. Are we sure it is not a LibreOffice feature/bug (or the used font as Coroboy noted above)? -DePiep (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Any IPA friend with admin rights?
I have posted a "edit protecte template", a request for our (my?) grand } system. Is there any IPA-template-knowing admin that supports this editrequest? (I don't want to jump the que. I'm up 2/18 in line now ;-)). -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Noise in audio representations
Rather than having just the sound alone, the audio files contain other unnecessary sounds. Could alternative audio files be uploaded without the noise? 173.218.137.22 (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Upstep and downstep
I see this article uses ꜛ and ꜜ (U+A71B and U+A71C) for upstep and downstep.

I’m not absolutely sure but I remember the IPA Handbook (I’ve lost my copy of it) uses ↑ and ↓ (U+2191 and U+2193) instead.

Could some one check it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tohuvabohuo (talk • contribs) 08:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Both in block Template:Unicode chart Modifier Tone Letters Both in block Template:Unicode chart Arrows. Still, Unicode does not define IPA symbols, IPA should. Doesn't the IPA chartsay it? File:IPA chart 2005 png.svg-DePiep (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Background:
 * The IPA organisation does not publish Unicode-list. But [:http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/ipa-unicode.htm this UCL site] does. It states, in table "Arrows",
 * symbol, dec, hex:
 * ↓ 	8595 	2193 	downstep
 * ↑ 	8593 	2191 	upstep
 * which are the Unicode-arrows. Still, the IPA chart clearly shows that the symbols are only half character heigth. -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The IPA handbook defines in its character table:

!Symbol || Symbol name || Phonetic description || UCS code
 * || Down arrow || Downstep || 2193
 * || Up arrow || Upstep || 2191
 * }
 * I cannot find codes a71b, a71c in it. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Codes a71b, a71c did not exist when the Handbook was published. — kwami (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed in Suprasegmentals table. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Codes a71b, a71c did not exist when the Handbook was published. — kwami (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed in Suprasegmentals table. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, they're supposed to be half-high. The chart is problematic, because when it was created SIL fonts did not support the arrows. Similarly, there have been font problems in the Handbook. (Can't locate my copy right now either.) I've never seen full-height arrows used for this in the lit.

Ah, it's available on Google Books. P. 15 illustrates both, and they are clearly half-height (superscript) arrows. It would seem to be a font problem or coding error.

Yeah, they seem to have manually superscripted it. Remember, the Handbook came out in 1999, which means they were dealing with Unicode 2.1. (3.0 came out in Sept. of that year.) The half arrows did not get Unicode support until 5.1, which came out in 2008, so there was no proper Unicode point to assign to them. The ones they gave would get people by, since they could always manually superscript as the Handbook did.

If you go to the chart on their website, the tone marks have what appear to be manually superscripted arrows as well. They don't line up with the global rise & fall arrows. All the other IPA characters line up with the explanatory text as well, but these two are set above it.

They are also given here as the equivalent of the 'up arrow' and 'down arrow' in Pullum's Phonetic Symbol Guide.

This UManitoba IPA chart has superscript arrows with the IPA numbers, but leaves the Unicode values blank. — kwami (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrows in IPA: overview & encoding
Let us try to get the complete and correct list:


 * IPA Handbook (by Google books)
 * SIL's PUA
 * So, the handbook published four different arrows, each with a different IPA number. Each of them is graphically (visually) clearly distinguishable (See the yellow column).
 * 1) Also, the handbook publishes two Unicode numbers (orange), and two Unicode PUA numbers (blue).
 * 2) SIL has published, and deprecated, two different Unicode PUA numbers for symbols. It states clearly that these two are deprecated, and available in basic Unicode (non-PUA).
 * 3) On PUA: Private Use Area are Unicode code points inn the range U+E000&mdash;U+F8FF which are free to define & use for any person/organisation (hence "private"). They can use codepoints and publish them together with a font (clearly SIL has done so). (Of course, this way multiple publications can use the same code point for different characters - that is a consequence. Just as it is a job to get the right, corresponding font). Once a character is uniquely encoded by Unicode (non-PUA), the private usage may be declared "deprecated": any font can use the Unicode encoding. SIL has done so.
 * 4) Confusingly, IPA themself has published an incorrect Unicode number (the orange ones). This way a user would end up with the incorrect graph.
 * 5) Probably, this was a solution for earlier days, when the modifier arrows were not in Unicode. They have only been added in version 5.1 (2008). Meanwhile SIL had an alternative available in PUA, requiring the special font.
 * 6) Now that the four arrows are separate available in Unicode, we do not need any PUA anymore. Using the Unicode code produces the right arrow. Lest a browser has the wrong an Unicode-incomplete font, but hey, we use the  template to be sure.
 * 7) I propose that we use the four Unicode encodings for these IPA symbols. But by doing so we overrule the IPA Handbook publication (orange numbers). That could be called OR. -DePiep (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not OR when that's what our 2ary sources say to do. We use 2ary sources all the time, and the Handbook is out of date. The IPA website even recommends using the SIL fonts. — kwami (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point on 2aryness. I don't mind using SIL fonts, but not I do mind using their PUA encodings when there is a correct Unicode encoding. As is with these arrows. -DePiep (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Notes 3 and 4 above mean that SIL allocated PUA codes to these characters before official Unicode codes were available, and then replaced them with the official codes - there is no need to even think about using the old PUA codes. —Coroboy (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Don't we agree? The visual graph (by IPA Handbook) prevails. So secundary stuff (SIL PUA, older stuff) subsides. OK with me. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we use the codes given in the green column above. This gives 4 distinct graphics; clearly the intention of the IPA handbook. —Coroboy (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Added to the articles. — kwami (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding: global rise, global fall arrows
First four rows are from earlier discussed table. Added: two rows (Global arrows)

Mention Android?
I wonder if it would be worth mentioning Android in the closing Technical Note. The Android Browser is an increasingly widely-used current browser, but the default font it comes with lacks the glyphs for the IPA, and so users just see boxes. I don't think there's a way for them to fix this with font downloads at the moment. There is a bug report related to this issue (http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3167 ) which users can "star" if they think it's important, which could encourage Google to act on it. Emertonom (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge Lateral release (phonetics) and Lateral consonant?
I've put a Merge-tag on Lateral release (phonetics) and Lateral consonant. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason not to. Same goes for nasal release. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (eh, you mean merge nasal release with ... ;-) )-DePiep (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is: nasal release, Nasal consonant, Nasal vowel and Nasalization (and Nasal (disambiguation). I do not know the diff, please help us out. -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * About the nasal articles: moved to separate section below. -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I look closer, these are all different topics. Lateral release (phonetics) is not about lateral consonants themselves, it's about normal stop consonants that have a bit of "lateralization" tacked on the end, as secondary articulation. (Compare to consonants with palatalization, e.g. Russian [tj]; these are not actually palatal consonants, they are consonsants with some other place of articulation that have extra palatalization as a secondary feature.) So I'm not sure if the best solution is to merge; a better solution might be to make this distinction clearer in the articles in question. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge nasal articles: Nasal release, Nasal consonant, Nasal vowel, Nasalization, Nasal (disambiguation)?
There is: Nasal release, Nasal consonant, Nasal vowel, Nasalization, Nasal (disambiguation). Should we merge? -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not, for the same reasons I mentioned above. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Not an IPA symbol" - revisited
I'd like to improve our representation of "non-IPA symbols" in the charts. I recall something like this was discussed before, but I cannot find that one.

These are the ones:

The proposal is build up along this line: -DePiep (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Whether a symbol is actually present on the published chart or not, is not relevant. Adding a composed IPA symbol on the right spot is OK, and does not have to be marked as such (example:  and ).
 * 2) If it can be constructed from identified IPA elements, it is an IPA symbol (example:  =112 505).
 * 3) If elements are used that are not in IPA at all, it is not an IPA symbol (example: я).
 * 4) If the symbol is constructed with unidentified elements from IPA (not separately named), that is considered to be an IPA  symbol, I suggest (Example:  ).
 * I've applied this to the (new) tables & . Only я is marked non-IPA there. -DePiep (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And in . -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. ɺ̢ is not an IPA symbol. The retroflex tail is not an independent element the way ejective ʼ is. Sure, it's extrapolated from the IPA, whereas я is not, but it's not supported by complete IPA fonts, for example. — kwami (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox IPA not in Breathy voice &tc?
And editor removed the Infobox IPA from Breathy voice, Strident vowel, Creaky voice and Voicelessness. The es: remove pointless template. Is that correct? First, the es is too thin, not a motivation. I can imagine the IPA box should be below the phonetics box, all right, but still there. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

One-Letter One-Sound
If the IPA operates on a "one-letter one-sound" principle, why do the symbols ɪ and ʊ have two different sounds (stand-alone and diphthong)? Should this be mentioned as an exception in the article? Inter change  able | talk to me  17:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As a learner, I was overwhelmed by the IPA chart displayed in this article and felt that it lacked the interactivity I needed to understand it. I would like to see a link to this interactive version of the same chart next to the plain printable/viewable chart:


 * http://www.yorku.ca/earmstro/ipa/


 * Obviously the interactive cannot replace the printable as people still want to print!




 * B — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencn (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Interchangeable, all vowels can appear as standalone sounds or as part of a diphthong. I'm not clear how this is an exception to the one-letter-one-sound principle. garik (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I thought that they represented one sound on their own but /i/ and /u/ in diphthongs. Inter  change  able | talk to me  17:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. No, that's not the case. garik (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Though the diphthong /oʊ/ is in my dialect more like /ou/. Inter  change  able | talk to me  19:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. There would be nothing wrong with transcribing your pronunciation of "coat" as [kout]. And you could add all sorts of information if you wanted a narrower transcription (such as indicating that the first consonant is aspirated and that the second is unreleased etc.). The idea that the coat-diphthong is pronounced /oʊ/ "in English" is a very broad generalisation, and to some extent a matter of convention. Since we're talking about a phonemic, as opposed to a phonetic, transcription, the precise details don't really matter. This is particularly the case if you bear in mind that the IPA employs only 30-something vowel symbols to mark out points on a continuous space&mdash;even for a very narrow transcription, you're just selecting the closest vowel symbol you can. Of course, it also happens to be the case that many people think the second part of the coat-diphthong is more like their /u/ monophthong, when in fact it's closer to their /ʊ/. This was the case for me when I was starting to learn phonetics. garik (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Inter  change  able | talk to me  00:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Pre-stopped consonant & IPA
Would Pre-stopped consonant need more IPA templates? -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Brackets and phonemes
While the use of angle brackets as explained in the article may well be useful, it would be good to know what authority this is based on. Do we know where they come from? Peter Roach RoachPeter (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know about any specific authority. It's a common convention. A quick search found it in A Computational Theory of Writing Systems (Sproat 2000:26), among other works, and with proper brackets (as opposed to gt & lt signs) in Optimal Orthographies (Rogers, 1995:32, in Taylor & Olson, eds, Scripts and Literacy: Reading and Learning to Read Alphabets, Syllabaries, and Characters). — kwami (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Daniels & Bright in their conventions section (p. XL) say, "used commonly in the study of writing, but not in this book, to enclose transliterations or, where confusion is possible, sequences of roman letters to be taken as orthography". It's evidently common enough that they felt they needed to explain it even though they don't use it themselves. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Layout of consonant chart
In a recent edit, the well-crafted consonant chart was split across sections, leading to a messy layout. Please arguments for the split. I find the compact chart very practical for reference, giving a much better overview than when split. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The sections were already there, now every section has its own table. So the article structure is stronger. Also, the current tables have the regular infobox-layout. The old one has very tiny letters, irregular lining and, most important, the IPA symbols have less space (more cramped). The overview you look for is in the navbox, and cannot be expected in the article body, because that is where the details are. Adding overview between details would be contradicting. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * After the split, several sections have two tables with largely duplicated information, creating a rather messy layout as well. An overview before going into detail is quite useful and common. The navbox at the top is too small to be of much value. Apart from that, it is usual to keep the status quo ante during a discussion, not to let the discussed modification stand. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You edit war ? -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You must be joking. What was that about pots and kettles? &minus;Woodstone (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Either you talk here, or you revert. As simple as that. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Restart. Do you prefer the crafted makeup of each table, or do you prefer the overview (four of them together)? -DePiep (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Most importantly, I find great value in the compound table that gives an overview of the most common consonants. It is crafted such that even on narrow screens it flows well. By splitting it over various sections much of its value is lost, and in those sections it duplicates information.
 * Secondly, the format of the individual tables deviates from the standard austere WP table style, by omitting or enhancing some boundaries. It does not fit in the general WP table look.
 * &minus;Woodstone (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. On the quarted of tables: I understand its position in this article. It should stay as the article is now. Proposed changes should be discussed first. Still I think that the current arrangement of the quarted is too constructed -- CSS can do better but hey.
 * Said that, I think that the single tables (listed ) are better exactly for their table-style (their basic table is better, and adjustable). The improvemens include: no abbreviations -- no extra font-size settings (100% or 135%). They show well, very well, in infoboxes. I could tell more later on. -DePiep (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This page does *not* just contain the offical IPA chart and should be changed or not badged as linking to the 2005 IPA chart
Wikipedia is a reference tool, not a research tool. New, personal reanalysis should not be presented here. Lobby for change within the IPA, but note that their chart is (c), and this is not their chart despite being labelled incorrectly as the 2005 IPA chart - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPA_chart_2005.png

So, you cannot have it both ways. Either use the encyclopedia to present THEIR charts, or go and do reserach in the normal peer-reviewed way to change things for the better. Otherwise this page will surely be seen as an attempt to rewrite the facts, and will be removed by wikipedia See http://www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk/ipa/images/pulmonic.gif

It's difficult if the IPA change or introduce symbols but do not update the chart. Has this actually happened? If so, this should be flagged up, not glossed over, and the chart should clearly be presented as a modified version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.104.165 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an article on the IPA, not on a particular publication. The chart you link to omitted some of the IPA to save space. We don't have such constraints. — kwami (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Council of the IPA is concerned about confusing non-expert readers here, with a chart that is not the IPA's official chart posted near the top of the article, but not clearly labeled as unofficial. Therefore I have made 3 small edits to clarify that the chart here is not the official IPA chart (including adding info from the image file description, which no casual reader would see) and that the official chart is just a click away on the IPA website. While there might potentially be some COI concern over my editing this page, the IPA alphabet and chart are arguably exactly and only what the IPA says they are, and I think that readers will want to know how to see our version easily. In the future, I hope that the IPA will agree on one of the CC licenses that will enable the official chart to be posted here (along with the charts that are already here, if they don't violate Wikipedia's policies on verifiable content and no original research); but for now, our copyright prevents that. Secretary of the IPA (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Could we ask why the main chart is incomplete? It's not a chart of the pulmonic consonants, but only a subset of them, even excluding the doubly articulated consonants, which we understand would be difficult to include. Is it simply a matter of saving space by omitting rows and columns with few letters, so that the chart is more legible in the back of the Handbook? We've found that non-expert readers are confused by the official chart, believing for example that the epiglottals are not pulmonic consonants because they are not included in the pulmonic chart, or that [ʁ] can only be a fricative because it does not appear in the approximant row. — kwami (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: I've answered this on my own Talk page, where it was also posted. Secretary of the IPA (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose we drop anything & everything their formal chart is (only references will do). IPA is just a source, and their charts are outdated anyway. The handbook is from 1999 (hardcover & paperback) -- that is: no later additions are included (while, really, well, 2005 is a year too).
 * btw, user:81.86.104.165, was that you User talk:Secretary of the IPA talking?.
 * The Secretary of the IPA (I first thought it was a joke name) troubles with: A): copyright and B) OR. I say: well, then, your Secretary Highness, 1) open your source and 2) cooperate. I myself can write this: we over here at Wikipedia have the best IPA reference anyone can dream of. I state: we have made the best IPA source. Wikipedia is the best, and most actual & accurate, IPA source in the world. -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * DePiep, she is cooperating, and she does not determine the copyright status. No need to be sarcastic. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, except for: cooperation shown?, (c) status determined?, no need to be sarcastic? -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A full day later, including a good sleep, I can specify my reaction.
 * 1: The IPA-org is right in claiming (c) copyright. Also the editor is correctly, applause, disclosing WP:COI -possible- conflict of interest. Their edits to the IPA-alphabet page are acceptable.
 * 2: But then, and my point is: IPA-org (taking side by doing COI disclosure) says we at WPshould not do OR. In itself correct, but not correct by an IPA-representative with COI. Because: no one, not even IPA-org, should claim phonetics, and no one should direct WP what to do. (Or, said differently: IPA-rep, if you care against OR, then join us -- don't talk from your outside office). Most sideways away from IPA are wel sourced. SIL anyone?
 * 3: As I proposed in my first words, and now support again: lets drop "IPA-org" and "IPA-alphabet" as a base for phonetics. We should create central content Phonetic alphabet (where all IPA will be a *-footnote). Every symbol in Phonetic alphabet has a source, and sometimes can have a * that says: "not IPA". IPA-org should not take WP hostage, whichever way. After all, IPA-org has not decided anything since 2005. -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The IPA is certainly the ref for the IPA. And the IPA is the international standard for phonetic transcription, even if most linguists modify it in one way or another. And while the chart is partly arbitrary, it's not unreasonable to clarify that the IPA Handbook organizes it somewhat differently. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

ɐdded a paraɡraph on arranɡement. — kwami (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * DePiep, this page is only a place for discussing how to edit the associated article, not a place for discussing what people in the world should or should not use for phonetics. As kwami points out, even though there is substantial variation in how the IPA is used, there is still an official chart maintained by the International Phonetic Association, and it would not hurt to make it clear in the article that this variation exists and that the tables/charts included in this article may differ from the official charts in IPA publications. Of course, the characters themselves have taken on a life of their own and researchers always reorganize them as they see fit (in, for instance, presenting only the columns/rows that are relevant for a language they are describing), but there is still an official chart, and if the chart at this page is different from the official one then it should not be labelled as official (which I see kwami has already taken care of). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What a strange comment. So User:Rjanag writes: DePiep, this page is only a place for discussing how to edit the associated article, not a place for discussing what people in the world should or should not use for phonetics.. What actually I wrote was the opposite. Of course I was writing to improve the page & WP. This time, I reacted to two first comments in this thread. What I wrote is, like: "don't tell WP what to do". That is opposite of User:Rjanag's perception! Let me detail: I did propose (although that might sound extreme) that if IPA dictates WP what to do, we'd better move the letters "IPA" from the title to the footnote. Again, that is me re the first two comments here (by IP and Secretary of IPA). Also, I did not involve by editing this page. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we discuss adding the official IPA chart to this article?
The Council of the IPA has now voted to approve licensing the IPA chart under the Creative Commons license that will enable it to be posted here on Wikipedia. After we get the chart into a suitable file format, I will upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. I would then like to add it to this article (and remove the links to the .pdf file of the chart on the IPA's webpage). Could I ask for opinions from the veteran editors, who've done so much work on this article over the years, how you would like to see the official chart placed in relation to your charts that are already here in the article? Secretary of the IPA (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I say, publish with the freedom you noted, great. Most likely, we at WP will rephrase it (read: tear it apart and reform it ;-)). -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no, if it's being published to show what the official chart looks like, then I don't think we would modify it in any significant way (because then it wouldn't be what the official chart looks like...) Victor Yus (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be very helpful if DePiep would explain who he is talking about as "we at WP". RoachPeter (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * re: we at WP add unprivatised property. IPA-secretary claims propety. -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we shouldn't modify it. IMO it would come second, because it is admittedly incomplete, and that has caused confusion among our readers in the past (thinking that epiglottals are not pulmonic consonants, for example, because they're not listed in the pulmonic-consonant chart; also, either Unicode or some IPA font initially got their tones wrong, because they blindly copied the official chart). As someone pointed out already, contrasting the two layouts, with the reasons for their differences, would be illuminating to our readers. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, with all due respect for the hard work that Kwami has put in on this article, I'm definitely in favor of putting the official IPA chart up top. In my experience, everybody who uses the IPA chart has their pet peeves about it. Kwami's chart represents the way that Kwami would like to fix it, but other people would like to fix it in other ways. The best way to keep our article neutral, I feel, is to base it on the official chart. PhoneticsPhonology (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind something closer to the chart in the Handbook at top, but we'd need to fix it: we should at least restore the consonants which have been deleted, restore the manners of articulation that have been omitted from the consonants that are there, and note that the tone letters are only examples, not a list of IPA tone letters. Otherwise we're misinforming our readers. (The main reason for reordering the chart was to prevent duplicating letters in the fricative and approximant rows.) The Handbook assumes a level of familiarity with phonetics that we can't afford—it even screwed up the Unicode consortium! — kwami (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, my question is about where the 2005 IPA chart, unchanged, could be usefully placed in this article, to show what the Association's official IPA chart looks like. I interpret some of the discussion above to mean, "not near the top". :-) Can I therefore propose that I insert a new section specifically about the official IPA alphabet and chart, in-between the existing sections "Description" and "Usage"? This will put the official chart below the chart that is already in the article. In this new section I could say that the alphabet and chart are maintained by the Association, with any proposed changes discussed in JIPA and then discussed and voted on by the Council. BTW, re some of the earlier comments, I have no problem with the idea of others starting an article on non-IPA phonetic alphabets, or re-focusing the existing article "Obsolete and nonstandard symbols in the International Phonetic Alphabet" away from the IPA. PatriciaKeatingIPA (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC) (Note the name change from Secretary of the IPA, to make clear that I am an individual person)


 * I agree with many of the discussants above. As a phonetician myself, I also have my own qualms with the official IPA chart, but of course, this is supposed to be the article on the real IPA, not any individual person's idealized version of it. I think the official IPA chart should appear at/near the very top of the article, making it clear that this is the actual IPA (sanctioned by the International Phonetic Association), and then (as some other users suggested), including additional symbols, criticisms, etc., in later subsections. I think that should make things clear for readers. --SameerKhan (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The chart is not the alphabet. If it were, it would in general not be possible to transcribe tone in IPA. The chart is merely the presentation of the IPA chosen by the association; the IPA is the letters, diacritics, their values, and the rules for combining them. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've put the chart as I proposed above, with some text that tries to explain what it means to be the "official" IPA chart. PatriciaKeatingIPA (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's good. I trimmed the wording a bit. I also noticed that our organization of the chart is coincidentally similar to the official 1979 version (nasal–plosive–fricative–approximant). If you can release other versions of the chart for the history article, that would be fantastic. We particularly need the first chart the IPA created (I believe that was the 1900 version), the 1989 Kiel chart, and clarification of whether changes were instituted in 1976 or 1979 or both. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

IPA chart
There's a mismatch between the PNG version to the SVG and PDF version. Please update the file/s. Galzigler (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

IPA Lessons on the Computer (eLearning)
Sorry for asking here, I know it's not a forum, and the discussion here is only about improving the article, but I guess it will be more effective to ask here where people are more understanding, then asking in another forum that isn't connected to the subject at all.

I want to learn IPA (in my country the IPA isn't a part of the curriculum, I don't understand why), and I search in the Internet every keyword I could have think off and I haven't found anything.

I need a software that is - first of all, an offline version (downloadable), will demostrate everything, and teach it as it is teached at school, and divided to lessons and includes tasks and tests. Maybe a Flash file, that include everything.

Thanks in advance. Galzigler (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't need any special software. Any introductory linguistics or phonetics textbook teaches IPA in detail. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How can I learn to pronounce a sound I never heard before from a textbook? Galzigler (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

GA status
This article has had an expand tag on it since November 2009. An article with an expand tag is likely to fail the broadness criteria of a good article. As far as I can tell it relates to this discussion. Reading that it still appears relavent. I am considering conducting a reassessment of this article due to this tag. AIR corn (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

IPA Extensions
The last sentence of the section on History has a reference to the IPA Extensions flagged with "by whom?". I think it would be helpful to remove this and include a reference to the later section of Extensions to the IPA - is that OK? RoachPeter (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"a in palm" is a bad example
I for one can never be sure whether my "a" on its own is the same sound as the "a" with the silent but potentially-influencing "l" in palm. I don't think it's quite the same sound. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Changed. Next time, be bold! This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit:) garik (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks in IPAsym
I have created a checkpage for all IPAsym input: Template:IPAsym/check all. It shows there are about a dozen of red links produced. If it is a typo in the page name, that should be corrected of course. These pages should exist, either with content or as a redirect. I invite everyone interested to cleanup some redlinks. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Damaged PDF link
This PDF link is damaged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPA_chart_(C)2005.pdf It can't be read by acrobat. Yurivict (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My acrobat does it well. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Mine seems to read it just fine. (BTW, there are typos in that version. Added a note. We had a long debate a few years ago over whether to follow the lit or the chart, and decided not to follow the chart since it was so obviously a font problem.) — kwami (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It displays fine in the browser for me. Are you having errors opening it in your browser (or in Adobe Reader), or specifically in Acrobat (which is a proprietary PDF editing software--it's not the same as Reader, which is what you use for viewing a PDF)? <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Audio files for clicks
We seem to have no audio files for any of the 24 click articles. But they could be available with a different name. I'll try to find these audio files and name them here, so we can make a match. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Bilabial click.ogg This one I addded to Labial click (plain) in Bilabial clicks.
 * That's not what they sound like. — kwami (talk)
 * Removed from the page I mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Palatoalveolar click.ogg Used for Palatal click}} (plain) in Palatal clicks
 * Not a palatal click. — kwami (talk)
 * Is removed there. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Dental click.ogg Used for Dental click (plain) in dental clicks.
 * Fine, apart from it being glottalized (it's not good for a glottalized click cuz it's not nasal.) — kwami (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Postalveolar click.ogg User for Alveolar click(plain) in Alveolar clicks.
 * Ibid.
 * Added.


 * File:Alveolar lateral click.ogg Could be in Lateral clicks?
 * Yes. — kwami (talk)
 * Added. Shows for IPA symbol= ǁ (IPA number 180)


 * File:Sesotho cons clicks.ogg
 * File:Clicking tongue.ogg
 * Not useful. — kwami (talk)

Please point to which IPA article these audio should link. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Maybe I'll get some of the others up some day. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, if these are placed with the wrong phonetic sound (symbol), they should be removed there (soundfile= is used in the infoboxes). If they represent another sound (or symbol), they can be added there. It's just that I cannot make such a connection. -DePiep (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The bilabial and palatal don't sound right. The others are fine. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These non-default names added in IPA audio filename/filename. Will show the soundbox automatically. See the audio table in Click consonant, it has the 3 links. (Automate does not work in the infobox when ipa number= has multiple numbers, as in dental clicks; there manually added.). -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

downloading problem
Why aren't there links here for where to download fonts to such that the system can use them? What good is a font if you download it to a place where your computer can get at it? Where is an article about where to download fonts to and a link to that article? Call me a dumb user if you want but that's not helpful. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Diphthongs
The article currently says that "Diphthongs are typically specified with a non-syllabic diacritic, as in ⟨aɪ̯⟩. However, sometimes a tie bar is used, especially if it is difficult to tell if the vowel is characterized by an on-glide or an off-glide: ⟨a͡ɪ⟩ or ⟨o͜e⟩". I know that the latter method (using a tie bar) is very common in linguistics, but is it standard? Does any official source on IPA allow this as well? — N-true (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no real standard, I don't know what you mean by official sources "allowing" it. I think such use is in keeping with the definition of the tie bar.  Not sure if it occurs in any JIPA articles.  — kwami (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Coronal not dorsal
The alveo-palatals are coronal, not dorsal. I like to listen to songs about characters by Swedish children's author Astrid Lindgren, in Swedish. The Swedish sound that Wikipedia transcribes as [ɕ] (voiceless alveo-palatal sibilant), sounds indistinguishable from [ʃ] (voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant), which is a coronal, as it should be, given that [s] is a coronal. However, sibilant [ɕ] is very audibly distinguishable from nonsibilant (and dorsal) [ç].--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, they're depicted here as intermediate between coronal and dorsal, which is a reasonable characterisation. Note also that greater perceived auditory similarity doesn't necessarily reflect greater articulatory similarity. garik (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dot below
Some letters with a dot below have a special Unicode symbol. For example, are l&#x323; (U+6C U+323) and ḷ (U+1E37) considered the same? The article Ḷ says "In the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration, ḷ is used to represent vocalic l", but says noothing about IPA. Mapcho (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * U+1E37 and U+006C U+0323 are canonically equivalent. U+1E37 is the Normalization Form C, whereas U+006C U+0323 is the Normalization Form D. The same principle applies to all characters with diacritics that have a precomposed Unicode symbol.—Emil J. 08:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

IPA font
Hi,

I propose to use one of the available web fonts for IPA, probably Gentium. See MediaWiki talk:Common.css.

Thanks for your comments. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Labiodental nasal
"The labiodental nasal [ɱ] is not known to exist as a phoneme in any language.[27]", but in the labiodental nasals article, it is said to be used in many language. Or it that not as a phoneme? Sounds strange.


 * That is probably the case (that it is there but not phonemic). That is the case, at least, for English. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Like as an allophone of . Dan <span style="font-size:large; line-height:.7em; font-family:'Arial Unicode MS,' Code2000, Code2001, 'Free Serif'">☺ 14:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See Labiodental nasal. — kwami (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It is used in English in words like symphony. Signing for archive: -DePiep (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC) User:Example 14:60, 18 February 2011 (UTC)