Talk:Italian phonology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Not sure about the new rewrite.

The current layout (which includes the two latest edits by Army1987) seems even clunkier than the previous organization. For one thing, the consonants are in sub categories while the vowels are in a list. Furthermore, sub-cating the consonants makes the TOC huge. Finally, it is completely different (and harder to follow) than the other forms of phonology pages. See Spanish phonology, Hmong phonology, German phonology and French phonology for the examples, of which, German and French are probably what all phonology pages should aspire to become.

I propose keeping Army1984's IPA additions but returning to simple lists or moving forward to the more encyclopedic style. Grika 03:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Now I splitted away the section about spelling, and added a request for expansion.--Army1987 21:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Palatal approximant

Why is there no /j/ in the table whereas there's one mentioned in the following paragraph? Pittmirg 09:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

sinalefe

The article refers to the concept of sinalefe, using the Italian term. Presumably this is the same as synalepha - would it be more useful to use the English term (perhaps as a translation of the Italian term rather than instead of it) and to link to that article? — Paul G (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. I don’t see any particular need to specify the Italian translation, so I’ve made the simple change. —Ian Spackman (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

/e/ ~ ɛ and /o/ ~ /ɔ/

I've added the paragraph about this pronunciation difference, even if I'm not a phonology scholar but I'm just a native (Southern) Italian speaker. Some help on it may be needed. However, I verified my information on the corresponding Italian page it:Fonologia_dell'italiano, and I have some knowledge about phonology. The note about minimal pairs is completely unreferenced, but it is something anybody in Italy would agree with (after becoming aware of the issue). I've added {{fact}} anyway, to comply with Wikipedia rules. --Blaisorblade (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the paragraph up, cleaned up the wording, and added more fact tags to it. The problem with it:Fonologia dell'italiano is that it provides no citations. Hopefully we'll find some sourcing on the statements. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

While that contrast is somewhat weak and there are great regional variations, it is still present, especially in Central Italy, where the difference between botte "blows" and botte "cask" is clearly audible. Saying "only for professional speakers who have been specifically trained" and "most speakers" is an exaggeration. I'm removing the second sentence. -- Army1987 (t — c) 13:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a tendency to use only the close-mid vowels more frequently in Northern Italian dialects

This is not true. There are many Northern accents: 1. in Torinese, all vowels are pronounced open: vèrde, giòrno, stèlla, ventitrè, perchè, tèmpo, bène 2. in Milanese, there are 7 vowels, but many times they usage is different from the standard (based on Tuscan Italian): béne, témpo, Daniéla (standard: bène, tèmpo, Danièla); perchè, ventitrè (standard: perché, ventitré) 3. Venetian accent, Genoan accent and Brescian accent of local persons speaking standard Italian also has 7 vowels, but their distribution is different from both Milanese and the standard Italian (based on Tuscan): the word Vèneto is pronounced in Venice as in standard Italian: Vèneto, but in Genoa and Brescia it's véneto. 4. The local pronunciation of the Northern town of Como is Cómo, but in national RAI newscasts the standard (Tuscan) form is used: Còmo (with the open vowel).

When in doubt, check to Dictionary of Italian pronunciation: The Pronunciation of Italian http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPr_03_Italian.pdf

Dizionario di pronuncia italiana http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/DiPI_3_A-Z.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.48.65 (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment about pronunciation of /r/ in the sample text

The claim is made that /r/ is, in Parma, pronounced as a 'velar trill'. This is not physiologically possible, as there's no articulator to flap against the velum. See Velar consonant. I haven't modified the article because I don't know how /r/ is represented in Parma dialect. Jogloran (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More about /r/ pronunciation: As an example of normal variation inside the population, a small percentage of native speakers would realize atypically the trill. This sound is considered a defective pronunciation that could be fixed through speech therapy. It is called 'erre moscia' (soft r) and sounds like a 'v': rosa would be realized like vosa. A different issue are regional differences in the pronunciation of the trill due to cultural and historical influences, especially from French. An example of the latter is the area around Parma and Piacenza, where a high percentage of the population pronounce it like an uvular fricative, similar to the French 'r'. This phenomenon can be explain by the French cultural influence of Maria Louise, wife of Napoleon, who ruled the Ducat of Parma and Piacenza after the abdication of Napoleon, form 1814 to 1847 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.171.72 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sample Text section with IPA transcription

I'm wondering why the IPA transcription shows some of the letter I sounds (usually [i]) as [ɪ], when the article makes no mention of [ɪ] even existing as a phoneme in Italian. Just wondering if there's any basis to it. Afc0703 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If [ɪ] is an allophone of /i/, the sample text seems to apply it inconsistently. I've replaced all instances with i. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Native speaker choice: the speaker sounds like he has a relative common mispronounciation of the //r, the so called 'erre moscia". Although quite subtle, it would be probably more appropriate to choose a speaker with a pronunciation that is more statistical representative of Milan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.171.72 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandhi

this section of the article substantially refers to a feature that is present in a few dialects of italian (indicatively, Florentine, or some from southern italy), most certainly not in the correct italian language. Please provide better explanation, description and references, or remove this section. Thanks, Antonio

I must contradict you: see any good grammar or dictionary, such as what Treccani dictionary says under "raddoppiamento":

In fonetica, raddoppiamento o rafforzamento sintattico o fonosintattico, fenomeno per cui determinate consonanti semplici iniziali di parola, quando questa segue nel discorso (senza che vi sia una pausa o un dislivello stilistico di tono) ad altra parola che termini in vocale (o sia costituita da una sola vocale), passano al grado rafforzato, ossia sono pronunciate doppie (per es., in ital., a casa 〈a kkàsa〉, sopra tutto 〈sópra ttùtto〉, come questo 〈kóme kku̯ésto〉)

(see http://www.treccani.it/Portale/elements/categoriesItems.jsp?pathFile=/sites/default/BancaDati/Vocabolario_online/R/VIT_III_R_095583.xml where there is further information afterwards). Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We even have an article, Syntactic gemination, about this phenomenon. I have put in a link to it. Goochelaar (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Regional variation [kn] --> [nn]

I'm from Rome and I don't agree with Romans pronouncing [ˈtɛknika]as on a range from [ˈtɛnnika] to [ˈtɛnniɡa]. In the Roman dialect we don't assimilate k in [kn] to [nn] (they do in other central areas). We pronounce this either [kn] or [gn]. The range could be something like from [ˈtɛknika] to [ˈtɛkniɡa] to [ˈtɛgniga]. Sorry but I have no qualified written reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.17.207.143 (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ɔ changed to ɒ

Empirically, the [ɔ] sound does not occur in Standard Italian. Comparing the Standard Italian do to the English Received Pronunciation hot they share roughly the same vocalic sound, especially the aperture. If not, the Italian open o is more open than the English RP /ɒ/, but never more close (as the Italian vowel chart unempirically suggests). Therefore, ɔ should be replaced with ɒ. Gian92 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. RP has slowly closed its back vowels so what is traditionally written like /ɔ/ is now pronounced like [o] and /ɒ/ is pronounced as [ɔ]. This change has already been noted by experts: you can read an interesting explanation of the changes in RP, including this one, here. --Geon79 (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Double consonants in the sample text

Since the consonants doubled in the orthography represent geminated (i.e. long) consonants with a single release, shouldn't they be marked with the standard lenght mark ː in the IPA trasncription instead? As they are written as the same letter twice it looks as if they were two separate consonants next to each other, not just a long one. --Imploder (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As an Italian speaker and language user, I am completely positive that the article uses the correct IPA transcription for geminated consonants, as done by Italian dictionaries using IPA transcriptions (like the "Zingarelli Italian dictionary" 11th edition, from Zanichelli editing house). The usage of the IPA length mark ':' is restricted to vowels. --Blaisorblade (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i agree with above. The consonant length is greater only in the so called double “semi-vowels”, such as “ll” (e.g. “pala” vs. “palla”), and that’s sort of a secondary effect. The double consonants with a plosive component are actually two: the first one is articulated, but not released (e.g. “fato” vs. “fatto”). Mauro Maulon69 (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Consonants: include [ŋ]?

Shouldn't [ŋ] (engwa) be included in the consonants table, at nasal/velar? It does exist even if it is only an allophone of [n] before [k] and [g], but this could be explained in a note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collideascope (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If you do that, you'll need to include also the labiodental nasal [ɱ] of "infinito" (infinte). That's because it is a phonological feature of Italian to articulate the nasal consonant is the same place as the following consonant and this is always written as n, unless it's exactly [m]. This is already written in the notes of the consonant table; the table itself only lists phonemes, not allophones. --Geon79 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, and that’s so true that kids or uneducated people often forget that in front of P and B the “n” is written “m” (and is actually an “m”!), and write for example “caNbio” instead of “caMbio”. Mauro Maulon69 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Affricate "allophones"

Moving the following claim made in a revision of the article to talk page:

• Studies report that the alveolar affricates /t͡s/ and /d͡z/ are quasi-allophones, with one minimal pair that is pronounced the same way by most speakers.

Admittedly, I don't even know which minimal pair this would be: I can think of none. However, I don't believe lack of a minimal pair automatically makes two sounds allophones of each others, if they're not in complementary distribution. So even if these mentioned studies were accurate (that needs a citation, anyway), the conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the premise, and to me, it seems intuitively wrong: there are very many words that, in a native speaker's mind, need to be pronounced with either /t͡s/ or /d͡z/, such that they're not interchangeable and don't depend on the surrounding context. In my dialect for instance (but I believe it's valid for Standard Italian), "pizza" is /pittsa/ and "mezzo" is /mεddzo/, and pronouncing them as /piddza/ or /mεttso/ would sound plain wrong. So I don't see how they could be (quasi)-allophones. LjL (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Canepari (http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPr_03_Italian.pdf) too asserts that /t͡s d͡z/ distinct phonemes, and he mentions a minimal pair: ‹razza› /ˈratt͡sa/ meaning “race, species” and ‹razza› /ˈradd͡za/ meaning “ray [of light]”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.164.96 (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the fish actually. The ray of light is called raggio in Italian. By the way, casa is pronounced [ka:za] in standard Italian.--93.42.39.138 (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Onset: i and u are vowels, not consonants

I'm referring to the following 2 examples:

• /f v/ or any stop + /r/ + /j w/. E.g. priego (antiquated form of prego 'I pray'), proprio ('(one's) own' / proper / properly), pruovo (antiquated form of provo 'I try')
• /f v/ or any stop + /w/ + /j/. E.g. quieto ('quiet')

In Italian "i" and "u" are vowels, it seems to me that the examples are wrong. Can somebody comment on this?

Letters of the alphabet are neither vowels nor consonants, they are just letters of the alphabet. "Vowels" are about sound, not spelling. So whether "i" and "u" represent vowel sounds depends on the context. The word "ieri" is pronounced /'jeri/ (note the difference between the first and the last "i"), and the word "uovo" is pronounced /'wɔvo/ (note /w/ and not /u/). The sounds /j/ and /w/ are semivowels, and semivowels are often classed, at least for phonotactics purposes, as consonants, not as vowels. LjL (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Uvular fricative?

I see nothing in the article about a uvular fricative ʁ (or something similar) realization of the /r/ phoneme. I remember an Italian from Piedmont telling me that he had a "French 'r'" in Italian, but that he was only one of a few in his region with such pronunciation. However, recently I heard film director Bernardo Bertolucci speaking, and I realized he has the same pronunciation. You can hear an example here (multiple occurrences from the beginning of the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3GZyTiUANM So I was wondering, does anyone know if this is considered a kind of speech impediment (as my Piedmontese friend seemed to imply)? Or is there any source acknowledging the existence of this realization of /r/? Tanynep (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It is usually considered a speech impediment. The Italian Wikipedia has an article about it. Funnily enough, it has an identically-named article that refers to a phonetic change instead of a speech impediment. The phonetic change did happen in some Italian varieties, but it's fairly rare (off hand I couldn't tell you which places sport it). LjL (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

correct and delete the comment

Obviously, what is represented as "a", should be IPA ä, in the vowel chart. Although IPA ä is confusing, in view of e.g. German ä. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.92.223 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

zz

This article says nothing about zz. Is mezzo really pronounced differently from avvezzo? --Espoo (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

a --> ä

According to the location of /a/ on the vowel chart in the article and according to Open central unrounded vowel, the correct IPA symbol is [ä] , not [a]. --Espoo (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

IPA [a] represents both the front and the central vowel, [ä] is a non-obligatory specification of the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.186.58 (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

the letter a

This is pronounced like the a in cat most of the time; it is a schwa otherwise. the italianlanguageguide has it mostly right and my Larousse Interprète Français-Italien by Richard Silvestri, says it is pronounced as in French, meaning like the a in cat, a fused ae in the IPA, which is low, front, unrounded, lax, and open, while the a as in father, "a" in the IPA, is low, central, rounded, tense, and open. I am half-Italain and a linguistics student and language buff and as far as I know the "a" sound does not exist in Italian and certainly I have never heard the a pronounced that way in Italian. If you can prove it does by showing real Italians speaking real and standard Italian, the Tuscan dialect, I would be surprised. --Bpell (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources seem to agree with the phonetic values from Rogers & d'Arcangeli (the source of the vowel chart). Italian /a/ is actually pretty close to RP /ʌ/. French /a/ is not the a in cat (which is [æ]). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I should correct myself as there are some variations as some Italians say it as an a in cat and others as something like the a in about. The former is how we pronounce it. I listened to "Volare" and it is like the latter but I also listened to Fabio Triolo-TeleEuropa also on You tube, but which I couldn't find again, and it is like the former also.

But you are very wrong about French as it is indeed like cat in most instances in both Europe and Canada. Anyone who knows french knows that and I am a francophone living in a French community. But this is another matter as this article is about Italian.--Bpell (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of ways that native speakers can help with editing language-related articles but the phonetic particularity of vowels is not one of them. Both the Italian and French phonology articles have sourced vowel charts and your status as half-Italian or as someone living with the French does not give you greater credibility. Nor does your status as a "linguistics student." We rely on sources here and even the sources that you cite above disagree with what you assert. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

He's very right about French. The normal French French "a" is not like cat. It's central, "cat" is front. I don't know about Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.186.58 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (I'm a native Italian, and never spent more than about 15 consecutive days out of Italy), /a/ in Italian sounds more or less as the way the vowel in "cat" is pronunced nowadays on BBC (and the new edition of the OED is going to use /a/ for that[1]), but records from thirty years ago (when the transcription /æ/ was universal) sound somewhat more like /ɛ/ to an Italian ear. (And the sound in "love" used to sound halfway between /a/ and /ɔ/, but it seems to be getting lower, too.) I can't see any problem with /aɛeiɔou/ for Italian vowels. (Maybe /a/ isn't exactly as front as possible so a "retracted" diacritic might be used, but c'mon, this is a phonemic transcription.) I suspect that Bpell is confused because he is familiar with the "traditional" transcription of the cat vowel but with its "modern" pronunciation, so that he believes that æ is supposed to represent the sound in French patte/recent British English cat; and he might have not noticed that IPA uses a and ɑ with different meanings, so that he believes that they are glyph variations both used for the sound in French pâte/English father, which indeed isn't used in Italian. --A. di M. 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Standard Italian /a/ as in casa (stressed syllable) and catarsi does sound as frontal as the English RP /a/ as in cat and back (current RP phonetic transcription here and here). Gian92 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I must say I'm puzzled by this, too. The Italian /a/ is famous for being bright like the standard IPA [a]: not central [ä], but distinctly front [a] (like the [a] in the "Volare" song), except in the North (possible due to German/French influence). Did the study not record any variation, regional or otherwise? Apparently they analysed the speech only of a single speaker, even if she is from Rome, not Northern Italy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Domenico Modugno was a Southerner, but his "a" in "volare" sounds pretty central to me: [2]. Is that a front "a" in your ears? It sounds very differnt from any English English "a" I've ever heard, whether north or south. I didn't know the Italian "a" was "famous" for being front either. I've always thought of it as central just like my own German one. What I do realise is that the Italian "a" is extremely open, more open than most other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.186.58 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The question is simpler than it appears. In Italian, all totally open vowels, and all medially articulated ones, up to the Schwa, are heard as allophones of “A”, provided that they’re unrounded. That’s why, when we learn English, we perceive the word “cut” as “càt”. And, in fact, many regional variants of Italian use various allophones for the same phoneme “a”. In Bari, for example, “cane” and “canne” are pronounced with a frontal and a rear “a”, respectively. Those allophones are perceived as “natural” and used also in formal speeches. But, anyway, the frontal “a” (as in northern English “cat”) is always heard as the best one. In Rome, that’s the only existing allophone for “a”. Mauro Maulon69 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Minimal pairs theory?

The article features this line: "Since /ʃ/ surfaces as long post-vocalically, this can produce minimal pairs distinguished only by length of the word-initial consonant:[citation needed] [laʃeːna] la cena vs. [laʃʃeːna] la scena."

I'd like to point 3 things out:

1. the context is about central italy dialects, therefore the IPA translation of the second expression should be [laʃʃɛːna] (open "e", as in standard italian). As far as I know, [ʃeːna] is very northern;
2. I couldn't think of any other word pair showing the phenomenon;
3. there's no citation.
   

In conclusion, if my first point is true, there's no proof that /tʃ/ turning into /ʃ/ can even generate a single minimal pair.
Best, Marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.32.117 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, another such minimal pair is “la ciocca” and “la sciocca”, which do sound very different and immediately recognizable from each other here in Rome. And perhaps there are others.

As to the vowel in “scena”, yes, of course that is an open “e”, /ɛ/, in all central Italy. But that’s a detail. In Bari (southeast) it’s a closed “e”, and in Turin (northwest) is an intermediate “e” (since the italian spoken in Turin has only one “e” and one “o”). Mauro Maulon69 (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Lazio is semi-infamous for variation of the the vowel of scena. In any case, here are a few more pairs: pace - pasce, pece - pesce, licio - liscio, cacio - cascio. This is sufficiently well known and banal that no citation should be necessary. --47.32.20.133 (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

syllabification of s+C clusters

citation needed - "Why should [sˈtɔrja] be “unrealizable phonetically following pause”? — Canepari mentions acoustic data (A Handbook of Pronunciation, p. 136) and refers the reader to chapters 12.2-6 of his Handbook of Phonetics, see especially chapter 12.5. — Please note that in Canepari's notational system [sˈtɔrja] does not imply that the [s] is syllabic [s̩], but merely that it has less acoustic energy resulting from initiator power and is therefore “less perceptible” than the [ˈs] in English [ˈstɔːɹi]" – LiliCharlie (diff)

No claim made that the /s/ is syllabic; it's extrasyllabic (thus the reduced acoustic energy option). Obviously I was using standard notation, as well as following Canepari's own description in his online Dizionario di pronuncia: "L'accento forte, o primario, è indicato dal simbolo / ˈ / e precede la sillaba da accentare", i.e. /s't/ designates syllable onset (not word onset) as /t/. I've clarified it a bit now, and attenuated the characterization of his structural claim, since he never does state it clearly. I've also added the precise citation, which is about as clear as Canepari ever gets in English on a topic that has him worked up: "acoustic data confirm the fact that [|s'tV] /|s'tV/ (after a pause, or 'silence' ) is [he means the sequence [sCV]] part of the same syllable (a little particular, possibly, on the scale of syllabicity, but nothing really surprising) whereas, obviously, [Vs'tV] /Vs'tV/ constitute two phono-syllables bordering two C" More detail is in the references in Sorianello's encyclopedia article -- or better yet, Hermes at al, 2013, Gestural coordination of Italian word-initial clusters, in Phonology 30.1-25; more up-to-date, very easy to find with Google. No great need to cite Canepari here, in fact; there are plenty of people who've worked on this. --47.32.20.133 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

gemination of

This article says:

• /z/ is the only consonant that cannot be geminated.

The Italian article says:

• Tutte le consonanti (tranne /z/, /j/ e /w/) possono essere fonologicamente geminate all'interno di parola tra vocali o tra vocale e /l/, /r/, /j/ o /w/. Per esempio: /ˈfatto/ ~ /ˈfatːo/.

--Espoo (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The Italian article is right that /j/ and /w/ cannot be geminated. But the two are allophonic to unstressed, pre- or post-vocalic /i/ and /u/, respectively. Therefore they aren't counted as "true" consonants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.186.58 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW the geminate or long yod of [ˈajjo] aglio and [ˈpajja] paglia are fairly common dialectally and both seep into so-called Regional Italian. Less trivially, it's a sticky point, but it's quite a challenge to mount a credible non-circular argument that the [j] of più or the [w] of buono are allophones of /i/ and /u/. --47.32.20.133 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should intervocalic r's be transcribed [r] or [ɾ]?

FYI

 – The RfC is now at Help talk:IPA/Italian#RfC: Should intervocalic r's be transcribed [r] or [ɾ]?

Should the Italian pronunciation given in articles and on Help:IPA/Italian show [ɾ] (tap/flap) or [r] (trill) for single intervocalic r's in unstressed syllables? 13:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: Wouldn't Help talk:IPA/Italian be a better forum for this RfC to take place in? Also, it is usually good practice for you to cast a !vote yourself summarizing the previous arguments when starting an RfC. Nardog (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: Thanks. I'll make one there instead. (Bit busy so it might be a day or two.) ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)