Help talk:IPA/English

rhotic diaphonemes followed by vowels

How am I supposed to indicate these? You treat /ɔr/ as a (dia)phoneme, indicating either /ɔ˞/ or /ɔː/, depending on the rhoticity of the dialect. So does that mean I need an additional /r/ to indicate the linking-r found in non-rhotic accents?

My guess is no, based on the use of "Laura" as an example, but, either way, you really need to describe linking-r somewhere on this page, and give some example with two syllables in the hovertip in {{IPAc-en}}. (Unfortunately, my accent does not differentiate between /ɔr/ and /ɔːr/, so I don't know what common English word would be appropriate.) — trlkly 22:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about the linking r found among non-rhotic speakers in phrases like cheater eater, we indicate that with the /r/ after the /ɔ/. If you're talking about the intrusive r found in phrases like cheetah eater, we don't indicate that in the diaphonemic system.— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion needed, and maybe correction?

I tried to add pronunciation to one article, Bill Doran (motorcyclist), the first attempt I had made and will probably be the only attempt, formatted as (/ˈdɒrʌrn/ DORR-UN). It was deleted within two days with the edit summary "not possible pron".

Could someone please check what I submitted [1] and show a corrected format here as necessary, so that I can amend the article? I guessed that the deleting editor was better-positioned than I, but I was disappointed that no correction was offered. The only thing I can see now is that the unstressed syllable is shown in upper case, and maybe should be DORR-un? I don't need to greatly understand what I've done wrongly, but I need to clear up this loose end. Thanks.-- Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If it rhymes with "foreign" and "sporran" then it should be /ˈdɒrən/. Rothorpe (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you've got it. How about the respell part? --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the schwa symbol used there? If not, your suggestion DORR-un looks good. Rothorpe (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We use schwas in respell too.

I am the one who deleted. The reason I didn't fix is that I had no idea if the o vowel was ɒ, ɔː, or oʊ. (That is, DORRən, DAWRən or DOHRən.) — kwami (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, much obliged to you both. Remember I am a beginner and this was nine months ago - I need to re-add it, and to another similar article Doran's Bend. I believe the schwa should be included. For respell, Dor as in moribund, an as in run. Formatted as {{respell|DORR|{{sc|un}}}}, the template will only show the second syllable as upper case DORR-UN --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Should be a schwa. I seriously doubt it's like "run", unless he pronounces his name as a compounded "Dor-Un". And I don't understand why you're adding in the {{sc}} template. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we've established that it's a schwa in IPA, so it must be in the respelling too. Rothorpe (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I'm using a 1960s interview given to the journalist by his daughter, and I've not looked at it since December 2014, so it's always going to be a matter of interpretation from the source. I don't know why the {{sc}} is there, either; it's something I worked out at the time, seemingly wrongly. The TV commentator used the exactly-correct pronunciation, IMO and interpretation of the 1960s article, recently on UK television's ITV coverage. I can sort out the exact quote and put it here, Sunday UK daytime, if that might help. I think you're not far off with Dor-un, but with the emphasis on a slightly-long rr. If I don't do it, the chances are it will never get added to the articles, and it would be assumed to be Dor-Ann.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you've already OK'd the IPA, so I've put that in. Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regrettably, I was unable to trace the citation I used which is embarassing - turns out to be 1973 newspaper-format, not a 1967s magazine as I thought...maybe I have a scan somewhere on the 14-year-old computer that is groaning with research stuff...Getting back to basics, the example of 'sporran' would be most appropriate. I had a conversation with my brother (who lives in US) some years ago regarding their pronunciation of 'Fillet' (fish, meat) as Fee-lay, or sometimes contracted to F'lay; I know Wikipedia deprecates the use of apostrophe, but in this vein I would write Doran as Dorr'n. rgds.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

BBC/RP pronunciation

The article states: "even amongst educated speakers. BBC English is moving away from the older RP [æ] towards the more open vowel [a]".

I think this is seriously out of date.

At first I couldn't make any sense of it, but then I remembered hearing some very old (50's/60's) public information films where the narrator spoke in such a way that 'lad' could conceivably rhyme with 'lard'. To give an idea of how old this is, people start laughing as soon as the narrator speaks - the accent is considered hilarious.

Nonetheless, I'd like to hear if there are other opinions before changing the tense of that fragment, particularly as it's hard to back up with references. PRL42 (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

'lad' rhyming with 'lard'? That's never been a part of RP. Peter238 (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it would be more someone doing a verbal caricature of an absurdly 'hoity-toity', old fashioned, upper class accent. I see you've now removed the mention of the word. PRL42 (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Source? You must be confusing vowels. In the old-fashioned upper-class accent of UK (which is a form of RP, called Upper Crust RP or Conspicuous General British), /æ/ had a [æ ~ ɛə̯] quality, often with some pharyngealization, so that bad and bared had a quite similar vowel (the latter tended to be longer and lack the pharyngeal quality of /æ/). /ɑː/, on the other hand, was back [ɑː] or central [äː] (but not front, unlike /æ/ which is always front in RP), without the pharyngealization, and had a similar quality to the vowel in the word nurse (which was [ɐː]). The [a] quality of /æ/ is a fairly recent innovation, first described in 70's/80's (e.g. in Wells's "Accents of English", which is from 1982). Peter238 (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

PRL42, perhaps you're confusing [a] with [ɑː]? The two are different. In technical phonetic usage, [a] is front or central, [ɑː] is back. The point about lad being pronounced as [lad] is that it's open rather than near-open [æ] or open-mid [ɛ], not that it's back open like lard [lɑːd]. — Eru·tuon 15:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jump links to etymology and pronunciation

Where will Wikipedia go on this topic brought up a few months ago? A discussion of it is underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Simple first sentence. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The first link doesn't work. Peter238 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It was just archived. I've fixed the link. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Variable vowel a:

I am quite uneasy about this innovation. I haven't seen it used elsewhere, and I think it's unlikely many WP users will understand how it works. They would have to grasp that it's OK to transcribe 'bath' as /ba:θ/ but not OK to transcribe 'cat' as /ka:t/. Can anyone give a reference for where this convention is used? RoachPeter (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A few of our variable vowels are technically original, though AFAIK the variable pronunciations are represented in dictionaries. If variable a represents BATH, then things are still fairly clear (at least as far as finding sources to back up our transcriptions). I'm not so certain about the way it's been extended, though. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The footnote about ɵ gives a self-referencing pronunciation

/ɵ/ is pronounced as [ə] in many dialects, and [ɵw] or [əw] before another vowel, as in cooperate. --V111P (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

/ʊr/

Apart from courier, is the sequence /ʊr/ found in any other words? 200.77.119.71 (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary has a list here. There are also a number of proper nouns, such as Couric, that use this sequence. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 08:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Only rarely in RP. There are quite a few words that might contain this sequence but only (according to the dictionaries) as an alternative, e.g. 'natural' is usually /'nætʃ.ə.rəl/ but could be /'nætʃ.ʊ.rəl/ (giving an /ʊr/ sequence). But cases of /ʊr/ within a stressed syllable, as in 'courier', are very rare and are mostly in recently imported words or names (e.g. Fourier, guru). Other words containing /ʊr/ but not in a stressed syllable are tureen, purpura (second syllable), Touraine, Jurassic, kurus. RoachPeter (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

/i/

The page currently says that the variable vowel /i/ represents either /ɪ/ or /i/. This is an error, because /i/ without the length symbol isn't listed elsewhere in the table. It isn't listed because there are only two close front vowels, /iː ɪ/; /i/ isn't a third close front vowel phoneme, it's just an unstressed vowel that can be one of the two depending on dialect, though in most standard pronunciations today it's really just /iː/. See Geoff Lindsey's post on this.

I changed the text to reflect this, but Dbfirs reverted me, saying that the OED uses /i/ in serious. Actually, the version of the OED that I can access through my library says /ˈsɪərɪəs/, but yeah, the OED does use the symbol /i/ in city /ˈsɪti/. Still, this doesn't mean there's actually a phoneme /i/ separate from /iː/; the use of a separate symbol is just a nod to the fact that more old-fashioned speakers said /ɪ/. The last vowel in city is identical to /iː/, as it's often diphthongized to /ɪj/. At least, this is what Lindsey says and he makes a convincing case. — Eru·tuon 17:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that there is some equivocation going on between phonetics and phonology here. As far as phonetics, it is my understanding that the final [i] of city is both short and tense, which makes it different from a long tense vowel or a short lax vowel. This pronunciation contrasts dialectally with those who pronounce this vowel as [ɪ]. So, phonetically speaking, there is variation between [ɪ] and [i].

However, this is a diaphonemic transcription and we are largely bypassing phonetics. As such, the issue is more about whether this final vowel can be grouped with the allophones of /ɪ/ or the allophones of /iː/. For those who pronounce this vowel as [ɪ], the issue is clear. For those who pronounce it as [i], it's ambiguous. This seems to be the way we want to present the issue to a lay audience. So it makes sense to keep the length mark in. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at the big OED. To me, the use of /iː/ is unreferenced and misleading (given the table in the article), but I agree that there is a lot of disagreement over the interpretation of this. In what version of the language is "The last vowel in city ... identical to /iː/"? I've never heard it (except in Michael Crawford's Bettee), and I can't find any dictionary that uses the long version. Dbfirs 08:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹: Actually, the final vowel of happy isn't necessarily short. As you can hear in the soundfiles in Geoff Lindsey's post, speakers of "Standard Southern British" (Lindsey's term) often diphthongize it, so that happy is [ˈhapɪj] (or as I wish Lindsey would write it, [ˈhapej]), not [ˈhapi]. The same is true in Australia, where it is often pronounced with a centralized onset: ˈhæpəi]. (This comes from personal observation, not from Lindsey, since I've been watching an Australian show.) American English might have a short and tense vowel, but probably just because there's less diphthongization of fleece and vowel length isn't usually considered as phonemic. But in SSB (modern RP) and AuE, the vowel is most often diphthongal, not short.

Dbfirs: I'm not that familiar with the transcriptional practices of dictionaries, so I can't provide any counterexamples to your point about the OED. However, please read the article by Lindsey above, to see why the OED's practice is misleading. The final vowel of happy isn't actually different from fleece in dialects with happy-tensing, despite the way the OED implies it is. — Eru·tuon 01:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of problem that is caused by the in-house tradition of using diaphonemes. They are a relatively obscure concept that is not used in many analyses. However, they are (implicitly?) used in some major dictionaries. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 01:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a relatively minor problem compared to the alternative(s). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the discussion is going way off topic, onto what the vowel of happy sounds like. I'm a little out of my depth in trying to prove that HAPPY is like FLEECE. I'm not a professional phonetician or phonologist, and in all my wordiness it seems like nobody's getting the point.

I'll try another line of argument; maybe I'll make more sense this time.

The table currently says the variable vowel /i/ is equal to /ɪ/ or /i/. /ɪ/ occurs elsewhere in the table, but /i/ only occurs in the variable vowels section.

So, the variable vowel is equal either to a regular vowel or to itself. x is equal either to y or to x. Then what is x? x is never defined. The statement is tautological and therefore meaningless.

Similarly, the variable vowel /i/ is never defined, since it's said to be equal to itself. What the table is supposed to say is that /i/ represents either /ɪ/ or /iː/. This would be meaningful, because /ɪ/ or /iː/ occur outside of the variable vowels section. — Eru·tuon 05:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I sort of see what you are getting at, but there is so much regional variation in the actual pronunciation of some vowels that I don't think we will ever agree. You seem to be convinced by Geoff Lindsey's opinion. I'm not. Here in northern England, I don't even hear what he seems to be hearing in his sound extracts, especially for Kasia Madera's party, and I think he has been very selective in his choice of lengthened vowels from Prince William's speech (though I would regard William's accent as slightly "off" from standard BBC English anyway). Personally, I prefer to stick with the OED where /iː/ is used only for truly long vowels. Dbfirs 07:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A compromise could be “(either /ɪ/ or /i/ or /iː/)”. I would keep /i/, since there are phonemic analyses of English that use /i/ precisely for this reduced vowel. It is not uncommon that a phonemic analysis may assume different sets of vowels for stressed syllables and for reduced syllables (think /ə/). At any rate, it is important that we use the slashes for indicating phonemes. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 08:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't like that as a compromise. It would be like saying the second consonant in butter is /t/ or /ɾ/ or /d/. Alveolar flapping is a notable feature of a number of dialects, but there is no separate alveolar flap phoneme. From what I gather, there is no linguistic analysis (or, at least, none in major dictionaries) that would regard this vowel as a separate phoneme. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]}

According to John Wells’s overview of IPA transcription systems for English, there are several major dictionaries that use /i/ even though he only looks at British English dictionaries. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 15:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

J. 'mach' wust: Your compromise still doesn't make sense. You're saying we should say x is equal to y, x, and z. Now, y and z are defined on this help page, but x is defined in the OED and other dictionaries. That doesn't make sense. This help page is supposed to be a self-contained logical system. It has to refer to itself; it can't refer to symbols defined in other transcriptional systems. If we refer to other transcriptional systems, why don't we note that the symbol /æ/ is equivalent to the symbol /a/ used in the current online edition of the OED, that /ɛər/ is equivalent to /ɛː/, and so on? We don't, because this page is supposed to be a self-contained transcriptional system, not a list of all the alternative transcriptions used in other dictionaries. — Eru·tuon 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought a bit, and there's one thing that could be done to resolve the logical inconsistency: moving /i/ out of the variable vowels section and into the unstressed vowels section. That would express the fact that several people here think it's a separate phoneme, not just a disjunction between two other phonemes, and it would remove the ridiculousness of saying that a variable stands for itself. What do you all think? — Eru·tuon 21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a variable, but a variable vowel. I see no obstacle in it standing for itself. But I agree that moving it to the reduced vowels is a good solution. After all, it cannot ever be stressed. Here follows the answer I was about to post when your own reply came first:

Most symbols on this help page are defined by referring to themselves. Where it says: “ʌ | STRUT, bud, dull, gun”, you might as well read: “ʌ STRUT, bud, dull, gun (always /ʌ/)”. This would be analogous to saying: “i | HAPPY, serious (always /i/)”. However, the symbol “i” can not only stand for itself (like most other symbols), but it can also stand other symbols (like the other variable or reduced vowels). It is variable, and one of the variants it may stand for is itself: “i | HAPPY, serious (sometimes really /i/, but alternatively also /ɪ/ or /iː/)”.

The entire thing is an overly complicated mess because everything is forced into the Procrustean bed of a diaphonemic analysis that includes several violations against the IPA usage and has been originally created on the English Wikipedia (I fear it is diffusing into the internet). --mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with moving it to the reduced vowels section. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with that solution. Dbfirs 07:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

J. 'mach' wust: I defended the Wikipedia diaphonemic system in a previous discussion, but I'm beginning to see your point of view. I recently responded to someone (Peter Greenwell) who was confused because the vowel of Australian English bed is listed in the article on the Close-mid front unrounded vowel. He thought, because the Wikipedia diaphonemic system transcribes the vowel of bade as /eɪ/, that the vowel article is saying that Australian bed [bed] rhymes with bade, which would be transcribed as /beɪd/ under the Wikipedia diaphonemic system. But phonetically Australian English bade has a different vowel sound, [æe], so bed [bed] and bade [bæed] do not rhyme. The Wikipedia transcription is based on a now very old-fashioned–sounding posh British pronunciation, and doesn't represent the pronunciation in AuE.

His confusion is a direct result of the Wikipedia diaphonemic system, which he was interpreting as literal phonetic fact, rather than as diaphonemic abstraction. He's only one person, but if there are others like him, the system is causing problems, as W. P. Uzer suggested it would in the discussion earlier this year (now to be found in Archive 13). I stand by my statement that we needed evidence of reader confusion, but now some evidence is coming in. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent quite unrelated to the topic of this thread. Sorry. — Eru·tuon 07:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think many people are confused by any diaphonemic system when they first meet it (I know I was, and occasionally still am). Any such system can only be an approximation, and each of us applies our own "corrections" to match our own pronunciation; for example, I always read /æ/ as /a/ for modern British English. Dbfirs 08:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I got a ping from this discussion, so will just quickly add my usual 2p - we ought to use standard notations in standard ways, preferably not invent non-standard ones, but certainly not use standard ones in non-standard ways. Use of /i/ for the happy vowel is standard as far as I'm concerned (part of the IPA-based system used by major dictionaries). It's things like /a:/ for the BATH diaphoneme, a misleading/incomprehensible Wikipedia invention, that need to be eliminated. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is misleading because I don't know of any region that pronounces it [baːθ]. In northern England and Wales it's [baθ], of course, and [bɑːθ] in southern England, and on the other side of the pond it's often a variant of [bæθ], but /baːθ/ seems to be a Wikipedia invention. Dbfirs 13:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

/aː/ is not meant to be a phonetically accurate symbol, but a symbol that means "either /æ/ or /ɑː/" (phonetically (in case of the whole UK and Ireland), /æ/ is also not very accurate anymore). We couldn't use /ɑː/ for that purpose, because it is already used to transcribe, well, /ɑː/. That said, /ɑː/ is central [äː] or front [aː] in Australia and New Zealand, and supposedly also in Norfolk (only the central variant). Peter238 (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes — apologies to our antipodean friends (and Bernard Matthews?) for forgetting their pronunciation. I suppose the symbol looks correct to them. I realise it's not supposed to be phonetically accurate, so I'll just get used to shortening it to [a] for my local dialect, just as I read /æ/ as [a]. (Your conversions will be different.) Dbfirs 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that it is NOT a symbol that means that at all. Where did Wikipedia linguists get this strange idea that they can just appropriate standard IPA symbols for their own ad hoc purposes? The intended meaning will only be understood by someone who clicks through to this page and somehow deciphers its content. And since IPA is allegedly familiar to people already (at least, that's the rationale for our using it), there's absolutely no reason why anyone would click through to this page. The situation is absurd, as I've pointed out countless times, but for some reason it still appears not to have been changed, there are just tweaks made to the page that many users are not going to look at in any case. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

All I did is described how this page and transcriptions linking to it use the /aː/ symbol. You don't have to list all of the problems this transcription might create (or does create), because I'm aware of them. Trust me, I read a large portion of the countless discussions you're referring to. Peter238 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not addressed to you specifically; others might not be aware of them. If enough people become aware, something might finally be done about it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Peter238 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I've just looked and I've seen something even more ridiculous has happened - the /a:/ symbol now no longer means RP /æ/ GAm /ɑː/, it now apparently means either that OR THE REVERSE. Like, what?? How is anyone now supposed to derive any information from that symbol at all, even if they do happen to have chanced on the page that explains it? W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that appears to be a problem. Maybe let's reserve /a:/ for just the words with the bath-trap split, nothing else? As far as I can remember, that's what I proposed when /a:/ was introduced. Peter238 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, better, but in fact /a:/ should never have been introduced at all. Can you not see that no-one will possibly know what it means until it's explained to them (and that most users will not be seeking an explanation, since it looks like a standard IPA symbol)? And what is the possible need for such a notation anyway? W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no real need for them. The only reason /aː, ɒː/ are used on this page is to have one transcription instead of two. Which may be really confusing in non-BATH words. However, /i, u/ should stay, as e.g. Longman Pronunciation Dictionary uses them in all of its transcriptions (albeit only in unstressed positions). Peter238 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@W. P. Uzer: I fully agree with you that we should never have invented our own conventions. I think it is really a violation of WP:OR. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing /a:/ and /ɒ(:)/

From past discussions and this one, I believe there is general agreement, albeit sometimes reluctant, that at the very least this /a:/ and /ɒ(:)/ convention is wrong on several different levels (OR, misleading, etc.) We should eliminate them from the system, I think, and agree to use multiple transcriptions for such words - there is really no other way to effectively convey that information to readers (and remember we are not only conveying information about pronunciation, but to some people we are conveying - currently wrong - information about the IPA and normal use of it). Another question the problem of where pronunciation differs due to non-rhoticity - others have disagreed, but it seems very wrong to me to give only General American (or mid-Atlantic) pronunciations of place names in Britain and Australia, for example. I don't have any problem with the reduced vowels, though, since as Peter says, we are following what standard sources do (though if we are choosing to use slightly different symbols than they do due to rendering issues, it would be good to check that those issues really exist for large numbers of people). W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

At least with ⟨ɵ⟩, we are not following any standard source. It is pure WP:Original research. And so is the use of the symbols ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ instead of the OED’s ⟨ɪ⟩ and ⟨ʊ⟩. The use of ⟨ɪ⟩ ⟨ʊ⟩ is as unproblematic as the use of ⟨ɪ ʊ⟩. If anything, there might be display issues when using ⟨ᵻ ᵿ⟩. Other WP:Original research uses include the ⟨u⟩ for “variable” /ʊ/ or /uː/ or distinctive ⟨.⟩, maybe also ⟨oər⟩ for /oʊr/ and ⟨ɔɪər⟩ for /ɔɪr/.

It might be that for the first time since the creation of this help page, there is a window of opportunity for reverting its blatant violation of WP:OR that was criticized from the start. The user who most fervently advocated for this OR appears not to participate in this discussion.

I think we should prepare a reasonable proposal. Research what’s really being used – outside of Wikipedia so we do not end up in the WP:OR trap, and inside of Wikipedia (I suspect the controversial signs are not really used except by fervent advocates of this help page).

For things such as the rhotic/non-rhotic differences, the quarrel about dialect differences is an irrelevant straw man. The relevant question is: What is WP:OR and what is not? Are there dictionaries from non-rhotic regions that indicate the r’s and depend on the fine print for dropping them (as we do currently)? Are there dictionaries from rhotic regions that do not indicate the r’s and depend on the fine print for inserting them (such a solution would be equally viable)? Are there compromises?

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

Short video explaining the concepts of "Verifiability", and "Neutral point of view"

When we are prepared, we should get approval, maybe at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. We should stress that this is really about the WP:Core content policies and that it really concerns the main content of the articles, not just a help page. Then we can make our move and finally cast out the OR. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 08:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

We might also consider how many articles would be affected by removing /a:/ and/or /ɒ(:)/ or by restricting the former to just BATH vowels. Is there a way to check that? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Note on variable vowels

@J. 'mach' wust:, I like your idea of alerting readers familiar with the IPA that we use some IPA symbols in unconventional/novel ways. I've modified it so that it's one note, rather than three separate ones. I think we could also include mention of our other variable vowel symbols in that note. I'm not wedded to my particular wording, though "not used according to the IPA" did rub me the wrong way a bit. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand that "not used according to the IPA" does not sound very nice. But that is just what it is: The symbols are not used for the sounds they represent according to the IPA. I think honesty to the readers demands that we notify them of this fact. It is unusual and thus highly noteworthy. Consider that the symbol “r” also gets a note about an unusual usage, even though it is used in major dictionaries.

And I do not quote understand why you have moved the symbols “̵̵ɨ, ʉ, ɵ” to the variable vowels. Of course, they are variable. But so is “i”. I would rather keep all the reduced vowels together, and use the variable vowels section only for those that can receive stress. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 06:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem I have with "not used according to the IPA" is that it sounds like we are the only ones who deviate from the strict phonetic usage of, e.g. [ɨ] as a close central unrounded vowel. We aren't. What is notable about our in-house convention is that we are using one symbol to represent a difference in phonemic incidence, rather than a separate phoneme.

I also disagree with your splitting this information into three separate notes. There's already an explanatory note for each of those three symbols and what they mean. Having a separate note for each one seems excessive and unnecessarily makes the information more difficult to access for the reader. I won't revert your (partial) revert at this point; let's come up with the wording we all can agree on. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, since this use of ɨ is apparently based on the latest practice of the OED, why do we not choose to use the exact same symbol that they do? W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Rendering issues I think. Peter238 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That is correct, rendering issues on Ƶ§œš¹’s Android phone, see Help talk:IPA for English/Archive 14#Sources for non-IPA use of the symbols ⟨ɨ⟩, ⟨ʉ⟩ and ⟨ɵ⟩.

@Ƶ§œš¹: I have of course no objection against having a single note for the three signs. That is why I have kept a single note like you did. I just think the links to the note are more appropriately placed with the individual signs: One note – three links.

I do not think that "not used according to the IPA" sounds like we are the only ones who deviate from the IPA. To me, it just says that the signs are not used according to the IPA. I think the deviation from the IPA is equally notable as the use of diaphonemes and should be made explicit. Not declaring the deviation from the IPA looks to me as if we were trying to hide it, hoping we get by without anybody noticing our deviation.

In our in-house convention, a sign like our ⟨ɨ⟩ can stand for several phonemes – /ɪ/, /i/, or /iː/ – but it does not stand for IPA /ɨ/. The sound of IPA [ɨ] apparently exists in some Southern English pronunciations of /uː/, but these would not even be spelt with ⟨ɨ⟩ in our in-house conventions. I think our ⟨ɨ⟩ is more problematic than our ⟨aː⟩ for the vowel of words like bath. At least the individual components ⟨a⟩ and ⟨ː⟩ are really being used in certain transcriptions.

It looks as if our ⟨ɨ⟩ were chosen because of its graphical similarity to ⟨i⟩, just like the OED ⟨ᵻ⟩ (or ⟨ɪ⟩) looks as if it were chosen because of its graphical similarity to ⟨ɪ⟩. The OED ⟨ᵻ⟩ is less misleading, though, because it does not belong to the IPA in the first place. A person who knows about the IPA will notice that the strange thing about a transcription such as /ˌæpəˈlætʃᵻn/ is the non-IPA sign. When they see a transcription such as /ˌæpəˈlætʃɨn/ (as in the article about the Appalachian Mountains), they might assume that the strange thing about it were an obscure Appalachian dialect. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that I mistook your edit as a revert to your three-note version, my apologies.

It's apparent that you see the situation in relation to IPA usage in a different manner than I do. As you are okay with not using the phrase "not used according to the IPA" in regards to the explanatory note for the English rhotic, presumably because this is standard practice across scholarship and is therefore not simply an in-house practice, you are equivocating two separate things: phonetic accuracy of our symbols and the use of symbols to represent more than one phoneme across dialects. Since we are striving for clarity, even for those familiar with the IPA, we want to focus on the latter, since this is the more unusual thing about our system.

In this system, we use ⟨ɔː⟩ and ⟨ɑː⟩ to represent a vowel contrast that not everyone makes. To oversimplify the matter, some people contrast [ɔː] and [ɑː] (with a minimal pair being cot and caught) and others pronounce both as [ɑː]. In a similarly oversimplistic manner, some people (including myself) contrast a lowered [ɨ] with [ə] (with a minimal pair being roses and Rosa's). This is discussed in article space here. The former vowel is often analyzed as an allophone of /ɪ/, and our focus here is on grouping phonemes, but the central pronunciation is certainly there and may actually be the justification for using the capital barred I symbol in the OED.

Your preference for the phrase "not used according to the IPA" for /ɨ/ but not for /ɔː/ seems to be due to a misperception that people don't have a central pronounciation for the vowel we transcribe as ⟨ɨ⟩. If I'm incorrect in my assessment of your understanding, then I'm at a loss as to what justifies your disparate approach. IMHO, because there is phonetic justification for the use of the symbol, this would be more closely in accordance with the IPA, which technically eschews using ⟨r⟩ for the English rhotic.

If it's about phonetic imprecision, then it shouldn't be an issue, as ⟨ɨ⟩ is the most accurate IPA symbol we can use. If it's about representing two different sounds, no note is even needed as the whole system does that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the “phonetic justification” for the use of the symobl ⟨ɨ⟩, then? I am speaking WP:RELIABLE sources. Earlier this year, in the discussion Help talk:IPA for English/Archive 14#Sources for non-IPA use of the symbols ⟨ɨ⟩, ⟨ʉ⟩ and ⟨ɵ⟩, nobody has produced any sources. To my knowledge, the in-house use of ⟨ɨ⟩, ⟨ʉ⟩, and ⟨ɵ⟩ is

1. not according to the IPA (because there is no phonetic justification) and
2. a violation of WP:NOR (like ⟨aː⟩ or ⟨ɒː⟩).

--mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I just gave you the phonetic justification for ⟨ɨ⟩ — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I had overlooked your “here” link that leads to an article with a source. I have no objection when you replace my "not used according to the IPA" by a proper citation. The use of ⟨ɨ⟩ in a diaphonemic transcription continues to be a violation of WP:NOR. And ⟨ʉ⟩ and ⟨ɵ⟩ continue not to be used according to the IPA. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 23:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

We've already discussed this matter ad nauseum and I've explained in detail how the information we present is grounded in sourcing, even with a unique and/or unconventional in-house system of presenting this information. I have also explained, in the very conversation you cite, how a strict application of NOR undermines our goals in a way that necessitates an WP:IAR approach. Remember, we're trying to be practical here. Our desire for a practical solution hasn't changed and you are still bringing up faults that are more theoretical than practical concerns. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 06:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Transcriptions that are probably WP:Original research

This is a list of transcriptions that are probably WP:Original research. Now we could put Template:OR in all the articles where such transcriptions are used. However, for sake of usability, I am putting Template:Original research on this help page. I know this help page is not an article in the strict sense. However, unlike other help pages its recommended transcriptions will be put as information into the articles.

Transcriptions that are probably WP:Original research include the following:

• The use of //aː// for /æ/ (in some notations, /a/) or /ɑː/
• The use of //ɒ:// for /ɒ/ or /ɔː/
• The use of //.// as a (dia)phonemic sign
• The use of //ɨ// for /i/ or /ə/
• The use of //ʉ// for /u/ or /ə/
• The use of //ɵ// for /oʊ/ or /ə/
• The use of //u// for /uː/ or /ʊ/
• The use of //oər// for /oʊr/
• The use of //ɔɪər// for /ɔɪr/
• The generalization of rhotic transcriptions with an explanation of non-rhotic pronunciation in the fine print instead of the generalization of non-rhotic transcriptions with an explanation of rhotic pronunciation in the fine print

We need to improve the help page by verifying the transcriptions and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 08:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the point. If a pronunciation is OR, it doesn't matter which sounds are in it. Or do you mean you don't like the transcription? That's irrelevant, since symbols are arbitrary.

Also, /./ is a syllable boundary. — kwami (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)