Help talk:IPA/Spanish/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Possible inaccurate information about n, m, ɲ

There is a note next to /n/, /m/, /ɲ/ that says, "The nasal consonants /n, m, ɲ/ contrast only before vowels". I have strong doubts about the accuracy of that statement, at least regarding /n/ and /m/, because /ɲ/ is not used before a consonant, if I'm not mistaken. I believe /n/ and /m/ do contrast also before consonants, like in the words "mantel" and "femtogramo". If a general Spanish speaker is reading those words, probably the reader will be intent in contrasting /n/ and /m/. Although contrast may not occur in some cases, that does not mean that it is the rule that they only contrast before vowels. Thinker78 (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: I don't see a reason why a native Spanish speaker wouldn't pronounce femtogramo as [fenˈtoɣɾamo] (if I got the stress right, maybe it's [fentoˈɣɾamo]). The surname of Carlos Slim is always pronounced [ezˈlin] when it occurs in isolation. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at Spanish phonology#Nasals and laterals, which explains the situation with sources. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

ð??? Really???

ð is the sound at the beginning of "this", "there", "those", etc. The sound of ð requires the speaker to place the tip of his/her tongue between his/her frontal teeth or, at least, under the upper frontal teeth. Definitely, there is contact with such teeth and the very tip of the tongue goes beyond the teeth... We never do that in Spanish. I am a Spanish native speaker. And even when pronouncing really fast, my tongue never comes out at all. The "d" in Spanish is pronounced by placing a great part of the tip of the tongue on the BACK of the frontal upper teeth.

When pronouncing dádiva, arder and admirar, perhaps and only perhaps, the tip goes a little bit lower but not enough to be trapped by the teeth. I won't make any changes because this is backed by the book from some guys who seem to have enough credentials (Martínez-Celdrán, Fernández-Planas & Carrera-Sabaté). Maybe there is no IPA symbol for this "lower" d and they decided to use ð. But, I really think this will slow down the learning of many people and might be even misleading. I have spoken with Spaniards, Uruguayans, Argentinians, Colombians, Ecuadorians, Venezuelans, Peruvians, Bolivians, etc. from different regions and backgrounds. No trace of ð at all, at least not the "pure" ð.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of realizations of [ð]. What you are talking about is sometimes called interdental or laminal dental, where the point of constriction is not on the tip of the tongue, but the blade so that the tip sticks out more. There is also a more apical realization, which is typical for Spanish, that uses the same IPA character. It is valid to use ⟨ð⟩ for both of these and there is no alternate symbol, nor is there a typical manner of distinguishing the two, since no language contrasts them. So there's no inaccuracy here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"avgano". This made me laugh.

If I pronounced afgano as "avgano" no one would understand me. If this is based on research... well, no doubt we've really gone astray. I might acknowledge that some "lazy" people might mispronounce some words but you should rely on the official standard pronunciation. Besides, remember that we should not present the pronunciation of uneducated people here. Otherwise we are contributing to the propagation of bad pronunciation habits.

When we, Spanish speakers, want to make a difference between "Baca" (a surname) and "vaca", "botar" y "votar", etc. We use /b/ for the first case and /v/ for the second. But, when speaking fast, most times both sounds clash into /b/.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I was a little surprised, too. But it's well-sourced. Do you have sourcing that says otherwise? There could even be dialectal variation on that. The features in question aren't necessarily those of uneducated speakers, but of colloquial speech. We do want to steer towards being descriptive, rather than prescriptive. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

tʃ is less "explosive" in Spanish.

This is even supported by the audio file for "chocolate". I checked the IPA and I found no symbol for this slightly different sound. At least none assigned to Spanish. The other symbols like ʈʂ and, t̠ɕ sound like "ch", too, but, I don't feel so sure... Should we not place a note about this?

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

What you are referring to is aspiration. Rather than place or manner of articulation, what distinguishes the English sound from the Spanish one is a puff of air immediately following the frication. In the IPA you would represent the English sound as [tʃʰ]. This is the closest sound in English to the one in Spanish, despite that difference. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@George Rodney Maruri Game: A number of Spanish dialects use [ts] or [tɕ] for /tʃ/; I think that [ts] for /tʃ/ is rapidly becoming the standard in Spain, though I might be wrong about that.

Some dialects also deaffricate /tʃ/ to [ʃ], but I don't think that's what you're talking about in your post. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I get ya. Chilean Spanish may be like that. "Soy chileno" may become "soy shileno" in certain areas in Chile and it has to do a lot with education level/social class (it sounds discriminatory but sometimes reality is ugly). I think it is necessary to be as "prescriptive" as possible, otherwise, dialects one day will become hard to understand for others. Some countries have adopted that posture and have created standards for pronunciation and not only for spelling. Globalization is a good thing in terms of "uniformity". Obviously losing "variety" sucks, too. It'd be "nostalgic" to lose a dialect (history, culture, etc.). I know languages are "alive" but a line must be drawn in order to be able to communicate as smoothly as possible. Regarding, the current status of "ch" in Spain, I haven't noticed that. I watch news and movies from there. But, so far, everything sounds "normal" to me. "Cotse" instead of "coche" would be a really astonishing change.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@George Rodney Maruri Game: I wouldn't call it astonishing. It's happening, and it's basically adjusting the place of articulation of /tʃ/ to that of /s/ which is a retracted alveolar consonant produced with little to no palatalization. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Enyesar does not have the sound of ñ.

Enyesar DOES NOT sound like "eñesar" which is implied here. I know of a dialect (in Ecuador highlands) that MIGHT render its pronunciation that way but, that is not a standard pronunciation. The y in enyesar sounds much more like "ɟʝ" as in cónyuge and abyecto which are correctly placed in the table.

Justification - I am a native speaker and Phonetics enthusiast. - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enyesar

Action - I will make the necessary change.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sources back this statement up. See Spanish phonology#Consonants. Do you have a source that says otherwise? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

My best source is up there...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enyesar

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, well that's not really a compelling source without citations of its own (it's like citing a Wikipedia page). But also Wiktionary's transcription of [ẽɲɟ͡ʝeˈsaɾ] indicates that the ⟨n⟩ represents a palatal nasal or [ɲ], the sound that ⟨ñ⟩ normally represents in Spanish. That's exactly how we've been indicating it should be transcribed. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The "broad" transcription /enɟ͡ʝeˈsaɾ/ is perfect! I wonder where they pronounce an "ñ" just before the /ɟʝ/ in enyesar. It sounds really "forced", I can hardly pronounce [ɲɟ͡ʝ]. I have friends from different Spanish-speaking countries and I bet all of them would have a hard time with the "narrow" transcription. I does not sound "natural". I wonder if it used to be the standard pronunciation 200 years ago. I have some French and Russian friends, they have the sound of ñ in their languages' inventory. Maybe they have this combination.

Well, it will be the "experts" way (possibly, that includes you). But, I am 100^100% sure this is not "descriptive" and, certainly, if this is "prescriptive" (the side I tend to lean on), very few people would ever adopt it.

I am new at writing comments concerning IPA. I speak Spanish and I can pronounce all the symbols in the list. Some of them are not in my dialect but I can pronounce them all and can speak using any if I want (I enjoy imitating accents.). English (GA) is a second language for me, currently C1 level (European Framework) and IPA was (and still is) a superb tool. I am learning German right now and came here to check for any similar sounds. I love IPA despite the fact many people do not like it. For me, it eases things a lot. I know it is not "perfect" but I think Wikipedia IPA is more accurate for English (a lot of columns in English IPA for several dialects) and only one for Spanish.

I hope someone can find my comments "insightful".

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Spanish does not contrast nasals before a following consonant and instead, that nasal takes on the same place of articulation as said following consonant. What may be going on is that your realization of /ɟ͡ʝ/ may have a different place of articulation. A number of dialects pronounce this as [dʒ], which could account for a more alveolar or less truly palatal nasal. Because we've chosen to represent this sound as palatal, rather than palato-alveolar, it makes sense that we would use the palatal nasal for those nasals that precede it. There is, unfortunately, no way to be dialect neutral about this. It's possible that the dialect we are representing is too formal or not representative enough, but it would be a good idea to see what sourcing says about distribution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This page implies that enyesar is pronounced eñyesar, not eñesar, because the n is bolded, not the whole ny combination. Wiktionary says that enyesar is pronounced [ẽɲɟ͡ʝeˈsaɾ], so it agrees with this page. — Eru·tuon 22:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There should be a clear notice saying that /e/ here in fact means /e̞/

As I said, I am learning German. When I saw an /e/ there I said "cool, I we have that in Spanish"... Then, bam! They do have the "real" /e/. It is a Spanish e "spiced" with some Spanish "i", like a mixture. Or, at least, that is how it sounds to me.

The good thing is that this article and Spanish phonology both provide a Wikilink for the "real deal", i. e., /e̞/.

A notice saying something like "For simplicity's sake the symbol [e̞] is not being used. /e/ is used instead." An even so, that would mean "hiding" from Spanish speakers precious information about one of their vowels.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@George Rodney Maruri Game: There are levels of narrowness of phonetic transcription (see User:Nardog#Misconceptions) and Spanish /e/ can be close-mid [e], but it can also be open-mid or something in-between. This varies between dialects and individual speakers.

Also, see phoneme and allophone. Symbols placed between slashes represent abstract phonological entities (phonemes) that are by definition language-specific and aren't actual sounds. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There used to be an explicit note. I hadn't noticed that Lfdder took it out five years ago! Any objection to restoring it? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have one. The English DRESS, like Spanish /e/, is also intermediate between the cardinal [e] and [ɛ] and is transcribed with either symbol depending on convention. Not only that, the fact that it "doesn't quite line up" with any sound in English goes without saying for anyone with a modicum of understanding of how languages differ. No sound does. If we started this, it wouldn't be sensical unless we added a footnote for virtually every symbol, beginning with [ð] and [tʃ] discussed above. Nardog (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Examples

I've removed anfibio from the /m/ example, as I think this was a mistake. I don't have any verifiable source for this, but I've never heard that pronunciation and it seems to be way more awkward, so I really doubt it's even something some people say.

I also think that only unambiguous examples should be used and, album is not, as there're many speakers who just pronounce it with /m/, as the spelling suggest. I'm not arguing that many --may be the majority-- don't, just that it is shouldn't be an example due to this double usage. --Kakahuete (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at Spanish phonology#Consonant neutralizations. Nasal consonants assimilate the place of articulation to a following consonant. For anfibio, this turns the n into a labiodental nasal, which is precisely represented in the IPA with ⟨ɱ⟩. For this guide, we have chosen to represent this as ⟨m⟩ for simplicity's sake. This is both sourced information and something that has some discussion behind it so I wouldn't change it without getting consensus.

Ambiguous examples are actually really important because it lets editors know how we should transcribe related cases. This helps our transcriptions be consistent and avoids edit warring (accidental or otherwise) over such ambiguities. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so now that the labiodental nasal is being discussed again, I'd like to point out that, even though it was decided to represent ⟨ɱ⟩ as ⟨m⟩ for this guide, there's no notice of it on the article and I think it's absurd to pretend that editors would read the whole archived discussion before editing. It also is a good idea to state the convention not only for helping editors, but also so readers know. This is already stated in a footnote in the help IPA page for Italian. I've copied this, but please check it and edit it as you may find necessary. Kakahuete (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. I've tweaked the note, but you're right that we should mention it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Kakahuete, for me it sounds like "hyper-pronunciation". I could accept "ŋ" but never m. The sound of m requires one's lips to touch (at least slightly). We never do that with "anfibio". If this is supported by researchers, it is surely wrong. I hope some day someone "re-researches" this matter. I feel as if my hands were tied.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think we should add IPA variants for Castillian Spanish (Spanish spoken in Spain) and Latin American Spanish. 86.29.64.45 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

We kind of already do. Have you read the text above the chart? How would you want to do it differently? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

How to write pronunciation of a name in two languages?

I was trying to change the lead sentence of the article Jimmy Morales to just include his full name per MOS:HYPOCORISM, but I realized that to do that the IPA gets complicated. "James" is not a Spanish name, so I don't know if it would be appropriate to use an IPA-es template for the pronunciation. "Jimmy" is not a Spanish name either but it is widely used in the public as opposed to "James" and it is unclear how Jimmy Morales pronounce the name as anecdotally I think some people pronounce it locally [xames]. Thinker78 (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Your stab at it ([ˈɟʝimi]) is what I would guess, based on what I know about Spanish phonology and what's the closest Spanish pronunciation to the English one. Unless people do some sort of spelling pronunciation as they do with James. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "your stab at it"? --Thinker78 (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

From the phrase "take a stab at". It's like your attempt or guess. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

[h] for /x/

I want to add /h/ sound as alternative to /x/ as is found in Venezuela and other Caribbean countries. --MaoGo (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The way we transcribe Spanish is a little bit more dialect neutral than what would allow for that. If we added [h], people might misunderstand and think that Spanish contrasts [h] with [x]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: sure. What I demand is a small note somewhere below as is done with /theta/ and other letters. --MaoGo (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Aeusoes1, you reverted an edit when someone added a note explaining this realization little over a year ago. It looks like we even allowed use of ⟨h⟩ in IPA-es transcriptions in the past. These things make me believe a number of readers are understandably confused by our use of [x], so I've restored the note. Nardog (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!. --MaoGo (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: Maybe add also to include Venezuela.--MaoGo (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think such dialectal detail should be dealt with at Spanish phonology and/or Spanish dialects and varieties. We aren't listing which dialects realize coronal fricatives, palatals or syllable-final /s/ in one way or another in detail after all. However, I'm surprised both articles hardly discuss the realization of /x/; you're welcome to elaborate there. Nardog (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm more worried about a slippery slope than about the one particular note. I guess we'll revisit the issue if people start wanting to put more notes in. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Falling diphthongs

Should we mark non-syllabicity in the offglides of falling diphthongs, as in ⟨i̯, u̯⟩? In existing transcriptions, it seems some do and others don't. Do [Vi̯, Vu̯] and [V.i, V.u] contrast? Nardog (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, not when the second element is unstressed. ⟨i̯, u̯⟩ are phonetically accurate but IMHO unnecessary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog and Aeusoes1: Why not use ⟨j w⟩ instead? Ciudad can also be analyzed as /θiuˈdad/ and turning the first /i/ into [j] is automatic. /ˈrei/ is a good phonemic transcription but [ˈrej] is probably better as a phonetic transcription. It's also closer to reyes transcribed as [ˈreʝes]. How many sources transcribe rey as [ˈrej] (transcriptions of /r/ aside)? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kbb2: That makes sense given [j, w] in onsets are also allophones of /i, u/, but I'm a bit reluctant to use ⟨j, w⟩ in codas simply because I'm not familiar with sources that use them in that way. Anybody know why they use ⟨i̯, u̯⟩ over ⟨j, w⟩ in codas? Are there sources that use ⟨j, w⟩? Nardog (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because it could be ambiguous in e.g. /V i V/ if they used the same symbol in both onsets and codas? If so, we could still use the same symbol with no ambiguity by employing ⟨‿⟩ à la French. Nardog (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Found one: Morales-Front (2018) uses ⟨Vj, Vw⟩. Given the glides in both onsets and codas are allophones of the same phonemes (/i, u/) and share the same phonetic characteristics (AFAIK), and the syllable is such an important aspect of Spanish pronunciation (especially w/r/t stress), it seems only logical to use ⟨j, w⟩ in both positions. They would be more accurate in terms of phonetics too (being shorter), while requiring no diacritic. @Aeusoes1: Thoughts? Nardog (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What do we do about words like maestro or poeta where the diphthong includes a non-high semi-vowel? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: The syllable loss of non-high vowels is subject to dialect variation and varies also by register. It can also accompany vowel raising ([ˈpweta, ˈmajstɾo]), which is common in Latin America but stigmatized in Spain (Hualde et al. 2008:1911; Stewart 1999:53). Given the loss is optional and confined to "rapid or colloquial" speech (Hualde 2005:91; Colina 2012:142), it seems more reasonable to me to transcribe them with hiatus ([poˈeta, maˈestɾo]) and deal with it in a footnote. (Coloma 2018 also uses ⟨j, w⟩ throughout.) Nardog (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

So anyone object to switching to ⟨j, w⟩? Nardog (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

ɾ example

The current example for ɾ is "batter (American English)". First of all, this seems to be a typo: it is the final r not the tt that should be in bold. More importantly it would be better to use an example that is not exclusive to one particular form of English pronunciation (this is the only such example). There are endless examples of ɾ that are common to almost all forms of English, such as in bread, freeze, proud, but probably the best would be brave, which is a direct translation of the Spanish example given, bravo. -- 31.185.189.20 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't confuse the alveolar tap with the alveolar approximant. Words such as bread aren't pronounced with a tap in any major variety of English (though this is somewhat variable in GB and in South Africa). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Would it be less confusing to use an English approximation without an ⟨r⟩ in the spelling, such as motto? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, but flapping in motto is variable. I think autum is better. And given how common this mistake seems to be, a link to Flapping accompanying the example also wouldn't hurt. Nardog (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a link to Flapping is also a good idea. (I suppose you meant the six-letter word autumn.) Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops, yes. Done. Nardog (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Except, there's no flapping in "autumn" in Standard British English, no? At least people internationally know what an American saying 'batter' sounds like. Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Why change IPA to reflect a standard pronunciation erroneously

Especially in people's names, but other things, too. Based on edits and their reasons, I have been made aware by Nardog that even though the consensus I've seen in practice and made in discussions at individual pages is to have the IPA reflect how a word is actually said, apparently this is wrong and a single prescriptive standard must be applied. I think this is absurd - to take a word from the example above, how would you say 'ciudad'? Seseo, ceceo, distinción? All are valid forms of Spanish, and yet, apparently, the word will only have one valid IPA rendering?

Worse has to be names, for people and places, particularly where they are regional. Re. places, we could long debate the philosophical argument that Wikipedia should not be the ground where regional varieties are made invisible, since it's a knowledge compendium. For people, it is at least inaccurate if not completely incorrect to say that, e.g. García is pronounced the same in Spain as in Mexico, and since there will be no source for Alex García from Mexico and Ben García from Spain being said the same, it's also OR: the only reliable source that can exist for how an individual's name is pronounced is them or people who know them saying it, and this is what should be reflected in the IPA.

This is how editors have been doing it long before I found IPA templates, and if we need some formal consensus to make the rest use common sense, let's get that here. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

As Nardog explains in the edit summaries you've linked to, the whole point of these IPA keys is to help readers understand our transcriptions and to help editors know how to transcribe particular languages. Given the interdialectal variation in pronunciation, it's not as simple as having the IPA reflect how a word is actually said. In general, we use Castilian Spanish, providing transcriptions with distinción and yeísmo unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise.

The standard of the only reliable source that can exist for how an individual's name is pronounced is them or people who know them saying it is poorly thought out. In addition to being extremely unworkable, it is philosophically bankrupt, as it presumes that only speakers of an individual's dialect will ever say their name.

A lot of time and care has been put into creating these guides and you might want to take a moment, calm down, and read through some of the discussion archives before you flippantly (and uncivilly) accuse other editors of lacking common sense. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

By using ⟨x⟩ we are not "prescribing" any particular way of pronunciation but simply referring to the set of mutually non-contrastive sounds that range from [h] to [ħ] to [χ] to [x] to [ç] (also if we truly followed the Peninsular standard we would be using [χ] instead of—or in addition to—[x]), so that it can be understood by everyone and be reproduced in their own accents. (This type of complaint seems to derive at least in part from this assumption that narrowness is binary and so a transcription enclosed by brackets can only mean one specific form of articulation. I'll let the IPA Handbook pp. 28–30 explain why this is mistaken.)

I'd like anyone who thinks we should use ⟨h⟩ to consider what the logical conclusion of that would be before proposing it. Let's say we use ⟨h⟩ for /x/, but then what about syllable-final /s/? In Buenos Aires, it's most likely aspirated before a consonant, but not before a vowel or pause. So let's do that for Argentine names. But in Cuba, it's often aspirated before a word-initial vowel as well, but [s] is also common in that environment, while it can be elided word-finally and [h] is rare utterance-finally. So let's transcribe e.g. los hispanos cubanos as ⟨loh ihˈpanoh kuˈβanos, lo -, los -, - ihˈpano -, - kuˈβano⟩. In New Mexico, Honduras and El Salvador, word-initial /s/ can also be [h]. So let's do that (so that ⟨h⟩ is now ambiguous as to whether it's /x/ or /s/!). In Paraguay, /ʝ/ is pronounced [dʒ] everywhere. So let's do that. In Rioplatense Spanish, /ʎ–ʝ/ is generally pronounced [ʒ]. Okay, transcribe that. But in Buenos Aires, [ʃ] is also found. Okay, then let's give both. Et cetera et cetera. What would the instructions look like? How would we source them? How would we decide on what variation to include and what not to? How would we make sure the instructions are followed in articles? All of these variations are predictable and therefore deducible from our current scheme. So why go through all the troubles? Nardog (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI: There's a related discussion at Talk:Juan Guaidó#About phonetics 4. Nardog (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine to add the local pronunciation, just as we do for English names, but what readers are often concerned with is how people say it, what it sounds like when it comes up in conversation. And Spanish speakers do not use the local pronunciation, they use their own.

(The first time I heard "Montreal" in French I didn't recognize what it was. And it wasn't Quebecois French.)

And what of historical figures? Would we need to give the reconstructed Xth-century pronunciation? — kwami (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Coda plosives

According to Hualde (2005:146–9) and Campos-Astorkiza (2012:94–6), word-internally, syllable-final /p, t, k/ and /b, d, ɡ/ are neutralized with realizations ranging from [p, t, k] to [b, d, ɡ] to [β, ð, ɣ], while "The voiced approximant realization can be taken as the standard nonemphatic variant (both for orthographic p, t, k and for b, d, g)" (Hualde, p. 146). So shouldn't we be transcribing Tucson, Concepción, and Vox as [tuɣˈson, konseβˈsjon, ˈboɣs] rather than [tukˈson, konsepˈsjon, ˈboks] as they currently appear in the articles? Or is there a good reason to retain orthographic p, t, c/k/x in transcriptions? Nardog (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd also use β, ð, ɣ for that. Sol505000 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Quintana Roo

In my experience, the name of the Mexican state of Quintana Roo is always pronounced as a single word with final stress: [kintanaˈro]. I do agree that [kinˈtana ˈroo] is the regular interpretation of the spelling, and that pairs of surnames are generally double-stressed, but this isn't simply the name of Andrés Quintana Roo, it's a toponym derived from it. I haven't been able to find a recording where Roo is pronounced as two syllables; it is not homophonous with the first-person singular present of roer.

More generally, where the theoretical pronunciation implied by the spelling conflicts with the one actually used by the community, do we treat phenomena like destressing and vowel contraction as allophonic? 177.244.57.58 (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the pronunciation you're familiar with is not unusual for Spanish. I believe the process is called synalepha. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Jazmín

Per this edit, it's my understanding that the [ð] in that context is distinct to speakers from that in other contexts. Given that and the variation in VOT, it might make sense to transcribe words like jazmín with [θ]. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: According to Hualde (2005:160) and Martínez-Gil (2012:119–20), /θ/ undergoes voicing in the same environments as /s/ in varieties that contrast them, but that of course is not the same sound as the allophone of /d/, which could also occur in the same position (as in admirar). Although its occurrence is not common, transcriptions in articles seem to vary: compare Maestrazgo and Fuero Juzgo. It can be more accurately transcribed as ⟨θ̬⟩ or ⟨ð̝⟩, but those seem overkill. I agree ⟨θ⟩ is probably the best.

Speaking of which, I think the note about /f, s/ voicing needs some clarification. /f/ in flaco clearly isn't voiced. Would it be more accurate to say voicing occurs when syllable-final and before a voiced consonant? Does it occur across word boundaries? (I assume not.) Nardog (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That would probably work. I don't know if it occurs across word boundaries, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did given the other features of Spanish that do. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Found in Campos-Astorkiza (2018:174): "In /s/-retaining dialects, this fricative undergoes voicing assimilation to a following voiced consonant, both within and across words ([...] [lozˈβaɾkos] los barcos 'the ships')." So yeah, it does seem to occur across word boundaries. (She goes on to say, however, "Recent instrumental studies have shown that this assimilation is in fact gradient and oftentimes incomplete (Schmidt and Willis 2011; Campos-Astorkiza 2014, 2015).") Footnote edited. Nardog (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe let's introduce lowering diacritics for the approximant allophones of stops instead? I'm half-serious about this, but it would allow us to transcribe the z in jazmín with a simple ð. Sol505000 (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't be worth it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably... In that case I support the use of θ̬, should we decide to differentiate it from [θ] after all. Sol505000 (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the reasons we avoid diacritics is because they don't render correctly on all computers. So another, different diacritic wouldn't be a solution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Even on my computer the voicing diacritic isn't displayed properly. Yeah, maybe it isn't worth it. Sol505000 (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Phonetic spelling of Juan Ponce de Leon

An editor has changed the phonetic spelling of Juan Ponce de León from xwan ˈponθe ðe leˈon to xwamˈponθe ðe leˈon. He says that an "n" before a word beginning in "p," "b" and "m" has the sound of "m" in Spanish.

I am aware of that rule or convention. Examples: tambien and tampoco. I am aware also that "un pozo" is often pronounced as "um pozo." However, my ears don't hear "Juan Ponce de León" pronounced as "Juam Ponce de Leon." (Yo hablo castellano bastante bien, pero no soy linguista.)

I can find examples of both "xwan" and "xwam" for "Juan" on wikipedia. For example xwan ˈpaβlo monˈtoʝa rolˈdan for Juan Pablo Montoya and, conversely, xwam ˈmata for Juan Mata.

So, my question: On wikipedia should the name "Juan" followed by a word beginning with p, b, or m, be written in the phonetic alphabet as "xwan" or "xwam?" Does it matter? Smallchief (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

IMHO footnote 4 applies. Perhaps we should give examples of assimilations across word boundaries. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be [xwam], but the language doesn't distinguish /n/ from /m/ in this position anyway. Juan Mata is probably better written [ˈxwaˈmata], as the nasal tends to be degeminated after assimilation of place (as in Dutch). Sol505000 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That's right, degemination is quite regular in Spanish, and has been so ever since the language emerged. I think we should mention that somewhere. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur with others that it should be [xwam], not [xwan]. Juan is a fairly common name in English and we could possibly get away with transcribing just the surname.

I also like the idea of mentioning degemination across word boundaries in a footnote. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

How about using the IPA linking sign, e.g. [xwam‿ˈponθe], to show that something is happening that depends on the absence of a (silent or filled) pause? — BTW, I was unable to find a dedicated article on speech pauses. Do we have one? Is article Pausa supposed to be the one? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Using the IPA linking sign is the perfect solution here. It's very intuitive, and even people not familiar with its exact use will recognize that the pronuncation as [m] in [xwam‿ˈponθe] has something to do with its being linked to the following word. We can also apply it to [z] for /s/ before voiced consonants etc. –Austronesier (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

And yes, pausa looks like what I usually call "pause". –Austronesier (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The use of the tie bar makes little sense to me because (1) it's typically used in case of a liaison, i.e. to denote something otherwise absent that arises, not something that merely changes because of connected speech; (2) we reflect other assimilations spanning word boundaries in our transcriptions, e.g. word-initial but postvocalic [β, ð, ɣ], but we don't use the tie for them either.

And I don't think pausa is relevant here because it seems to encompass preconsonantal positions in addition to utterance-final (the article itself says the definition varies). I once used that word to a linguist because of this site and he corrected me, which led me to realize it has very little, if any, currency outside Wikipedia; you'd be hard-pressed to find any information about the term pausa—there are some sources about the term in pausa, but very few on just pausa. I think that article is infested with OR. Nardog (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: This is solved by using the tie bar irrespective of the type of assimilation spanning word boundaries. I agree with Austronesier, it is very intuitive and will shut down many pointless discussions (not that this specific one is pointless) in the future. Sol505000 (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what problem this is even supposed to solve. What "many pointless discussions" have we had? Without clear evidence that readers are reasonably confused by our transcription of assimilation across word boundaries and that the use of the tie will get rid of the confusion (and that such a convention is used by at least some number of reliable sources), a mass edit of thousands of articles would not be justified. Nardog (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

While using the tie bar for this issue makes some sense, we want to be careful we don't open a huge can of worms. I wouldn't do it for voicing or spirantization.

There's also the consideration that we transcribe e.g. Russian and German with word-final devoicing and we have no way of indicating that we are doing so in our transcriptions. What is so special about nasal assimilation across word boundaries that we feel we need to alter our transcriptions to highlight it? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This is getting completely off topic, but since you mention it: German obstruent devoicing operates on syllable boundaries rather than word boundaries. As IPA defines the full stop as a marker of syllable breaks, what triggers word-internal devoicing can easily be noted, as in Radball [ˈraːt.bal], but it seems word-final devoicing as in Rad [raːt] cannot be noted as [raːt.] in canonical IPA. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Staying off-topic, devoicing of German obstruents is morphophonological (|d| → /t/), assimilation of Spanish nasals is allophonic (/n/ → [m]). –Austronesier (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually not too off-topic. I recognize that the actual grammatical rule is broader than this, but I highlight word-final devoicing because a word like Превед will only be pronounced with a final [t] in isolation, but not necessarily in a sentence. It's not just that there's a contextual variant of a sound, but one that will easily differ based on a word's position relative to other words. AFAIK, the ⟨d⟩ in Radball will always represent a [t], no matter what words surround it, so it's not as relevant as our Spanish word-final nasals. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the ⟨d⟩ in Radball is pronounced voiceless fortis in all dialects, perhaps not even in all accents of Standard German, and I wonder if the same applies to the potential word *Ratball ‚council ball (dance)‘. And of course there are words such as radeln /ˈraːdəln/ which, like Radball, refers to something people do with a bicycle (Rad). Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

We are perhaps oversimplifying in our Wikipedia transcriptions of German and Russian in this regard, but our transcriptions don't really make room for that sort of variation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for meddling in the discussion, but as a native speaker, it's obvious to me that a personal name is typically uttered in Spanish with a small pause between given name and surname. So ... no assimilation. I don't have sources, it's just my perception. --Jotamar (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, but I'm fairly fluent in Spanish and I likewise don't hear the "m" sound instead of "n" in saying a name like Juan Ponce de Leon. Any more native speakers out there who want to comment? Smallchief (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Pizza

I understand that revision 1006104540 added the word pizza to the 'tz' section, but added the deleted 'd͡ʒ'. They deleted that because a user said 'that's ɟʝ in our system'. I'm also not happy with velar consonants and labial consonants being velar consonants and labial consonants. Yours truly, Kurisumasen (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

They deleted that because a user said 'that's ɟʝ in our system'. And?

Whether you're happy with it is irrelevant here. [[foo]]s is preferred because it's shorter. See MOS:PIPESTYLE. In fact AWB by default automatically shortens links like [[foo|foos]]. Nardog (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but also I want to know about the word "pizza". This is really Italian. It is also used in other languages. Kurisumasen (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary says it's pronounced variously in Spanish. But even when pronounced with [ts], it's just heterosyllabic [t.s] (just like in English, which also lacks /ts/ as a phoneme), which is different from the case of abertzale. Removed it. Nardog (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Kurisumasen (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you see what you wrote? I paraphrase, "I'm also not happy with <this link> and <that link>, linked in the way I prefer and at odds with MOS:PIPESTYLE, being <this link> and <that link>, linked according to that MOS". You realize that they work exactly the same, no? Not only that, the way those links look is the same. Sol505000 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the other links are the way I like it: [[Rhotic consonant|rhotic consonants]] and [[Labial consonant|labial consonants]]. So, it should be like that to me. Kurisumasen (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"The way I like it" is a good reason for a bold initial edit, but a less optimal reason for subsequent edits when others have raised substantial concerns (here: per MOS). And apart from the MOS, WP:NOPIPE puts the whole thing very nicely. There is nothing wrong with building new content with large pipes like [[Rhotic consonant|rhotic consonants]]. But changing old code to this style for the heck of it, or edit warring when someone changes [[Rhotic consonant|rhotic consonants]] to [[Rhotic consonant]]s for the sake of a readable code is the road towards disruptive editing, which we also often see with WP:NOTBROKEN "fixing". –Austronesier (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Though I use my wording better: [[Aztec|Aztecs]], not [[Aztec]]s. --Kurisumasen (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen WP:EDITWARRING over a sillier thing. Sol505000 (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, let’s leave it like that then.Kurisumasen (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Gilda

How is Gilda an example for /ʃ/? --Error (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

We could ask Sheila1988, who added it, presumably to make our guide consistent with Gilda (Argentine singer). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was my intention, although it's possible that only some dialects pronounce it like that.Sheila1988 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

First time I hear about it. In Spain, both Gilda (film) and es:gilda (pincho) are pronounced as [xilða]. If kept, it should link to that particular case. --Error (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

AS far as I can find it's an argentinian pronunciation.Sheila1988 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

So it's [ˈɟʝilda] in our system. We don't transcribe sheísmo/zheísmo. Sol505000 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AFAICS, the name of the singer Gilda is actually an example for /ʝ/, since [ʃ] is the typical modern Rioplatense realization of supraregional /ʝ/ (and also of /ʎ/ because of yeísmo). In this video, the presenter speaks says [ˈʃilda] consistent with her accent, but the voice-over speaker with a more "supraregional"(?) accent says [ɟʝilda] (0:50) and (phrase-internally) [aðeˈmaɦ ðe ˈʝilda] (3:05). So unless we really want to emulate a dialectal pronunciation, the example should be moved from /ʃ/ to /ʝ/, or taken out completely. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

In any case I don't see a need to have this example. It looks like it was added solely to cover all the spelling variants, which these IPA keys are not for. On the other hand, I can see keeping Xola, which Sol505000 removed, because Freixenet is a borrowing from Catalan, while the former is from Nahuatl (but we could use a more common word). Nardog (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with covering all the spelling variants. With language with as transparent an orthography as Spanish, there wouldn't be too many of them. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Voiced bilabial fricative or approximant?

Hello, it looks like the IPA β in the article links to voiced bilabial approximant but the target article indicates that the approximant version needs a little goatee underneath. So, which is it meant to be? --Nidaana (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Either, as Voiced bilabial fricative#Bilabial approximant says. See Spanish phonology#Consonants for a more detailed discussion. And even if it was always approximant, the diacritic is not needed unless the fricative also occurs within the language (see Handbook of the IPA, pp. 27ff). Nardog (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Changes in the vowel chart

I noticed in the vowel chart the examples provided in English are in fact words with long vowels, e.g. food /fuːd/ and father /fɑːðə/. In Spanish we do not have long vowels as such. I propose other examples in order to be more precise:

• Love /lʌv/ for Spanish /a/
• Bed /bed/ for Spanish /e/
• City /cɪti/ for Spanish /i/
• God /gɒd/ for Spanish /o/
• Influence /ɪnfluəns/ for Spanish /u/

These examples are from BrE pronunciation. --Leandro (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You’re right, Spanish doesn’t have phonemic long vowels, but precisely because of this, using English long vowels to approximate vowel qualities is perfectly fine; most Spanish speakers won’t have any trouble understanding if you lengthen the vowels. Keep in mind that the English examples here are meant for an international audience, not just southern England. God and love are particularly bad examples because the qualities of those vowels vary widely between dialects. In most American dialects, the vowel in god is unrounded, and in Inland North in particular, it can be even further forward than Spanish /a/. As for the vowel in love, that’s close enough to Spanish /a/ in Australian English or conservative RP, but it can correspond to basically anything in the region of [ʊ~ə~ɑ~ɐ] depending on the dialect. 187.245.67.172 (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

City (which should be written /ˈsɪti/ - ⟨c⟩ stands for the voiceless palatal plosive in IPA) and influence are also bad as these are not true phonemes in English, but rather unstressed /ɪ~iː/ and /ʊ~uː/. Furthermore, ⟨u⟩ before /ə/ signifies a variation between /ʊ~uː~w/, which makes it a very bad choice for Spanish /u/. In this guide, the symbol ⟨u⟩ stands only for the non-syllabic [u] and not the approximant [w]. If vowel length is that important, then choose words where /iː/ and /uː/ occur before voiceless/fortis plosives.

Regarding /ɒ/, as the anon said, that vowel is a really bad approximation of Spanish /o/. In North America, the only vowel that gets close to that is their /oʊ/ - or /ɔː/ before /r/. Sol505000 (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Afgano

I've never heard this word pronounced with <v> rather than <f>. Not on the (European) Spanish TV, nor to my Spanish friends. I don't know if others have, but I think it should be addressed in some manner. Mangelc94 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The IPA sign ⟨v⟩ stands for the voiced labiodental fricative. It is not the Spanish letter ⟨v⟩, which would stand for a bilabial approximant in this position (transcribed with ⟨β⟩ in IPA, or more precisely ⟨β̞⟩). Sol505000 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeísmo

@Barefoot through the chollas: Regarding the infobox in Spanish language, do we really need to explicitly transcribe the delateralized variant alongside the one with [ʎ]? The merger is automatic, it either happens or it doesn't (for transitional speakers, there is, AFAIK, a chaotic switching between the two phones, without any pattern). Since most speakers exhibit it, we may as well scratch the distinction and just write ⟨ʝ⟩ (or ⟨ɟʝ⟩ everywhere, which would be fine for a broad transcription such as the one used here. Furthermore (per Andean Spanish), in Northern Ecuador, /ʎ/ is delateralized to [ʒ] without merging with /ʝ/ (which is very likely heard as a merger by speakers from outside the area), which makes ⟨ʎ⟩ anything but an appropriate symbol for that variety of Spanish. In it, [ʒ] cannot be said to be palatal (/ʝ/ is palatal), let alone lateral. There clearly is a distinction between postalveolar and palatal places of articulation in Northern Ecuadorian Spanish, with /ʎ/ being the former (a voiced postalveolar fricative) and /ʝ/ the latter (a voiced palatal stop ~ approximant ~ fricative). Per Ecuadorian Spanish, only Southern Highlander Ecuadorian Spanish features a distinction between lateral and central approximants; in other Ecuadorian dialects, the feature [+/-lateral] is most probably redundant.

Back to the infobox, the insistance on including [kasteˈʝano] alongside [kasteˈʎano] strikes me as odd. These are definitely not the only variants that are possible; namely, [kahteˈʝano] and [kahteˈʎano] are also standard in some regions (as is [ehpaˈɲol], there are of course variants [kætteˈʝano, -ˈʎano, ɛppaˈɲol] in Southern Spain in addition to that, so even ⟨h⟩ wouldn't be quite correct for all accents of that type). In addition to that, [kahteˈʒano] and [kahteˈʃano] are standard in Rioplatense Spanish. If ⟨s⟩ can stand for a phonetic [h], then ⟨ʎ⟩ can stand for a phonetic [ʝ], [ʒ] and [ʃ]. ⟨ʝ⟩ already stands for all three.

Let [kasteˈʎano] cover all that.

Futhermore, at least younger speakers of Rioplatense Spanish have no marginal phonemes since [ʃ] in show is the same as their ordinary [ʃ] spelled ll and y. Sol505000 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sol505000::Yes, we do need to supply both in this article in English, as they are the two major standard variants valid as unmarked (least-marked) target phones for non-native speakers (whereas the numerous other variants you cite, to which others could be added, are more vigorously marked diatopically, diastratically or diaphasically). Equivalences produced by the "merger" (assuming you mean diachronic merger of e.g. cayó-calló) are not necessarily automatic -- or even known -- to non-native speakers who are looking for information and guidance. Thus the article supplies genuine forms for them.

Let [kasteˈʎano] cover all that. It doesn't cover all that and can't. [kasteˈʎano] is a phonetic transcription. The phone [ʎ] can represent only itself, palatal lateral approximant, not a different phone; that's the whole point of phonetic transcription. And the point of supplying the phonetic information of [kasteˈʝano], otherwise unknowable without specific effort. (My own impression is that [kasteˈjano] is far more frequent than [kasteˈʝano] worldwide, but I don't have an authoritative source for that, so let it be.)

⟨ʝ⟩ already stands for all three. Sorry, even more confusion. ⟨ʝ⟩ represents a grapheme, which does not exist for Spanish orthography.

I'm guessing that you might be trying to say that a phonemic transcription would suffice, then let readers apply their own "automatic" phonological rules. But non-natives don't have their own genuine Spanish phonological rules, and -- leaving aside the sticky question of the phonemic status of the variants in question -- without conducting an examination of Spanish phonology they have no way of knowing what rules natives might apply.

Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect.

In sum since there's no good reason not to supply the two major alternatives, and good reasons why they should be supplied, both [kasteˈʎano] and [kasteˈʝano] should stand. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, what we say in the lede of this guide is For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ].

Yes, we do need to supply both in this article in English, as they are the two major standard variants valid as unmarked (least-marked) target phones for non-native speakers That would then require retranscribing the palatal lateral with ⟨ʝ⟩ in hundreds if not thousands of cases. That smells like IPA spam to me. I'd rather scrap ⟨ʎ⟩ from the guide and just use ⟨ʝ⟩ (or the corresponding affricate symbol, in appropriate cases). Whenever [ʎ] is a valid pronunciation, [ʝ] is also possible, and you can't go wrong with either the former (which is the older/traditional pronunciation) OR the latter (which is more widespread).

It doesn't cover all that and can't. Yes, it can. It depends on the conventions. To quote the Handbook of the IPA (pages 29–30), If the relevant phonological system is known, a transcription can be devised which includes any number of additional symbols to indicate the phonetic realizations of the phonemes. ... Narrowness is regarded as a continuum, so that [tʃɛkðəlɛnzwɛɫ] might be regarded as a slightly narrow (or 'narrowed') transcription, and [tʃe̞ʔ͡kð̞əlɛ̃nzwæ̠ɫ] as very narrow ... the realizational information which is not explicit in a particular allophonic transcription is, in principle, provided by conventions. Phonetic transcription ≠ fully narrow phonetic transcription. To repeat myself, we already use ⟨s⟩ to represent a phone that varies between [s] and [h] in the syllable coda. Those phones share no features besides [-voiced] and [+obstruent] (or something like that), and [h] may not even be the latter (I don't know whether it's a genuine fricative or just a voiceless vowel, or whether it's variable).

My own impression is that [kasteˈjano] is far more frequent than [kasteˈʝano] worldwide, but I don't have an authoritative source for that, so let it be. All you have to do is head to Spanish phonology where the sound is described as varying between a fricative and an approximant, with the former being an emphatic variant and the latter being used in other contexts. Per palatal approximant, ⟨j⟩ is unsuitable for this phone in Spanish. Since /ʝ/ is unspecified for rounding, ayuda (which features a rounded palatal approximant) has to be transcribed [aˈʝuða] as it is not [aˈɥuða] ([ɥ] doesn't exist in Spanish).

Sorry, even more confusion. ⟨ʝ⟩ represents a grapheme, which does not exist for Spanish orthography. I specifically used the angbr IPA template for this. Is this a joke?

I'm guessing that you might be trying to say that a phonemic transcription would suffice, then let readers apply their own "automatic" phonological rules. But non-natives don't have their own genuine Spanish phonological rules, and -- leaving aside the sticky question of the phonemic status of the variants in question -- without conducting an examination of Spanish phonology they have no way of knowing what rules natives might apply. Since we're using phonetic brackets, I'm not talking about phonemic transcriptions. I'm saying that ⟨ʎ⟩ is enough for broad phonetic transcriptions such as this one. Or, conversely, ⟨ʝ⟩ would be enough as well, as the merger is spreading as rapidly as (if not faster than) the cot-caught merger in US English.

Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect. We mention both yeísmo and seseo in the lede. Isn't that enough for anyone who clicks on the transcription? Sol505000 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeating what you took it upon yourself to delete without my permission: This discussion belongs on the talk page relevant to the article Spanish language, not here, as IPA is not in question. This requires no help with IPA. I might add that so far this issue, which shouldn't be an issue at all, is a waste of my and your time. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, per MOS:PRON, transcriptions linking to that guide should agree with the said guide. It is the guide that needs to be changed first before the transcriptions are changed. If you're refusing to engage with me, then I take this as an agreement to remove the merged IPA per the guide. Again, For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]. Let's not waste any more of each other's time. Sol505000 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're refusing to engage with me I have engaged with you at length -- far too much length. I have no idea why it's so difficult to understand that the name castellano, widely used internationally in Spanish, has two major standard pronunciations, nor why you insist on ignoring one of them in an article meant to inform non-native speakers. Do not "take" something I have not said as anything but having not been said. If you want to discuss this in a civil manner in the Spanish language talk where it belongs, I'm willing to engage for a bit more. A bit. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm done being harassed into switching the talk pages because you fail to understand MOS:PRON. *This* is the place to discuss this. Even the IPA key template at the very top of this guide says that Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here; do not change any symbol or value without establishing consensus on the talk page first. For the second time, the guide says that For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]. You have falsely quoted this in your last revert at Spanish language as a reason to restore the pronunciation with a merger INSTEAD of replying to me and trying to establish consensus here. Castellano is not "a term that is more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo", that's just ludicrous. And Names given to the Spanish language#Usage and implications in former colonies proves that. Furthermore, the guide tells us that those terms should be transcribed with ⟨ʝ⟩ instead of ⟨ʎ⟩ (one transcription), rather than with both (two transcriptions). At no point are we encouraged to retranscribe those words, changing only one of those symbols. I'm going to report your edit warring. If anyone is wasting anyone's time, it is you who's wasting mine. I was more than open to discuss the issue, which is proven by my lengthy reply to your response to my first post - a response which you ignored. I see no evidence for your claim I have engaged with you at length -- far too much length in this discussion. Sol505000 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I also read the passage "For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]" as an either-or-option, not as an invitation to add a regional pronunciation with [ʝ] to an existing [ʎ]-transcription when a term is globally used, including in areas without yeismo.

But I see the problem that the guide prescribes something that comes close to a diaphonemic transcription, but yet we use brackets. Sure, IPA allows for a broad phonetic transcription, but using [ʎ] to mean both [ʎ] (in varieties where [ʝ] is a different sound) and [ʝ] (in varieties where [ʎ] does not occur) is more than broad. This is diaphonemic. –Austronesier (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree in principle, but I see no reason not to include the yeísmo variant in the very article Spanish language. I would oppose including (and have removed) [ɲihoŋŋo] in Japanese language because the Japanese key uses only ⟨ɡ⟩ for /ɡ/ (and it is a minor, declining variant), whereas the Spanish key explicitly permits [kasteˈʝano] and it is the majority variant that is gaining more ground.

Most readers won't have a clue as to what a diaphoneme is or that a phonetic transcription can vary in narrowness, and construe [kasteˈʎano] as disproportionately favoring the now-minority variant. It doesn't hurt to have both just in this vital article about the language itself. Nardog (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think that the lede needs a rewrite, though. Per Yeísmo#Extension of yeísmo, I think it needs to say For terms that are more relevant to regions that have not undergone yeísmo (...) words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʎ] and to mention Ecuadorian, Peruvian, Paraguayan and Bolivian Spanish there. I don't know about Colombia and Spain, though. Maybe we should switch over to ⟨(ɟ)ʝ⟩ for European Spanish? The distinction is allegedly lost in most of Spain. Sol505000 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In Colombia and Spain (and I think Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia too) it varies by region and I believe in most places the distinction is present, it varies by age, class and/or rural/urban origin. The y/ll distinction may be part of a prestigious, standard urban accent in Paraguay, although I'm not even sure about that and I doubt it's the case anywhere else.

As for the Spanish language article, it used to display just [kasteˈʎano], with a footnote explaining yeísmo. I think something like that, though maybe with [kasteˈʝano] as the default and the footnote explaining how some varieties don't have yeismo, would be good. The use of a footnote would explain more than just two alternate pronunciations side by side. Erinius (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not support using yeísmo as the default. The guide, so far, has been giving preeminence to lleísmo when there is ambiguity in part because diaphonemic transcriptions work best when they encode for all the relevant contrasts and then allow readers to apply the mergers they believe should be applied. Insofar as this pronunciation is relevant enough to add to the guide, it is relevant enough to use in the diaphonemic transcription unless there is a clear reason not to. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

So Spanish language should have [kasteˈʎano] with a footnote, like it used to? I can agree with that. I'm also fine leaving it as it currently is I also think we should just leave transcriptions with [ʎ] as they stand in articles that are relevant to areas where at least some speakers don't have yeísmo. Erinius (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The point of the diaphonemic approach is to avoid having multiple transcriptions if we can. The [ʎ~ʝ] contrast is something encoded for in the Spanish IPA conventions we've implemented and detailed in the guide we've composed to explain to readers and editors alike. For the sake of consistency, we should remove the duplicate pronunciations unless there is a clear and compelling reason to make an exception. Of all the articles that we would make such an exception, I would not choose the one that discusses this very dialectal difference in detail. So I'd be against both versions at Spanish language and would prefer to have just [kasteˈʎano] in the infobox. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The less the better. Otherwise why not add [kasteˈʃano] and [kasteˈʒano] as well? These are predictable variations and should be ignored unless they're relevant to the article (e.g. we might want to add a "local pronunciation" transcription to a geographic article, or a "personal pronunciation" to a biography). Personally, I'd ignore seseo as well and routinely transcribe words in their Castilian pronunciation, not because of any preference for Spain (I'm only familiar with Mexico and Guatemala), but because almost all regional variation in Spanish can be derived from the Castilian. (The only exception, AFAIK, being those regions of Spain which retain a distinction between /b/ and /v/.)

This idea, that we should add more and more regional pronunciations of Spanish words, is why I opposed seseo transcriptions in the first place. We don't bother with such nonsense with English words, e.g. redundantly transcribing r-dropping or h-dropping accents unless those are actually relevant. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

English Approximations (Assumed to be in Received Pronunciation [RP]?)

Please forgive me if this article already specifies whether or not the English Approximations are meant to be annunciated in Received Pronunciation. However, I would argue that without a least a footnote of some kind, which I can not readily locate, these representations are left quite ambiguous. Understanding the historical origins of the IPA, I can understand why one might argue these English Approximations should be assumed to be in RP.

As I presume this Help:IPA article is written for an amateur-to-enthusiast level audience, for those seeking phonetic/phonological clarification of Spanish; I propose that the English Approximations as a whole, OR perhaps for each example, abbreviate the most identical/appropriate accent/dialect of English matches particularly the non-English phonemes AND where there might be any sense of ambiguity.

Thanks for reading and considering my suggestion. Otherwise this article appears to be quite excellent, and I understand there are plenty of pages where any curious or diligent enough researcher, without expertise in some related field, could piece things together from the plethora of other articles on adjacent topics...I think clarifying here in this article might be quite helpful to many! I know, being an American, I all of a sudden started questioning if I was actually waaay off in my pronunciation of these foreign phonemes when I'm not sure if I should be replicating RP or not? I can imagine Australians, New Zealanders, Irish, Canadians, even the great people of Indian and other large English-speaking groups, whether native or not, struggling with this same issue.

Perhaps the original authors or any experts on in a relative field could assist? A bilingual linguist would be perfect, jajaja!

Thanks again, Sincerely, Mescalito 96.225.28.164 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Whenever the dialect is not specified, the example is meant to cover all the major dialects (or at least both General American [which is mostly synonymous with Standard Canadian English, save for a few rather irrelevant details] and Received Pronunciation simultaneously).

I can't think of a sound from any example word from the guide that would sound off when pronounced with a General American accent in the context of Spanish (not to say that the examples are perfect, of course). It'd be replaced by now. Sol505000 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)