Help talk:IPA/Danish/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Help talk:IPA/Danish, for the period January 2010 to January 2019. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Untitled
Thank you to Hhbruun for creating this - I was hoping somebody would. (Now Dutch is the only IPA template without a key, AFAIK.)
A few possible changes - "louver" could be replaced by a more common word, e.g. "law"; [ɔː] could be illustrated with an English example (e.g. "law") since it is present in many English dialects; "bedeck" for [ə] could be replaced by something more common e.g. "about"; and [ɐ] could be illustrated with a non-rhotic example e.g. "but". Do we think these would work? Lfh (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I based the account on the Wikipedia:IPA for Swedish and Norwegian - although the phonologies of these languages are very different. However, using pairs of words with common Norse origin as examples on both pages and using identical English words to examplify the nearest English phoneme enables comparison. I suspect that might interest somebody. In any case, the words "louver" and "bedeck" came from the mentioned page and the rarity argument could be applied there as well. As to the specific suggestions, I wonder if one could come up with a better English example than "law" - initial l in English being much "thicker" than in Danish. I kind of like the rhotic example for [ɐ] - I think the English "runner" phoneme comes pretty close to the Danish; "but" pronounced [bʌt] certainly doesn't, to my mind. Hhbruun (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're right about "louver" and "bedeck" being used elsewhere - that's interesting, I wonder why they were chosen, but I'm sure it was with good reason. Fair enough. "Runner" varies quite a bit by accent - the er would be R-colored for many speakers, e.g. Americans.
- Well, thanks again for starting the page, and good luck with developing it. Lfh (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Missing symbol
I just realized that [ɕ] is missing. Is it missing on purpose? (Danish phonology has it in parentheses). --Zahnradzacken (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that the occurrence of the phoneme [ɕ] in Danish is questionable. Hence, for simplicity or 'parsimony', it was left out. Hhbruun (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- The sign is still is used in Wikipedia articles, for instance on en:Zealand. If one clicks on the pronunciation (ˈɕɛˌlænˀ), one gets to this page, so I do not understand why ɕ should not be listed here. Do you have a different way of of pronouncing "sj" in Danish? Beil (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a list of phonemes (written between /slashes/) but phones (written in [square brackets]) used for transcribing Danish pronunciation. Even though /ɕ/ is not a phoneme in Danish, the phone [ɕ] is the typical allophone of /sj/ and should be in the list (which it is now).--Schwa dk (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
"Bedeck" not good for schwa
For many speakers, both with and without the roses/Rosa's phonemic distinction, the unstressed vowel in "bedeck" is a schwi rather than a schwa[1]. I know next to nothing about Danish phonology, but if the unstressed vowel in "begå" is ə rather than ɪ, a word like "about" would be better as an English equivalent. --Atemperman (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- The unstressed vowel in "begå" is [e] rather than [ə] in modern standard Danish (I've changed the example). I don't think an English equivalent of [ə] exists. Maybe an example from German? Schwa_dk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC).
- I'm pretty sure that about would work. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 16:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well actually in a narrow transcription Danish schwa varies greatly depending on surrounding segments, ranging from [ɪ ʏ ɐ ʊ]. This can't be covered with single example. The prototypical Danish schwa, however, is probably more advanced and rounded ([ə̟̹]) than a proper IPA [ə].--Schwa dk (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, but why would a German example be any better, then? And what are the contexts for each of those realizations? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 12:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well actually in a narrow transcription Danish schwa varies greatly depending on surrounding segments, ranging from [ɪ ʏ ɐ ʊ]. This can't be covered with single example. The prototypical Danish schwa, however, is probably more advanced and rounded ([ə̟̹]) than a proper IPA [ə].--Schwa dk (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that about would work. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 16:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Possbile bad example "hel"
I'm learning IPA, so I'm not an expert, but I believe, that the example "hel [ˈheˀl] "whole"" is a mistake. Try go to Close-mid front unrounded vowel i.e. IPA [e] and listen. IPA [ˈheˀl] in Danish would mean "heel". Change the vowel to Near-close near-front unrounded vowel (listen sound file) i.e. IPA [I] and it should be fixed. But people with deeper insight, please validate this.
Don't use the Danish example at Close-mid front unrounded vowel as a reference, as I made it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EinarSøndergaardRasmussen (talk • contribs) 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Danish y-Sounds
These two lines are somewhat confusing to me. First of all, both Danish examples are transcribed as [yː] in their IPA representations, though the sign on the left seems to indicate a difference in quantity. Unfortunately, I don't speak any Danish, so I can't tell which example or transcription is correct.
As for the German equivalents: The difference between the vowel sounds in "über" ['yːbɐ] and "üppig" ['ʏpɪç] may be similar to the described difference in Danish, but there is also another (secondary?) difference in vowel quality ({long} close front rounded vs. {short} near-close near-front rounded). Hence, if there is only a difference in quality, I would omit the German example that corresponds to the short Danish y-Sound. The French example, on the other hand ("vue"), seems fine, as it is a pure {short} close front rounded vowel.
(To make sure that no hesitations arise as to whether my explanation of these vowel sounds in German and French are reliable: I'm a native speaker of both German and French. :-) )
88.77.155.192 (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah that was unclear. I've changed the Danish examples and switchted the French/German equivalents. I agree that "üppig" is not a good example since it's [ʏ], which the Danish sound isn't. I removed it.--Schwa dk (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Stød?
Why isn't the Danish stød shown in the table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.252.40.125 (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Stød has been added. Schwa_dk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC).
Bjarne Stroustrup
The phonetic equivalent of the "u" in the name "Bjarne Stroustrop" is missing from this page. It looks like an upside-down Greek omega with a small arc below it. I guess it must be pronounced rather like an English "w"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamitecow (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"English" equivalents
The headline "Closest English equivalent" should be changed to "Closest equivalent" or the examples should only include examples from English--Schwa dk (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC).
(IP)Alphabetical order?
The ordering of the symbols seems rather random. Shouldn't it be put in some kind of alphabetical order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwa dk (talk • contribs) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Diacritics on plosives
It seems that different contributors use different conventions on whether or not to include diacritics on plosives, ie. [pʰ tˢ kʰ b̥ d̥ g̊] vs. [p t k b d g]. This should be perhaps be streamlined, or at least it should be reflected in the chart (which I have now added) that different conventions exist. I'm not sure what is more suitable.--Schwa dk (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, but I dislike the current table as it implies that the use of IPA for Danish (DIPA) is somehow a separate transcription system from IPA. Since they're both clearly IPA, we should have one transcription column. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 15:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see, but there need to be some sort of translation between shortcuts used in Danish transcriptions and a narrow IPA transcription. Otherwise the Danish transcriptions would be misleading. Isn't it just a matter of using more suitable column headers?--Schwa dk (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that all the IPA for X guides have a dissassociation between the transcription we use and narrow IPA transcription (except maybe French). Details about Danish phonetics go at Danish phonology, this is more of a general pronunciation guide for an English-speaking audience. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 20:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see your point. The narrow transcription is of academic interest only, which is not the intention of the guide. I'll remove the extra column.--Schwa dk (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that all the IPA for X guides have a dissassociation between the transcription we use and narrow IPA transcription (except maybe French). Details about Danish phonetics go at Danish phonology, this is more of a general pronunciation guide for an English-speaking audience. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 20:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I see, but there need to be some sort of translation between shortcuts used in Danish transcriptions and a narrow IPA transcription. Otherwise the Danish transcriptions would be misleading. Isn't it just a matter of using more suitable column headers?--Schwa dk (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Will you add the narrow transcription to the article on the phonology of Danish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.12.47.192 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say it's there. Peter238 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The Queen's Danish
Schwa, what are some of the characteristics of the Queen's Danish that set it apart from the other accents of the language? Has anyone studied her pronunciation? I believe one of her sons also has a distinct way of enunciating words: is his accent similar to hers? Are there any books or journal papers which cover the way she speaks? How can such an accent of Danish be learnt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.12.47.192 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know of any thorough treatment of the queen's Danish. Basically, it's distinctly pronounced conservative Danish, so some older description of Danish will probably be adequate. Some characteristics is [a] instead of [æ], sometimes [a] instead of [ɑ]. Long vowels before approximants in syllables with stød. Consonants in coda should be more fortis, i.e. [ʋ] instead of [w], [ð] instead of [ð̞], [ʁ̞] instead of [ɐ̯] etc. I guess her coronal consonants are more fronted, apicals rather than laminals. Generally her lips seems more protruded and rounded than most speakers'. She is less inclined to use syllabic consonants (known as schwa assimilation in Danish literature), i.e. she will say [nə lə ðə jə] instead of [n̩ l̩ ð̩ ɪ] etc. Likewise with other allegro speech phenomena, but most non-native speakers wouldn't use these traits anyway (sloppy pronunciation takes practice). Her younger son, Joachim, speaks roughly the same conservative sociolect.--Schwa dk (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I see! Thank you very much! That is fascinating. I will have to dig up some old book on Danish phonology, I wonder how I will manage to find it. Just to be clear, since the sounds here are in square brackets, by [a], for example, you mean a vowel cardinal 4 or close to cardinal 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.66.95 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
ɡ/ɡ̊: Voiceless or voiced?
Entry "ɡ/ɡ̊" links to "Voiceless velar stop," whose article lists only "k" and variants and their corresponding characters, but is listed as having as an example the voiced "[g as in] good." Which is the correct value for this letter? 96.37.67.222 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've changed the wrong examples. Peter238 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
'Unstressed'
"ɪ: kage [ˈkʰæːə] 'cake'" Was this supposed to be [ˈkʰæːɪ̯ə] or [ˈkʰæː.ɪ]? 176.221.120.173 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- [ˈkʰæːɪ], not sure whether this is one syllable or two. It's probably two. Peter238 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely two syllables (in non-allegro speech, of course). Kokoshneta (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Stød
@Lohphat: How is there "a need for clarity" when we're already linking to stød? I object equating it to a glottal stop, since it's not the most common pronunciation, and it seems to falsely imply that it is (or, worse, that it's the only correct pronunciation). Care to actually address that? Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- EVERY heading on that page is in English and uses English terminology for the header. "Stød" is NOT English terminology; it should have at least an English term. EVERY Danish language course I've encountered refers to stød as the "glottal stop". And your usage of the word "pronunciation" isn't relevant to the issue, we're not talking about pronunciation but definition. Lohphat (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Lohphat: Please go read stød and then reply to me once again. I'm done repeating myself. Also, list the books you're talking about. "EVERY Danish language course I've encountered" is not a source. Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
æʊ̯, example
Surely [ˈhæʊ̯ˀ] is not a common pronunciation of hæv.__Gamren (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- The strict IPA rendering of that word is [ˈhɛʊ̯ˀ], as the vowel is open-mid. Maybe that's the source of your confusion. Danish front/central unrounded vowels are to a large extent transcribed with phonetically incorrect symbols, as [e, ɛ, æ, a, ɑ] are actually [e̝, e, ɛ, æ, ɑ̈]. However, that's what the sources use and that's what, I think, we need to stick to, however 'wrong' it feels to use such symbols. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Or maybe the source (Grønnum (2005)?) lists an old-fashioned pronunciation. Wiktionary transcribes it [ˈhɛʊ̯ˀ] which, again, in strict IPA would be [ˈheʊ̯ˀ] (the vowel is close-mid). Den Danske Ordbog transcribes the infinitive form of that verb with [ɛː] (which confirms that it is close-mid), so you're probably right. Which word would you like to see there instead? Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- As a Wiktionarian myself, I am quite sure that we do not replace [ɛ] with [æ] or [e] with [ɛ].
As for an alternative: I have some difficulty in telling apart [æ] and [a] (not least because of these competing notations!), but I would suggest drev, snav!, lav etc.
Also, Grønnum transcribes hæv as [-ɛw] (p. 294), while lav is transcribed [-æw].__Gamren (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)- No idea whether you do, but I'd expect that to be the case, as [e, ɛ, æ, a, ɑ] is the 'normal' transcription of these vowels, at least as far as the books I've read are concerned. It's not so much "replacing [ɛ] with [æ] or [e] with [ɛ]", as it is a "normalized Danish IPA", or what I sometimes call a "Grønnum-Basbøll IPA-based transcription" - see the first pages of Basbøll's "Phonology of Danish" to see what I'm talking about. If you ask me, transcribing e.g. a close-mid vowel with the symbol [ɛ] is a very bad idea (introduces massive confusion for people who are e.g. learning Danish and German at the same time), yet it's common. Just another inconsistency in this world.
- As a Wiktionarian myself, I am quite sure that we do not replace [ɛ] with [æ] or [e] with [ɛ].
- [æ] and [a] (strict IPA: [ɛ, æ]) seem to have merged in Modern Standard Danish (I don't have a source, sorry, just my ears judging DDO recordings), so that it may very well be the case that dictionaries prescribe an artificial, outdated contrast, which is the source of your confusion. Don't quote me on that though.
- Changed to lav. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
[ʌ]/[ɐ]
These are identical in my idiolect, and, Danish phonology leads me to believe, in most language forms. I have no objection to the differentiation, however, if there is a simple rule for when to use which one. Is it a simple matter of stressed/unstressed?__Gamren (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Gamren: Basbøll says that the merger of [ɐ] and [ʌ] is probably usual.
- [ɐ] can only be unstressed (as [ə ɪ ʊ]), and, phonemically, it is any of the following sequences: /ər, rə, rər/ (as in læger - lære - lærer, all of which are [ˈlɛːɐ]). Thus, all you need to do is to look for 'r' in spelling to find out whether the vowel in question is [ɐ] or [ʌ]. It's an extremely reliable method, but there could be some exceptions.
- [ʌ] is phonemically /ɔ/, the short counterpart of /ɔː/, and I guess that the most common spelling of this vowel is ⟨o⟩, but ⟨å⟩ is also possible (as in the case of måtte [ˈmʌd̥ə]). Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have not occupied myself with phonology, so those explanations are largely lost on me. As for your r-rule; do råt, råstof, rondo, rok etc. comply? If not, might it be more prudent, perhaps, to check for the presence of unstressed <e> (this being a sincere question)?__Gamren (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Gamren: I probably don't know much more about Danish phonology than you do.
- I have not occupied myself with phonology, so those explanations are largely lost on me. As for your r-rule; do råt, råstof, rondo, rok etc. comply? If not, might it be more prudent, perhaps, to check for the presence of unstressed <e> (this being a sincere question)?__Gamren (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- They don't - [ɐ] doesn't appear in stressed syllables. I think the only spellings you need to look out for are -er(-), -re(-), -rer(-). The e must be there, and the vowel must be unstressed. Again, this may not be a complete explanation, but it's a decent start.
- You know, I'm starting to question whether [ɐ] and [ʌ] are different vowels at all (the fact that they're different on a phonemic level is probably indisputable). Are there any minimal pairs? Are there any words in which [ʌ] is always unstressed? Råstof may be one, but I'm not sure whether there isn't a secondary stress on -stof. There are words like og [ʌ] that are often unstressed when you speak in full sentences (as opposed to words in isolation), but that's also true for many other words that don't necessarily contain [ʌ] (or [ɐ]) at all. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A rant
Can someone explain to me why English æ in "hat" is equivalent to Danish a, English ɛ in "bet" is to Danish æ, English ɪ in "kit" to e, and English e(ɪ) to Danish ɛ? What's the point of IPA if each symbol means something completely different in each language? I have no idea about Danish phonology...
Wait, if you have no idea then why are you commenting?
I thought the point of this chart was to help people who don't know Danish phonology how to pronounce Danish names on Wikipedia. If it's only for people who already know Danish phonology then it's pointless because, well, why do they need a Help:IPA for Danish page if they know Danish? I know IPA so when I saw a name containing /æ/ I tried to pronounce it with /æ/, but then I went to this page and learned that maybe like "e" in English "bet"... So what's the point of IPA. Maybe use SAMPA... Or add some audio files to at least hear how these sounds sound like... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.139.98 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Because [a, æ, ɛ, e] is a broad transcription of these vowels. A narrow transcription is [æ, ɛ, e, e̝]. It's misleading, yes, but that's how reputable sources transcribe them, and we just follow that practice. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- In all languages there is some degree of adjustment to the needs of the specific language when using IPA. You should always be aware of that when reading IPA transcriptions, they may be more or less wide/narrow. The problem with Danish is that there are more vowel phonemes than there are vowels in the IPA chart. Therefore some of the vowels are pushed one spot, so to speak, so a vowel may be represented with a symbol intended for a more open vowel. Alternatively you would have to graphically merge two vowels that are phonologically distinct, or come up with some new symbols or some other workaround. --Schwa dk (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Plosives
@Mr KEBAB: I sort of have a problem with your edit because, as much as it's probably accurate just in terms of describing how native speakers produce the sounds in Danish, when someone who speaks English reads Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, for example, goes to this page and tries to recreate the sound, guest could very well mislead them into thinking Nikolaj is pronounced like [nɪgolaɪ]. Also, we're specifically describing the prototypical sounds on these IPA key pages, so removing the notes just because "Danes sometimes use those sounds" I don't think is really helping either. Bring back the notes or restore spare etc. I don't see how that's "overcomplicating". Nardog (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nardog: /nɪɡoʊlaɪ kɒsdər ˈvældaʊ/ is a perfectly reasonable approximation of the Danish pronunciation. The problem is that you're deceived by Danish spelling. 'k' in Nikolaj belongs to the /ɡ/ phoneme because it's unaspirated, its voicing is irrelevant. Whether you pronounce that word with a voiceless or voiced /ɡ/ doesn't change anything. BTW, I consider [b̥, d̥, ɡ̊, kʰ, pʰ, tˢ] to be an unreasonable pseudo-narrow transcription. They don't differ in anything but aspiration (or affrication in the case of alveolars). We should switch over to [b, d, ɡ, k, p, t] as some sources have already done. Diphthongs ending in [-ɪ̯, -ʊ̯] should also be simplified to [-j, -w] per Grønnum (2005). We can also simplify [ʋ] to [v] since they're non-contrastive and variable. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- We can use DDO for all of these simplifications. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, on second thought, I'm not sure whether Nikolaj is phonemically /neɡolaj/ or /nekolaj/. According to Danish phonology, it depends on how it's normally syllabified. If the first syllable is Ni-, the correct analysis is the former one. If it's Nik-, the latter analysis is correct. That is because coda /ɡ/ is an approximant [j ~ w] (depending on the preceding vowel). But that doesn't change anything - phonetically, it is an unaspirated, lenis, voiceless velar plosive. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mr KEBAB: I guess you have a point insofar as there's no contrast between voiced and voiceless unaspirated plosives in Danish, but as far as the notation [b̥, d̥, ɡ̊] is concerned, it is by definition declaring that they're voiceless, so it is counterintuitive to list ball etc. as "equivalent" because whilst they may be devoiced utterance-initially, it is still /b/ phonologically and that's what most English-speaking people perceive it as.
- So you can go ahead and make the change per DDO as far as I'm concerned. Nardog (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nardog: I'm not denying that. What I have a serious problem with is the inconsistency and confusion that it introduces. Why write [b̥, d̥, ɡ̊, kʰ, pʰ, tˢ] if we're transcribing the close-mid front unrounded vowels with [ɛ, ɛː]?! It's an effect of a cult-like adherence to the "phonemic transcriptions must be as simple as possible" dogma that obviously also influences phonetic transcriptions. And let's not mix phonetics with phonology - the fact that the main allophones of Danish /b, d, ɡ/ are voiceless (at least in theory, they can be voiced as well) doesn't mean that the rest of them are (and AFAIK... they're all voiced: [w, ð, j ~ w]). That's one of the reasons why they're written /b, d, ɡ/ and not /p, t, k/.
- Maybe we should change closest equivalent to English approximation? Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mr KEBAB: That per se doesn't solve the problem. I guess what I'm getting at is, it is weird to describe the prototypical (i.e. underlying) allophone of a phoneme to English speakers with a non-prototypical allophone of an English phoneme because few speakers, native or otherwise, notice the difference in the first place. So long as you're describing unaspirated voiceless plosives, spy, sty, sky, etc. are about the best you could hope for to compare them with because they are at least more persistent to phonetic environment and therefore less "narrow" than ball, done, etc. Nardog (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nardog: Ok, go ahead and make the change. It's too trivial to debate. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mr KEBAB: Thanks. And yes, I've been called out for being fussy my entire life. Nardog (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nardog: What we (or at least I) didn't consider are words like skinnede [ˈsɡenð̩ðə] which have a mandatory phonetically voiceless onset. Pronouncing skinnede as [ˈzɡenð̩ðə] (with a Russian-like voicing assimilation) does sound ridiculous and non-native, and the examples I chose could lead at least some people to pronouncing it like that. Your examples may be better after all. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mr KEBAB: Thanks. And yes, I've been called out for being fussy my entire life. Nardog (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nardog: Ok, go ahead and make the change. It's too trivial to debate. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mr KEBAB: That per se doesn't solve the problem. I guess what I'm getting at is, it is weird to describe the prototypical (i.e. underlying) allophone of a phoneme to English speakers with a non-prototypical allophone of an English phoneme because few speakers, native or otherwise, notice the difference in the first place. So long as you're describing unaspirated voiceless plosives, spy, sty, sky, etc. are about the best you could hope for to compare them with because they are at least more persistent to phonetic environment and therefore less "narrow" than ball, done, etc. Nardog (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- The last vowel in Nikolaj is open central [ɑ]. Just so you know, I've just checked Forvo. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Sort
"Sort" is used as an example in the table of diphthongs. This is not the best example, since Danish has two words "sort", one meaning black, the other meaning sort or cultivar, with different vowel sounds. If the first is intended, "gjort" would be a better example, if the second, "kort". Note that "bort" has the same problem as "sort". --Klausok (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Klausok: Done, but if there aren't any objections I want to remove the diphthongs altogether and just list them in a footnote. They're non-phonemic and the corresponding English approximations are often rather awful. English speakers just have to do their homework and learn to put [j, w, ɐ̯] after Danish monophthongs. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Sorry for the delay. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Help talk:IPA which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)