Help talk:IPA/English
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IPA/English page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
The IPA is gibberish and I can't read it. Why doesn't Wikipedia use a normal pronunciation key?
The IPA is the international standard for phonetic transcription, and therefore the Wikipedia standard as well. Many non-American and/or EFL-oriented dictionaries and pedagogical texts have adopted the IPA, and as a result, it is far less confusing for many people around the world than any alternative. It may be confusing in some aspects to some English speakers, but that is precisely because it is conceived with an international point of view. The sound of y in "yes" is spelled /j/ in the IPA, and this was chosen from German and several other languages which spell this sound j.
For English words, Wikipedia does use a "normal" pronunciation key. It is Help:Pronunciation respelling key, and may be used in addition to the IPA, enclosed in the {{respell}} template. See the opening sentences of Beijing, Cochineal, and Lepidoptera for a few examples. But even this is not without problems; for example, cum laude would be respelled kuum-LOW-day, but this could easily be misread as koom-LOH-day. English orthography is simply too inconsistent in regard to its correspondence to pronunciation, and therefore a completely intuitive respelling system is infeasible. This is why our respelling system must be used merely to augment the IPA, not to replace it. Wikipedia deals with a vast number of topics from foreign languages, and many of these languages contain sounds that do not exist in English. In these cases, a respelling would be entirely inadequate. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation for further discussion. The IPA should be specific to a particular national standard, and the national pronunciations should be listed separately.
Listing multiple national pronunciations after every Wikipedia entry word quickly becomes unwieldy, and listing only one leads to accusations of bias. Therefore, we use a system that aims at being pan-dialectal. Of course, if a particular dialect or local pronunciation is relevant to the topic, it may be listed in addition to the wider pronunciation, using {{IPA|und|...}} or {{IPA|en|...|generic=yes}}. The use of /r/ for the rhotic consonant is inaccurate. It should be /ɹ/ instead.
The English rhotic is pronounced in a wide variety of ways in accents of English around the world, and the goal of our diaphonemic system is to cover as many of them as possible. Moreover, where there is no phonological contrast to possibly cause confusion, using a more typographically recognizable letter for a sound represented by another symbol in the narrow IPA is totally within the confines of the IPA's principles (IPA Handbook, pp. 27–28). In fact, /r/ is arguably the more traditional IPA notation; not only is it used by most if not all dictionaries, but also in Le Maître Phonétique, the predecessor to the Journal of the IPA, which was written entirely in phonetic transcription, ⟨r⟩ was the norm for the English rhotic. |
 | This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Help:IPA/English is a reader-facing page intended for viewing by non-editors. Please prioritize their needs when adjusting its design, and move editor-facing elements to other pages. |
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 1 March 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
/dj/
editThe current example for /dj/ is dew, which is terrible as it’s only true for British English, despite examples of words that use the /dj/ sound in both American and British English. I propose the example be changed to pleasure. Note: originally this post stated examples jump and bridge due to a misunderstanding of the /dj/ sound. This has now been corrected.2600:1700:B3A0:1510:7032:33EC:C590:2771 (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- You're missing the point - it's [dj] in UK and [d] is most of US. 'jump' would be wrong for both. — kwami (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oops! All the sources I found at that time said British English dew was pronounced with a “j” sound, but it turns out it is a different sound after all! The current example is still bad though for the reasons I gave in the original post. I now propose the change be made to at least add pleasure if not totally replace dew entirely. I will update the post now. 2600:1700:B3A0:1510:2956:9157:D64E:47AF (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- 'Pleasure' again has an entirely different sound — kwami (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- That is the whole point. The key is diaphonemic: if you live somewhere (like most of the US) where dew has [d] and not [dj], then the key is telling you to read /dj/ as identical with /d/. And pleasure has the entirely different sound /ʒ/. Double sharp (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Just checking—are you familiar with the difference between phonemes (represented between slashes //) and phones (represented between square brackets [])? If not, the responses you've received may be confusing to you.
- Also, in case it isn't clear yet: in IPA, the symbol j represents the sound that in English is associated with the letter "y" (but which in some other languages using the Roman alphabet, such as the Norse languages, German, Dutch, and Polish), is spelled "j"). So the word "you", for example, is represented phonemically as /ju/. IPA has a y but it represents a rounded vowel such as the one in French "tu" and German "über". Largoplazo (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oops! All the sources I found at that time said British English dew was pronounced with a “j” sound, but it turns out it is a different sound after all! The current example is still bad though for the reasons I gave in the original post. I now propose the change be made to at least add pleasure if not totally replace dew entirely. I will update the post now. 2600:1700:B3A0:1510:2956:9157:D64E:47AF (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Jump and bridge have /dʒ/, not /dj/. Nardog (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about deuterium, but some speakers pronounce it with a /dʒ/. I'm not sure is this example useful, as deuterium is not really a common word. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- It has the exact same pattern as dew, like many other words with historical /djuː/. Not sure what your point is; we want a word that's pronounced with /d/ by those with yod-dropping, with /dʒ/ by those with yod-coalescence, and with /dj/ by those with neither to illustrate the diaphoneme /dj/ because that's what it represents. Nardog (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I speak southern British English, and pronounce the starts of each of "deuterium", "dew", "due" and "duly" as [dj], with a more intense "d" in "dew" than the rest (not sure how to signify that). Bazza 7 (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- It has the exact same pattern as dew, like many other words with historical /djuː/. Not sure what your point is; we want a word that's pronounced with /d/ by those with yod-dropping, with /dʒ/ by those with yod-coalescence, and with /dj/ by those with neither to illustrate the diaphoneme /dj/ because that's what it represents. Nardog (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- More to the point is there a reason we're treating the yods here and at /zj/ etc. as standard English at all? They aren't. They were previously standard in some British dialects but now aren't the majority pronunciation even there. They should just be treated as a separate category of marginal consonants like you see in (e.g.) Help:IPA/Dutch. — LlywelynII 13:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree that it's a bit odd we list /dj/, /lj/, /θj/, etc. almost as if those are phonemes. However, I admit I can't think of any simple/better alternative. I assume the WP editors who made this choice are trying to create diaphonemes which (as Nardog already mentioned) neatly subsume yod-dropping dialects, yod-coalescing dialects, and more conservative dialects that do neither all under a single simple transcription convention. Wolfdog (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I’m the one that originally made this (post? Talk? Idk) and I feel that if I’m able to be confused by the arrangement of the table, most others that don’t know much about the field, like I, would also be confused. We should probably make a separate table for these “dialect changing phonemes” (idk what to call it) to prevent further confusion, where the table could explain what exactly they are instead of being condemned to being a footnote. 2600:1700:B3A0:1510:65FF:1646:16E9:46B4 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree that it's a bit odd we list /dj/, /lj/, /θj/, etc. almost as if those are phonemes. However, I admit I can't think of any simple/better alternative. I assume the WP editors who made this choice are trying to create diaphonemes which (as Nardog already mentioned) neatly subsume yod-dropping dialects, yod-coalescing dialects, and more conservative dialects that do neither all under a single simple transcription convention. Wolfdog (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- As a separate and less important issue, the note here is wrong. In yod dropping dialects (which—again—are just all the standard English dialects at this point) dew and do aren't homophones. In most phrasing, they'll be distinct to native speakers, because the first is pronounced longer (/duː/) than the second (/du/). — LlywelynII 14:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- What's your source that yod-dropping is now the norm in the UK? That doesn't seem born out by the Brits I hear.
- Dew and do are perfect homonyms in my accent, which is pretty much GA. I can't judge for others, of course, but we have plenty of refs that they are homonyms in yod-dropping accents. — kwami (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per Phonological history of English consonant clusters#Yod-dropping, it's pretty normal in some environments, but not in others. Yod-dropping after /d/, /t/, /n/ does not seem to occur in British English.
- (I think I consistently keep yods after /d/, /t/, /n/. After other consonants my idiolect isn't very consistent.) Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Introducing superscripts
editI’d like to propose a minor change to the key that would hopefully put an end to the frequent misunderstanding that our key is supradialectal. What about representing optionally silent sounds in realizations of the /əl/ /ən/ /ər/ /ɑːr/ /ɔːr/ etc. phonemes with a superscript? It would help distinguish them more clearly from the separate sequences and, for /r/-colored vowels, show the fleeting nature of the /r/ in a more straightforward way for those who insist on removing it from UK English transcriptions. This is already (partly) common practice on the Cambridge Dictionary. Examples:
- {{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|ɪ|s|ən}} → /ˈlɪsᵊn/, {{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|ɪ|s|ən|ɪ|ŋ}} → /ˈlɪsᵊnɪŋ/
- {{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|eɪ|b|əl}} → /ˈleɪbᵊl/, {{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|eɪ|b|əl|ɪ|ŋ}} → /ˈleɪbᵊlɪŋ/; but
- {{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|eɪ|b|ər}} → /ˈleɪbəʳ/, {{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|eɪ|b|ər|d}} → /ˈleɪbəʳd/, {{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|eɪ|b|ər|ɪ|ŋ}} → /ˈleɪbᵊrɪŋ/.
(Compare with {{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|ɛ|m|ə|n}}, not {{IPAc-en|ˈ|l|ɛ|m|ən}}, or {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɛ|l|ə|n}}, not {{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɛ|l|ən}}, which would thus appear as /ˈlɛmən/ and /ˈmɛlən/, respectively.) What do you guys think? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think I basically agree with your proposal, though I'm not understanding why listen would be treated differently than lemon. Wolfdog (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- This is a fine and dandy idea and all, it's just weird. I'd say putting them in parentheses would look more logical. Also, yeah, why wouldn't the schwa in lemon or melon be considered un-optional? Babelball (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- The parentheses are already used in the template to mark entirely optional phonemes, so IMO it would be confusing to mark optional phonetic realizations in the same way. As for lemon and the like, as far as I’m aware sequences like [mn̩] are impossible in English. Correct me if I’m mistaken though. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- No, I use that sequence all the time. Oh, and also, in the case of /n/ occuring before /n̩/, the non-syllabic n becomes a nasal tap. Babelball (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- The aforementioned Cambridge Dictionary confirms they are different cases: listen vs lemon. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Although you're right that Cambridge bafflingly transcribes them differently, the (British) audio they provide has the exact same final syllables! In my own accent, an American one, they are narrowly [ˈɫɛmɪn] and [ˈɫɪsɪn], or in rapid speech certainly [ˈɫɛmn̩] and [ˈɫɪsn̩]. (I also wonder if Babelball's parentheses idea is preferable.) Wolfdog (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- As a non-native speaker, I find it interesting that you’re both having the same take on this, given that I was just checking the OED and they seem to do the same as Cambridge (listen vs lemon). There is surely a reason behind this choice so I guess we should dive deeper into the matter. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's most likely just a policy they have. Of course, it could also be that having a nasal cluster would be too unsightly, but I believe the former is more believable. Babelball (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- The OED seems to have the odd convention of not showing syllable breaks or syllabic nasals in such a way that they write /ˈlɪsn/. Following this logic, cannon would be the very strange-looking /ˈkann/, so they instead avoid the double consonant and write /ˈkanən/. In short, the OED seem to set themselves up for a trap that they then invent a second convention just to avoid. Strange. Wolfdog (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster (USA) also follows the initial pattern you presented (but, even more mysterious, not for soften!). American Heritage Dictionary just uses /ən/ for all these; at least some consistency there! Check this out too. I'm not sure how up-to-date the page is. Wolfdog (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I do not recall ever seeing that page! Provides a good overall comparison. In any case, while I understand /ˈkanən/ over /ˈkann/, there would be no reason to transcribe /ˈlɛmən/ over /ˈlɛmn/ unless they viewed the final /ən/ as non-phonemic as opposed to /ˈlɪsn/; or some other sort of opposition. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's most likely just a policy they have. Of course, it could also be that having a nasal cluster would be too unsightly, but I believe the former is more believable. Babelball (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- As a non-native speaker, I find it interesting that you’re both having the same take on this, given that I was just checking the OED and they seem to do the same as Cambridge (listen vs lemon). There is surely a reason behind this choice so I guess we should dive deeper into the matter. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Although you're right that Cambridge bafflingly transcribes them differently, the (British) audio they provide has the exact same final syllables! In my own accent, an American one, they are narrowly [ˈɫɛmɪn] and [ˈɫɪsɪn], or in rapid speech certainly [ˈɫɛmn̩] and [ˈɫɪsn̩]. (I also wonder if Babelball's parentheses idea is preferable.) Wolfdog (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- The parentheses are already used in the template to mark entirely optional phonemes, so IMO it would be confusing to mark optional phonetic realizations in the same way. As for lemon and the like, as far as I’m aware sequences like [mn̩] are impossible in English. Correct me if I’m mistaken though. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'd really like to hear [ˈɫɛmn̩] and [ˈkænn]. They both look awfully non-English to me, more like German or something. The frustration of deciding "did he just say kein or keinen?" is something I've never experienced when listening to a native speaker of English. Sol505000 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, both German and English use /n̩/. Babelball (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not in the same contexts, that's the point. Sol505000 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Firstly, this is relatively out of scope of the topic of this discussion. Secondly, German uses “en” as a plural suffix and as a suffix used for verb conjugation. English just uses the sound in regular terminology, i.e., linen, lemon, cannon, persimmon, clementine, etc, so it is technically different contexts. Babelball (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Please provide a citation for the usage of a syllabic nasal after nasals (or laterals), rather than [ən] or [ɨn]. These are not the same thing. You just keep repeating yourself without any backup. Sol505000 (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- You are going off track. The topic discussed here is a change in the symbol representing the cases in which that phoneme can be realized as a single sound in English. The issue is to clearly identify what those cases are. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Firstly, this is relatively out of scope of the topic of this discussion. Secondly, German uses “en” as a plural suffix and as a suffix used for verb conjugation. English just uses the sound in regular terminology, i.e., linen, lemon, cannon, persimmon, clementine, etc, so it is technically different contexts. Babelball (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not in the same contexts, that's the point. Sol505000 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, both German and English use /n̩/. Babelball (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- As suggested previously, if we're to do this the obvious route is to make the module automatically detect the surrounding sounds and superscript the appropriate letters (perhaps with an option to force or disable it, for truncated transcriptions with hyphens etc.). Nardog (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think using superscripts in that way is a good idea. 1.126.110.116 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Btw I’ve been thinking, if we implement this change, that we would probably also have to go for /dʲ/ /nʲ/ /ʰw/ etc. out of consistency. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think not, judging by how inconsistent (and confusing) it would be with other guides that use ⟨ʲ ʰ⟩ in the proper official-IPA way, denoting palatalization and aspiration. Sol505000 (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out in previous discussions, though, we’re already using IPA in a very peculiar way for this help key. And I’m sure there could be (and probably have been) attempts at replacing /nj/ /hw/ etc. with other transcriptions from users who fail to understand they’re diaphonemic. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think not, judging by how inconsistent (and confusing) it would be with other guides that use ⟨ʲ ʰ⟩ in the proper official-IPA way, denoting palatalization and aspiration. Sol505000 (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Btw I’ve been thinking, if we implement this change, that we would probably also have to go for /dʲ/ /nʲ/ /ʰw/ etc. out of consistency. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support superscripts per the last time I remember this coming up. Double sharp (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
We should use different IPA symbol for english: English after RP
editHello,
I would like to bring the issue about the current use of the IPA symbol for english. It've been demonstrated by Linguist like Geoff Lindsey (from University College London) that the current IPA symbols choosen to represent english phonems are wrong in many ways. Like for exemble the phoneme /iː/ which is not at all pronunced like a long /i/ but like /ij/ in southern brittish english. Or another examble is the vowel in "boat" depicted by the symbol /eʊ/ unlike the real used pronunciation which is /ow/
The book "English after RP" explains all of that in great details, and for a free alternative, I don't know I it's allowed to post youtube link so I don't do it but I invite anyone interested to chek the youtube channel of Geoff Lindsey, there's videos about this exact topic.
Furthermore there is the CUBE dictionnary (CUBE = current brittish english) that act as a good source using a modern proper set of IPA symbols to better discribe the way english is pronounced. Malekpe (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- English is not restricted to RP. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I assume that Malekpe meant the explanations of the RP correspondences of the diaphonemic signs on this page, not the actual diaphonemic system that Wikipedia uses - so what he was talking about is, indeed, restricted to RP. If he did mean the diaphonemic system, his remark was misguided not because 'English is not restricted to RP' but because that system isn't really an attempt to reflect adequately the phonetic realisation of any dialect. That said, this confusion only goes to show that the current diaphonemic system is misleading, since it looks like a phonetic transcription of an existing dialect, but is actually a set of abstract symbols that are meant to reflect all dialects simultaneously, regardless of the actual realisation. Wikipedia should adopt enPR like Wiktionary, because it does not create the misleading impression of an attempt at phonetic accuracy for those of us who do understand IPA.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- If someone doesn't know what slashes indicate then they don't understand IPA. Nardog (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- enPR is an american convention that's not readily accepted by the rest of the world. that said, i wouldn't be opposed to using it alongside the IPA instead of the current respelling system, which doesn't work for all words.
- double slashes for the IPA have also been proposed, and would be more accurate, but it's been objected that anyone who needs that cue isn't likely to understand IPA anyway. i don't know how true that would turn out to be. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- I assume that Malekpe meant the explanations of the RP correspondences of the diaphonemic signs on this page, not the actual diaphonemic system that Wikipedia uses - so what he was talking about is, indeed, restricted to RP. If he did mean the diaphonemic system, his remark was misguided not because 'English is not restricted to RP' but because that system isn't really an attempt to reflect adequately the phonetic realisation of any dialect. That said, this confusion only goes to show that the current diaphonemic system is misleading, since it looks like a phonetic transcription of an existing dialect, but is actually a set of abstract symbols that are meant to reflect all dialects simultaneously, regardless of the actual realisation. Wikipedia should adopt enPR like Wiktionary, because it does not create the misleading impression of an attempt at phonetic accuracy for those of us who do understand IPA.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
/r/
editThe "r" sound in English is not /r/ (voiced alveolar trill), but rather /ɹ̠/, the voiced postalveolar approximant, or often for convenience generalised as /ɹ/, the voiced alveolar approximant. The voiced alveolar trill was used in older dialects of English, like high RP, but is now very far from the norm, only really appearing in Scottish dialects, and seems misplaced to list it here? I get this is explained in the footnote but it feels misinformative to generalise quite different consonants purely for the sake of convenience, as that seems to contradict the purpose of the IPA? Natejb2003 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Phonemic analysis isn't purely for the sake of convenience, and it doesn't contradict the purpose of the IPA. In fact it is the primary purpose of the IPA, which is clear if you read the Handbook of the IPA, pp. 27ff. Nardog (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- The linked text does not claim what you say - it only says distinguishing between phonemes is one of the purposes of the IPA, not the primary one - and in any case using broad transcription and sticking to standard letters of the Latin alphabet at the expense of phonetic accuracy is not 'phonemic analysis'. The real reason why using /r/ is acceptable is because the whole system used by Wikipedia is diaphonemic and abstract, i.e. it is not really meant to express the specific phonetic realisation of any given dialect of English, but to signal them all simultaneously. Which only goes to show, just like the previous thread, that the use of IPA for a diaphonemic transcription leads to misunderstandings. The proposals for changes are due to people not understanding that the system is diaphonemic, and the people objecting to the proposals obviously keep forgetting that fact just as the OPs do. Therefore, as I wrote above, Wikipedia should use enPR, as Wiktionary does, or something similar - a system that does not mislead readers by looking like a phonetic transcription.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- It says
From its earliest days (see appendix 4) the International Phonetic Association has aimed to provide 'a separate sign for each distinctive sound; that is, for each sound which, being used instead of another, in the same language, can change the meaning of a word'. This notion of a 'distinctive sound' is what became widely known in the twentieth century as the phoneme
;/tru/ might be suitable for the English word true or the French word trou
; andThe term 'broad' sometimes carries the extra implication that, as far as possible, unmodified letters of the roman alphabet have been used.
Nardog (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)- decisions on which sounds qualify for their own letters depends on whether they're a phonemic distinction in languages, with exceptions like dentals. but it's still a phonetic alphabet; the phonemic criterion just means that few diacritics are needed for broad transcription, making for a cleaner appearance in many situations. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- It says
- The linked text does not claim what you say - it only says distinguishing between phonemes is one of the purposes of the IPA, not the primary one - and in any case using broad transcription and sticking to standard letters of the Latin alphabet at the expense of phonetic accuracy is not 'phonemic analysis'. The real reason why using /r/ is acceptable is because the whole system used by Wikipedia is diaphonemic and abstract, i.e. it is not really meant to express the specific phonetic realisation of any given dialect of English, but to signal them all simultaneously. Which only goes to show, just like the previous thread, that the use of IPA for a diaphonemic transcription leads to misunderstandings. The proposals for changes are due to people not understanding that the system is diaphonemic, and the people objecting to the proposals obviously keep forgetting that fact just as the OPs do. Therefore, as I wrote above, Wikipedia should use enPR, as Wiktionary does, or something similar - a system that does not mislead readers by looking like a phonetic transcription.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)