Hot answers tagged

19

"tʃ", "t͡ʃ", and "t͜ʃ" are the only representations of the affricate currently sanctioned by the International Phonetic Association. The ligature symbols "ʧ", "ʦ", etc. were removed from the alphabet at the 1989 Kiel Convention. The arches in "t͡ʃ, t͜ʃ" are called tie bars. Note the IPA chart says &...


17

It's not a sound, but a contour tone letter applying to the whole word (or syllable). This case specifically is a high falling tone, like the fourth tone in Mandarin. The Pumi example from the same table has another example: [pʙ̩˥], a word with a high register tone.


16

In theory, the difference between /t͡ʃ/ with a tiebar and /tʃ/ without is that the former represents a single unit and the latter represents two units. This is sometimes important for theoretical reasons (you might want to treat /t͡ʃ/ as a unit because it lets you make some phonological generalizations) and more rarely for practical ones (Polish contrasts ...


12

/ʎ/ has the contact with the hard palate, /l̠ʲ/ has the contact with the alveolar ridge (albeit towards the back of the alveolar ridge, and with the body of the tongue raised towards the hard palate)


12

Also note that even if they were the exact same thing, ʎ is a single symbol while l̠ʲ is a symbol with two diacritics; if a phoneme is common or high-profile enough, it will often get its own simplex symbol, even if it could already be represented by some combination of diacritics before. By way of extreme example, remember that the IPA has diacritics for ...


10

Yes, this is not only possible but regular practice. In general, one only notates the kind of features of a sound that are relevant for the transcription and it is left to reader to add the omitted details. So when /x/ is realised differently in Hindi/Urdu and Assamese, it is assumed that the reader is aware of that difference and knows how to pronounce a ...


8

These are (mostly) consonant clusters and not reasonably analysed as single phonemes in English For people who distinguish wh from w though, this is still a single consonant, /ʍ/ not a cluster /hw/. I.e. it is the voiceless counterpart of the usual labiovelar approximant /w/, not a sequence of /h/ and /w/ Double articulations would usually refer to phonemes ...


8

It's also a widely-held axiom in linguistics (phonology, specifically) that segments are always syllabified, in all languages. But that is not an empirically well-supported claim. There are certainly a number of languages which provide various kinds of evidence that the syllable can be a thing, just as [ʕ] can be a segment of a language, but not every ...


7

Wikipedia says "/ð/ – the so-called 'soft d' (Danish: blødt d) – is a velarized laminal alveolar approximant [ð̠˕ˠ]", citing Basbøll (2005), Grønnum (2003), and Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996).


7

Since you tagged this "phonology" rather than "phonetics": There are a few different ways of representing the second syllable of words like "mirror" in rhotic dialects. Some people treat it as a combination of a vowel /ə/ and a consonant; other people treat it as a syllabic resonant /ɹ̩/. (The same goes for the second syllable ...


7

The call for minimal pairs is inappropriate, a call for evidence is appropriate. Before giving evidence you gotta say what the evidence is evidence of. The gist of your question is that perhaps, the two-segment sequence composed of /ð+ʕ/ is in all respects interchangeable with the single pharyngealized segment written /ðˁ/. Because of Arabic's root-and-...


7

IPA is not designed for the precise description of phones (the infinite number of "sounds" referred in the question). It is designed to describe any possible phonemic (phonemes are analogous to the digital signals alluded in the question) contrast observed and described in the natural languages of the world. When a new phonemic contrast is ...


6

Short answer: yes, it generally means the same consonant twice, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a gap in between them. If you're a native English-speaker, think about how you'd say "acting" or "lapdog" in normal conversation. For me, unless I'm deliberately trying to enunciate, there won't be any release between the two stops. ...


6

It's a widely-held axiom in linguistics that syllabification is never phonemic. In other words, words aren't stored in your brain pre-broken-down into syllables; that syllabification happens later according to regular rules. The reasoning behind this axiom is a bit circular, since it sometimes requires you to finagle your underlying phonemic forms to encode ...


6

As jk mentioned, it's common to only transcribe the features that are relevant (a "broad" transcription). But there are a few other reasons why the mapping from symbol to sound might not be one-to-one. First, transcriptions more often focus on phonemes (mental units representing sounds), not phones (the sounds themselves). And the naming of ...


6

This appears to be a bug in Apple's system font San Francisco. The International Phonetic Association designates the symbol for a voiced uvular fricative to be "Inverted small capital R", ʁ, which is defined in Unicode as LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL INVERTED R at U+0281, and since "inverted" means "flipped along the horizontal axis&...


5

As the help page explains, the combinations of symbols you mentioned represent Wikipedia's own diaphonemes, not single phonemes or phones. They are listed separately because, in that particular system, e.g. /sj/ represents a unit that can be /sj/ (/s/ + /j/), /s/, or /ʃ/ depending on variety.


5

One reason why these are considered by some to be single segments is that they simplify to [w l n ...] in some dialects. There are sub-trends in phonology which treat consonant plus glide sequences as rounded or palatalized consonants. I am not persuaded by those claims, but that's not the question. If we assume that these are single segments, then the best ...


5

Co-editor of PHOIBLE here. In the feature system used in PHOIBLE, a is considered to have features -front and -back — i.e., a (low) central vowel, not a (low) front vowel. Therefore you would think that a̟ should be considered as a low front vowel (as your instincts suggested). However, that featural specification is already in use for æ. This illustrates ...


5

The chart of the symbols in he IPA is given here: as you can see, there is no diacritic indicating "oral release". In the case of a language like Kaingang with complex oral+nasal contouring (see Wetzels & Nevins, Language 2018 vol 4), superscript oral and nasal letters are positioned appropriately so that one could write an orally-released m as ...


5

Typically linguists use such diacritics when the sound they're describing is in between the sounds associated with unmodified base glyphs of the IPA. So I would not expect the author to write [ë̞] to represent the same sound as [ə], but rather a sound intermediate between [e] and [ə]


5

"Exact differences" only exist between languages, and you absolutely cannot rely on a person's writing system as a resolution of how things are pronounced. First, most linguistic material is not created by highly-trained ear phoneticians with classical Edinburgh-type knowledge of IPA letters. Second, even looking at material created by such ...


5

In Pashto (Indo-Iranian), the word for ‘blind’ does begin with /ɽ/ and is also written with ‘ڑ’ in some scripts, though most widely accepted scripts use ړ. blind: [ɽʉ̃n] (it's also pronounced with [ɻ])


5

There are quite a few conventions for transcription of Danish, and none of them correspond exactly to the standard IPA because (without employing a ton of diacritics) the IPA doesn't provide enough letters. Wikipedia has a comparison of some of the conventions here, and a description of underlying phonological units and corresponding allophones here. Blade. ...


5

Regarding blade, kage and måle, I have nothing to add to Nardog’s answer, except to note that among younger speakers, the schwa-assimilation that takes place in kage is more likely to yield what would in standard IPA be transcribed as [ˈɡ̊ʰæ̝ː.æ̝], with the schwa assimilating completely to the preceding vowel. (And also to add that your informant’s ...


5

The Journal of the IPA publishes articles ("Illustrations") exemplifying the use of the IPA in various languages, which has some of the properties that you seem to desire. You will have to decide which languages that they illustrate are most-spoken e-languages.


4

If you look at official IPA charts (here, here), you won't find the letter /ɚ/ anymore. Esling's chart (the second of those) exemplifies the rhoticity diacritic on regular schwa (ə plus rhotic-hook, i.e. [ ə˞ ], analogous to [a˞] and so on. All that means is, "whatever the vowel is, plus a rhotic quality", which can be any kind of rhotic ...


3

I agree with @drammock and would add this. IPA is really a phonetically-based system of phonological symbolization. When a person write a certain sound of a language as [ɪ] or [e], that is in part a statement about what the vowel sounds like, where [ɪ] or [e] represent approximate targets. There is substantial variation in the formants of [ɪ] or [e] across ...


3

This gets in to the difference between phonetic and phonological descriptions The phoneme in question is generally called /ð/. The issue is that the precise phonetic details of how this phoneme is produced, differ quite a lot from prototypical [ð] (which is why English-speakers generally hear it as closer to our /l/ than our /ð/) As Nardog says in their ...


3

I have known a few languages other than Polish throughout my lifetime, which include Russian, English, French, Greek, and Hebrew, but in none of them have I observed any consistent difference between male and female speakers. The differences are almost surely there. They may be subtle, or quite variable because they interact with other sociolinguistic ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible