Help talk:IPA/Spanish/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

/ʝ/ and [ɟʝ]/[dʒ]

Why don't you add /ʝ/ can be turned into [dʒ], same as /b/, /d/, /g/ into their soft counterparts. Cónyuge, enyesar, ¡¡yo!! (emphatic). There are also few borrowings with j pronounced as /ʝ/ - [dʒ], judo ['dʒuðo], judoka [dʒu'ðoka], kanji ['kãndʒi], júnior ['dʒunjoɾ], jazz [dʒas], jet [dʒet], jumbo ['dʒũmbo], jacuzzi [dʒa'ku(t)si], jockey ['dʒoki], jogging ['dʒoɣĩn], Nueva Jersey ['nweβa dʒeɾsi]. These words are not read ['xuðo], [xu'ðoka], [xas], ['nweβa xeɾsei̯]. Note RAE has tried to hispanicise words by replacing them with y. Judo/judoka can also be spelled as yudo/yudoka in Spanish, however the rest of the words I've mentioned are only right and written as in their original source.

• Exceptions, jaguar [xa'ɣwaɾ] y yaguar [ʝa'ɣwaɾ], jacaré [xaka'ɾe] y yacaré [ʝaka'ɾe]. In Spain, jersey (clothing) [xeɾsei̯].

Very few loan words with [ʒ], collage [ko'laʒ], beige [beʒ]. Though beige can also be said beis [bei̯s] in Spain. Note collage [ko'laʒ] is mantained with the original pronunciation and spelling (though some speakers may pronounce [ko'laxe], or [ko'las]), however bricolaje [bɾiko'laxe] has been completely hispanicised. http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=collage http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=463957 http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=jet Jaume87 (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It was agreed earlier that using [ɟʝ] in our transcription was too much detail and also too dialect-specific. Using [dʒ] would also be dialect specific, though it would be a different dialect. I happen to think that using [ʝ] marks this sound as both a little different from the [j] that English speakers are used to and the explanatory note indicates that the symbol is a little abstract so as to be more accomodating to other dialects. Maybe others can weigh in on this, though. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why [ɟʝ] is dialectal? It occurs with many speakers after nasals, from northern to southern Spain, and as an emphatic /ʝ/. Regarding [dʒ] could be too dialectal specific, more common in South America and Andalusia. But when are you creating a new article which includes all pronunciation for all the Spanish speaking countries and major dialects, as you do with yourself the Anglo-speakers :)

It is just a variation (allophone) of /ʝ/ as occurs with /b/, /d/, /g/, /s/, /n/. So [ɟʝ]/[dʒ], same condition than [β], [ð], [ɣ], [z], [ŋ].

This is from an American university, http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/spanish/IPA.pdf

http://api.ning.com/files/UE6u6UQ5-vYsdGKEgk4BLwHSDbqZRxUf-kBDn0TWYvUmVutGEuHVjTIQ-qiiPDos3Np6Dxf5KLGpdnP2QQh6sApio8QJT2*y/LECTURAS_Cantero.pdf

Page 16/14

/j/ ⇒ [ʝ] (approximant) mayo, [dʒ] (affricate) cónyuge.

Jaume87 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ladder = what the hell?

I don't have any authority on Spanish pronunciation, so I don't want to edit the actual page... but what is the deal with the single-tap trill version of "r" being described as the "dd" in "ladder"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.82.245.253 (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the closest sound in English, though only those with intervocalic alveolar flapping. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Voiceless dental fricative is not found in most of the Hispanosphere

Hi,

I have noticed people adding lots of IPA with (soft) ‹c› and ‹z› represented as voiceless dental fricatives on pages regarding Latin American places, people and events. At first, I thought this was a mistake, but then I saw some of the discussions here. I'm a bit confused - where would be the appropriate place to discuss possibly changing this policy?

Certainly, there are lots of peculiarities in regional pronunciations so I understand the need/desire to use broad transcription, but for me that does not mean representing a sound that, by the numbers, is only used by a relatively tiny minority of speakers of the language. In some regions of the Spanish-speaking world, ‹h› is preserved in certain positions, but at Havana, it still says "[la aˈβana]". I agree that it is unrealistic to represent all the peculiarities of regional pronunciation, but the use of ‹θ› to represent ‹c› and ‹z› appears glaring to me, an imposition of European pronunciations on a continent of people who would not use such pronunciations.

Why not use ‹θ› for Spanish topics (and maybe international topics?) only, but not for, say, Mauricio Macri (Argentina), Iguazu Falls (Brazil/Argentina), Ciudad Juárez (Mexico), La Violencia (Colombia)? This is not a country-by-country variation, this is a pronunciation that is essentially absent for the entire continent and around 90% of all Spanish speakers. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But why just that one change? Why not also [h] for [x]? or [h] for [s]? or [ʝ] for [ʎ]? How do we decide when a difference is egregious enough to transcribe? — kwami (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The most significant differences are the two mergers. Sticking to just those two would probably avoid most accusations of European bias. If we do it this way, there might be some edit warring with international topics, but sticking to Castilian when it's international (and erring on the side of assuming a topic to be international when it's ambiguous) is reasonable IMHO. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If there's an /h/ in "Havana", we certainly need to show that, at least as a local pronunciation.

I've pushed for local IPA-es before, but have been voted down. If we can get consensus for the 2-merger rule, I think you're right, there will be fewer reverts. — kwami (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the 2-merger rule. As far as an /h/ in Havana, I don't know if it's pronounced that way in Havana (I was under the impression it is primarily found in rural speech varieties); my point was that since it's pronounced that way in some places and it seemed we were including distinctions preserved even by a smaller group of speakers who live halfway around the world, it wouldn't seem too unreasonable to include that too... --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that Castilian has prestige. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

too many minor details

IMO, [ɱ] is too much phonetic detail. We don't give that kind of detail for the vowels, which aren't limited to [a e i o u] (i.e. tanque is [ã]), so why should we have it in the consonants?

If we're not going to distinguish [ʝ] from [j], do we really want to distinguish it from [ɟʝ]? Again, way too much detail, and too dialect specific. This is meant to be a guide for someone unfamiliar with Spanish; anyone who gets in deep enough to appreciate these points won't be coming to this key anyway.

[x, χ, ɴ] - again, too much. This would be better relegated to a footnote. The only reason I think [ŋ] should be left is that it's intuitive for an English speaker. The rest of this, though, is only going to be confusing for many of the people which come here. kwami (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one way to look at this is to start from a phonemic representation and make allowances towards indicating phonetic aspects. Some phonological processes we should represent

1. intervocalic lenition of /b d g/
2. distinction between [r] and [ɾ] even where they are in complementary distribution
3. desyllabification of /i/ and /u/ to [j] and [w] to the onset (this is arguably a phonological process but note that I'm not advocating we do the same for when these sounds appear in the coda
4. Similarly, the phonemic distinction between [ʝ] and [j] is arguable, though we ought to indicate it, especially since the former is [ʒ] in some dialects
5. diphthongs formed from sequences of vowels in hiatus wherein one becomes non-syllabic (as in poeta)
6. fusing of identical vowels in hiatus
7. Nasal assimilation to velars.

I agree that indicating lenition (or affrication) of y might be too much, and although I think [ɱ] ought to be allowed I can see how it might be too confusing for English speakers.

Should we keep the dental markers on t and d?

BTW, I haven't found any information that talks about vowel allophony. For the purposes of our article on Spanish phonology, do you have any sources talking about this? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with keeping 1–7. The dental diacritics, not really. Anyone who goes to the phonology article will see it; here I think we should just have the basics. (As it is, we don't bother with the lowering diacritics on the approximants except in a footnote.) As for vowels, I haven't seen much. There was something in a small pub I have buried somewhere, but it was fairly intuitive. Spanish vowels are pretty boring. kwami (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, the Irish pub; home of phonetic information. So should we just represent instances of [ɱ] as [m]? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably best. We don't bother with it for English. The IPA's rather odd in even having a symbol for it, rather than using a diacritic [m̪]. kwami (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here you go: Antonio Quilis, 1997. Principios do fonología y fonética españolas. Arco/Libros,S.L. The vowels are nasal between nasal stops, and at the beginning of an IU before a nasal stop. So the first two are nasal in mañana, and the first in entren said in citation. Nothing I can see on other allophones, though of course they exist. kwami (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we still describe y as a "stop" after /#, l, n/, but no longer have a corresponding entry for the corresponding affricate allophone. I didn't want to delete it altogether without some discussion. kwami (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's good to still have an accurate description in the footnote so that native speakers can understand that we're representing it as <ʝ> even in places that we know it's an affricate. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: It doesn't matter if English speaking people doesn't get it fast, these are the spanish sounds and should be posted this way, maybe link the sounds to IPA so English Speakers can hear how this sound are, BTW canyon has no ñ, there's not such a thing like an ñ sound in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.198.186 (talk • contribs)

We have an article on Spanish phonology that covers the Spanish pronunciation in greater detail for those who wish to learn about it. For those who want a rough idea of how Spanish is pronounced in words that appear in Wikipedia articles, the extra sounds recently added are unnecessary.

You are correct that most English Speakers produce no equivalent to the palatal nasal of Spanish. The cluster in canyon is simply the closest approximation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Triphthongs

Hi. How about if we put in Wikipedia:IPA for Spanish the triphthongs that has the Spanish?

The triphthongs in Spanish have this order: an unstressed weak vowel (i, u) + a strong vowel (a, e, o) + another unstressed weak vowel (i, u).

I've posted some examples in Spanish. Please, put English approximation.

IPA	Examples	English approximation
Triphthongs
jai	riais
jau	miau	meow
jei	esquiéis
joi	dioico
wai	Paraguay	Hawaii
wau	guau, Cuautla
wei	buey	way

Notes:

• Some persons pronounce the words as confiéis thus: [ kon.fiˈeis ].
• The Spanish doesn't have words with ieu, iou, ueu, uoi neither uou.

The American (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems fair. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete

I think this page is incomplete, in comparison with the spanish version, which obviously has the right sounds of the language. Those changes are esay, just adding some missing vowels and consonants, in order to express all the sounds found in spanish; because this page, nowadays, falls short in relation of the language sounds. Just let know if it's approved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xevilhunter (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. I don't know the purpose of the Spanish version, but the purpose of this one is to help English speakers get a rough-yet-accurate idea of how to pronounce Spanish words they find in Wikipedia articles. Too much detail and it becomes too dialect-specific, difficult to enforce without inconsistencies (since fewer people would have the proper knowledge to render pronunciation), problematic in regards to rendering (since many users might not have the right unicode encoding in their browsers to render all the diacritics correctly), and more difficult to learn. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you add álbum for phoneme /n/

/n/ and /m/ neutralise in the coda; álbum /n/. And anfibio, convertible /m/. Jaume87 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why [ŋ] and [z] are marginal?

They are allophones as [β, ð, ɣ]. Also English /ʒ/ is somehow less used than other phonemes, and it is not marginal. Why don't you do the same with IPA for Italian and other languages where [ŋ] is an allophone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_for_Italian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AIPA_for_Romanian#cite_note-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Catalan

I don't think pronouncing ci[ŋ]co is marginal. What's marginal for you? Jaume87 (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As it stands: in general, the "marginal sounds" list is a hodgepodge of sounds used only in loanwords, assimilated allophones that English speakers would find significant, and dying phonemes like English /x/. For languages with only one or two such sounds, a dedicated section isn't really merited. This is quite open for debate, though standardizing this across all these IPA keys will be messy. On to some specifics:

1. It isn't intended to say that pronouncing a nasal consonant at all in cinco is optional, just that which one is used is not phonemic, but phonologically-conditioned by the following consonant.
2. I'm not a big fan of indicating many languages' allophonic nasal assimilation for [ŋ] and ignoring [ɱ, ɲ, etc.], but I don't know that I like ignoring it either.
3. English /ʒ/ is a full phoneme in all dialects, despite its relative rarity, so it's really not problematic.
4. Spanish [β, ð, ɣ, ʝ] occur so overwhelmingly more often than [b, d, ɡ, ɟʝ] that you could really consider the latter allophones of the former. Listing [z] but not [v], I'm not sure about.
5. You can link to other intra-language Wikipedia pages simply and cleanly by enclosing the title in angle brackets: [[WP:IPA for Catalan]] --> WP:IPA for Catalan

Hope this helps. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think it is accurate to designate [ŋ] and [z] as marginal sounds as they are NOT. /ʃ/ in Spanish is a marginal sound same as English /x/ (loch) or French /ŋ/ (parking). As you know, [ŋ] and [z] are allophones, ways of pronouncing /n/ and /s/ (their occurance I know is far less common than [β, ð, ɣ, ʝ], but should be treated as equal realisations; allophones). Same allophonic rule occurs in other languages with /n/ before velars (turns into [ŋ]); WP:IPA for Romanian, WP:IPA for Italian, WP:IPA for Catalan, so why you do this with Spanish? And you don't have any sort of harmonisation with transcriptions for languages on Wikipedia? Spanish phonology mentions an /N/ archiphoneme, which neutralise in the coda position with different allophones.

/x/ is an almost dead sound in English, it is a marginal sound, typical from Scottish English and fewer other loanwords (though usually replaced by /h/ or /k/), this cannot be compared to an allophone. In Spanish, /θ/ could be a marginal sound from Castilian, but it is an alive sound thanks to Castilian prestigiousness and Castilian relevance over other Spanish dialects.

In Spanish no one knows about the difference of [β ð ɣ ʝ] and {IPA|[b d g ʝ]}}, [s] and [z], [n] and [ŋ], etc. So I don't see right why treat [ŋ] and [z] separately as marginal sounds.

Same in English no one knows about the differences of [pʰ tʰ kʰ] and [p t k], [ɫ] and [l].

Please, could you withdraw [z] and [ŋ] from marginal sounds, you can call them allophones or whatever you like. But they need to be treated in the same way as [β ð ɣ ʝ].

Thank you Jaume87 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jaume. Sounds are marginal when they're marginal phonemes, not allophonic variants. This isn't the case with these Spanish sounds. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what /ʃ/ is? — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it seems kind of silly to have a separate section for just one sound. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds Suggestions

I think there are some sounds that are not incorporated here and are not dialect-specific, those sounds are [ʧ][ʤ][v] [χ][lʲ][ɱ][nʲ]ɛ and ɔ. The sound ə̥is less frecuent, but it happens in some plural words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.207.205 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The first is already present and the rest are either dialect-specific or not sounds of Spanish as far as I've seen. [ɱ] is too detailed. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, i'm a native Spanish speaker, and i've heard all of these sounds, not only in my country, also in Mexican, Colombian, Argentinian and even in Spanish conversations. Also they appear as standar sounds in any AFI chart (Alfabeto Fonético Internacional) so, the best source is http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcripci%C3%B3n_fon%C3%A9tica_del_espa%C3%B1ol_con_el_IPA, which should be translated to the letter. I can bring sources if someone's doubtful. PD: nasal vowels also be included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.209.94 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's too much unnecessary detail. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

[h]

What about adding [h]? This sound is marginal in Spanish as [ʃ].

In modern Spanish, Sáhara [ˈsahaɾa] is more common than Sahara [saˈaɾa]. Hámster, holding, hachís, Hawái, hawaiano, Hegel, hegeliano, Honolulu, Sáhara, saharaui, subsahariano are examples where h is aspirated in Spanish. Further dialectal features also occur in Spanish; heder, halar. And also [x] → [h] in many dialects, however the first examples don't concern any dialect but standard Spanish.

• http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltGUIBusDPD?origen=RAE&lema=h
• http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=Sahara
• http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desierto_del_Sahara#cite_note-0

Can you use Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas as reference? You can say grapheme h is always silent except for loanwords Jaume87 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The clarification about silent h is fine, but I don't think we should add [h] as if it were distinct from [x]. None of the links you provide says that these sounds are distinct from each other. The first one doesn't even clarify who does the aspiration? Is it farmers from Cantabria? Presidents? It's too vague. The second link you provide is a commentary about the Arabic pronunciation, and the third link references the first two.

As we've discussed above (an agreement that I'm not sure if we've implemented yet), the only dialectal variation we want to reflect is that between New World Spanish and Castlian, and even then only the two mergers.

If you can show that [h] is marginally phonemic, though, then I don't see why adding it would be inappropriate. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 15:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Then, can you add foreign words with h are pronounced akin to the Spanish j [x]? Sáhara, subsahariano, hámster.

Inmigración subsahariana, África subsahariana, and Sáhara Occidental are very common words in the Spanish media (Spain) and they are pronounced as Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas says.

Jaume87 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing point

The article needs the point "." that indicates separation between words. This symbol is actually used in a lot of spanish pronunciation in Wikipedia, see Canary Islands by example. This point must be added in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.191.116 (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

P.D. Also, where are the nasal vocals, the vocal variants and the fricative consonants? this article needs an urgent change. 190.148.191.116 (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The period should only be used to mark vowel hiatus. Can you give an example of such a word? I can't think of any, though I'm sure there are some.

See some of the above discussions, particularly this one and this one. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The f in café

It is pointless you mention /f/ is often pronounced as [ɸ]. This can cause confusion without a better explanation. It is a dialectal phoneme which usually replaces /f/, mainly in Andean Spanish (fuera [ˈɸweɾa]). But it can also replace /b/ after an aspirated or elided /s/ in Andalusian Spanish (desbaratar [dɛʰɸaɾaˈtaɾ]). If you add /f/ → [ɸ] you should also add other dialectal phonemes;

• /x/ → [h] and [ç]
• /r/ → [ʐ] and [ʁ]
• /ʝ̞/ and /ʎ/ → [ʒ] or [ʃ]
• Mexican phonemes /tɬ/, /ts/ and /ʃ/.

178.109.61.43 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the bilabial pronunciation of /f/ is common enough in less prestigious sociolects that its worthy of mentioning. Do you have a source for the dialectal pronunciations of /r/? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why you mention [ɸ], and you don't mention anything about the aspiration of /s/ as many other realisations which are more common and worthier to mention. There are many more dialectal phonemes and allophones. I find it pointless without further information about other dialectal features or how you like calling it "less prestigious sociolects and dialects". For your knowledge, many graduates and postgraduates keep speaking in their original dialect regarless of any studies and literacy.

In Spain, many Ministers of Parliament, polititians, graduates, as other people speak in their original dialect (Castilian, Andalusian, Murcian, Manchego, Canarian, Spanish spoken by Galician, Catalan and Basque bilingual speakers, etc). Same in South America, see dialects and how speak president of Venezuela, from inland Venezuela and president of Bolivia from Oruro deparment, etc.

So, a Caribbean, Andean, Chilean, Andalusian, Murcian, Canarian speak less prestigious than someone born in Valladolid...

http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1428442

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=r+asibilada&rls=com.microsoft:es:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7GGLL_es

http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/thesaurus/pdf/33/TH_33_001_072_0.pdf

178.101.35.173 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My preference is to give readers only as much information as they need to construct and understand IPA transcriptions of Spanish that we give in Wikipedia articles. Anything that goes beyond this is better placed at Spanish phonology. The note on Spanish /f/ is there as a response to this edit summary (i.e. to clarify why it's not linked to voiceless labiodental fricative).

Because we're going for a transcription that encompasses many dialects, we're going to need to gloss over some regional allophony and this includes the aspiration of /s/. Since we don't transcribe it, I'm reluctant to add it as a note.

You said that there are "many more dialectal phonemes" but only mentioned /tɬ/ and /ts/. Are those the only ones we don't mention? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is more noticeble the aspiration of /s/ as other dialectal features than [ɸ]. You don't transcribe it, but you should mention it and you shouldn't be reluctant to mention something as wide as this, as many people pronounce like this. There are whole nations which people pronounce with an aspirated /s/; Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina... Also areas/regions in all the Spanish speaking countries.

Dialectal phonemes:

Spanish phonetics changed pretty much since Old Spanish (identical to Catalan and Portuguese, but with its early own features). The main changes were the sibilants, turned into completely different sounds. This process made a bit of mess in many Spanish dialects, needing for their comprehension further knowledge.

From Old Spanish to Current Spanish:

• [ʃ]/[ʒ] → [ç] (still heard in Mexico and Central America) → [x] → [h].
• [s]/[z] → [s] ([s̺]~[s̻]) and allophone [z] (before voiced consonants) → [ʰ] or elision (before consonants or word-finally) → [h] (heheo /h/).
• [ts]/[dz] → [s̺]/[θ] (distinción) and [s̻]~[θ] (seseo /s/, ceceo /θ/) → [h] (heheo /h/).

Sounds due to external influences or different substrata in Spanish dialects:

• Mexican sounds /tɬ/ and /ts/ are key to transcribe words and places from Mexico Tlaxcala, tlapalería, Coatzacoalcos, quetzal. Nahuatl influence in Mexican Spanish. There is also /ts/ in Basque and Catalan borrowings, Ertzaintza.
• Andean r sounds as Polish rz and ż, like a sort of [z] and [ʒ], but retroflex [ʐ]. This r is very common in Bolivia and Ecuador, and also common in other areas across Central and South America. Originally, in Aymara and Quechua [r], along with [b] and [d], didn't exist. Spanish influence developed [b], [d] and [ʐ] (for Castilian [r]).
• You already mention rioplatense zheísmo and sheísmo. This dialect pronounce [ʒ]~[ʃ] for their yeismo form. Might be due to Portuguese influence.

http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/thesaurus/pdf/28/TH_28_002_150_0.pdf

178.105.101.197 (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The other things you mention are not separate phonemes, but dialectal realizations of common phonemes. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They are not separate phonemes because Spanish (RAE) is very unitary, however as I mention, they are dialectal phonemes or as you mention dialectal realizations, also could be called dialectal sounds. These are not allophones or ways of pronouncing a phoneme in certain possitions, but a totally distinguishable sound, wich is swapped or added to a dialect. So due to different external influences many dialects may add or exchange different phonemes. If people distinguish these sounds, cannot be called allophones. 178.105.101.197 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm getting confused by your terminology. I understand a dialectal phoneme to be a phoneme particular to a certain dialect or range of dialects that is distinguishable from a set of phonemes present in the common core. So [ʎ] is a dialectal phoneme, since it's only present in certain dialects, while [ɸ] is a dialectal realization of /f/, since it corresponds to [f] in other dialects and never contrasts with it in any dialect. Right? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. And both of them, dialectal phonemes and dialectal realisation of Spanish phonemes are distinguishable sounds. So, /θ/ is also a dialectal phoneme? 178.105.101.197 (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, /θ/ is also a dialectal phoneme. What do you mean by distinguishable? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my confusing and ambiguous vocabulary. I meant dialectal realisations are phonemic sounds. Whereas allophones are not phonemic, given the fact that common people don't notice allophones. 178.111.13.27 (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/voces_hispanicas/bolivia/lapaz.htm,

http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/voces_hispanicas/paraguay/asuncion.htm, and

http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/voces_hispanicas/puertorico/sanjuan.htm

Can you add "Andean r" and "Puerto Rican r" to the notes section, same as rioplatense zheísmo/sheísmo.

• "Andean r"; sounds like [ʐ] or [ʑ], occurs replacing /r/ (trilled r), but also /tɾ/ and /dɾ/, and may also occur in the syllable coda; [ɾ]/[r] → [ʐ] or [ʑ]. This feature occurs in areas from Mexico to Argentina however is more outstanding in the Andean area; specially in Bolivia, Paraguay and Ecuador (inland Ecuador, not coastal accents).
• "Puerto Rican r"; sounds like [x] (though it can also vary with [χ] and [ʁ]), occurs replacing /r/ as well. This dialectal realisation can also be heard in Yucatan (español yucateco).

Other dialectal realisations for [ɾ]/[r] in the syllable coda could be the "[ɾ]/[r] ←→ [l] merger" and "[ɾ]/[r] → [j] vocalisation".178.111.13.27 (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to go into great detail about dialectal variation of Spanish pronunciation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

[ɟʝ]-[ʝ]

/b/, /d/, /j/ and /ɡ/ become approximants ([β̞], [ð̞], [ʝ˕] [ɣ˕]) in all places except after a pause, after /n/ or /m/, or —in the case of /d/ and /ʝ/— after /l/, in which contexts they are stops [b, d, ɟʝ, ɡ], not dissimilar from English b, d, j, g.(Martínez-Celdrán, Fernández-Planas & Carrera-Sabaté 2003:257-8). [ʝ˕] (y) becomes [ɟʝ] after /n/ or /l/; e.g. conyugal. In word initial position it can alternate with /ʝ̞/, same as could occur in the sentence with [β̞], [ð̞], [ʝ˕], [ɣ˕]; e.g. un bote /b/ ~ unos botes [β̞], un yelmo [ɟʝ] ~ unos yelmos /ʝ̞/. So, I don't see any restriction for not to add [ɟʝ], and we could also add a note saying it may vary to [(d)ʒ] depending on the dialect. Jaume87 (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

/h/ and /χ/

Should /h/ and /χ/ be added to the chart?

/h/ is an allophone of /s/ in syllable codas before consonants and an allophone of /x/, both just in certain dialects. /χ/ is an allophone of /x/ in northern Spain, I think.

For example:

Las casas is /lah ˈkasah/ in some dialects. Sus quejas is /sus ˈkehas/ in others.

I see this is already noted in the chart, but not as a separate phoneme.

By the way, some dialects even go further and remove the /h/ while contrasting with open vowels.

The article for /χ/ already lists Spanish as an allophone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.206.11 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Both of those are a bit too dialect-specific. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the voiceless uvular fricative is NOT specific dialect, it's another allophone for the letter "j", and it is also used in the rest of IPA in wikipedia, if you don't believe me see it for yourself here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_uvular_fricative , so please don't go against the reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.143.40 (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Castilian Spanish s sound

Spanish as it is talked in central and northern Spain has a different s sound in contrast with Latin American Spanish and Spanish of southern Spain. It is sort like a sh, something between s and sh, which Latin Americans use to confuse with sh, and which is also different from almost all western European languages s sound. For example, for us Latin Americans it is surprising, curious and also amusing to discover that Spaniards can't pronounce well sushi and they instead pronouce something like "shushi" or "susi", which is in fact this middle sound between those letters. Also, it is notable this in RAE adaptations of foreign loanwords into Spanish ortography, like beige, which RAE proposes to write it like "beis" due to the lack of the |ʃ| or |ʒ| in Spanish fonology, an ortography which sounds odd and artificial to Latin Americans, who don't pronounce s as sh and thus found "beis" little intuitive. I believe there is an IPA representation of this Spanish foneme, I'm not sure but I think it is |ʂ|. Shouldn't we include this sound in the article, just as |θ| is included? PS: Sorry for my bad English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polux91 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen ʂ used for Castilian or European /s/ but have assumed it meant something other than the voiceless retroflex fricative (which is what you seem to be describing) mostly because sources that use it describe it as being alveolar. If you can find a source (in English or in Spanish) that says clearly that it is postalveolar/retroflex, that would be quite relevant to Spanish phonology though I'm not sure how we would include that here except to add a note that /s/ is realized as [ʂ] in certain places (by the way, I've heard this phenomenon in some American English speakers, so it's not an outlandish claim). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

hi- [j] and y- [ʝ]

How could the syllable onset hi- be added on this guide? As a diphthong or a consonant? As far as i know most speakers merge hi- [j] into y- [ʝ]; e.g. hierba/yerba, hierro (iron) / yerro (I mistake); yodo (alternative spelling iodo).

/ʝ/ seems to be an established and strong phoneme in modern Spanish. Same as /x/ or [h] which developed from /ʃ/ and /ʒ/.Jaume87 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither. Since h is silent, the i acts like a nonsyllabic [j] that is fortified to [ʝ ~ ɟʝ ~ (d)ʒ] when initial (or before a nasal). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some missing spanish sounds (specially consonants) in this article, and example is the labiodental nasal, which is included in its respective page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labiodental_nasal, and so the χ sound, wich is stronger than a normal j pronunciation, and some others more in the "reference page" http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcripci%C3%B3n_fon%C3%A9tica_del_espa%C3%B1ol_con_el_IPA, so the permanent editor can fix this. 190.148.213.69 (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We've agreed not to include those sounds here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There aren't missing sounds, Standard Spanish does not include Castilian uvular j [χ], andean r, s dropping or debuccalisation, etc. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Diphthongs

Do we need all these diphthongs here? Spanish is a phonemic language and vowels do not change as those of English. We could simplify diphthongs here:

Semivowels
IPA	Examples		English approximant
j		aliada; cielo; amplio; ciudad	you
w		cuadro; fuego; Huila; arduo	wine

Note: -ref name="Semivowel">In Spanish, the semivowels [w] and [j] can be combined with vowels to form rising diphthongs (e.g. cielo, cuadro). Falling diphthongs though; e.g. aire, hay, auto are transcribed with [i] and [u]). -ref/>

What do you think? We don't include Catalan, Portuguese and French diphthongs, just semivowels, and i think we could get a sort of harmony here by adding an explanatory note (same concerning Italian and Occitan diphthongs). IMO I don't see it is useful to mention endless diphthongs and triphthongs, except for English or whichever other language that contrasts diphthongs in strong and weak vowels. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. I think we had them all because we wanted it clear how the falling diphthongs were represented but you've covered that in the footenote. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we could do the same for Romanian and Italian.

Italian (same as Spanish):

Semivowels
IPA	Examples	English approximant
j	scoiattolo, insieme, proprio, più	you
w	quattro; lingue; qui, fuoco	wine

Romanian:

Semivowels
IPA	Examples	English approximant
e̯	beată; vreo	non-syllabic [e]
j	iarnă, fier, creioane, rai	you or boy
o̯	foarte, găoace	non-syllabic [o]
w	băcăuan, piuez; dau	wine or cow

What do you reckon? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 02:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Romanian [o̯a] and [e̯a] are the only diphthongs that feature the non-high semivowels so it's a bit misleading to list them like that. Otherwise, your proposal seems fine to me. But I'm not as familiar with Italian and Romanian as I am with Spanish. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also triphthongs that combine both non-high semivowels ([e̯] and [o̯]), we could add some explanation too, but it is obvious Romanian contrasts [e̯a]-[ja] and [o̯a]-[wa], as much as French contrasts oui [wi] and huit [ɥi]

Concerning Standard Spanish [o]+[e]/[a] and [e]+[o]/[a] are hiatuses, however in regular speech they could act very similar to Romanian diphthongs, but leading to some confusion in some dialects and idiolects that might merge them into [w] and [j], respectively. Therefore, aéreo can range sounding from [aˈeɾeo] (hiatus, standard Spanish/careful speech) to [aˈeɾe̯o]~[aˈeɾjo] (diphthong, regular speech). Jɑυмe (xarrades) 20:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason that listing the semivowels rather than all diphthongs works for Spanish is because just about any combination is permitted. That seems to be the case for Italian and Romanian, though it's not the case with [e̯] and [o̯]. It's also the case that non-high vowels can be semivocalic in Spanish when hiatus occurs, though we aren't currently encoding for that since sources aren't exactly clear or consistent on how it works and this may even vary from dialect to dialect. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Politicization

This page should be full of totally benign vocabulary.
So why is it politicized with Kirchner, Obama, and Israel?
Is this someone's propaganda page? Varlaam (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

An earlier discussion led to the agreement that Obama was the best example. As for the others, can you think of less political examples? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 11:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we could do without Israel, since we already mention honra and there is already a note that explains ‹r› is trilled after /s/, /n/ and /l/.

Isn't Kirchner also pronounced [ˈkirtʃner] in Spanish? Michelle Bachelet is transcribed as [miˈtʃel βatʃeˈlet] instead of [miˈʃel βaʃeˈle]. IMO we should avoid using an example where ‹ch› is pronounced as [ʃ], as most speakers probably will tend to pronounce it as a standard ‹ch› /tʃ/. I've heard many Spanish speakers pronouncing Catalan last names with ‹ch› as /tʃ/ where it should be with /k/; like Franch, March or with /s/ or /ʃ/; like Bosch, Guasch. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Lord knows we've got enough examples. If it's redundant, it should be all right to take out.

If Kirchner isn't a good example of ch pronounced with /ʃ/, what is? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 12:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

None. Most names with a foreign ch are adapted and pronounced with /tʃ/, at least in peninsular Spanish: chucrut [tʃuˈkɾut], chalé [tʃaˈle], champán [tʃamˈpan], etc. And although there are some exceptions like Kirchner, Rorschach [ˈrorʃax], Ferrero Rocher, etc. I don't think we should include any of these misleading examples. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 15:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then I think the note you just added provides a good enough caveat. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 12:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This should definitely only include benign vocabulary. At first I thought it was a joke and vandalism, I can't believe this has been left so long. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Notes

Shall we add some speakers replace /ʃ/ with [tʃ] or [s] same as English do with /x/: [k] ~ [h]? We could also specify /s/ may include different dialectal realisations. What do you think? Jɑυмe (xarrades) 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Replacing /ʃ/ with [tʃ]/[s] sounds like a good idea, but we've already got dialectal realizations of /s/ mentioned here, don't we? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 12:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We mention syllable-final /s/ is debuccalised or omitted, but we don't mention /s/ may be either laminal or apical. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 15:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the apical/laminal distinction is more of a subtle acoustic/phonetic nuance than important information relevant to the purpose of this guide. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 11:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO we should give a slight mention. They are two different sounds despite being acoustically similar to an English /s/. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 14:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But this is designed to help English speakers. How would they benefit from this information when they can't tell the difference? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary notes

I am taking attention to reducing the number of footnotes in some of these IPA for X pages. These pronunciation keys are designed primarily for readers wanting to understand the language-specific IPA transcriptions they encounter in Wikipedia articles. We shouldn't swamp them with irrelevant details. Because this information may still be pertinent to the project, I have duplicated the notes below rather than try to find a place for them. This is irrespective of whether I think these claims are true or whether they are sourced. I will leave it to other editors to move the information to the appropriate article space or check that it already is. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• The phoneme /f/ is often pronounced as [ɸ], with the lips touching each other rather than the front teeth.</ref>
• For many speakers, fricatives (/s/, /θ/ and /x/) may debuccalize or be deleted in the syllable coda (at the end of words and before consonants); e.g. reloj [reˈlo].
• The marginal phonemes are found in loanwords, largely from Basque, English, and Nahuatl.

Long vowels

Shouldn't we include long vowels in words like "creer", "nihilista" and "cooperación"? --201.189.107.161 (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't long vowels. If anything, those are two identical vowels separated by a syllable boundary (e.g. [ni.iˈlista]). However, Spanish often deletes such doubling (e.g. [kopeɾaˈθjon]) or reduces one of the members to a semivowel (not sure if a sequence of identical vowels would do that, though you see this in words like beatitud [bʝatiˈtuð]). Another possibility with a word like creer is to insert a glide (i.e. [kreˈjer]), though I only have personal anecdotal evidence to back that up. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 03:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Two columns

In this discussion from two years ago, it seemed as though people were generally warm to the idea of shifting from all-Castilian pronunciation to indicating the merger of /θ/ and /s/ and even that of /ʎ/ and /ʝ/ in transcriptions that link here. If this is still the case, perhaps we should separate the guide into two columns like we do at WP:IPA for Portuguese and Galician. What do people think? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 03:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall I'm receptive, but there would be the problem of what to label the columns, as seseo is present in some European dialects and yeísmo doesn't pattern well at all on the oceanic divide—not to mention the two mergers don't necessarily overlap. You could argue that since they're straightforward mergers, we should treat them like the rhotic issue on the English page, instead of like, say, the sibilants in Portuguese, where all dialects have /s/ and /ʃ/, but a set of words have /s/ in Brazil and /ʃ/ in Portugal. The Portuguese page is also a cautionary tale of allowing columnization to get the better of clarity (I may have kicked off the columns there, but I still oppose the inclusion of Galician, because of how complicated it makes the table.) It might be simpler to just explicitly encourage transcribing /θ/ as [s] and /ʎ/ as [ʝ] where appropriate, and use the unmerged forms where the usage is international or from an unmerged locality. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there was some confusion recently at Venezuela over the inclusion of [θ]. If we decide for the simpler approach, it should be made explicit at the top of the guide. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've put a little indicator at the top of how to deal with ceceo and yeísmo. We'll see if any edit warring occurs over how relevant an article is to a particular place or if a particular place has undergone one or the other mergers. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

TL

I thinks there are better examples for "TL". Instead of indigenous words used in México (tlapalería; cenzontle; Popocatépetl), which have nothing to do with Spanish, you could have used: Atlántico, atlas, atleta, atlestismo, atlético. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.10 (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Those are pronounced with [tl], which is different from [tɬ]. I believe the latter comes elusively from indigenous American terms. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The sound of "r"

I am a native speaker of Spanish (from Argentina) and I can assure I would never pronounce an "r" in final position as the so called "trilled r". Indeed, I have never ever heard a word like "amor" (the example here) pronounced with the same "r" sound as in "rumbo" and the rest of the words in the list. Instead, I have always produced and heard it with the sound in "caro".

I don't think either anybody makes a difference, as the chart seems to imply, depending on whether a final "r" is immediately followed by an initial consonant or vowel in the next word. So the "r" in "amor eterno" and the one in "amor maternal", to put some examples, don't just sound the same to me, but I don't know of any native speaker who would pronounce them differently, under normal circumstances.

I am not an academic, though I have been interested in languages for decades now. And I may not be objective concerning my own language, so rather than changing this myself, I had better ask an expert consider my remark and act accordingly. Thanks. Eduarodi (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Variety of Spanish

So, do we use the dialect of Spanish used almost exclusively in northern and central Spain, or the one used in every other country that speaks Spanish natively? (regarding, say, seseo and such.) Red Slash 23:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

We use Castilian, because, apart from the relatively minor distinction of /b/ vs /v/, you can deduce the pronunciation of any other dialect from it, but you can't do the reverse. Castilian is also the prestige dialect, and the form most familiar in the UK. This is the consensus that was established when we worked out this key. If you want to indicate the local pronunciation of a place name, you can do so by adding 'local' as a parameter to the IPA-es template, but generic Spanish words should be in Castilian. — kwami (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the comment about prestige--clearly that has no place whatsoever in a discussion taking place for an encyclopedia. Even if Castilian Spanish is the form most familiar to people in the UK, which is debateable, it's far less influential (of course) on a global scale, and I believe we do write for a global audience. Again, it's a minority dialect. And any dialect of native Spanish speakers keeps /b/ the same as /v/ - I don't know what you're referring to. So those arguments don't do much for me. I can understand your concerns about, if we transcribe "z" as [s] for geographically "neutral" articles, that doesn't let people see that it's pronounced differently in northern Spain. Of course, transcribing the z as a theta makes them think that most Spanish speakers use it as a theta, which only those who bother to scour in the footnotes will likely see.

Anyway, getting down to brass tacks... My question is why you removed--flat-out removed--the [h] sound, which is how almost every person who speaks Spanish pronounces the soft "g" and the "j". Why did you choose to bury that phoneme, which is the supermajority pronunciation, while giving prominence to a minority pronunciation in the table? Another question--the conversion to yeísmo is almost complete, even in Spain, and showing a distinction is really rather unnecessary IMO - why did you decide to phrase it in such a way that leads people to believe that most speakers have not made that transition? (I quote: "For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo ... ") We're not trying to give an exhaustive list of Spanish phonological concepts and history, much less a crash course in "prestigious" versus "less prestigious" dialects. Why not phrase in a way that clarifies the relative relevance of yeísmo versus the lleístas? My third question would of course be the z/s distinction. Listen, our readers do not need to know the history here regarding seseo; they just see a theta and they think, oh, that must mean "th". But then they will have the wrong idea of how it is pronounced by (the vast majority of) actual Spanish speakers.

In summary, I'm absolutely not suggesting that we remove the minority pronunciations. Not even remotely. But it makes no sense to use a minority standard for our articles and use a standard for this guide that effectively dubs the one used in twenty different countries by 90% of native Spanish speakers as a "regional" or (even worse) "local" dialect, and worst of all, demotes it to a footnote. Latin American Spanish is Spanish. The Spanish of Spain is also Spanish. In no way, shape or form does it make sense to exclude [h] from the table just because "only" 90% of Spanish speakers use that sound. We can talk about some of the other stuff later--I'd love to hear your thoughts on this so far. Red Slash 22:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We're not discussing how to set up the key. The key has already been set up, and has been used as the basis for pronunciation in 3,000 articles. What you are proposing is that we change the key, and thus change those 3,000 articles. If you can convince people to do that, fine, but it's not okay to change the key and leave those articles unsupported. — kwami (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I will set it up so that nothing in the key contradicts anything in any of the articles. Deal? Red Slash 03:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

trigo and the voiced velar fricative

If trigo is really pronounced ANYTHING like "wall", than it is NOT a voiced velar fricative. It is just not. A voiced velar fricative is pronounced roughly like go, but without completely blocking air flow on the g, exactly as I had written. Either the symbol or the description needs to be changed. I tried changing the description, but some obstinate editor changed it back again.

Etoombs (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• You have my apologies. Red Slash 00:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

ll and [ʃ]

Currently footnote 4 says:

In Rioplatense Spanish (roughly southern South America), the ll is typically [ʃ], a sound which has no perfect English equivalent but is close to measure.

This text was introduced last December by Red Slash. The cited article in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association does not even mention [ʃ].

Also, the text is at least a little misleading: The s in measure is a Voiced palato-alveolar sibilant, [ʒ]. The unvoiced version [ʃ] is the common one in Argentina, although I believe [ʒ] is also used. If there is some other subtlety to the Argentine ll, I'd be fine with noting it, but I want to see a citation. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Okay, that is definitely not cool that I lazily kept the same citation that there was before. I apologize, that's not okay. My understanding of the Argentinian accent from the Argentinians I've known is that "ll" and "y" are both pronounced roughly the same as the French "j" (which again roughly is the same as "measure"). Brazilians I think use "shh" but I'm not sure that Argentinians do (I thought it was the case that the first syllable in "lleno" sounds like the French "J'ai"). I thought it was common knowledge, but I may have mixed up my symbols and in any case if you disagree then I may well be wrong; we'll have to get a source. Red Slash 21:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

See Rioplatense Spanish#Phonology where this paper is cited. — Lfdder (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Also see [1]. — Lfdder (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, go for it. Always glad to learn. Red Slash 05:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

h vs x

The difference is not phonemic and we should be supposed to follow Castillian norm, except when it's relevant to do otherwise. Why, pray tell, transcribe it as [h] in Latin America? Most Brazilians don't use [ʁ] either, but still in our transcriptions of Portuguese people are happy to share the same symbol with Portugal – and the two variants are much more distant and proud of themselves than Spanish-speaking people tend to be any used to.

Just an opinion: I'm generally against these sensibilities if people know that a certain phonological characteristic merges to a single sound in the ex-colony, or otherwise. Like not transcribing the Portuguese + Rio de Janeiro palatalization in Brazilian Portuguese IPAs, or insisting on have European Portuguese IPAs without the Brazilian palatalization in ti/di. The issue of ce vs. se or ll ≠ y vs ll = y to me is pretty much the same. It just reduces foreigners' exposition to more knowledge in our languages. Uniformity is good and more inviting, not to say how many Latin Americans might have the allophones more typical of Europeans, and might like palatalization, or dislike yeísmo... But I digress. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand [h] could be the general sound in Caribbean spanish, but not in South America and Mexico, where the common sound for literate people is [x] Elchsntre (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Then it's even worse than the Brazilians' and Portuguese people's phobia of the palatalization pattern of each other. *facepalm* They use it in Latin America and widely so, and it's held as standard in important variants. Correcting it, now. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Even the Spain-centric RAE admits that in "amplias zonas de Hispanoamérica" the "h" sound dominates. [2] The reason it is explained this way is so that places where the "h" pronunciation predominates, we don't tell our readers how someone from Madrid would pronounce it, but rather how someone from that area would pronounce it. Nobody cares how Juan Carlos I would pronounce Isla de la Juventud, they want to know how someone living there would pronounce it. (This is tricky because when transcribing these sounds, we have to just pick one. It's different than with the seseo, where the deal is that "c" and "z" simply make an "s" sound, no questions asked, and it's absurd to suggest that Venezuela is pronounced with a "th" sound when basically no one living there would ever say it that way. Venezuelans get to decide how their name is pronounced in their own language.) Red Slash 22:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But that's not what we've agreed to do. We give the *Spanish* pronunciation, not the Venezuelan or Cuban. This is because (apart from /b/ vs /v/, which survives is a few places in Spain), local pronunciations are predictable from the Castilian. If we want to give the local pronunciation, we use the "local" parameter of the IPA template, so it doesn't claim to be "Spanish". This is how we handle German, Russian, French, Italian, Japanese, Mandarin, Burmese, Tibetan, and other languages with significant regional differences. Of course, we could agree to change our approach for Spanish, but that requires some thought. Are we going to only pretend to give local pronunciations by choosing [h] over [x], [s] over [θ], and [ʝ] over [ʎ], as if that were all there were to it? What should we call our system then, faux-Spanish IPA? Or are we going to actually work out the phonology of the local dialect of every town and place that we transcribe? Are we going to support Mexico as a legitimate form of Spanish, but not Buenos Aires? What of people, say someone born and raised in Mexico but now living in Buenos Aires? I think we need to agree on that first, and only then change the IPA table to support non-Castilian pronunciations. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

We are conflating (at least) two issues here.

1. I have yet to see or hear a single reason why we need to avoid having "h" in the table. This is the IPA for the Spanish language, and a majority of people who speak the Spanish language make the [h] sound when they say "jota". It is unreasonable to pretend the sound does not exist.

1. And no, local pronunciations are not predictable from the Castilian unless you know that Castilians use [x] where most Spanish speakers use [h]. Or that when Wikipedia tells people Venezuela is pronounced "Beneθuela", it's actually "Benesuela" for 90% of Spanish speakers (including Venezuelans!). (I'm using this as a reducto ad absurdium--obviously the Venezuela article has used the seseo pronunciation for some time.) Remember: the only reason why we would even include the pronunciation guide is so that people know how the word is pronounced. If someone already knows the rules, they won't be confused. If someone does not yet know the rules and they see a θ, they will assume that that's how you pronounce it. They won't know that they can deduce the actual pronunciation from the Castilian version.

I actually don't know why we're bringing up the idea of the θ, since the version that was stable for a couple months very clearly stated that in most of the Spanish-speaking world, "z" and soft "c" make an "s" sound, but in most parts of Spain they instead make a θ sound. We can discuss the wording and all that, and that's very good, but we all agree on that, right? But what is completely illogical is to hide the "h" pronunciation completely under the rug as if it doesn't exist. It does. And it should be listed here.

I would love logical reasons for reverting this edit, if someone's going to do it. There are a fair few things in there, most of them clarifications for people who come here and need help understanding Spanish pronunciations. (Like making it explicit that [x] has no English equivalent. "Loch is not at all an English word; it's Scottish (Gaelic), and it is a loanword in English that only gets that [x] sound if pronounced by someone who is trying to emulate the Scottish pronunciation. Just like "arroz con pollo" is pronounced with a trilled "rr" only if it's said by someone who knows Spanish. So let's make it obvious, even though it's hidden in a reference, that in the column labeled "English approximation" that there is no English approximation.) Red Slash 01:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want some invented melange of dialects, then instead of "Spanish pronunciation", we should say "random collection of Spanish sounds". And of course you have to be able to predict the changes to be able to predict the changes: that's what "predict" means. But with rare exception, we do not give the local pronunciation. Rather, we give the Castilian, with efforts by some people to accommodate the three differences that they know of as foreigners. That's not even close to giving the actual pronunciations of these towns. If we add [h] for "j", then why not add [ʃ] and [ʒ] for "y"? Why not give "pan" as an example of a word with [ŋ] in it? Why not give "piel" as an example of a word with [ɾ] in it? Why not "perro" for a word with [x] in it? We don't accommodate Spanish dialects, we just pretend to, which is dishonest. When we set up this table, we had consensus to use Castilian pronunciation. If we want to change that, fine, but first we should come to consensus to do that, and then we should use real Spanish. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to say how what he is trying to do is even patently wrong in the data he's adding. /ʃ/ is indeed an English phoneme, and the [ʒ] in measure is nothing like the Tupí-Guaraní(?)/Argentine(?)/Brazilian/Catalan [ɕ] that is an unrounded, further palatalized [ʃ], not a demi-voiced one! He might mean the Tupí-Guaraní(?)/Argentine(?)/Brazilian/Catalan [ʑ], but that is another matter entirely and another phone system, not the one used in Buenos Aires. If he's so sure of pushing some sort of Wikipedian linguistic neobolivarianism (just kidding), he should research a bit more before on our American varieties.

Further, he's trying to tell English speakers to do all we DON'T want them to in regards to the vowels, that is diphthongize the /e/ and /o/ in every instance they see it. Because Americentrism is good, when he could propose to just add "*linky* Received Pronunciation *linky* | RP" to the "get", but seemingly it doesn't matter if there's none of that in America. OR he didn't research the English phonology articles to be sure of what he is talking about, what is important because our own native language and dialect creates bias when we study such things. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, what's with 'dis' for Spanish /ð/, later changed to 'No standard English equivalent'? — Lfdder (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ɾ = ladder?

In the row "ɾ[4] - caro ... - ladder (American English)", shouldn't it be "ladder"? This was raised on 13 June 2010 (Archive 2), but the response seems to miss the point. Wikiain (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, "ladder" is definitely what was intended since that /d/ is a tap and thus very much like the Spanish [ɾ]; its articulation is therefore more similar to the Spanish sound being described than are any of the American English rhotics, which are mainly alveolar or retroflex approximants with accompanying labial and pharyngeal coarticulation.

I hope this helps.

Espreon (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikiain (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

/z/ ???

In my linguistics courses, I was taught that the /z/ or the voiced alveolar sibilant, does not exist in properly spoken Spanish. This should be at best moved to "marginal sounds," or marked as dialectical. What say you? I need a source before I make the edit. Help? Iamvered (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

[z] is not marginal; it's allophonic. It occurs often. — Lfdder (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a citation for this, but.... The sound used for "s" in "prison" is, in some western and southern U.S. dialects, in between the sound used for z in "zombie" and the sound used for s in "salamander". Does the IPA have a symbol for the hard Z sound, or is that what this is supposed to be? If it is, then I propose changing the example to something else, like "zombie", or if we can't use an example with a "z" in it, "xylophone".

Perhaps fortis and lenis is what you are looking for. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 16:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete /tɬ/

/tɬ/ (from Nahuatl) doesn't exist in Spanish. Nahuatl words with this sound are adapted with /tl/ (tlapalería) and /te/ (coyote). In Mexico and many Latin American countries /tl/ merges with /t.l/ (Atlántico)[3][4]

/t.l/ (found in words with Classical roots) → [tl ~ dl] (emphatic) → [ðl] (relaxed) → [θl] (colloquial north-central Peninsular Spanish) → [lː] or [ˠl] (colloquial southern Peninsular Spanish).

/tl/ (found in words with Nahuatl roots, and other borrowings) → [tl]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaumeR (talk • contribs) 01:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Fútbol with [b]?

To my knowledge, /t, b/ in fútbol are lenited [ˈfuðβol]. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 00:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a topic of discussion at Talk:Spanish phonology#stops. Not really sure. Sourcing would help on the matter. Why would the t become a lenited [ð]? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Because of the voiced /b/ that follows it. Spanish phonology#Consonant neutralizations, subsection Obstruents reads as follows: "Both in casual and in formal speech, there is no phonemic contrast between voiced and voiceless consonants placed in syllable-final position. The merged phoneme is typically pronounced as a relaxed, voiced fricative or approximant,[41] although a variety of other realizations are also possible." But indeed, it could use some more sourcing. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 09:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"although a variety of other realizations are also possible" is what bothers me, since we don't know what is the standard realization, and if there even is one. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 09:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the source used is almost a century old. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it though? It says "Navarro Tomás, Tomás (1918/1982)". Anyway, on recordings from Forvo, my impression is that /t/ is realized as any of [t, d, ð], while /b/ is more often [β] than [b]. All in all, it really is variable, and therefore perhaps not the best fit to be an example word on this page. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

1918 is the date of the original publication. 1982 is the date of either a reprinting or a translation.

But we have plenty of articles that transcribe fútbol (and also club de fútbol). So, variable pronunciation or no, we've got to come to some sort of decision on how to transcribe it and words like it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What type of speech are we using here? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 01:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello? ;) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 03:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Latin American vs Standard Peninsular Spanish

Besides z/c [θ] vs s [s], there are more differences we're ignoring:

• [ð] vs [z] as in juzgar (to judge)
• [ðl] vs [tl] as in Atlántico (Atlantic)
• Final obstruent devoicing vs ?

Wouldn't these differences (except /tl/) be better represented in the chart? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 01:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Who pronounces Atlántico with [ðl]? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 05:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know exactly who uses [ðl] in Spain, but i thought this is how we should transcribe it (i.e. with a final "d") in narrow transcriptions. I know some northerners use [θl] (due to final devoicing, [5]) and most southeners (and Catalanics) [lː] (also [^ɰlˑ] or [ˠlˑ])... [tl] (/t.l/) is also heard but it's rather emphatic. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 09:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Could they be standard Castilian speakers with a relaxed pronunciation? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 09:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The same speakers that pronounce juzgar with [ð] and don't devoice all final obstruents? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 17:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should stick closely to standard pronunciations. [ðl] is not a standard pronunciation. I think [ð] in juzgar would probably be fine. It seems like we should be consistent with our treatment of the voicing of [s θ f]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Why [ðl] is not standard? Is lenition not standard? And what's standard? For example, Peter238 and the sources he mentions regard final devoicing as a standard feature in European Spanish (see voiceless bilabial approximant, voiceless dental approximant, voiceless velar approximant). — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean we should also include [v] like in Central Catalan? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 20:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added [v] - its absence was a major omission. Peter238 (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So why [ðl] is not standard, who says this?— Jɑuмe ^(dis-me)

The best pronunciation (for me) is [t^ðl] or [^tðl], which is not possible in this case in my original language-dialect (Valencian, as we use pre-velarization or gemination) but because I'm aware of this sound (as we use it in the coda in other cases) I can use it in any instance, I would recommend you to practice it :) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 03:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by [t^ðl] or [^tðl]. Peter238 (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

By ^ð I mean an approximant release, or an epenthetic [ð]. Is there a better symbol to represent this? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure - maybe simply [tð̞l]. You should probably record a sample word on Vocaroo and post a link to it here. Peter238 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Right I might do it when I get back to my laptop :) I represent it with ^ð because it can be unnoticeable or very subtle, by the mean time you could hear it in my song a vora barranc (at the edge of the cliff). — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 20:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Source

What do you think about the following transcriptions in songs/poetry from the 19th century:

• IPA for Spanish

Why do you think they use /ɔ/ and /ɛ/ (in all positions)? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me)

As you know, Spanish /e, o/ are mid vowels, for which there are no separate symbols in the IPA. If you aren't going to use lowering/raising diacritics, both /e, o/ and /ɛ, ɔ/ are equally correct transcriptions, it's just that /e, o/ are more prefferable because they are ordinary latin letters. Peter238 (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you; however the realization of e and o is not the same in all registers, do you remember Llisterri's source? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think /ɛ, ɔ/ represent open-mid and mid vowels in that document, these sounds are like the ɛ sound in the UK which also varies with a mid vowel — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 19:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You're Polish aren't you? Couldn't /ɛ, ɔ/ in that document represent also the same sounds than in your language? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Still, if the height of the mid vowel varies, it is completely arbitrary to use /e, o/ or /ɛ, ɔ/, but it is more logical to use the former set, as it is easier to write.

I think you're reading too much into the author's intentions. They seem to have arbitrarily chosen /ɛ, ɔ/, and that's pretty much it. BrE /ɛ/ varies between mid front and open-mid front (in very old-fashioned speech it may be close-mid [e]), whereas BrE /ɔ/ is mid, at least in RP. Open-mid /ɔ/ in RP is an extremely old-fashioned pronunciation.

That source also equates Spanish trilled /r/ with BrE merry, which is obviously not a good comparison.

Yes; yes and no. Our /ɛ/ is typically quite centralized. When it is front, it is sometimes lowered to [æ]. The more centralized allophones can be at times (somewhat) rounded. Our /ɔ/ may be weakly or not at all rounded, sometimes lowered to [ɑ]. Some speakers (e.g. from the Katowice area) also have /ɔ/ that is higher and somewhat more strongly rounded [ɔ̝] than the typical Polish /ɔ/. Peter238 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well it's not important what that paper says (it probably has other mistakes), I speak more with my experience and knowledge :) and i believe you those sounds have different variations in Polish than in (Modern) Castilian. And Murcian would be a totally different case — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 20:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My interpretation: in Castilian/Northern Pensinsular /e/ and /o/ are closer to mid vowels in certain positions, but they also vary with ([slightly] centralized) close-mid vowels in unstressed syllables (see Llisterri). In Southern Spain they are mid vowels but they can become further open (see Murcian), especially in contact with certain consonants — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Therefore based on this and my sources I will procede to create an IPA guide for Murcian and Old Spanish (when i can). Besides that, I can presume the older pronunciation of e and o could've been closer to /ɛ, ɔ/ in further or different instances — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget about Monroy, Rafael; Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel (2015), "Murcian Spanish". It's a very good source (published in the JIPA). Peter238 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to that source so you could help me if you want, I might miss things as I am not a native speaker, although i could practice watching the Murcian little mermaid on youtube, it's very funny — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 04:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Murcianic is also funny, when i watched it the first time i didnt understand many words, like paparajote, a traditional dessert from Murcia :-) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 04:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Me neither, not anymore (my HDD got f'ed up, but I'm also at fault for not backing up any data) - but hey, good news. That article is available online: [6]. I can make a vowel chart from this source. I can't really comment on the funniness of Murcianic, but I imagine I'd have more problems understanding it at all because of the phonetic distance between it and standard Spanish, rather than regionalisms. Peter238 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

More good news - the JIPA article for standard European Spanish is also available: [7]. Peter238 (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's good i could help you to develop Murcian but i might use older examples as older Murcian sounds more genuine than the modern hybrid language

The second document is Castilian Spanish, isn't it? For me, Standard Peninsular is the Spanish from Los Fruitties, which combines Northern and Southern Peninsular :) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 08:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Los Fruitties (song) 😜 — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Spanish as a synonym of Castilian must be a modern invention which promotes the Castilian supremacy over all of us... However not many of us accept that, and that is the reason why the Spanish constitution doesn't mention Spanish but Castilian and Spanish languages... — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 09:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion Spain should start a new Constituent process and make further changes (i.e. to clarify the world Spain is plurinational) otherwise separatists will continue expanding. And i would issue some guidelines so that others (e.g. you or whoever) start to respect us (by using the right terms) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 09:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

But you wanted to create the Murcian guide. I'm not knowledgable enough to do it.

Maybe you're just reading too much into English terminology. Remember that neither of these papers are in Spanish.

I'm all for it, yeah, but I'm not sure how I am disrespecting you.

You can always fix it, man. Peter238 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

e is wrong

This:

e

vehemente

set

is flat wrong. The e (/e/) in Spanish is close to a clipped equivalent of the a vowel in English "made", without the drawn-out /eɪ/ diphthongization. It's nothing at all like the /ɛ/ of "pet". Pronouncing Spanish e that way is the strongest signal to Spanish speakers that one is an ignorant gringo.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's close enough/identical. English /e/ is open-mid in GA, Canada, Northern England and Scotland, varies between open-mid and mid in RP, and is close-mid in Australia and old-fashioned RP. Spanish /e/ varies between close-mid and open-mid (see [8]), depending on the environment. I've also heard a couple of speakers that are quite consistent in using the open-mid realization, e.g. Berta, the friend of Luca Lampariello (listen to any of their podcasts), as well as some Mexican actors. This issue is far from either-or, and may be quite heavily dialect-dependent (it certainly is so in English). Peter238 (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The existence of some dialects that lean toward /ɛ/ doesn't make it any less misleading to suggest that typical pronunciation isn't /e/. It would be rather like es.wikipedia's counter page to this one suggesting that t is a glottal stop in English on the basis of Cockney pronunciation of "little" as /lɪʔl/. This page should represent standard Spanish usage as best we can with English comparisons, not fudge things on the basis of outlying dialectal exceptions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

RP and Australian English are just as standard and valid as General American and Scottish English. Comparing them to Cockney is inappropriate (even though Australian English has noticeable Cockney influences).

The book on Spanish phonetics that I got for Christmas ("Fonetyka hiszpańska" by Wiaczesław Nowikow, PWN 2012) says this (translation from pages 19 and 20; my comments in italics):

- Some scholars, following Tomás Navarro Tomás, distinguish more closed and more opened allophones of /e, o/, the latter of which occur before the trill /r/ and before /x/, so that e.g. perro and déjame are phonetically [ˈpɛro] and [ˈdɛxame].

- It's worth noticing that Spanish /e, o/ tend to be realized as slightly more closed than their Polish counterparts. (My note: "slightly more closed" means mid [e̞, o̞] (between cardinal [e, o] and [ɛ, ɔ]). To the best of my knowledge, there's a complete consensus among scholars that the main allophones of Polish /e, o/ are open-mid [ɛ, ɔ]. Certainly, I've never seen a source that says otherwise.)

- However, modern research doesn't confirm Navarro Tomás's findings. For example, Eugenio Martínez Celdrán has stated a couple of times that it's not possible to simply say that Spanish mid vowels have lowered allophones. The lowered allophones do occur, but not regularly, and depending on the region.

- Rafael Monroy-Casas states that the lowered allophones of /e, o/ do not occur in Modern Spanish. Peter238 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no perfect equivalent, though SMcCandlish I think you are confused by the symbols. Spanish e is a mid vowel, not a close-mid vowel. It is thus neither a clipped version of the vowel in mate nor the vowel of met. The choice to describe it as closer to the latter was made through discussion that you can find in the archives. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The Spanish /e/ and /o/ are mid vowels as Aeusoes1 and Peter238 have correctly indicated you, however these vowels may have allophonic variations. One of these variants could be (somewhat) centralized versions of /e/ and /o/, which occur more often in unstressed position and in spontaneous speech (as Llisterri indicates in some of his works). In some accents like Catalan (Llisterri), Galician (Mr Rajoy), Valencian (my family and I), and perhaps others, speakers may also include close mid vowels and other allophones. Peter238 is right about all his assertions. I remember I had a Larousse dictionary somewhere that transcribed peine as [ˈpɛi̯ne] (which I pronounce as [ˈpe̞i̯ne̠]) following Navarro Tomás or Llisterri guidelines about /e/ and /o/. Wih regard to your comparison with Cockney, isn't this accent like Murcian which can shift /ei̯/ (reino) towards /ai̯/ (raino)? I have a question, why does Rafael Monroy say the lowered allophones of /e, o/ do not occur in Modern Spanish, is he excluding Murcian or he views them as phonemes? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 19:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The source doesn't say. Peter238 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)