Help talk:IPA/Spanish/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Possible inaccurate information about n, m, ɲ

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

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

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

ð??? Really???

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

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

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

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

"avgano". This made me laugh.

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

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

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

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

tʃ is less "explosive" in Spanish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enyesar does not have the sound of ñ.

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

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

Action - I will make the necessary change.

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

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

My best source is up there...

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope someone can find my comments "insightful".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

How to write pronunciation of a name in two languages?

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

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

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

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

[h] for /x/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Falling diphthongs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ɾ example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why change IPA to reflect a standard pronunciation erroneously

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coda plosives

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

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

Quintana Roo

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

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

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