Help talk:IPA/Danish

Contradiction in "kræft" between DDO and the article

The table claims that the sound "æ" in "kræft" is different from "æ" in "række". Moreover, according to the table the former is transcribed as "ɑ" while the latter as "a" in DDO. However, I looked up "kræft" and "række" in DDO to find that the pronunciation is introduced as [ˈkʁafd] and [ˈʁagə], both using "a" and not using "ɑ" for the former. Is it a mistake? I'm new to Danish so I may be missing something. Hydro I. Hue (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Scroll down. Nardog (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that I cannot find any clue below. Is something mentioned in the footnote or do I need to refer something in this talk page...? Hydro I. Hue (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you see in the "Comparison of transcription schemes" section? Nardog (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

OK I'm sorry I didn't clarify enough. I am actually talking about the "Comparison of transcription schemes" table. In the second column is an examle word "kræft", and in the eighth, "række". The entry for "Den Danske Ordbog" is ɑ and a, but in actual DDO I see [ˈkʁafd] and [ˈʁagə]. Hydro I. Hue (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I thought you were talking about the difference between our IPA and DDO. I don't remember DDO diverging from Basbøll in terms of vowel analysis, but I guess we overlooked it. DDO's guide to pronunciation does mention the potential homophony of kræft and kraft FWIW. Nardog (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it up! Hydro I. Hue (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Symbols for the open central vowels

Can't we just use ⟨a aː⟩ for the open central vowels? Our system of transcription is very similar to that found in [1], which uses ⟨a aː⟩ for them. ⟨ɑ ɑː⟩ explicitly suggest a back quality, close to [ɒ, ɒː] which they are not. ⟨a(ː)⟩ is the most usual symbol for the open central vowels because it's a Roman letter and we use it in Help:IPA/German, Help:IPA/Spanish, Help:IPA/Italian etc. (and also Australian English phonology and New Zealand English phonology) - and that's ignoring the fact that the Danish vowels seem to be even closer to cardinal [a] (being near-front, rather than central) than those. The difference between the Danish pronunciation of the given name Lars and the Swedish one is very noticeable (see [2]). The Swedish one sounds like Lårsj in Danish, whereas the Danish pronunciation is very similar to the German one (as long as the /r/ is vocalized in the latter: [ˈlaːs], rather than [ˈlaɐ̯s] which is not possible in either German or Danish). It's somewhat like Läs in younger Stockholm pronunciation, though obviously more open/central.

(The same question applies to Danish phonology, obviously). Sol505000 (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I really prefer the current way. ⟨a⟩ is commonly used for what we transcribe with ⟨æ⟩, so keeping ⟨ɑ⟩ means one less thing to worry about when comparing transcriptions in sources. If the IPA had a symbol whose canonical value was open central, I'd support using it in a heartbeat, but given the ambiguity that plagues ⟨a⟩, I don't find your suggestion to be an improvement. We deviate from established ("normalized") symbols only where they are patently misrepresentative and confusing. This is not one of them. Nardog (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

In that case we can at least specify the dialect before the example word, and that's what I've WP:BOLDly done. The vowel in art, if it's too back (especially in dialects such as Geordie and Pittsburgh English), can be easily mistaken for Danish /ɔ/ ([ʌ]). Sol505000 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Syllabic consonant equivalents in English

I have not been able to find any word other than nightingale actually pronounced by me or in online samples as /ŋ̩/, not /əŋ~ɪŋ/. I previously changed the example for /m̩/ to "Topham", which was misguided, as it is an uncommon proper noun, but rhythm, as can be heard in that page's sample pronunciation, is not guaranteed to contain a true /m̩/, and album or the like would be better suited. If there is somehow an objection to assimilated homorganic obstruent-nasal sequences here, sudden should also be switched out. Célestine-Edelweiß (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You seem unaware of the difference between phones and phonemes. As discussed in English phonology#Consonants, what are phonologically /əl, ən, əm/ are all susceptible to becoming [l̩, m̩, n̩] given the right environment. (⟨l̩, m̩, n̩⟩ in phonemic transcriptions are either synonymous with /əl, ən, əm/ or written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. And Wiktionary is not a reliable source.) To my knowledge post-fricative is the only environment where prominent dictionaries unanimously permit/indicate the possibility of [m̩] (rhythm, prism, etc.). Nightingale is not a good fit because it may be realized with unassimilated [n]. Washington is given as an example of [ŋ̍] by the documentation for the TIMIT corpus, and it's about as good as it can be because there's no (near-)obligatory [ŋ̍] in English whereas /ŋ/ there is preceded by a coronal fricative and a high vowel, which leaves little if any difference from the approach phase of an occlusive. Nardog (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)