Help talk:IPA/Spanish

Yeísmo

@Barefoot through the chollas: Regarding the infobox in Spanish language, do we really need to explicitly transcribe the delateralized variant alongside the one with [ʎ]? The merger is automatic, it either happens or it doesn't (for transitional speakers, there is, AFAIK, a chaotic switching between the two phones, without any pattern). Since most speakers exhibit it, we may as well scratch the distinction and just write ⟨ʝ⟩ (or ⟨ɟʝ⟩ everywhere, which would be fine for a broad transcription such as the one used here. Furthermore (per Andean Spanish), in Northern Ecuador, /ʎ/ is delateralized to [ʒ] without merging with /ʝ/ (which is very likely heard as a merger by speakers from outside the area), which makes ⟨ʎ⟩ anything but an appropriate symbol for that variety of Spanish. In it, [ʒ] cannot be said to be palatal (/ʝ/ is palatal), let alone lateral. There clearly is a distinction between postalveolar and palatal places of articulation in Northern Ecuadorian Spanish, with /ʎ/ being the former (a voiced postalveolar fricative) and /ʝ/ the latter (a voiced palatal stop ~ approximant ~ fricative). Per Ecuadorian Spanish, only Southern Highlander Ecuadorian Spanish features a distinction between lateral and central approximants; in other Ecuadorian dialects, the feature [+/-lateral] is most probably redundant.

Back to the infobox, the insistance on including [kasteˈʝano] alongside [kasteˈʎano] strikes me as odd. These are definitely not the only variants that are possible; namely, [kahteˈʝano] and [kahteˈʎano] are also standard in some regions (as is [ehpaˈɲol], there are of course variants [kætteˈʝano, -ˈʎano, ɛppaˈɲol] in Southern Spain in addition to that, so even ⟨h⟩ wouldn't be quite correct for all accents of that type). In addition to that, [kahteˈʒano] and [kahteˈʃano] are standard in Rioplatense Spanish. If ⟨s⟩ can stand for a phonetic [h], then ⟨ʎ⟩ can stand for a phonetic [ʝ], [ʒ] and [ʃ]. ⟨ʝ⟩ already stands for all three.

Let [kasteˈʎano] cover all that.

Futhermore, at least younger speakers of Rioplatense Spanish have no marginal phonemes since [ʃ] in show is the same as their ordinary [ʃ] spelled ll and y. Sol505000 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sol505000::Yes, we do need to supply both in this article in English, as they are the two major standard variants valid as unmarked (least-marked) target phones for non-native speakers (whereas the numerous other variants you cite, to which others could be added, are more vigorously marked diatopically, diastratically or diaphasically). Equivalences produced by the "merger" (assuming you mean diachronic merger of e.g. cayó-calló) are not necessarily automatic -- or even known -- to non-native speakers who are looking for information and guidance. Thus the article supplies genuine forms for them.

Let [kasteˈʎano] cover all that. It doesn't cover all that and can't. [kasteˈʎano] is a phonetic transcription. The phone [ʎ] can represent only itself, palatal lateral approximant, not a different phone; that's the whole point of phonetic transcription. And the point of supplying the phonetic information of [kasteˈʝano], otherwise unknowable without specific effort. (My own impression is that [kasteˈjano] is far more frequent than [kasteˈʝano] worldwide, but I don't have an authoritative source for that, so let it be.)

⟨ʝ⟩ already stands for all three. Sorry, even more confusion. ⟨ʝ⟩ represents a grapheme, which does not exist for Spanish orthography.

I'm guessing that you might be trying to say that a phonemic transcription would suffice, then let readers apply their own "automatic" phonological rules. But non-natives don't have their own genuine Spanish phonological rules, and -- leaving aside the sticky question of the phonemic status of the variants in question -- without conducting an examination of Spanish phonology they have no way of knowing what rules natives might apply.

Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect.

In sum since there's no good reason not to supply the two major alternatives, and good reasons why they should be supplied, both [kasteˈʎano] and [kasteˈʝano] should stand. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, what we say in the lede of this guide is For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ].

Yes, we do need to supply both in this article in English, as they are the two major standard variants valid as unmarked (least-marked) target phones for non-native speakers That would then require retranscribing the palatal lateral with ⟨ʝ⟩ in hundreds if not thousands of cases. That smells like IPA spam to me. I'd rather scrap ⟨ʎ⟩ from the guide and just use ⟨ʝ⟩ (or the corresponding affricate symbol, in appropriate cases). Whenever [ʎ] is a valid pronunciation, [ʝ] is also possible, and you can't go wrong with either the former (which is the older/traditional pronunciation) OR the latter (which is more widespread).

It doesn't cover all that and can't. Yes, it can. It depends on the conventions. To quote the Handbook of the IPA (pages 29–30), If the relevant phonological system is known, a transcription can be devised which includes any number of additional symbols to indicate the phonetic realizations of the phonemes. ... Narrowness is regarded as a continuum, so that [tʃɛkðəlɛnzwɛɫ] might be regarded as a slightly narrow (or 'narrowed') transcription, and [tʃe̞ʔ͡kð̞əlɛ̃nzwæ̠ɫ] as very narrow ... the realizational information which is not explicit in a particular allophonic transcription is, in principle, provided by conventions. Phonetic transcription ≠ fully narrow phonetic transcription. To repeat myself, we already use ⟨s⟩ to represent a phone that varies between [s] and [h] in the syllable coda. Those phones share no features besides [-voiced] and [+obstruent] (or something like that), and [h] may not even be the latter (I don't know whether it's a genuine fricative or just a voiceless vowel, or whether it's variable).

My own impression is that [kasteˈjano] is far more frequent than [kasteˈʝano] worldwide, but I don't have an authoritative source for that, so let it be. All you have to do is head to Spanish phonology where the sound is described as varying between a fricative and an approximant, with the former being an emphatic variant and the latter being used in other contexts. Per palatal approximant, ⟨j⟩ is unsuitable for this phone in Spanish. Since /ʝ/ is unspecified for rounding, ayuda (which features a rounded palatal approximant) has to be transcribed [aˈʝuða] as it is not [aˈɥuða] ([ɥ] doesn't exist in Spanish).

Sorry, even more confusion. ⟨ʝ⟩ represents a grapheme, which does not exist for Spanish orthography. I specifically used the angbr IPA template for this. Is this a joke?

I'm guessing that you might be trying to say that a phonemic transcription would suffice, then let readers apply their own "automatic" phonological rules. But non-natives don't have their own genuine Spanish phonological rules, and -- leaving aside the sticky question of the phonemic status of the variants in question -- without conducting an examination of Spanish phonology they have no way of knowing what rules natives might apply. Since we're using phonetic brackets, I'm not talking about phonemic transcriptions. I'm saying that ⟨ʎ⟩ is enough for broad phonetic transcriptions such as this one. Or, conversely, ⟨ʝ⟩ would be enough as well, as the merger is spreading as rapidly as (if not faster than) the cot-caught merger in US English.

Finally, given the way language is often (mis)treated in schools, there's more than a slight chance that some readers who see only one form reported will assume that that one is "correct", and anything else is "incorrect." Providing the most common alternative should help to alleviate some of that effect. We mention both yeísmo and seseo in the lede. Isn't that enough for anyone who clicks on the transcription? Sol505000 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeating what you took it upon yourself to delete without my permission: This discussion belongs on the talk page relevant to the article Spanish language, not here, as IPA is not in question. This requires no help with IPA. I might add that so far this issue, which shouldn't be an issue at all, is a waste of my and your time. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, per MOS:PRON, transcriptions linking to that guide should agree with the said guide. It is the guide that needs to be changed first before the transcriptions are changed. If you're refusing to engage with me, then I take this as an agreement to remove the merged IPA per the guide. Again, For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]. Let's not waste any more of each other's time. Sol505000 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're refusing to engage with me I have engaged with you at length -- far too much length. I have no idea why it's so difficult to understand that the name castellano, widely used internationally in Spanish, has two major standard pronunciations, nor why you insist on ignoring one of them in an article meant to inform non-native speakers. Do not "take" something I have not said as anything but having not been said. If you want to discuss this in a civil manner in the Spanish language talk where it belongs, I'm willing to engage for a bit more. A bit. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm done being harassed into switching the talk pages because you fail to understand MOS:PRON. *This* is the place to discuss this. Even the IPA key template at the very top of this guide says that Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here; do not change any symbol or value without establishing consensus on the talk page first. For the second time, the guide says that For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]. You have falsely quoted this in your last revert at Spanish language as a reason to restore the pronunciation with a merger INSTEAD of replying to me and trying to establish consensus here. Castellano is not "a term that is more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo", that's just ludicrous. And Names given to the Spanish language#Usage and implications in former colonies proves that. Furthermore, the guide tells us that those terms should be transcribed with ⟨ʝ⟩ instead of ⟨ʎ⟩ (one transcription), rather than with both (two transcriptions). At no point are we encouraged to retranscribe those words, changing only one of those symbols. I'm going to report your edit warring. If anyone is wasting anyone's time, it is you who's wasting mine. I was more than open to discuss the issue, which is proven by my lengthy reply to your response to my first post - a response which you ignored. I see no evidence for your claim I have engaged with you at length -- far too much length in this discussion. Sol505000 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I also read the passage "For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]" as an either-or-option, not as an invitation to add a regional pronunciation with [ʝ] to an existing [ʎ]-transcription when a term is globally used, including in areas without yeismo.

But I see the problem that the guide prescribes something that comes close to a diaphonemic transcription, but yet we use brackets. Sure, IPA allows for a broad phonetic transcription, but using [ʎ] to mean both [ʎ] (in varieties where [ʝ] is a different sound) and [ʝ] (in varieties where [ʎ] does not occur) is more than broad. This is diaphonemic. –Austronesier (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree in principle, but I see no reason not to include the yeísmo variant in the very article Spanish language. I would oppose including (and have removed) [ɲihoŋŋo] in Japanese language because the Japanese key uses only ⟨ɡ⟩ for /ɡ/ (and it is a minor, declining variant), whereas the Spanish key explicitly permits [kasteˈʝano] and it is the majority variant that is gaining more ground.

Most readers won't have a clue as to what a diaphoneme is or that a phonetic transcription can vary in narrowness, and construe [kasteˈʎano] as disproportionately favoring the now-minority variant. It doesn't hurt to have both just in this vital article about the language itself. Nardog (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think that the lede needs a rewrite, though. Per Yeísmo#Extension of yeísmo, I think it needs to say For terms that are more relevant to regions that have not undergone yeísmo (...) words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʎ] and to mention Ecuadorian, Peruvian, Paraguayan and Bolivian Spanish there. I don't know about Colombia and Spain, though. Maybe we should switch over to ⟨(ɟ)ʝ⟩ for European Spanish? The distinction is allegedly lost in most of Spain. Sol505000 (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In Colombia and Spain (and I think Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia too) it varies by region and I believe in most places the distinction is present, it varies by age, class and/or rural/urban origin. The y/ll distinction may be part of a prestigious, standard urban accent in Paraguay, although I'm not even sure about that and I doubt it's the case anywhere else.

As for the Spanish language article, it used to display just [kasteˈʎano], with a footnote explaining yeísmo. I think something like that, though maybe with [kasteˈʝano] as the default and the footnote explaining how some varieties don't have yeismo, would be good. The use of a footnote would explain more than just two alternate pronunciations side by side. Erinius (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not support using yeísmo as the default. The guide, so far, has been giving preeminence to lleísmo when there is ambiguity in part because diaphonemic transcriptions work best when they encode for all the relevant contrasts and then allow readers to apply the mergers they believe should be applied. Insofar as this pronunciation is relevant enough to add to the guide, it is relevant enough to use in the diaphonemic transcription unless there is a clear reason not to. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

So Spanish language should have [kasteˈʎano] with a footnote, like it used to? I can agree with that. I'm also fine leaving it as it currently is I also think we should just leave transcriptions with [ʎ] as they stand in articles that are relevant to areas where at least some speakers don't have yeísmo. Erinius (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The point of the diaphonemic approach is to avoid having multiple transcriptions if we can. The [ʎ~ʝ] contrast is something encoded for in the Spanish IPA conventions we've implemented and detailed in the guide we've composed to explain to readers and editors alike. For the sake of consistency, we should remove the duplicate pronunciations unless there is a clear and compelling reason to make an exception. Of all the articles that we would make such an exception, I would not choose the one that discusses this very dialectal difference in detail. So I'd be against both versions at Spanish language and would prefer to have just [kasteˈʎano] in the infobox. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The less the better. Otherwise why not add [kasteˈʃano] and [kasteˈʒano] as well? These are predictable variations and should be ignored unless they're relevant to the article (e.g. we might want to add a "local pronunciation" transcription to a geographic article, or a "personal pronunciation" to a biography). Personally, I'd ignore seseo as well and routinely transcribe words in their Castilian pronunciation, not because of any preference for Spain (I'm only familiar with Mexico and Guatemala), but because almost all regional variation in Spanish can be derived from the Castilian. (The only exception, AFAIK, being those regions of Spain which retain a distinction between /b/ and /v/.)

This idea, that we should add more and more regional pronunciations of Spanish words, is why I opposed seseo transcriptions in the first place. We don't bother with such nonsense with English words, e.g. redundantly transcribing r-dropping or h-dropping accents unless those are actually relevant. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Afgano

I've never heard this word pronounced with <v> rather than <f>. Not on the (European) Spanish TV, nor to my Spanish friends. I don't know if others have, but I think it should be addressed in some manner. Mangelc94 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The IPA sign ⟨v⟩ stands for the voiced labiodental fricative. It is not the Spanish letter ⟨v⟩, which would stand for a bilabial approximant in this position (transcribed with ⟨β⟩ in IPA, or more precisely ⟨β̞⟩). Sol505000 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

English Approximations (Assumed to be in Received Pronunciation [RP]?)

Please forgive me if this article already specifies whether or not the English Approximations are meant to be annunciated in Received Pronunciation. However, I would argue that without a least a footnote of some kind, which I can not readily locate, these representations are left quite ambiguous. Understanding the historical origins of the IPA, I can understand why one might argue these English Approximations should be assumed to be in RP.

As I presume this Help:IPA article is written for an amateur-to-enthusiast level audience, for those seeking phonetic/phonological clarification of Spanish; I propose that the English Approximations as a whole, OR perhaps for each example, abbreviate the most identical/appropriate accent/dialect of English matches particularly the non-English phonemes AND where there might be any sense of ambiguity.

Thanks for reading and considering my suggestion. Otherwise this article appears to be quite excellent, and I understand there are plenty of pages where any curious or diligent enough researcher, without expertise in some related field, could piece things together from the plethora of other articles on adjacent topics...I think clarifying here in this article might be quite helpful to many! I know, being an American, I all of a sudden started questioning if I was actually waaay off in my pronunciation of these foreign phonemes when I'm not sure if I should be replicating RP or not? I can imagine Australians, New Zealanders, Irish, Canadians, even the great people of Indian and other large English-speaking groups, whether native or not, struggling with this same issue.

Perhaps the original authors or any experts on in a relative field could assist? A bilingual linguist would be perfect, jajaja!

Thanks again, Sincerely, Mescalito 96.225.28.164 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Whenever the dialect is not specified, the example is meant to cover all the major dialects (or at least both General American [which is mostly synonymous with Standard Canadian English, save for a few rather irrelevant details] and Received Pronunciation simultaneously).

I can't think of a sound from any example word from the guide that would sound off when pronounced with a General American accent in the context of Spanish (not to say that the examples are perfect, of course). It'd be replaced by now. Sol505000 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"In transcriptions linked to this key, however, it is always represented by ⟨s⟩"

Here, an editor argues that Durazno ought to be transcribed [duˈɾasno] and not [duˈɾazno] because Uruguayan Spanish features aspiration and in note 7, we say that In much of Hispanic America and in the southern half of Spain, /s/ in syllable-final positions is either pronounced as [h] or not pronounced at all. In transcriptions linked to this key, however, it is always represented by ⟨s⟩. I'm really tired of edit warring (in either direction) so should the note be changed? Sol505000 (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The spirit of the note is that we don't use ⟨h⟩ for /s/. I think we should change the note to include ⟨z⟩, because otherwise [duˈɾasno] would imply, incorrectly, that accents that voice /s/ do not voice it in this particular word. Nardog (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

For Uruguay articles, my preference would be to use the narrow transcription [duˈɾahno], but I can live with the broad transcription [duˈɾasno] as currently recommended by note 7. But I oppose giving a transcription like [duˈɾazno] in an article about a place in Uruguay, as that transcription is not accurate for Uruguayan Spanish. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

But the key does not currently cover such dialectal variations. Notice it doesn't allow ⟨ʒ⟩ or ⟨ʃ⟩ in place of ⟨ʎ, ʝ⟩. If you want to represent a specific local pronunciation, you should give it in {{IPA-all}} following {{IPA-es}}, per MOS:PRON, as done in e.g. Juan Guaidó. Nardog (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I'm okay with providing both pronunciations ([duˈɾahno] and [duˈɾazno]) as done at Juan Guaidó. @Sol505000: Does this solution work for you? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Not really. As the key covers this variation in the notes I see no reason to explicitly transcribe the s-aspiration in that article or anywhere else on Wikipedia (except in a very narrow subset of articles such as Spanish phonology, Rioplatense Spanish and what have you). Our IPA guides cover far more than the literal reading of the IPA - consider the German /ʁ/ after short vowels, which can be either [ʁ] or [ɐ̯], a consonant or a semivowel. We always transcribe it with ⟨ʁ⟩ but that does not mean that we prescribe that pronunciation (we had one user who kept arguing that we do - we had to point him to the introductory chapters of the two biggest German pronunciation dictionaries which he presumably hadn't read before).

We also use the symbol ⟨s⟩ to cover a range of pronunciations that are not that similar. In the syllable onset, the apico-alveolar /s/ of Northern Spain is significantly different from the laminal /s/ found in much of Central and South America, and yet we use the same symbol for it. The difference is significant enough for the sounds to pass for separate phonemes in other languages, as they do in Basque (and also Polish and Serbian, which have very similar sounds). The auditory difference between the laminal [s] and the glottal [h] is only somewhat bigger. Sol505000 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with using ⟨s⟩ broadly in this way (i.e. [duˈɾasno]). But using ⟨z⟩ implies the presence of an allophone that does not exist in this context in Uruguayan Spanish. The transcription is included in the article to inform the reader about how the city's name is pronounced locally – so in this article the transcription [duˈɾazno] is actively misleading, and [duˈɾahno] is the most informative option. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: [duˈɾazno] is just as non-local as [duˈɾasno], as far as I can see.

The transcription is included in the article to inform the reader about how the city's name is pronounced locally I have to reiterate my point about non-literal readings of the IPA. Those of our readers who bother to read the guide will know that /s/ can be aspirated at the end of the syllable. There is nothing special about Durasno or even Uruguayan Spanish in that it aspirates coda /s/. Millions of speakers of Spanish from all around the world do that. It is an entirely unremarkable pronuncation. And before vowels (so not in this case, but in other words), there is an awful lot of variation among individual speakers, dialects and styles of speech. It's not worth the hassle to allow such transcriptions. Sol505000 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

We can't expect every reader to read the guide in its entirety in order to even roughly understand what pronunciation a transcription represents. At that point why include any allohpone at all. Nardog (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If we can't expect the readers to do that then why have those guides in the first place? Sol505000 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If you were designing a car, a boombox, an app, or whatever—would you do it in such way that the users are required to read the manual in full in order to make even casual use of it? Again otherwise why include allophones at all. Nardog (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

[duˈɾazno] is just as non-local as [duˈɾasno], as far as I can see. I would say [duˈɾazno] is worse than [duˈɾasno] for this article, in that [duˈɾasno] is a plausible broad transcription of the Uruguayan pronunciation, whereas [duˈɾazno] shows allophonic variation that applies to certain dialects but not to Uruguayan Spanish. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not worth the hassle to allow such transcriptions. It is allowed, by MOS:PRON, and just because it is doesn't mean IPA-es must be followed by IPA-all. It's entirely up to the discretion of editors of each article, as is whether to include any transcription. Nardog (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've re-read the MOS and what you're saying is true - but my point still stands. Sol505000 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Now you know you're the one who has to establish new consensus. Nardog (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's true that [duˈɾazno] would be worse than [duˈɾasno], given that pronouncing the Z and the C with a lisp-like sound is done pretty much only in Spain, whereas in all of Hispanic America, the Z and the C are pronounced like an S, and selectively aspirated in some regions and in specific placements within words and sentences. —El Millo (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: In IPA, ⟨z⟩ stands for the voiced alveolar fricative, not the voiceless dental fricative. You're mistaking IPA for Spanish orthography. With that being said, [duˈɾasno] is absolutely the worst choice. It both disagrees with the guide and it is not a local pronunciation. I don't consider it to be an option. Sol505000 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, mi mistake. Struck, then. —El Millo (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog: And why does Juan Guaidó have a regional pronunciation at all? We cover seseo in the guide and the trivial difference of ⟨x⟩ vs. ⟨h⟩ is also covered here (in the notes section, that is). Sol505000 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Because this is phonetic transcription. Diaphonemic notation isn't something widely practiced even in linguistic literature or reference works, let alone something readers of Wikipedia can reasonably be expected to be familiar with. If the key was diaphonemic it shouldn't include allophones like [z], as Mx. Granger points out. Nardog (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog: But we already allow seseo to be shown. Do we really need to bother with showing the difference between ⟨x⟩ vs. ⟨h⟩? Has it even been proven to be an actual difference? Voiceless velar fricatives can be weakly fricated while still being velar, as in Serbo-Croatian and Polish. And you have an onset, pre-velar /x/ in [xwan]. Is that too retracted to the glottal place of articulation? I'd expect exactly these instances of /x/ to be far more forceful (in dialects claimed to have a glottal /x/) than a prevocalic /x/ in order not to turn Juan into Uan, a pronunciation widely mocked as an Americanism.

As /s/-aspiration is so common (and variable, especially before vowels) I find this practice to be a waste of article space. Sol505000 (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: There isn't any reason to oppose more specific, local pronunciations with IPA-all following IPA-es templates in general, even though the local pronunciation can be derived from the IPA-es transcription (and usually spelling as well). They just provide more info to the reader.

Also, why not change the guide to allow [duˈɾasno]? Or at least change footnote 9 to mention that [-z] and [-v] sometimes remain as [-s] and [-f]. Because -s and -f aren't ALWAYS voiced before voiced consonants. -s frequently remains voiceless, especially in slow, careful speech, and most of the Latin American pronunciations of 'durazno' on Forvo have [s]. Likewise, I've tried this twice before, it's actually not that easy to find video or audio examples of -f being voiced. Like @Mx. Granger said, [duˈɾazno] very well may be the most non-local pronunciation being considered, showing an allophonic process that (supposedly) doesn't occur in Uruguay. This guide already lets [θ] represent both a voiceless and an allophonically voiced dental fricative. Erinius (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I found the Spanish version of Hualde's *The Sounds of Spanish* - I couldn't find the English version on Cambridge Core - in the Fricatives chapter, pages 154-155 he says "En los dialectos donde normalmente se mantiene la /s/ en la coda, esta a menudo se asimila en sonoridad a una consonante sonora, tanto en el interior de palabra, mismo [mízmo], como entre palabras, dos más [dóz más]. Aunque usamos el símbolo [z], este sonido a veces solo es parcialmente sonoro." My translation: "In dialects where coda /s/ is normally maintained, it frequently assimilates in voicing to a voiced consonant, both word-internally, mismo [mizmo], and between words, dos más [doz mas]. Although we use the symbol [z], this sound is sometimes just partially voiced." Key points being that this is about dialects where syllable-final /s/ is maintained and that this assimilation is frequent but not categorical.

As for syllable-final -f, Hualde simply says that it becomes voiced before voiced consonants, without saying whether that always happens or whether it's a variable process. There are very few words with that kind of consonant sequence, so it's not like it matters much. Erinius (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A more empirical source on the variability of /s/ voicing is Campos-Astorkiza (2018) (you might find this interesting). But if something is sometimes present and sometimes not, we can't just throw up our hands and say "whichever you feel like". That defeats the whole point of a key. If we're including [z, v] at all then we should always do it. Just use IPA-all for local realizations. Nardog (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove [z] from the key altogether. The key is apparently intended to be used for articles about topics across the Spanish-speaking world, so it makes sense, where feasible, to use broad transcriptions that are valid for more dialects rather than narrower transcriptions showing allophones that are valid for fewer dialects. So it might make sense to modify the key to only use [s] as a broad transcription for what varies between [s], [z], and [h] depending on dialect and phonological environment. As Erinius points out, this would also be more consistent with how the key uses [θ] as a broad transcription for voiced and unvoiced realizations of /θ/. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You mean remove [z] and [v], right? Sol505000 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We could remove [v] too. As far as I know [v] doesn't present the same problem as [z], because there's no equivalent to aspiration for /f/, but it might make sense to harmonize our handling of all of these sounds. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I would be extremely reluctant to allow ⟨h⟩ as it could open doors to zheísmo/sheísmo, prepausal [ŋ], /e, o/ raising, etc. ad infinitum. Granted, we allow seseo and yeísmo, but those at least involve mergers in the overall phonological inventory. Nardog (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, my suggestion is that the key only use [s], as a broad transcription for these sounds, and not try to handle dialect-specific realizations as [h] and [z]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's simply about always representing /s/ with ⟨s⟩ then I can get behind it. Nardog (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections either. Sol505000 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with this as well. @Nardog - thanks for the Campos-Astorzika source. Erinius (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Great! Based on the agreement here, I've changed the key to remove ⟨z⟩. Feel free to adjust further or clarify the footnotes as needed, of course. If there are no objections, in a day or two I'll start going through articles that use Template:IPA-es and updating them accordingly. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the topic, I'm not sure what to do with this. This person absolutely refuses to create a thread here or on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Other languages and they just keep talking to me and edit warring. I find this behavior to be insufferable and so I'm writing here. Sol505000 (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Kingsif: to let him know about this discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

First, I haven't edit warred at any point, and your insistence that I have while also slinging around the accusation even in my first revert of you is the true insufferable editing. You are being reported for incivility, as you have blocked my attempts at discussion with countless insults and by trying to create your own narrative.

To the point: I have told you many times that my issue is not with the MOS, rather how some users decide that people's names must be treated as common words, despite there being plenty sources of them saying their own names differently, and despite the sounds they do use being perfectly acceptable in the IPA help guides. That is, I have told you countless times that I do not want or need to start a discussion here, but that you need to both fix your attitude in engaging with others, and grow a little perspective. The point of IPA transcription is to show how something is actually said. You're not doing that. Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: See WP:EDITWARRING. You're forcing things to be your way through a series of repeated reverts, and this is a pattern of behavior. Don't mistake it with WP:3RR (and to quote WP:EDITWARRING, "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." The intentions and patterns of behavior also count.)

You can do that, but remember of WP:BOOMERANG which you might be already familiar with. Your behavior was less than WP:CIVIL at multiple occasions. False accusations of stalking, "how dare you" with a caps-lock, suggestions of me having "a learning difficulty or something" and other things apart from the obvious (edit warring) immediately come to mind.

I have never claimed that the transcription is wrong but that it disagrees with the guide. The transcription with a silent S disagrees with Venezuelan Spanish but it may or may not be wrong. In Eastern Andalusian Spanish, it would be correct but with an adjustment of vowels ([ɟʝuliˈmaɾ ˈrɔhæ]).

That is, I have told you countless times that I do not want or need to start a discussion here, but that you need to both fix your attitude in engaging with others, and grow a little perspective. We're not going to make this about me. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Other languages, "Other languages have dedicated IPA-xx templates, where xx is the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code or the 3-letter ISO 639-3 code for the language in question, as in {{IPA-el}} for Greek or {{IPA-fa}} for Persian. A number of languages also have dedicated templates that automatically convert ordinary letters (or conventional ASCII equivalents) to IPA characters that are used to transcribe the language in question, such as {{IPAc-fr}} for French and {{IPAc-cmn}} for Mandarin Chinese. These languages and templates are listed at {{IPA}}. Again, if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page. Creating transcriptions unsupported by the key or changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions will confuse readers." To me this clearly means that we must use Template:IPA-es in addition to Template:IPA-all or just the former. Sol505000 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

First, mate, I was never forcing things to be my way through reversions; I edited for compromise and opened discussions, you point-blank reverted and refused to discuss, and I attempted to revert to a stable version while continuing to push discussion. That's how it should happen. Maybe become more familiar with policy and actually discussing with people before slinging accusations.

Second, my behaviour was never uncivil, perhaps a little curt, but the way you've removed things from context here is the same as you were doing by calling me an "edit warrior" when I had made all of one edit that wasn't even a reversion - attempting to create a narrative to smear me, which is worse than just uncivil.

Third, this is entirely about you. I have only tried to discuss at this page, since it's the only place you seem willing to accept it, to address your hostile behaviour and your lack of common sense - I have realised that you are somehow unbudging and asking for an ear is pointless. Like, it is common sense to only use IPA-all if a specific language key may be correct for standard words but is too restrictive for a useful transcription in context. If it will force you to transcribe a word, especially a name, in a way that is not accurate, it shouldn't be used. I don't see how you don't get that. Kingsif (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If it is in the MOS then it is on you to try to change the WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Your personal philosophies are entirely your business and I'd like to stop having them imposed on me (and Wikipedia in general, as evidenced by my previous message), as you've been doing all along. You're the one challenging the status quo, so you try to change it. So no, mate, this is not "entirely about me". You can't just link to WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:IAR and think that's the end of it. Other people can disagree. Sol505000 (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• If I can say something on this main discussion: that note would be correct for, say, a common noun like "tres". You're going to hear people saying "treh" in common parlance, but the word is "tres". I assume that the note 7 mentioned was written with that in mind. I assume that none of the current editors on the topic were around when it was written, though, looking at this. In names, 'rules' can go out the window. That seems to be the main point of all contentions. I do not understand why some people editing in this space are so wedded to some phonology guidebook that they can't see the wood for the trees. Those guides clearly don't apply to names, and if the sound exists, the sound exists, put it in the transcription, because the only point of having one is to help people know how things are said. You shouldn't need a formal discussion to apply common sense, but if starting one titled "IAR on names" would help, do it. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to ignore all rules in the case of IPA transcriptions of names then this guide might as well be deleted. I find this a completely unreasonable proposition. Sol505000 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Even you must know you've jumped to the extreme here. Most words are not names, many names are said how you insist they have to be, relax. Kingsif (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Names of people consitute about a half of transcriptions on Wikipedia with the other half being proper nouns (or let's just say it's about 40%-40%, there's also movie and song titles etc.), so I have not jumped to the extreme. Giving a special treatment to slightly less than a half of our transcriptions makes the guide useless and if you can't see that then I can't help you. Sol505000 (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You surely recognise that transcribing names - and that it's so common - is exclusively done to help readers when things are not said as expected. It's not special treatment to just not do that in a way you know is inaccurate, and if you can't see that, I can't help you. Like, if there is an article on the name Rojas (Rojas (surname) - oh there is) that is where the standard/expected pronunciation should be transcribed. It would help the encyclopedia to add IPA to that article. It helps readers to show them when there is an exception. The purpose of adding IPA transcriptions isn't decoration, but that's what you're treating it as (and decorations you want in a prescribed layout even if it gets in the way, to boot). Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You are clearly challenging Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Other languages here and it is on you to get the WP:CONSENSUS for a special treatment for roughly half of our IPA transcriptions (also in other languages). I'm not interested in going around in circles with you.

And to be honest I question your capabilities of transcribing words into IPA after this. These are rookie mistakes (yes, in Catalan, but it doesn't matter). You used the labiodental nasal symbol instead of the bilabial one and you didn't mark stress in the surname. Also, crucially, you didn't mark devoicing in the surname and terminal devoicing is one of the most salient features of Catalan when compared with other Romance languages (especially the major ones). I'd say it's on pair with vowel reduction in that regard. Sol505000 (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

As I've said before, that MOS guide doesn't mention proper names. These are different to standard words, so the absence means there is no guidance, not that we should treat names as standard words. I have referred you to the MOS on foreign names already, which deals somewhat with them and does say in some circumstances only "local" should be used. You refuse to acknowledge this.

As for Belén Barenys, I'm happy to discuss that transcription outside of edit summaries - perhaps at the article talk page or I'll put something here - if you're actually interested in doing so and don't just want to knock me down. As I have said at your talk page (for anyone else reading this to see context), I don't know how you found that unless you indeed are stalking me, looking for mistakes to try and undermine or bully me. I don't like that. You clearly think yourself something of an expert, but I don't think you know Catalan any more than a book tells you what to expect. As I said already, there isn't a stressed syllable in the surname; there isn't. And devoicing is not so present, and both come down to the location of the 'ny' (ñ) sound. It either ends a word (e.g. any, which has devoicing intact) or needs a 'solid' sound to follow it (typically a whole 'a'); the s here is unusual and becomes voiced. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like a second opinion here if that isn't too much to ask. Sol505000 (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)