Template talk:IPA pulmonic consonants

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

Add "ʈɻ̊˔" and "ɖɻ˔" to "Retroflex non-sibilant fricatives" AquaticCitrus2035 (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. We only list sounds about which articles exist. Nardog (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What criteria are used for deciding which symbols not on the official chart appear here? They have to have their own distinct articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewmorrone1 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:IPA_pulmonic_consonants/table

Cite literature? These consonants don't appear on the chart, and students have been more confused by a dot below than a ring on top. The chart does say a ring on top means the same thing, but does not have a combining dot below. Matthewmorrone1 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Add "t̪" and "d̪" to "dental plosives" QuakDucc (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done: We only list sounds about which articles exist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

extIPA

extIPA should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.132.165 (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

Request: change Post­alveolar to Palato­alveolar

Reason: Postalveolar consonant as the heading is inaccurate, since this category also includes Retroflex consonants and Alveolo-palatal consonants that are shown in the following two columns. Gu0427 (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Postalveolar is the term used by the International Phonetic Association to define ⟨ʃ, ʒ⟩. See also IPA Principles. Nardog (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2022

Add voiceless epiglottal affricate (ʡʜ) to the chart on the on the left side of the box containing ʡʢ. SlimyGecko7 (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 17:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

Add the voiced velar tap ([ɡ̆]) to the box right beneath the approximant ([ɰ]). Doctor Zoath (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see the sandbox to find that since [ɡ̆] is not an IPA symbol, the link is to the Extra-shortness article about the breve, rather than to the correct article, Voiced velar tap. Placing the [ɡ̆] in the table with an incorrect link would be confusing to readers. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 00:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The same usage of the extra-short diacritic over stops is used for the uvular and pharyngeal taps / flaps so should they be removed for having the wrong link? The extra-shortness article also says that the diacritic is sometimes used for any flap consonants without IPA symbols because a flap is in effect a very brief stop. And above in an earlier thread in 2019, it says “We only list sounds about which articles exist.” Based on the chart currently in use, it doesn’t seem like that has changed. SlimyGecko7 (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

So you think the ɡ̆ symbol for voiced velar tap should be included in the table even though it is not an IPA symbol and therefore links to the extra-shortness article instead of the "voiced velar tap" article? And just so it's mentioned, because this is not an IPA symbol, there is no audio in the {{IPA soundbox/cell}} template for this sound. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 17:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If you checked some of the other sounds listed on the chart, you would notice many of these “non-IPA symbols” included in the chart, e.g. the previously mentioned uvular tap / flap, have no audio in their articles. Also, the article tap and flap consonants mentions the sound in a chart as the only representation of a velar central oral tap / flap, a sound reported in Dàgáárè (source: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005110/current.pdf?_s=XH49PPWYJlnZ9LED) and the Kamviri dialect as an intervocalic allophone of [g]. This same article states “If other flaps are found, the breve diacritic could be used to represent them, but would more properly be combined with the symbol for the corresponding voiced stop. A palatal or uvular tap or flap, which unlike a velar tap is believed to be articulatorily possible, could be represented this way (by *[ɟ̆, ɢ̆~ʀ̆]).” However as it states, a velar tap is believed to be articulatorily impossible. But the ğ symbol does follow what it says, the breve diacritic (for extra-short) would most properly be combined with the symbol for the corresponding voiced stop ([g], the voiced velar stop) However, the IPA suggests usage of the breve over trills, but not even some of the other taps / flaps in the chart follow that, instead using a breve over a stop. SlimyGecko7 (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not the reason it didn't link to the article. It simply wasn't added to Module:IPA symbol/data after the article was created. Nardog (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. It's marked impossible on the IPA chart, but it makes sense for this template, which is for navigation, to include it as long as the article about it exists. Nardog (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Nardog! Good to have someone here who knows much more than I do about this. I searched a long time unsuccessfully for a way to get the IPA link template to link to the correct article about the vvt. And I don't know enough Lua to be able to do what you did in the data module. Definitely above my pay grade. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 21:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A couple of wrong links

The phonemes tɭ̊˔ and dɭ˔ appear to be linked to the incorrect articles, respectively going to Voiceless and Relative articulation#Raised_and_lowered instead of the expected Voiceless retroflex lateral affricate and Voiced retroflex lateral affricate. There may be other wrong links. Boershies (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Nardog (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Add voiceless retroflex non-sibilant fricative

The voiceless retroflex non-sibilant fricative has been found to occur in Ormuri, so it would be good to add it to the table. Theknightwho (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done User:GKFX^talk 00:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Missing table borders?

Any particular reason there aren't borders below some of the cells, like β or ð? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Because while ⟨β, ð, ʁ⟩ etc. canonically represent fricatives, they are often used to represent approximants and thus the linked articles discuss both fricatives and approximants. Nardog (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog: Sounds good, thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May, 2023

The retroflex sibilant affricates, [ʈʂ] and [ɖʐ] are transcribed by <tʂ dʐ> can someone please fix this? For unvoiced lateral affricates, fricatives, and taps, can we please stop using obsolete symbols and use standard IPA symbols with diacritics instead? Tdog500 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

To the immediate left of ɭ can its voiceless counterpart ɭ̊ be added with a link to Voiceless retroflex lateral approximant (a redirect currently). This consonant is listed in inventories of Toda. عُثمان (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Voiceless "approximants" are not recognized by the IPA and don't have their own articles, so they're not linked. Nardog (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog Do you have a source for this lack of recognition? I was unable to find one. عُثمان (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

See Approximant#Voiceless approximants. Nardog (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

ɕ and ʑ are shown as Palatal Sibilant fricative. They are marked as Voiced alveolo-palatal fricative and Voiced alveolo-palatal fricative in official IPA table and other sources too. Alveolo-palatal and palatal are not same. Sarangem (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

From the Palatal consonant article, "In phonology, alveolo-palatal [...] consonants are commonly grouped as palatals, [...]". The two symbols in the IPA pulmonic consonants table, ɕ and ʑ, are linked to their correct articles. Since there is no specific alveolo-palatal sibilant fricative grouping in this table, we are compelled to accept that they are intentionally being grouped as palatals as is commonly done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 October 2023

The voiceless upper-pharyngeal plosive and the voiced upper-pharyngeal plosive are not known to occur in any language except possibly Nǁng, but we have standalone articles about them. We would need a new column. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Nardog (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the content of those articles better belongs in Voiceless uvular plosive and Voiced uvular plosive. Nardog (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

May I add something?

I would like to add some things For example:Adding their voiceless variations. Science boy 30 (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Add voiced and voiceless retroflex non-sibilant affricate

These are [t̠͡ɻ̝̊] and [d̠͡ɻ̝], which have been shown to occur in Malagasy. Theknightwho (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Articles don't exist. Nardog (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog See Voiceless retroflex affricate#Voiceless retroflex non-sibilant affricate and Voiced retroflex affricate#Voiced retroflex non-sibilant affricate. Theknightwho (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Theknightwho could you specify exactly what addition/placement you want in each of these requests? I'm not a phonetician :) SWinxy (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Sections removed as verification failed. Nardog (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Add voiceless labiodental nasal

This is [ɱ̊], which occurs in Angami and Kinyamwezi. Theknightwho (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Article doesn't exist. Nardog (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog See Voiceless labiodental nasal. Did you even bother checking? Theknightwho (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't linked in your {{IPAblink|ɱ̊}}. Let's wait until it gets marked as reviewed. Nardog (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nardog Sure. What about the other two in the thread above? Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to independently verify the source. Theknightwho (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Nardog (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Add voiced palatal tap

This is [ɟ̆] (see link above). Theknightwho (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: AfD closed as merge. Nardog (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Fix improper diacritic position

Based on the descending-letter diacritic positioning rule as listed on the official IPA chart, the voiceless retroflex lateral flap is incorrectly marked as ⟨𝼈̥⟩, rather than the clearer ⟨𝼈̊⟩. UniProbe62 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Bad audio for voiceless alveolar lateral fricative

I don't know where the audio comes, but the University of Glasgow audio for this symbol is much more accurate. The speaker in the current recording has far too much non-lateral air-flow at the end of his pronunciation, which is quite misleading.

A great thanks to those who maintain this page! 192.114.91.249 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:RFED

This, I think, is the first time I've made a suggestion. Hopefully, I'm doing this correctly.

The lateral fricative voiced retroflex, as an example, has an IPA representation of ɖɭ˔ according to its Wikipedia page, but the IPA Pulmonic table and other tables use the Unicode representation in the table and any font I have found just doesn't handle that character,

Would it be better to use the IPA representation which I think many fonts handle since the table has 'IPA' in its title and its link points to the Wikipedia page with both representations? The linked article each cell in the table states that the representation the IPA version and that the Unicode character is implied from that.

I'd be happy to make a list of each table and cell where this occurs if that is necessary and you think these will be worthwhile changes. BLWBebopKid (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Kwamikagami as they are likely to have some insight to these issues. For me personally, I'm not sure. I happen to have fonts installed that handle the extIPA symbols, but I'm in the stark minority there. Remsense ‥ 论 01:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

ExtIPA is IPA. It's just a specialized subset. For example, extIPA can be used in the 'Illustrations of the IPA' published in JIPA.

The issue is one of font support. The letters in question date to 2015, though they weren't added to Unicode until 2021. There are websites that list fonts that support various characters. These are supported by the SIL fonts, which are the best free IPA fonts available. If you don't have a good font installed, you're not going to be able to view IPA correctly anyway. That's why we have the IPA notice in articles, that you may need to install an IPA font to view the article properly. — kwami (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Looks like this has been solved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3OpenEyes (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Order of the rows

This table presents the rows in a different order to that of the IPA reference chart. Is there any reason not to use the standard order? (Except perhaps for the gimmick with voiced fricatives and approximants, though that is far from obvious at first glance.) Kanguole 23:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I propose to move the nasal, trill and tap/flap rows before the fricatives (diff), as in the IPA reference chart and the Illustrations of the IPA. Kanguole 21:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move the nasal, trill and tap/flap rows to the position before the fricatives (diff), as in the IPA reference chart and the Illustrations of the IPA. Kanguole 08:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. What is the need or significance of conforming a WP table, which has more rows and columns, to a chart that has fewer rows and columns? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The point is to faithfully follow the sources. What is the reason for re-ordering the rows of a table presented as the IPA in articles? Kanguole 10:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Then it seems that, in order to faithfully follow the sources, we should eliminate some of the information in the WP table? Also, the second source you gave appears to be a search page, and I couldn't find the IPA chart on that page. Can you please help me out? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

There are several differences of varying degree. I am proposing to eliminate one of the most glaring. The second source points at several dozen articles illustrating the IPA as applied to assorted languages. Each of these articles contains a subset of the IPA consonant table, pared down to the sounds of the language in question. Kanguole 11:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor Kanguole! Now I get it. I have some studying to do. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at several tables from 2005 to 2020, and your sandbox version does seem in line with what I've seen. Are there any more recent charts in reliable sources that you know of? Also, I'd like to hear what others say below before any changes are made. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything more recent. The main source is the International Phonetic Association, who maintain the IPA and publish the Illustrations of the IPA. The International Phonetic Alphabet article also cites Esling "Phonetic Notation" in The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences (2010), who presents an elaboration of the IPA consonant chart with more rows and columns. Kanguole 23:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Any comments Nardog, Kwamikagami, Theknightwho, SlimyGecko7? Kanguole 21:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The IPA has historically placed the nasals at the top of the chart. There's nothing special about any particular summary chart, except that like categories tend to be placed next to each other, and lenition series under each other. In order to have both kinds of stop [nasal and plosive] adjacent, and to have the lenition series plosive → fricative → approximant adjacent, nasal needs to be placed above plosive. We don't have to do that, of course, but it does illustrate the relationships among the sounds reasonably well. [For other relationships, such as grouping fricatives [central and lateral] together, and the lenition series plosive → flap/tap, we'd need more dimensions.] — kwami (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The 1978 version of the IPA moved the nasals to the top, but the 1989 revision moved them back below the plosives, where they have remained in all versions since. Kanguole 21:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Any arrangement is fine. The arrangement of the chart is not part of the IPA. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The arrangement has changed in the past, but has been a stable convention for several decades. For example, the consistent use of this convention in the Illustrations facilitates comparisons between the inventories of languages. It is not for Wikipedia to promote a home-grown convention in our description of the IPA. Kanguole 23:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If we were trying to follow the summary IPA chart, you'd be correct. But we're not. Half of the links are not on the summary chart. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

We should be aiming to follow the structure of the source chart rather than a home-grown convention, even if we are including diacritic-modified letters and letters from the "Other symbols" list. The two are compatible, as demonstrated by the elaborated consonant chart in Esling (2010). Following sources is what WP is supposed to do. Kanguole 10:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

And as demonstrated by IPA publications that have the same nasals-at-top layout as we do. That's following a source chart just as much as following Esling (2010). What's the difference? — kwami (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

On one hand we have the chart they published in 1978, and on the other we have the 1989 revision and everything they've published since (including the Handbook, Illustrations, revisions of the chart, Esling, Ladefoged&Maddieson, etc). The difference is an overwhelming weight of more recent sources. Kanguole 19:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

So why follow Esling (2010)? There is overwhelming weight against him too.

You want to follow Esling (2010) because you find him convenient. Others of us want to follow IPA (1978) because we find them convenient. There is no real difference.

We present the latest IPA chart in the IPA article. It's not like we're misrepresenting anything. — kwami (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I like the status quo in which the articulatory basis is palpable, especially how it goes plosives, affricates, then fricatives. It's hard to discern the basis behind the placement in the official chart. That said, if recent (say, after 1999 when the Handbook came out) illustrations of the IPA consistently place all rows (including affricates, lateral affricates, and lateral taps/flaps) in a certain order, adopting that would indeed be less OR and therefore preferable. Nardog (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if we're going to follow the layout of the official chart, where would the affricates go? Between flaps and fricatives, or between plosives and trills? Also, we'd have no way of showing that back fricatives double as approximants. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The Illustrations consistently follow the row order of the IPA chart. When affricates occur, they are consistently placed after plosives and before nasals. In a few cases the plosive and affricate rows are combined as one. There are no examples with lateral affricates or lateral taps/flaps on the first page. Kanguole 08:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems clear that the proposed change would bring the chart closer to all IPA source material from 1989 on. Can it be applied? Kanguole 14:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Are there no examples with lateral affricates or lateral taps/flaps beyond the first page? Nardog (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

There are two with lateral fricatives on the second page (Hmu and Ja’a Kumiai), both placing them after the fricatives. None with lateral affricates or lateral taps/flaps. It seems that even if there are some, they'll be too few to establish a pattern.

But the proposed change does not touch the laterals. Kanguole 15:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Can this change be applied? Kanguole 16:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

When a consensus has been established for it, this change can then be applied. I don't see a lot of agreement above for this change, do you? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC on row order

Should the order of the rows of the table be changed? Specifically, it is proposed that the nasal, trill and tap/flap rows be moved immediately before the fricatives (diff). Kanguole 11:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer – The proposed order would align our presentation of the IPA more closely with the sources: the IPA reference chart and the Illustrations of the IPA. The latter is a collection of examples of using the IPA to describe languages, each of which contains a subset of the consonant table, tailored to the language in question. Several of these include affricates (omitted from the IPA reference chart), consistently placing them below plosives and above nasals. To address some points from the previous discussion:
  • It is true that this chart has other differences with the IPA's chart, including more symbols, but this is the most glaring departure from the structure of the source chart. (Many of the other differences have alternative sourcing.)
  • The IPA chart of 1978 used a nasals-first order, but all IPA publications from the major revision of 1989 to the present have used a consistent order. Kanguole 11:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I have no idea why the order in the article is different from the official one. To touch on the issue of changes over time: yes, orders of charts, tables, etc., especially those that don't really have a strong connect with each other, do change. If we want to faithfully report the contents of the IPA, we should probably include the official table order. Same goes for the other issues. (Summoned by bot) Ships & Space_(Edits) 16:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, for consistency's sake, shouldn't the lateral affricate s be moved under the non-lateral affricates, the lateral fricatives be placed under the non-lateral fricatives, the lateral tap/flaps be placed under the non-lateral tap/flaps and the approximants be moved above the lateral approximants? Babelball (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

That would be consistent, and more consistent with the sources (though they have no examples with lateral affricates or lateral tap/flaps). I believe the reason that approximants are currently placed directly below fricatives is the non-obvious breaks in the lower border of the Non-sibilant fricative row, intended to indicate that β, ð, ʁ and ʕ can also be used for the corresponding approximants. Perhaps that's too obscure. Kanguole 12:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose; there are also oppose votes in the previous thread. You're not proposing that the table follow the current IPA chart, but that it follow a different order of your devising. The current order is more practical for our purposes. With yours, affricates would no longer fit between plosives and fricatives, and lenition series would no longer follow our chart. If we were to follow the IPA chart rigorously, then some symbols would need to be duplicated in multiple cells, which would be a bit of a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  There were comments in the previous thread by Paine Ellsworth and Nardog – perhaps they would care to clarify their views here.

  The proposed change (diff) would leave the affricates immediately below the plosives, but separated from the fricatives by nasals, trills and taps/flaps, as is common practice in IPA publications.

  It is true that the proposed change does not bring the row order completely in line with the IPA chart, but it does do so for the commonly occurring consonants. A full alignment, by also distributing the lateral rows as suggested by Babelball, could also be considered. However, the current nasal-first arrangement is not found in IPA publications other than the 1978 chart, or indeed most anywhere else. It is a Wikipedia idiosyncrasy. Kanguole 22:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per the previous comment. I also don't see how changing the order affects whether or not we faithfully represent the IPA contents; the symbols are the same. Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Addition of ʡ̟̬ after ʡ.

I propose of ʡ̟̬ being added to the template, as it has a Wikipedia article. Like the now-merged article for the voiced velar tap, it is impossible but does in fact have a WIkipedia article, but Nardog once stated for [ğ]:

It's marked impossible on the IPA chart, but it makes sense for this template, which is for navigation, to include it as long as the article about it exists.

...and I think that navigation is a good reason to have [ʡ̟̬] on the template.

(Admins, I know you hate me. But, just give this suggestion a chance.) --71.78.136.217 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC) 23:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)