Help talk:IPA/Danish

Can't we just use {{angbr IPA|a aː}} for the open central vowels? Our system of transcription is very similar to that found in [http://www.udtaleordbog.dk], which uses {{angbr IPA|a aː}} for them. {{angbr IPA|ɑ ɑː}} explicitly suggest a back quality, close to {{IPA|[{{IPAplink|ɒ}}, {{IPAplink|ɒː}}]}} which they are not. {{angbr IPA|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 {{IPAblink|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 [https://forvo.com/search/Lars]). The Swedish one sounds like Lårsj in Danish, whereas the Danish pronunciation is very similar to the German one (as long as the {{IPA|/r/}} is vocalized in the latter: {{IPA|[ˈlaːs]}}, rather than {{IPA|[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. {{angbr|a}} is commonly used for what we transcribe with {{angbr|æ}}, so keeping {{angbr|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 {{angbr|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 {{IPA|/ɔ/}} ({{IPAblink|ɒ|ʌ}}). Sol505000 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

:I agree with you, and disagree with Nardog. In IPA, {{angbr|a}} is generally used for any open vowel if there is only one, and {{angbr|ɑ}} is added for languages that contrast two open vowels. In Danish, {{angbr|a}} is used for {{IPA|[æ]}} for traditional reasons only in order to avoid confusing it with the letter æ that corresponds to {{IPA|[ɛ]}}Fischer-Jørgensen (1948) Almen Fonetik. I have examined the use of {{angbr|æ a ɑ}} for 146 Illustrations of IPA, and only Danish deviate from this use of {{angbr|a}} and {{angbr|ɑ}}. Research from 2016 even indicate that the Danish {{angbr|ɑ}} is much closer to {{IPA|[a]}}. ə.dk (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

::American English is one in which {{angbr|ɑ}} commonly represents a central value. If such research exists, then please cite it in Danish phonology; we generally do this from the ground up (though the key is currently based on SDU/DDO/Basbøll, so if we're going to incorporate developments into the key in any one aspect, we should do so in all and overhaul it). Nardog (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

:::I totally agree with that, and of course I also agree that it should be based on published research. I obviously recommend the phonetic notation used on https://en.udtaleordbog.dk/ipa.php. This is what I use, teach and preach. The research behind it is forthcoming, so it may be a bit early for an overhaul here. But if you are interested, feel free to contact me for a pre-print (check my bio for contact options). ə.dk (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

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. ({{angbr|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 the exemplar of [ŋ̍] by the [https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/docs/LDC93S1/PHONCODE.TXT documentation] for the TIMIT corpus, and it's about as good as it can be because there's no (near-)obligatory [ŋ̍] in English and there's hardly a difference between [ʃɪŋ] and [ʃŋ̍]. Nardog (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)