![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 20 January 2010 to 22 March 2015. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Pre-split Afrikaans-only discussions were moved to Help talk:IPA for Afrikaans.
Thanks for creating this! I assume it's ok that Afrikaans links here as well?
Dutch [p], [t], [k] are never aspirated (or so I have read), so maybe non-aspirated English examples would be better too? Lfh ( talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Are we doing a pan-dialectal representation like we do with English? Either way, it seems kind of confusing right now to list ɣ and ʝ separately for what is, essentially, the same phoneme. The same goes for w and ʋ, as well as ç and x. We could do something like this:
ɣ ~ ʝ | gaan | |
ç ~ x | acht | hue |
Or we could do this
North | South | Examples | English approximation |
---|---|---|---|
b | biet | beet | |
x | ç | acht | hue |
I'm just sort of thinking off the top of my head. What do you guys think? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy to see you guys working on this! At some point in the past I tried to create this [1]. I'm not sure if it's all correct but maybe it could be helpful for you. -- Hooiwind ( talk) 19:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
"zone" is given as an example for [ɪː], [ʏː] AND [ɔː] - presumably needs to be fixed? Lfh ( talk) 11:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I added a separate column for Suriname since Dutch is the official language and a first language for about two thirds of its inhabitants. Pronunciation differs considerably from European Dutch, both for <g> and <ch>, <r>, <w>, etc, and for the vowels, which are pronounced way more sharply. -- Hooiwind ( talk) 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know Dutch, but when I listen to the recording of his name, I hear [lYk] and not [lyk], which is what's transcribed. Which is correct? 86.205.30.114 ( talk) 01:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the English examples are rather confusing because they do not indicate which of the three possibile pronunciations they represent. For example the w in the Dutch/Afrikaans word wang is given the English approximation wing but that must be one of the Dutch dialects, because in Afrikaans it is like v in English violet. It's especially bad when it comes to the vowels, as they are mostly different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 ( talk) 22:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Another confusing example is that of the English equivalent for the vowel in môre, which is given as ɔː. The English equivalent given is "God (but longer)", which in my dialect would yield the father vowel. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to give "caught" as the example? 76.168.105.6 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC).
I'm not a Dutch speaker, but as far as I know, the vowel ɛi is not pronounced as in the English "May". It's much closer to "my", I think. Kbk ( talk) 23:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The dutch Diep isn't pronounced the same as the english Deep. The dutch ie is shorter than the english ee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.197.169 ( talk) 11:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could this article be called IPA for Dutch, Flemish and Afrikaans? :) In Belgium Dutch is commonly called Vlaams (Flemish) instead of Southern Dutch :) Jaume87 ( talk) 22:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The R is not pronounced rolling everywhere. In Belgium, a more French-like R somewhere in the throat is very common as well, and in Holland a more English-like R seems to be used when the R is followed by another consonant. And I've heard Dutchmen use a throat-R as well. I think the vowel modification in 'deur', 'heer' en 'voor' due to the R, is solely a Northern Dutch feature (probably caused by the English-like R they use). There may be some dialects in Belgium where an R influences a preceding vowel, but certainly not in the way described in the table. As far as I know, we (Flemings) normally just pronounce those vowels the same way as in 'deuk', 'heel' en 'voogd'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.146 ( talk) 11:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that the English approximation of R highlighted the letter 't' in 'water' instead of the 'r'? Keffertje08 ( talk) 12:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I am taking attention to reducing the number of footnotes in some of these IPA for X pages. These pronunciation keys are designed primarily for readers wanting to understand the language-specific IPA transcriptions they encounter in Wikipedia articles. We shouldn't swamp them with irrelevant details. Because this information may still be pertinent to the project, I have duplicated the notes below rather than try to find a place for them. This is irrespective of whether I think these claims are true or whether they are sourced. I will leave it to other editors to move the information to the appropriate article space or check that it already is. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone check whether the vowel is i or ɪ. There is a pronunciation of Forvo.
I undid quite a few of
these changes, because:
- according to both the OED and Merriam-Webster, the u in curriculum is pronounced [jʊ]. This is not an approximation of Dutch [ʏ] or Afrikaans [œ];
- the pronunciation of Eng feud does not quite approximate Dutch fuut. The former is pronounced [fjuːd] and the latter [fyt];
- the vowel in Eng foot is not the same as the vowel in Dutch voet. The former is a
near-close near-back vowel while the latter is a
close back rounded vowel. The previous example boot (pronounced [buːt]) was therefore much better. -
TaalVerbeteraar (
talk)
13:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. We want to do something with the pronunciations in here. The recordings on articles are often far from "standard Dutch", and yet any additional transcriptions are being DELETED as non-standard. Wait a second, if the transcription of the audio file is non-standard, then the file should be deleted as well. Re-record the standard Dutch version of it or don't complain about two transcriptions.
For instance, we've got an article Nijmegen. There's a standard Dutch transcription there [ˈnɛi̯.ˌmeː.ɣə(n)] . And then, we've got a recording on the right, which CLEARLY is non-standard. It has IJ with a lowered onset, a clear diphthong in ME, and a voiceless uvular fricative in G [ˈnæi̯.ˌmeɪ̯.χə(n)].
We've got also this guy constantly deleting anything that doesn't look standard Dutch, but doesn't bother at all about checking whether the recording matches the transcription. In most cases (not many, most) it does not.
Is it really what we want here? Confusion? I thought this was all about clarity.
We need to add Polder Dutch diphthongs to this article. We've already got these for EE [eɪ] EU [øʏ] and OO [oʊ], but we also need the ones for AU/OU [au], EI/IJ [æi] and UI [ɐy] or perhaps [ɶy] to show that the onset is rounded. We also should allow to transcribe both /ɣ/ and /x/ as [χ].
The best would be to have it like this: Standard Dutch | Belgian Dutch | Polder Dutch | Afrikaans. Since Standard Dutch and Belgian Dutch are very similar, in many places they would share the same vowels. We'd also add monophthongal pronunciations of AU/OU [ɔː], EI/IJ [ɛː] and UI [œː]. Last but not least, we need people to stop deleting the regional pronunciations from the articles. ESPECIALLY if they match the recordings! It's insane. They're linked anyway to IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, and people confused by regional pronunciations can match the vowels with the standard ones. Or we can transcribe both standard and regional forms. By saying regional I mean the most common (but non-standard) Polder and Belgian realisations, the ones above.
Not to mention that if that guy were editing Portuguese articles with his philosophy, he'd be kicked out from Wikipedia within seconds. I think "Neither Dutch variant is preferred over the other at Wikipedia except in cases where a local pronunciation is clearly more relevant, such as a place in Netherlands or a Belgian artist." must be added here. And transcribing both standard and polder pronunciations, especially if there's a recording of the second one, but the best would be "always", must be possible. Otherwise we're massively missing the point, and causing a lot of confusion.
Let's finally bring clarity to Dutch pronunciation and recordings here. It's a bloody mess now. Thanks for reading.
-- 89.79.88.109 ( talk) 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's somewhat weird to have 3 columns for different pronunciations in Holland/Flanders/SA, and then approximating all these pronunciations with 1 English word. It would make more sense to split up the approximation column as well, although of course that would clutter the page... 94.224.49.243 ( talk) 09:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
"When the penultimate syllable is open, stress may fall on any of the last three syllables. When the penultimate syllable is closed, stress falls on either of the last two syllables." This seems to be plain nonsense to me. E.g. in "avonden", the penultimate syllable is closed, but the stress falls on the first. Also, I think it's unclear what is meant by "minimal pairs" and "secondary stress", and whether these concepts are relevant there. 94.224.49.243 ( talk) 09:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's curious that the IPA symbol for the Flemish pronunciation of 'w' is 'w', since this is also the symbol for the French pronunciation, but one of the characteristics of a French accent in Dutch is the funny pronunciation of the letter 'w', so I guess there must be a better symbol to denote the Flemish pronunciation. I think the Flemish w is something like a very short /y/, whereas the French w is more of a short /u/. Perhaps β̞ (the bilabial approximant) might be closer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.106.200 ( talk) 19:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I see this is also the symbol used in Wikipedia (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp). I think I'm going to change this right away on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.106.200 ( talk) 19:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The use of β̞ in Flanders is also confirmed by the already-present footnote for w. 81.164.106.200 ( talk) 19:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with this line as it stands: "eː eə beet, ezel mate; fair (Af.)". The Dutch and Afrikaans double e are not pronounced the same way. I think the Dutch sounds more like the "a" in "mate" while the Afrikaans is more like a long "e" plus a short "a", e.g. like the "ee" in "beer". Please can someone more knowledge than me in IPA correct this? Thanks in advance. Helen ( talk) 12:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
In the language of the (Northern and Southern) Netherlands, which I prefer to call Netherlandish, the single "u" (like in hut) is practically pronounced as a schwa. Originally the single "u" was pronounced more like a German ö: the Netherlandish verb kunnen (can) sounded like the German verb können. Amand Keultjes ( talk) 01:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Due to the global sound quality (Northern and Southern) Netherlandish people tend to think that the English a in man sounds like their e in "men" (meaning one (pronoun)). In fact the English single a in man is more similar to the Netherlandish double aa in "maan" (meaning moon), but it is not perceived this way, because the English single a is a short vowel, whereas the Netherlandish double aa is a long vowel. NB Netherlandish double aa changes often to a single a for spelling reasons: the plural of "maan" is "manen", both with the same double aa vowel sound. Similarly Netherlandish people also tend to think that their double aa vowel sound like in "aar" (ear (part of cereal plant)) sounds like the English are, because they both are long vowels, but actually "aar" is pronounced like the a in the English man, albeit long instead of short. Amand Keultjes ( talk) 01:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
For the example of ɣ, it is given:
In my Spanish they are very different. I don't know Dutch pronunciation but I can believe the rasgo example. However ayuda seems wrong, unless you are talking about a very specific dialect ( Rioplatense Spanish?) -- Error ( talk) 21:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The English approximation of ɛi is lister as may. To me as a Dutch person that seems like a bad approximation. A better one would be bite, hide, cypher einstein or ride — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.221.47 ( talk) 20:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The section about these pronunciations in Dutch is utterly wrong and overly complicated.
Hello. If we're going to keep Northern and Southern Dutch columns separate, we have to implement the following changes:
Because there are distinct differences between northern and southern Dutch, it makes sense to separate them. An then, we should, of course, be accurate, and so make those changes to this guide. I'm not sure that changing Template:IPA-nl like that will necessarily be helpful. As for the flags used in this guide, it is important to note that the general southern Dutch phonetics is also used in the south of the Netherlands, not only in Belgium. -- JorisvS ( talk) 11:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
For the life of me I cannot understand why are people who admit (on this page) that they know next to nothing about the subject contributing to such an article. Starting with the bright spark who renamed the article from "Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Flemish" to "Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans", claiming that "Flemish is Dutch and Afrikaans is included anyway". Go figure! ... Did it ever occur to the editors to actually ask for help from Dutch and Afrikaans editors?
Why would you want to include Flemish/ Afrikaans here anyway? Dutch and Afrikaans are world apart, a very small percentage of people can actually understand the other language, unless they have have been exposed to it. The IPA page for French is Help:IPA for French not "French and Canadian French" or "French and Swiss French"; for German it is Help:IPA for German not "German and Swiss German" or "German and Hochdeutsch"; for Spanish ... etc, etc., so why not work on page that deals only with Dutch, and, if you must, a page that deals with only Afrikaans?
It is preferable to NOT have an article about somethening rather than an article that does not correspond to reality as is the case with this one.
Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with transcribing /ɛi/ as /æi/, however I don't agree with the transcription of /œy/ as /ɐy/. 'in most northern areas' is not a reason to consider them as being standard language in the Netherlands.The last source states some dialects (Leiden, Rotterdam), again this isn't proof that most Dutch speakers in Netherlands pronounce them as /ɐy/. Simply saying that northern areas pronounce them as such doesn't mean most people from the Netherlands do so. For example that many London speakers of English pronounce red as /ʋed/ doesn't mean it is considered to be standard in England. Gati123 ( talk) 19:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering how do we transcribe N before TJ as when I speak n clearly gets assimilated to [ɲ] i.e. I would pronounce /Wijntje/ as [ʋæiɲcə]. But I have seen articles where they use n instead? Which do we use Gati123 ( talk) 22:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This needs to be split into Help:IPA for Dutch and Help:IPA for Afrikaans. Having the two together will only cause a lot of pointless complexity and confusion. There are more than enough variations within the separate languages to merit separate treatment and it will make it so much easier for readers to understand. I'm thinking of Dutch in particular which has two national standards.
There's precedent in the recent split of Help:IPA for Swedish and Norwegian. I don't mind making the split myself.
Peter Isotalo 07:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 20 January 2010 to 22 March 2015. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Pre-split Afrikaans-only discussions were moved to Help talk:IPA for Afrikaans.
Thanks for creating this! I assume it's ok that Afrikaans links here as well?
Dutch [p], [t], [k] are never aspirated (or so I have read), so maybe non-aspirated English examples would be better too? Lfh ( talk) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Are we doing a pan-dialectal representation like we do with English? Either way, it seems kind of confusing right now to list ɣ and ʝ separately for what is, essentially, the same phoneme. The same goes for w and ʋ, as well as ç and x. We could do something like this:
ɣ ~ ʝ | gaan | |
ç ~ x | acht | hue |
Or we could do this
North | South | Examples | English approximation |
---|---|---|---|
b | biet | beet | |
x | ç | acht | hue |
I'm just sort of thinking off the top of my head. What do you guys think? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy to see you guys working on this! At some point in the past I tried to create this [1]. I'm not sure if it's all correct but maybe it could be helpful for you. -- Hooiwind ( talk) 19:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
"zone" is given as an example for [ɪː], [ʏː] AND [ɔː] - presumably needs to be fixed? Lfh ( talk) 11:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I added a separate column for Suriname since Dutch is the official language and a first language for about two thirds of its inhabitants. Pronunciation differs considerably from European Dutch, both for <g> and <ch>, <r>, <w>, etc, and for the vowels, which are pronounced way more sharply. -- Hooiwind ( talk) 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know Dutch, but when I listen to the recording of his name, I hear [lYk] and not [lyk], which is what's transcribed. Which is correct? 86.205.30.114 ( talk) 01:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the English examples are rather confusing because they do not indicate which of the three possibile pronunciations they represent. For example the w in the Dutch/Afrikaans word wang is given the English approximation wing but that must be one of the Dutch dialects, because in Afrikaans it is like v in English violet. It's especially bad when it comes to the vowels, as they are mostly different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 ( talk) 22:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Another confusing example is that of the English equivalent for the vowel in môre, which is given as ɔː. The English equivalent given is "God (but longer)", which in my dialect would yield the father vowel. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to give "caught" as the example? 76.168.105.6 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC).
I'm not a Dutch speaker, but as far as I know, the vowel ɛi is not pronounced as in the English "May". It's much closer to "my", I think. Kbk ( talk) 23:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The dutch Diep isn't pronounced the same as the english Deep. The dutch ie is shorter than the english ee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.197.169 ( talk) 11:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could this article be called IPA for Dutch, Flemish and Afrikaans? :) In Belgium Dutch is commonly called Vlaams (Flemish) instead of Southern Dutch :) Jaume87 ( talk) 22:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The R is not pronounced rolling everywhere. In Belgium, a more French-like R somewhere in the throat is very common as well, and in Holland a more English-like R seems to be used when the R is followed by another consonant. And I've heard Dutchmen use a throat-R as well. I think the vowel modification in 'deur', 'heer' en 'voor' due to the R, is solely a Northern Dutch feature (probably caused by the English-like R they use). There may be some dialects in Belgium where an R influences a preceding vowel, but certainly not in the way described in the table. As far as I know, we (Flemings) normally just pronounce those vowels the same way as in 'deuk', 'heel' en 'voogd'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.146 ( talk) 11:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that the English approximation of R highlighted the letter 't' in 'water' instead of the 'r'? Keffertje08 ( talk) 12:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I am taking attention to reducing the number of footnotes in some of these IPA for X pages. These pronunciation keys are designed primarily for readers wanting to understand the language-specific IPA transcriptions they encounter in Wikipedia articles. We shouldn't swamp them with irrelevant details. Because this information may still be pertinent to the project, I have duplicated the notes below rather than try to find a place for them. This is irrespective of whether I think these claims are true or whether they are sourced. I will leave it to other editors to move the information to the appropriate article space or check that it already is. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone check whether the vowel is i or ɪ. There is a pronunciation of Forvo.
I undid quite a few of
these changes, because:
- according to both the OED and Merriam-Webster, the u in curriculum is pronounced [jʊ]. This is not an approximation of Dutch [ʏ] or Afrikaans [œ];
- the pronunciation of Eng feud does not quite approximate Dutch fuut. The former is pronounced [fjuːd] and the latter [fyt];
- the vowel in Eng foot is not the same as the vowel in Dutch voet. The former is a
near-close near-back vowel while the latter is a
close back rounded vowel. The previous example boot (pronounced [buːt]) was therefore much better. -
TaalVerbeteraar (
talk)
13:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. We want to do something with the pronunciations in here. The recordings on articles are often far from "standard Dutch", and yet any additional transcriptions are being DELETED as non-standard. Wait a second, if the transcription of the audio file is non-standard, then the file should be deleted as well. Re-record the standard Dutch version of it or don't complain about two transcriptions.
For instance, we've got an article Nijmegen. There's a standard Dutch transcription there [ˈnɛi̯.ˌmeː.ɣə(n)] . And then, we've got a recording on the right, which CLEARLY is non-standard. It has IJ with a lowered onset, a clear diphthong in ME, and a voiceless uvular fricative in G [ˈnæi̯.ˌmeɪ̯.χə(n)].
We've got also this guy constantly deleting anything that doesn't look standard Dutch, but doesn't bother at all about checking whether the recording matches the transcription. In most cases (not many, most) it does not.
Is it really what we want here? Confusion? I thought this was all about clarity.
We need to add Polder Dutch diphthongs to this article. We've already got these for EE [eɪ] EU [øʏ] and OO [oʊ], but we also need the ones for AU/OU [au], EI/IJ [æi] and UI [ɐy] or perhaps [ɶy] to show that the onset is rounded. We also should allow to transcribe both /ɣ/ and /x/ as [χ].
The best would be to have it like this: Standard Dutch | Belgian Dutch | Polder Dutch | Afrikaans. Since Standard Dutch and Belgian Dutch are very similar, in many places they would share the same vowels. We'd also add monophthongal pronunciations of AU/OU [ɔː], EI/IJ [ɛː] and UI [œː]. Last but not least, we need people to stop deleting the regional pronunciations from the articles. ESPECIALLY if they match the recordings! It's insane. They're linked anyway to IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, and people confused by regional pronunciations can match the vowels with the standard ones. Or we can transcribe both standard and regional forms. By saying regional I mean the most common (but non-standard) Polder and Belgian realisations, the ones above.
Not to mention that if that guy were editing Portuguese articles with his philosophy, he'd be kicked out from Wikipedia within seconds. I think "Neither Dutch variant is preferred over the other at Wikipedia except in cases where a local pronunciation is clearly more relevant, such as a place in Netherlands or a Belgian artist." must be added here. And transcribing both standard and polder pronunciations, especially if there's a recording of the second one, but the best would be "always", must be possible. Otherwise we're massively missing the point, and causing a lot of confusion.
Let's finally bring clarity to Dutch pronunciation and recordings here. It's a bloody mess now. Thanks for reading.
-- 89.79.88.109 ( talk) 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's somewhat weird to have 3 columns for different pronunciations in Holland/Flanders/SA, and then approximating all these pronunciations with 1 English word. It would make more sense to split up the approximation column as well, although of course that would clutter the page... 94.224.49.243 ( talk) 09:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
"When the penultimate syllable is open, stress may fall on any of the last three syllables. When the penultimate syllable is closed, stress falls on either of the last two syllables." This seems to be plain nonsense to me. E.g. in "avonden", the penultimate syllable is closed, but the stress falls on the first. Also, I think it's unclear what is meant by "minimal pairs" and "secondary stress", and whether these concepts are relevant there. 94.224.49.243 ( talk) 09:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's curious that the IPA symbol for the Flemish pronunciation of 'w' is 'w', since this is also the symbol for the French pronunciation, but one of the characteristics of a French accent in Dutch is the funny pronunciation of the letter 'w', so I guess there must be a better symbol to denote the Flemish pronunciation. I think the Flemish w is something like a very short /y/, whereas the French w is more of a short /u/. Perhaps β̞ (the bilabial approximant) might be closer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.106.200 ( talk) 19:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I see this is also the symbol used in Wikipedia (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp). I think I'm going to change this right away on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.106.200 ( talk) 19:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The use of β̞ in Flanders is also confirmed by the already-present footnote for w. 81.164.106.200 ( talk) 19:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with this line as it stands: "eː eə beet, ezel mate; fair (Af.)". The Dutch and Afrikaans double e are not pronounced the same way. I think the Dutch sounds more like the "a" in "mate" while the Afrikaans is more like a long "e" plus a short "a", e.g. like the "ee" in "beer". Please can someone more knowledge than me in IPA correct this? Thanks in advance. Helen ( talk) 12:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
In the language of the (Northern and Southern) Netherlands, which I prefer to call Netherlandish, the single "u" (like in hut) is practically pronounced as a schwa. Originally the single "u" was pronounced more like a German ö: the Netherlandish verb kunnen (can) sounded like the German verb können. Amand Keultjes ( talk) 01:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Due to the global sound quality (Northern and Southern) Netherlandish people tend to think that the English a in man sounds like their e in "men" (meaning one (pronoun)). In fact the English single a in man is more similar to the Netherlandish double aa in "maan" (meaning moon), but it is not perceived this way, because the English single a is a short vowel, whereas the Netherlandish double aa is a long vowel. NB Netherlandish double aa changes often to a single a for spelling reasons: the plural of "maan" is "manen", both with the same double aa vowel sound. Similarly Netherlandish people also tend to think that their double aa vowel sound like in "aar" (ear (part of cereal plant)) sounds like the English are, because they both are long vowels, but actually "aar" is pronounced like the a in the English man, albeit long instead of short. Amand Keultjes ( talk) 01:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
For the example of ɣ, it is given:
In my Spanish they are very different. I don't know Dutch pronunciation but I can believe the rasgo example. However ayuda seems wrong, unless you are talking about a very specific dialect ( Rioplatense Spanish?) -- Error ( talk) 21:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The English approximation of ɛi is lister as may. To me as a Dutch person that seems like a bad approximation. A better one would be bite, hide, cypher einstein or ride — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.221.47 ( talk) 20:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The section about these pronunciations in Dutch is utterly wrong and overly complicated.
Hello. If we're going to keep Northern and Southern Dutch columns separate, we have to implement the following changes:
Because there are distinct differences between northern and southern Dutch, it makes sense to separate them. An then, we should, of course, be accurate, and so make those changes to this guide. I'm not sure that changing Template:IPA-nl like that will necessarily be helpful. As for the flags used in this guide, it is important to note that the general southern Dutch phonetics is also used in the south of the Netherlands, not only in Belgium. -- JorisvS ( talk) 11:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
For the life of me I cannot understand why are people who admit (on this page) that they know next to nothing about the subject contributing to such an article. Starting with the bright spark who renamed the article from "Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Flemish" to "Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans", claiming that "Flemish is Dutch and Afrikaans is included anyway". Go figure! ... Did it ever occur to the editors to actually ask for help from Dutch and Afrikaans editors?
Why would you want to include Flemish/ Afrikaans here anyway? Dutch and Afrikaans are world apart, a very small percentage of people can actually understand the other language, unless they have have been exposed to it. The IPA page for French is Help:IPA for French not "French and Canadian French" or "French and Swiss French"; for German it is Help:IPA for German not "German and Swiss German" or "German and Hochdeutsch"; for Spanish ... etc, etc., so why not work on page that deals only with Dutch, and, if you must, a page that deals with only Afrikaans?
It is preferable to NOT have an article about somethening rather than an article that does not correspond to reality as is the case with this one.
Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with transcribing /ɛi/ as /æi/, however I don't agree with the transcription of /œy/ as /ɐy/. 'in most northern areas' is not a reason to consider them as being standard language in the Netherlands.The last source states some dialects (Leiden, Rotterdam), again this isn't proof that most Dutch speakers in Netherlands pronounce them as /ɐy/. Simply saying that northern areas pronounce them as such doesn't mean most people from the Netherlands do so. For example that many London speakers of English pronounce red as /ʋed/ doesn't mean it is considered to be standard in England. Gati123 ( talk) 19:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was just wondering how do we transcribe N before TJ as when I speak n clearly gets assimilated to [ɲ] i.e. I would pronounce /Wijntje/ as [ʋæiɲcə]. But I have seen articles where they use n instead? Which do we use Gati123 ( talk) 22:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This needs to be split into Help:IPA for Dutch and Help:IPA for Afrikaans. Having the two together will only cause a lot of pointless complexity and confusion. There are more than enough variations within the separate languages to merit separate treatment and it will make it so much easier for readers to understand. I'm thinking of Dutch in particular which has two national standards.
There's precedent in the recent split of Help:IPA for Swedish and Norwegian. I don't mind making the split myself.
Peter Isotalo 07:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)