Wikipedia Help NA‑class | |||||||
|
Linguistics: Phonetics NA‑class | ||||||||||
|
I checked on Polish wiktionary that ɡʲ, kʲ and xʲ (all before i for g, k and (c)h) are literally the true IPAs on every letter are ɟ, c and ç, all of which are actually correct. Check it for reference. ApprenticeFan work 11:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think this article should mention phonemes, not allophonic variants which appear when a particular sound is followed by a specific sound. Specifically: 1) I'd remove the reference to `ɣ' in the `niechby' example. It's a voiced variant of `x'. 2) Similarly, I'd remove the palatalised xʲ in the 'hiacynt' example. Same as before, it's an allophone of plain `x' before a /i/ sounds. But it's the same phoneme. No need to complicate matters here; English too has this allophony in words such as `hard' and `huge' but in broad transcription the initial sound should be transcribed as /h/ in both cases. 3) Remove `ŋ'. It's a variant of 'n' before k/g (and not all speaker use this variant, anyway). 4,5) Remove palatalised k and g (examples Gienek and kierowca). I think you can very well use the /gjenek/ and /kjerowtsa/ transcriptions.
One can and should mention these allophonic variants in the notes, but in my opinion not in the main table. — L0rents ( talk) 13:09, 6 June 2017
Converning the nasal vowels ę ą, personally I don't like using the French-like ɛ̃ and ɔ̃. Of course it's a matter of convention, but I think those simbols are misleading. All modern analysis of the Polish nasal sounds say they are dipthongs with a first, non-nasal part which is /ɔ/ for ą and /ɛ/ for ę followed by a nasal glide w̃. So I'd prefer seeing kęs as /kɛw̃s/ and są as /sɔw̃/. I think it's much more accurate. For beginners learning Polish, I think it's also okay to suggest as an approximation to lose the nasality and substitute w̃ with `wn', so that the words are pronounced kełns and sołn. As to the English description, I don't like much the reference to French vin and son; these words sounds very different. Nevertheless, it's difficult to describe in words these sounds using only English sounds. Examples from Portuguese might be more accurate, but probably not really usefull for English speakers. — L0rents ( talk) 13:09, 6 June 2017
There is a move discussion in progress on Help talk:IPA which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
why is ɡʲ, kʲ, and xʲ listed but bʲ, dʲ, fʲ, lʲ, mʲ, pʲ, rʲ, tʲ, vʲ, wʲ not listed? LICA98 ( talk) 06:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Another relevant phonotactic observation concerning [w] is that it cannot be followed by the vowel [i] but may be followed by [ɨ]. This restriction holds for the native vocabulary, e.g. łys-y [wɨsɨ] 'bald', zł-y [zwɨ] 'bad', but it also extends to recent loans; thus weekend, originally pronounced [wʲikɛnt] with the strongly non-Polish combination [wʲi], is heard more and more often now as [wɨkɛnt]. On the other hand, the lateral [l] cannot be followed by [ɨ] but readily combines with [i], e.g.: liść [liɕtɕ] 'leaf', dol-i [dɔli] 'fate, gen. sg.'.
@ Mr KEBAB: Affricate symbols in Template:IPAc-pl are with tiebars. LoveVanPersie ( talk) 10:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
for example:
vowels before n, m are transcribed as nasal in Polish and non-nasal in English (zãmɛk / zamɛk)
ę, ą when they get n or m sound are transcribed as nasal in Polish but in English non-nasal (rɛ̃ŋka/rɛŋka)
and when they don't in Polish there is /w̃/ but in English just nasalized letter (kɛ̃w̃s/kɛ̃s)
/c/, /ɟ/, /ç/ are transcribed /kʲ/, /gʲ/, /xʲ/
consonants before j are palatalized in Polish but not English (pɔlʲit͡sʲja/pɔlʲit͡sja)
ia, ie are transcribed with /ʲj/ in Polish but without j in English (bʲjawɨ/bʲawɨ) LICA98 ( talk) 23:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
You're right, the trascriptions used e.g. on the Polish wikidictionary (Wikisłownik) are different from the ones used on English Wikipedia. As far as I could determine, the transcription on Wikisłownik were produced automatically using a computer program which uses the system used in a certain reference [Ostaszewska, Tambor - Fonetyka i fonologia współczesnego języka polskiego, PWN, 2000]; in turn, this reference (a short booklet written for university lectures and which doesn't contain any original research) is based (if I'm not mistaken) on Słownik wymowy polskiej. Red. M. Karaś, M. Madejowa, Warszawa 1977. Among other things, in this system, ALL vowels are marked as nasalised (with a tilde) when followed by [n], [m], [ŋ]. Also, all consonants are marked as palatalized (with the j superscript) when followed by [j] or by [i]. Because these differences between the transcriptions in English/Polish Wikipedia are systematic, the two transcription systems carry the same amount of information and therefore amount to different but functionally equivalent conventions. However, if you ask me, this Ostaszewska-Tambor system is stupidly complicated, at odds with the IPA transcriptions in any other language I know, confusing (the ã in zamek has little to do with French nasal ã in, e.g., ans) and is very unsuitable for transcriptions in a dictionary. It makes things complicated in a totally unnecessary manner, and if I didn't know it comes from a printed book I'd think it was created by a crackpot. This in just my opinion, of course, but I'm happy English wikipedia uses a more sensible system of transcription.
L0rents ( talk) 01:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Should there be a footnote about /ɦ/, which exists as a separate phoneme in some dialects? (I do not propose that we transcribe it, of course.) Double sharp ( talk) 14:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
My source (cited in the Polish phonology page, Swan 2002) says labial palatalized consonants are phonemes, not allophones, and it makes more sense as there are minimal pairs like pędź - pięć, zdrowe - zdrowie, bały - biały, mały - miały, and a near minimal pair szwie - szwed. So I suggest adding these to this page. JeanneAymonier ( talk) 05:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Is this done??
-- 213.76.134.90 ( talk) 22:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Copying what I originally posted in the general wiki help page:
I noticed that in both pages for Polish ortography and phonology, (and I just found out, also on this very page) 's' in its usual value is linked to voiceless dental fricative, which sounds weird to me, as that sound shouldn't be in Polish at all and I'd have expected it to be a Voiceless alveolar sibilant instead.
I checked in the code for the page and it seems that the links are automatically generated, so I didn't want to touch anything... Could someone with a bit more knowledge in the field tell me more, and correct either me or the link?
Thanks!-- Stefano thf ( talk) 14:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to hear two released [n]'s in [jɔˈanna] in the audio sample at Joanna Jędrzejczyk. Samples on Forvo indeed mostly pronounce it that way, as do samples at René Goscinny, Anna Fotyga, and Devana. But not the one at Skarżysko-Kamienna, which in fact has ⟨nː⟩ in the transcription. Is the presence or absence of a mid-release in [nn] mandatory in any context? What constraints (phonemic, allophonic, morphological, etc.) dictate whether it can occur? Does any other consonant exhibit a similar behavior? Nardog ( talk) 10:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Sol505000: Any clue? Nardog ( talk) 06:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
How is Polish “r” like American English “tt” in “better?” It’s more like the “rr” in Spanish “perro.” 100.14.50.53 ( talk) 01:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I know that the symbol for ɕ is derivative of "c" but the placement in the chart is confusing. Every other triple is placed together, I think it would be better placed between s and ʂ. To that end, I think the voiceless affricate triple should be t͡s, t͡ɕ, t͡ʂ. I don't know if the standard is to organize them by which latin character they're derived from but I think it would read a lot better organized that way. Krupaz ( talk) 17:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that we should remove the tie-bars and transcribe the affricates with simple ⟨dz dʑ dʐ ts tɕ tʂ⟩. Per Talk:Polish phonology#Affricates and stop–fricative clusters, we can differentiate them from the stop-fricative sequences as ⟨dz dʑ dʐ ts tɕ tʂ⟩ for the former and ⟨dʱz dʱʑ dʱʐ tʰs tʰɕ tʰʂ⟩ for the latter, both in Polish and in other languages with such contrasts. The syllable break obviously won't work here as both czysta [ˈtʂɨsta] and trzysta [ˈtʰʂɨsta] have two syllables and initial stress.
Or let's just use the length mark for the clusters: [ˈtʂːɨsta]. Sol505000 ( talk) 01:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia Help NA‑class | |||||||
|
Linguistics: Phonetics NA‑class | ||||||||||
|
I checked on Polish wiktionary that ɡʲ, kʲ and xʲ (all before i for g, k and (c)h) are literally the true IPAs on every letter are ɟ, c and ç, all of which are actually correct. Check it for reference. ApprenticeFan work 11:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think this article should mention phonemes, not allophonic variants which appear when a particular sound is followed by a specific sound. Specifically: 1) I'd remove the reference to `ɣ' in the `niechby' example. It's a voiced variant of `x'. 2) Similarly, I'd remove the palatalised xʲ in the 'hiacynt' example. Same as before, it's an allophone of plain `x' before a /i/ sounds. But it's the same phoneme. No need to complicate matters here; English too has this allophony in words such as `hard' and `huge' but in broad transcription the initial sound should be transcribed as /h/ in both cases. 3) Remove `ŋ'. It's a variant of 'n' before k/g (and not all speaker use this variant, anyway). 4,5) Remove palatalised k and g (examples Gienek and kierowca). I think you can very well use the /gjenek/ and /kjerowtsa/ transcriptions.
One can and should mention these allophonic variants in the notes, but in my opinion not in the main table. — L0rents ( talk) 13:09, 6 June 2017
Converning the nasal vowels ę ą, personally I don't like using the French-like ɛ̃ and ɔ̃. Of course it's a matter of convention, but I think those simbols are misleading. All modern analysis of the Polish nasal sounds say they are dipthongs with a first, non-nasal part which is /ɔ/ for ą and /ɛ/ for ę followed by a nasal glide w̃. So I'd prefer seeing kęs as /kɛw̃s/ and są as /sɔw̃/. I think it's much more accurate. For beginners learning Polish, I think it's also okay to suggest as an approximation to lose the nasality and substitute w̃ with `wn', so that the words are pronounced kełns and sołn. As to the English description, I don't like much the reference to French vin and son; these words sounds very different. Nevertheless, it's difficult to describe in words these sounds using only English sounds. Examples from Portuguese might be more accurate, but probably not really usefull for English speakers. — L0rents ( talk) 13:09, 6 June 2017
There is a move discussion in progress on Help talk:IPA which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 16:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
why is ɡʲ, kʲ, and xʲ listed but bʲ, dʲ, fʲ, lʲ, mʲ, pʲ, rʲ, tʲ, vʲ, wʲ not listed? LICA98 ( talk) 06:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Another relevant phonotactic observation concerning [w] is that it cannot be followed by the vowel [i] but may be followed by [ɨ]. This restriction holds for the native vocabulary, e.g. łys-y [wɨsɨ] 'bald', zł-y [zwɨ] 'bad', but it also extends to recent loans; thus weekend, originally pronounced [wʲikɛnt] with the strongly non-Polish combination [wʲi], is heard more and more often now as [wɨkɛnt]. On the other hand, the lateral [l] cannot be followed by [ɨ] but readily combines with [i], e.g.: liść [liɕtɕ] 'leaf', dol-i [dɔli] 'fate, gen. sg.'.
@ Mr KEBAB: Affricate symbols in Template:IPAc-pl are with tiebars. LoveVanPersie ( talk) 10:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
for example:
vowels before n, m are transcribed as nasal in Polish and non-nasal in English (zãmɛk / zamɛk)
ę, ą when they get n or m sound are transcribed as nasal in Polish but in English non-nasal (rɛ̃ŋka/rɛŋka)
and when they don't in Polish there is /w̃/ but in English just nasalized letter (kɛ̃w̃s/kɛ̃s)
/c/, /ɟ/, /ç/ are transcribed /kʲ/, /gʲ/, /xʲ/
consonants before j are palatalized in Polish but not English (pɔlʲit͡sʲja/pɔlʲit͡sja)
ia, ie are transcribed with /ʲj/ in Polish but without j in English (bʲjawɨ/bʲawɨ) LICA98 ( talk) 23:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
You're right, the trascriptions used e.g. on the Polish wikidictionary (Wikisłownik) are different from the ones used on English Wikipedia. As far as I could determine, the transcription on Wikisłownik were produced automatically using a computer program which uses the system used in a certain reference [Ostaszewska, Tambor - Fonetyka i fonologia współczesnego języka polskiego, PWN, 2000]; in turn, this reference (a short booklet written for university lectures and which doesn't contain any original research) is based (if I'm not mistaken) on Słownik wymowy polskiej. Red. M. Karaś, M. Madejowa, Warszawa 1977. Among other things, in this system, ALL vowels are marked as nasalised (with a tilde) when followed by [n], [m], [ŋ]. Also, all consonants are marked as palatalized (with the j superscript) when followed by [j] or by [i]. Because these differences between the transcriptions in English/Polish Wikipedia are systematic, the two transcription systems carry the same amount of information and therefore amount to different but functionally equivalent conventions. However, if you ask me, this Ostaszewska-Tambor system is stupidly complicated, at odds with the IPA transcriptions in any other language I know, confusing (the ã in zamek has little to do with French nasal ã in, e.g., ans) and is very unsuitable for transcriptions in a dictionary. It makes things complicated in a totally unnecessary manner, and if I didn't know it comes from a printed book I'd think it was created by a crackpot. This in just my opinion, of course, but I'm happy English wikipedia uses a more sensible system of transcription.
L0rents ( talk) 01:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Should there be a footnote about /ɦ/, which exists as a separate phoneme in some dialects? (I do not propose that we transcribe it, of course.) Double sharp ( talk) 14:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
My source (cited in the Polish phonology page, Swan 2002) says labial palatalized consonants are phonemes, not allophones, and it makes more sense as there are minimal pairs like pędź - pięć, zdrowe - zdrowie, bały - biały, mały - miały, and a near minimal pair szwie - szwed. So I suggest adding these to this page. JeanneAymonier ( talk) 05:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Is this done??
-- 213.76.134.90 ( talk) 22:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Copying what I originally posted in the general wiki help page:
I noticed that in both pages for Polish ortography and phonology, (and I just found out, also on this very page) 's' in its usual value is linked to voiceless dental fricative, which sounds weird to me, as that sound shouldn't be in Polish at all and I'd have expected it to be a Voiceless alveolar sibilant instead.
I checked in the code for the page and it seems that the links are automatically generated, so I didn't want to touch anything... Could someone with a bit more knowledge in the field tell me more, and correct either me or the link?
Thanks!-- Stefano thf ( talk) 14:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to hear two released [n]'s in [jɔˈanna] in the audio sample at Joanna Jędrzejczyk. Samples on Forvo indeed mostly pronounce it that way, as do samples at René Goscinny, Anna Fotyga, and Devana. But not the one at Skarżysko-Kamienna, which in fact has ⟨nː⟩ in the transcription. Is the presence or absence of a mid-release in [nn] mandatory in any context? What constraints (phonemic, allophonic, morphological, etc.) dictate whether it can occur? Does any other consonant exhibit a similar behavior? Nardog ( talk) 10:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Sol505000: Any clue? Nardog ( talk) 06:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
How is Polish “r” like American English “tt” in “better?” It’s more like the “rr” in Spanish “perro.” 100.14.50.53 ( talk) 01:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I know that the symbol for ɕ is derivative of "c" but the placement in the chart is confusing. Every other triple is placed together, I think it would be better placed between s and ʂ. To that end, I think the voiceless affricate triple should be t͡s, t͡ɕ, t͡ʂ. I don't know if the standard is to organize them by which latin character they're derived from but I think it would read a lot better organized that way. Krupaz ( talk) 17:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that we should remove the tie-bars and transcribe the affricates with simple ⟨dz dʑ dʐ ts tɕ tʂ⟩. Per Talk:Polish phonology#Affricates and stop–fricative clusters, we can differentiate them from the stop-fricative sequences as ⟨dz dʑ dʐ ts tɕ tʂ⟩ for the former and ⟨dʱz dʱʑ dʱʐ tʰs tʰɕ tʰʂ⟩ for the latter, both in Polish and in other languages with such contrasts. The syllable break obviously won't work here as both czysta [ˈtʂɨsta] and trzysta [ˈtʰʂɨsta] have two syllables and initial stress.
Or let's just use the length mark for the clusters: [ˈtʂːɨsta]. Sol505000 ( talk) 01:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)