Help talk:IPA/Polish/Archive 1

What do you think?

Brought over from the general Help:IPA page: links to sound files, as well as links to pages containing examples from other languages. You'll find even more sound files if you check the two links under "See also".Karath (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to get rid of the underlines. There's a simple fix, I just forget what it is. kwami (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow - what underlines? (I don't think I'm seeing them on my browser.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The class="IPA" is supposed to get rif of the underlines. I normally let my browser get rid of the underlines, but I after reset I double checked and the IPA class does it as well. So it's not clear what happens to you. −Woodstone (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored soundfile links

User Aeusoes1 did a major rework, because (I think) the presentation was awful. However, it was good before the {{audio-pipe}} was redirected to an incompatible {{audio-IPA}}. I have reverted to this better template and restored audio links. Before judging, please make sure to refresh your cache. −Woodstone (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what the problem was now. Thanks for fixing it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes

ç (i) h(i)[1] Similar to English h in huge... im polish and i didnt know that there is a diffrence between h and hi (and the same ch and chi). hi is just "h" + "i" nothing more. And the soundfile is wrong because it sounds like "si".

There is also no diffrence between "h" and "ch" in modern polish.

Soundfile for "y" sound a little bit like "u" ..."y" should sound slithly different way

Why every sound begins with "a"? In polish when saying alphabet we rather match vovels with "y" and "e"... it sounds a lilttle bit weird the way its now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The sound files used here aren't supposed to be for language-specific sounds, just the "default" meaning for each IPA character. This isn't problematic for most of the sounds except for "y" which is a bit lower and more front than cardinal [ɨ]. Recently an editor wanted to change the character to <ɘ> which would be a bit OR but I don't see a problem in linking to the soundfile for that. It would be nice, actually, if a native Polish speaker could pronounce these consonants.

The distinction between h and hi might be allophonic. Have you read Polish phonology? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this is supposed to be a page about Polish, I don't see any point in including sound files that are not by Polish speakers - they will only mislead.--Kotniski (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better. Until we do get a native speaker, this is the best we've got. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]}

Well, I'm saying we shouldn't use any sound files at all if these are the best we've got. I'll mention it at WT:WikiProject Poland to see if anyone can help.--Kotniski (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh its ok, let it be like it is :) Just corect or delete the soundfile for "chi" and "hi" becouse its really wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.115.9 (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like most of the sounds aren't objectionable. It's just chi/hi and y (according to the anon editor). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done Removed the objectionable items.--Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer about my position regarding h(i). It's present as a sound at Polish phonology and I believe that it is part of the complex code of {{IPA-pl}}. This would warrant its inclusion here(though, for now, without a sound file). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I've seen different viewpoints regarding these palatalized consonants. However I don't think [ç] is the right symbol for this one: as the original user says, it's really just [x] when it precedes [i], and before other vowels it's more like [x^j] (or simply [xj] would be accurate enough). At least, that's based on listening to the sound file for [ç]; maybe it's the recording that's wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true. I've seen Polish's palatalized velars transcribed as palatals, and it could be the same for ch(i). {{IPA-pl}} appears to actually transcribe it as [xʲ], so we want to either include that here or alter the syntax for IPA-pl. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to what {{IPA-pl}} does; that's just a mixture of two people's opinions (mine and I forget who it was who updated the code). I prefer to use {{IPAr|pl}} now, but that isn't intended to impose any particular notation, just make typing and editing the transcription easier.

As regards palatal consonants, I think we should adopt the simpler approach taken in the Polish phonology article, i.e. to write [bj], [pj], [mj], [vj] without superscript j's, and use the superscripts only for [k^j] and [g^j]. Since we normally want a broad phonetic notation rather than a phonemic one, these ^j's are probably not needed before [i]. Similarly for [x], we don't need to show the palatization before [i], only in rare words like hiena where the palatized form precedes a different vowel, and then I would use [x^j]. But if phoneticians say that [ç] is an accurate symbol for the palatized sound, then OK (I'm no expert), however in that case there is probably something wrong with the sound file we have for that symbol.--Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now altered the page to be based on the system I suggested above. I've also changed {{IPA-pl}} (or rather its subtemplate {{Plph2}}) to follow the same system. --Kotniski (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as you change {{IPA-pl}} to match, I think we're good. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sound file info

I hate the superscript "(i)"s generated by the audio-pipe template. They surely don't say to anyone "click here for atrtibution information about the sound file",; instead, they look like they're supposed to be part of the phonetic description, or at least footnotes. It would be far better to have all the attribution info listed elsewhere on the page, not mixed in with the text, if that would be legally acceptable. I'm not sure of the best place to bring this up, so I'm going to try first at Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License.--Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "(i)" is distracting and unnecessary clutter. I have removed the code generating it several times, but it was reverted every time with the vague claim of "legal reasons". I cannot see why the attribution would be needed at every single file. I have brought up that a one time attribution per article should be sufficient. The "legal boys" decline to go into this so far. −Woodstone (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the template {{audio-pipe}}, to show the attribution link in a less obtrusive place, just before the loudspeaker symbol. To align IPA symbols without soundfile, two more blanks (&nbsp;) must be inserted before them. I cannot solve that in the template. −Woodstone (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New sounds

Just for the record, I uploaded sound samples for ć, dź, cz and dż (Voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate, Voiced alveolo-palatal affricate, Voiceless retroflex affricate and Voiced retroflex affricate). //Halibutt 11:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Assimilation

In Jakub Wawrzyniak, is the assimilation [bv], or [pf]? kwami (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be [pf]? Both b and w are voiced so there's no assimilation going on. I think the hypothetical Jakup Wawrzyniak would be pronounced with [pv]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Jakup Wawrzyniak would have [bv] also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.126.100 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That ( [bv] ) was my assumption, but for all I know, assimilation is affected by word boundaries; assuming ordered rules for simplicity, C → [–voice]/_# could conceivably occur before /v/ → [–voice]/C[–voice]_. Things like that happen in other languages, and there is little detail in our phon-pl article. kwami (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Pole I clearly speak it as Jakub Wawrzy(ń)ak Definetely bv. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Why would it be [pf]? Both b and w are voiced so there's no assimilation going on." - Not true. Jakub is pronounced Jakup, because every word-final consonant is devoiced in Polish. Therefore, there certainly IS an assimilation going on. Jakup Wawrzyńak -> Jakub Wawrzyńak. --89.79.81.228 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not true again. Word-final consonants are devoiced only before a pausa, hence they're devoiced in isolation, but "potentially" they're voiced. If word-final consonants were inherently devoiced, then it would be /jakup fa.../, because, as the article states, "Voiceless obstruents are voiced (/x/ becoming [ɣ], etc.) in clusters ending in any voiced obstruent except /v, ʐ/, which are then themselves devoiced.". A fictional word like "pwa" (there is no word with this consonant cluster in Polish) would be pronounced /pfa/ (and e.g. "twarz" is pronounced /tfaʂ/). Also if you consider a name like Jakub Adam, it's pronounced /jakub͜adam/, not /jakup͜adam/, even though vowels don't cause voicing of consonants in Polish (except for certain dialects). I know words like Jakub are transcribed in dictionaries as /jakup/ because it's how they're pronounced in isolation, but phonemically they're /jakub/ and how they're actually pronounced depends on the environment. Compare German, where devoicing is lexicalised, therefore a word like "Freund" is always pronounced /fʁɔʏnt/, even in environment where it shouldn't be, like "freundlich" /fʁɔʏntlɪç/. In Slavic languages, devoicing is purely phonological. So I'd say it's rather /jakub/ + /vavʐɨɲak/ →no assmilation→ [jakub͜vavʐɨɲak], not /jakup/ + /vavʐɨɲak/ →voicing of /p/→ [jakub͜vavʐɨɲak]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ɬaɬ (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ɬaɬ: So according to you, sprzedasz is phonemically different from sprzedaż? This looks like mistaking orthography for pronunciation.

If word-final consonants were inherently devoiced, then it would be /jakup fa.../, because, as the article states, "Voiceless obstruents are voiced (/x/ becoming [ɣ], etc.) in clusters ending in any voiced obstruent except /v, ʐ/, which are then themselves devoiced.". The problem is that the latter rule applies only within the same word.

A fictional word like "pwa" (there is no word with this consonant cluster in Polish) would be pronounced /pfa/ (and e.g. "twarz" is pronounced /tfaʂ/). No, it depends on the speaker. Speakers from e.g. Poznań keep the /v/ voiced, and it's equally standard to do so. And why do you consider "twarz" to be phonemically /tfaʂ/ and not /tvaʐ/ or /tfaʐ/? You're contradicting yourself. Same thing applies to "pwa" - why /pfa/, not /pva/?

Also if you consider a name like Jakub Adam, it's pronounced /jakub͜adam/, not /jakup͜adam/, even though vowels don't cause voicing of consonants in Polish (except for certain dialects). This is actually evidence to the contrary. According to all of the books I've read, word-final obstruents in Polish may or may not be voiced when immediately before vowels, depending on the dialect. Both variants are acceptable in Polish. You're not trying to say that some speakers may contrast sprzedasz im (as in "sprzedasz im to?") and sprzedaż im (as in "sprzedaż im idzie bardzo dobrze")? That may happen, but only in ultra-pedantic (so, by definition, non-standard) speech. In standard Polish, both are [ˈspʂɛdaʂ‿im] or [ˈspʂɛdaʐ‿im], again depending on the speaker.

Compare German, where devoicing is lexicalised, therefore a word like "Freund" is always pronounced /fʁɔʏnt/ This is arguably more incorrect than transcribing Polish Jakub as /ˈjakup/, as such a transcription is valid only in case of Northern Standard German, which is only one out of three equally valid national standards. In Switzerland and Austria, this word ends with a lenis [d̥], and therefore a correct pan-dialectal transcription is /fʁɔʏnd/ (or /frɔʏnd/, the symbol for <r> doesn't matter). Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible merge

There is an orphaned Polish pronunciation guide article that might be mergeable here. kwami (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes

Who the hell did those pronunciation sound files! It doesn't sound like Polish... Im native speaker of Polish and it sounds more like... sorry for that comparison... but like high Bob Marley... Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Feist?

seems odd to use a word that few English speakers are likely to have encountered before. i've got a reasonably large vocabulary but until i checked it out (and discovered that it's a type of small hunting dog) i assumed the word was a misprint for "feisty" (although that's almost as unusual a word)

wouldn't something simple like "fire" have been more appropriate?

(i'm not going to change things, as i don't speak Polish, and i guess there may have been some arcane reason for using "Feist") HieronymousCrowley (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why feist is better than fire. Go ahead and change it if you'd like. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Polish ń

Can it be transcribed like this: e.g. Biliński [biˈliĩ̯ski]? And can [u̯] be used instead of [w]? ((unsigned|79.101.243.17}}

Yes and yes. --89.79.81.228 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The nasal vowel, according to Polish phonology, is accurate but we don't have anything that explains it here. We should either explain it here or cease transcribing it as such. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ł

why is there no mention of Ł ? (this is pronounced like w in English). It seems to be a major omission! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.252.139 (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be a major omission if it were true. It's sixth from the bottom. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Mouseover tooltips for IPA template

I know that the status of IPA for Polish is pretty much fluid, there's no "official IPA for Polish" key and it's not even taught at the faculties of Polish studies at universities in Poland. Nevertheless, the {{IPAc-pl}} is a great help for foreigners, and especially so in an encyclopaedia such as ours. I recently noticed that the template used for English pronunciation, {{IPAc-en}}, has nice tooltips with an approximation for those of us less fluent in IPA. When you hover your mouse over a particular sign, you see an explanation of how it should sound. Just try this to know what I mean:

• /ˌæləˈbæmə/ ^ⓘ ({{IPAc-en|audio=en-us-Alabama.ogg|ˌ|æ|l|ə|ˈ|b|æ|m|ə}})

I thought it would be nice to have such tooltips for the Polish template as well. Sure, not all sounds of the Polish language have their counterparts in English, but I believe it would still be better to inform someone not fluent in Polish or IPA that, say, Polish /k/ is "'k' in 'key'", than to offer him only a link to the article on Polish phonology. As a starter I created {{H:IPAc-pl}} as a version of {{H:IPA}} with info from Help:IPA for Polish. I also asked Kwamikagami for help and he offered his help in coding it, but suggested I asked for support first. Any thoughts on my idea? //Halibutt 07:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a nice idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Other mistake? ɨ vs ɘ

Why is the sound written ɨ (close central unrounded vowel) bound to page ɘ (close mid central unrounded vowel) and not to page ɨ. An expert around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo Herbelin (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Polish vowel is actually somewhere between the two. It's a somewhat fronted close-mid central unrounded vowel. It's explained in Polish phonology but it could use a footnote here. -- RVJ (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconded regarding the footnote—I found this rather confusing.—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)