Template talk:IPAc-en

For the discussion of the choice of symbols and the organization of diaphonemes, see Help:IPA/English and its talk page.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Some tooltips could be improved

Some thoughts I had:

/ɡ/: 'g' in 'guy' -> 'g' in 'guy'

• It's unnecessary and inconsistent to show both the IPA and the letter when these are identical (the current pattern is <'b' in 'buy'> but </j/: 'y' in 'yes'>).

'spheroidal' -> 'hero', 'coir' -> 'employer'

• 'spheroidal' and 'coir' are quite rare words. I'd suggest replacing them with more common ones like 'hero' (or 'zero', 'period', 'cereal', 'material' etc.) and 'employer' (or 'destroyer', 'voyeur' etc.)

/ʔ/: the catch in 'uh-oh' -> /ʔ/: '-' in 'uh-oh'

• "catch" might not be familiar in this sense to those learning English, and "-" is more consistent with the rest of the tooltip system.

/ɜː/: r-less 'ur' in 'nurse' -> [removed]

• /ɜː/: r-less 'ur' in 'nurse' really shouldn't exist because the diaphoneme system works on the principle that rhoticity is defined, but can be ignored. 'fur' already does the job so there's no need for an "r-less 'ur'". There are no vowels in the NURSE lexical set that don't have <r> in (at least, to my knowledge).

/ʊər/: 'our' in 'tour' -> /ʊər/: 'our' in 'cure'

• 'tour' isn't the best choice for /ʊər/, because 'tour' is normally one of the words which is changed in accents which only partially have the pour-poor merger. 'cure' is a better choice because it tends to be conserved where CURE is a present but declining set.

For some reason /juː/ and /jʊər/ are buried at the bottom of the table in the doc. They should probably be moved up (at least above the punctuation, but I'd suggest near "goose" and "tour [sic]" ). ^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I suspect /ɡ/ was left in because it's written with a different character (U+0261) than 'g' (U+0067) and may display differently depending on your fonts. Though, it's questionable if there's any value in using U+0261 instead of U+0067 in the first place. 'Spheroidal' is used for the input codes where the /r/ begins a stressed syllable, which wouldn't be used in transcription of 'hero' or any other words you suggested. No idea if there's any allophonic variation worth preserving, but that's why it is that. The /ɜː/ is a marginal phoneme that, just like /ʔ/ or /x/, doesn't exist in normal words. Sometimes given a separate symbol /œ/, sometimes pronounced with an intrusive /r/. Consider the proper name /ˈɡɜːtə/ 'Goethe'. See also the previous discussions of ɔɪər and ɜː. The codes juː and jʊər are at the bottom because they exist for compatibility only and you shouldn't use them. (Yes, I agree, it could be more explicit than that.) – MwGamera (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

What MwGamera said, except Goethe should be transcribed with /ɜːr/ since it is pronounced with the NURSE vowel in rhotic accents too (hence Möbius in the key).

/ɔɪər/ represents the rare situation in which a word has /ɔɪə/ in RP and /ɔɪr/ in GA, so employer wouldn't do (and voyeur is /vwɑːˈjɜːr, vɔɪˈɜːr/).

cure is a terrible example because lots of people will interpret it as /jʊər/ rather than /ʊər/. Tour being "one of the words which is changed in accents which only partially have the pour-poor merger" is a good thing because that's what the diaphoneme /ʊər/ represents ("/ʊər/ or /ɔːr/"). And /ʊər/ being more likely to be unmerged after /Cj/ than elsewhere isn't even true globally; in Singapore it's the opposite. Nardog (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

In my defense, dictionaries say Goethe can also be pronounced with a non-rhotic vowel even by rhotic speakers. CEPD17 says exactly what I wrote (except that I skipped the syllable division) and implies the American pronunciation is the same by not respelling it with /ɝ:/ like it does for Goering. After reviewing H:IPA/EN, I'm not sure anymore how to interpret M-W and AHD's \œ\. It might not be a single phoneme, but I'd expect this to mean something else than the actual NURSE, esp. when M-W lists the pronunciation with \ər\ separately here. – MwGamera (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

As explained in the note, /ɜː/ can only be used for non-rhotic accents (so of course American dictionaries' ⟨œ⟩ doesn't mean NURSE), and we have no way of converting a transcription with ⟨œ⟩ in those dictionaries to our diaphonemic system. Some dictionaries include non-English pronunciations using their symbols for English supplemented with ⟨œ⟩ etc. (without distinguishing them from pronunciations English speakers actually use). Editors have found it best not to include those, to err on the descriptive side and since we have keys for other languages. Nardog (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I have amended my proposals accordingly:

/ʔ/: the catch in 'uh-oh' -> /ʔ/: '-' in 'uh-oh'

• "catch" might not be familiar in this sense to those learning English, and "-" is more consistent with the rest of the tooltip system.

/ɜː/: r-less 'ur' in 'nurse' -> /ɜː/: r-less 'ur' 'oe' in 'Goethe'

• "nurse" clearly isn't an example of the marginal phoneme we're talking about.
• If we say that this is a marginal phoneme then it must necessarily be found in some rhotic accents, otherwise it would simply be part of NURSE.

^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

/ɜː/ doesn't have a single counterpart in rhotic accents. In möbius it's /ɛ/ or /oʊ/, in föhn it's /eɪ/, in pho it's /ʌ/, and so on. So it cannot be illustrated with a word that actually would be transcribed with /ɜː/. Nardog (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If I've understood correctly, there does exist an extra phoneme in some rhotic accents (1 2), but it also has lots of other inconsistent pronunciations. We want to indicate this phoneme, so we use the analogy of 'nurse' without the 'r'.

With that said, I still think that the current wording is needlessly confusing because it can easily be read (and I did) as 'the 'ur' in nurse that we all know has no r in'.

/ɜː/: r-less 'ur' in 'nurse' -> /ɜː/: like 'ur' in 'nurse' without the 'r' sound

It doesn't seem like anyone has any problems with the "catch" proposal, but I would of course welcome thoughts there too if anyone has any.

I'm grateful for you for explaining why most of my original proposals would not have improved the article, but hopefully we can get some value out of this discussion nevertheless. ^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

/ɜː/ is not "'ur' without the 'r'". That would be /ʌ/.

/ʔ/ is vanishingly rare, so it's kind of neither here nor there, but the glottal stop is often considered obligatory at the beginning of "uh-oh", not just before "oh", so I find the current wording better. Nardog (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

/ɜː/: r-less 'ur' in 'nurse' -> /ɜː/: like /ɜːr/ 'ur' in 'nurse' without the 'r' sound

• I meant specifically the /ɜːr/ 'ur' in 'nurse'. A description of removing the 'r' from that 'ur' indicates /ɜː/ for nearly all speakers (rhotic or not, as non-rhotic speakers don't have an 'r' to remove), which is what we want. You're right to suggest that spelling alone is a bad indicator, so let's also include the 'nurse' IPA so there's no ambiguity (on top of the fact that we're not using language that suggests the 'ur' in 'nurse' is 'r-less', as currently).
• Scottish English speakers who have /ʌr/ for FUR will interpret both of these descriptions as /ʌ/ so don't factor into this discussion, but at least by detailing the IPA carefully we give them more of a hint that the sound described has the quality of merged NURSE, rather than their unmerged FUR. If we want a truly universal description, then maybe something like "like /əː/, a longer version of the 'a' in 'about'" is preferable.

/ʔ/: the catch in 'uh-oh' -> /ʔ/: '-' in 'uh-oh'

• I'd say the fact that 'uh-oh' uses two glottal stops is slightly irrelevant because we only need one for people unfamiliar with IPA to make the connection. If we used the word 'considerable' to indicate schwa, we could detail both 'o' and 'e', but only indicating one is necessary. In the same way, we only need to indicate one of the glottal stops, and since only one is actually indicated in spelling ('-', the other being unwritten) it makes sense to use that one alone, rather than introduce language that the reader may not be familiar with. This template is ultimately meant to provide a quick aide to parsing IPA for those who can't read it, so we should tend towards practicality rather than linguistic satisfaction. Indicating both glottal stops is unnecessary and more confusing that it needs to be. Using a section of the spelling provided ('-') is simpler and better.

^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You've persuaded me about the glottal stop. But it doesn't strike me as worthwhile to try to evoke /ɜː/ for rhotic speakers. For them, /ɜː/ doesn't exist without /r/. So it makes little sense to say /ɜː/ without the /r/, especially for those whose NURSE is [ɚ], like most North Americans, for whom clipped NURSE is still [ɚ]. They're also likely to have some familiarity with what NURSE sounds like in RP-like accents, and "r-less" (which predates "non-rhotic") serves as a tidy, less technical shorthand for it. Nardog (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You make a good point, but I still think that "r-less" is potentially confusing because it doesn't actually imply that an RP-like accent is being indicated ("[ɚ] without the 'r'" is still the natural reading for most North American speakers). I think that the best solution would be to somehow specify the accent that's being evoked by writing something like "/ɜː/: r-less 'ur' in RP 'nurse'". This is of course not perfect as RP itself may not be a comprehensible term, but it will still give an indication even for those who don't understand it that it refers to some specific accent. If we're willing to be slightly vague with the description, I think that something like "prestige England English" would refer to RP for most lay-people without requiring them to look up any new terminology, and thereby unambiguously indicate the 'right' pronunciation (though it is a bit clunky). I'm undecided on this really, but surely giving an indication of the accent is better than not at all? Even writing "r-less 'ur' in non-rhotic 'nurse'" would be an improvement. ^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I would wager that "r-less" is a more recognizable term than "non-rhotic" or "RP", especially for rhotic speakers. "Rhotic" is a recent coinage arising from the fact "r-ful" sounds like awful in non-rhotic accents, which means it didn't need replacing for rhotic speakers. Nardog (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree: let's keep /ɜː/ as is. Thanks for entertaining my suggestions anyhow.

Do you think you'd be able to make the edit to /ʔ/ in the source and the doc (I'm not a template editor)? Thanks again! ^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

If I've understood correctly, there does exist an extra phoneme in some rhotic accents

I'm not sure that the approximation of [ø] counts as a phoneme since it's only used in a few loanwords. I think there's a technical term for that – maybe "loan pronunciation"?

You two are both non-rhotic, right? I wanted to chime in as a rhotic speaker (Canadian). FWIW, I pronounce Goethe as ['gø̞̈.tə], "mobius" as /ˈmoʊbiəs/, Goering as /ˈɡərɪŋ/, and pho as /fʌ/ or /foʊ/. I've never heard of foehn before. — W.andrea (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

As Help:IPA/English explains, it's a marginal segment. Nardog (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! So why isn't it worth listing there? I've read through the above and I didn't see anything specific. Is it just too marginal (i.e. rare)? — W.andrea (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

As a U.S. American, I perfectly align with your pronunciations of Goethe (though also often /ˈɡɜːrtə/ [ˈgəɹtə]), Mobius, Goering, pho, plus not knowing foehn. But what's the "it" you're wanting to list? Wolfdog (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Right, I was unclear. I meant the equivalent of /ɜː/ in rhotic accents, which for me and in those clips is around [ø ~ œ ~ ə:]. — W.andrea (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It's so variable from word to word that it presumably has not been considered worth it so far. Articles on specific topics can have their specific pronunciations, like we current see at Pho. Wolfdog (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Dictionaries of English include transcriptions that are not widely attested in speakers of the language but are meant to provide guidance for how the term is pronounced in the source language. Like ones with ⟨œ⟩. We don't include them because we have IPA keys for other languages (see Help talk:IPA/English/Archive 25#General American pronunciations of loanwords for instance).

Also ⫽ɜː⫽ represents a situation in which it is /ɜː/ in RP/non-rhotic and some other vowel in GA/rhotic. Nardog (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

[bug] /aɪə/ becomes /aɪər/ when describing "client, diet, science, sliest" in "English orthography"

"English orthography" uses {{IPAc-en|aɪə}} to describe the /aɪə/ sound in "client, diet, science, sliest", but it becomes /aɪər/ after rendering: /aɪər/. Jhcarl0814 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You should change them to /aɪə/ ({{IPAc-en|aɪ|ə}}). The phonemes are separate and are part of two different syllables. Indefatigable (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I've changed it as you suggested. Jhcarl0814 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

labeling for similar templates

Can someone extend support for the special first value to {{IPAc-hu}} to allow for the template to implement labels? I just noticed it to be missing, and someone asked about it at Template talk:IPAc-hu#default introductory phrase is needed fifteen years ago. --Joy (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Error message links to Help:IPA/English, but that doesn't help for all errors

If I input a label that doesn't exist, like say "uk also" instead of "ukalso", I get an error: //. The problem is it links to Help:IPA/English, which doesn't mention the pronunciation label codes.

The same problem exists for unrecognized aliases, like say "th" instead of "T" /θ/ (by analogy with "sh" for "S" /ʃ/): //. Help:IPA/English doesn't cover aliases.

The error should instead link to Template:IPAc-en/doc § Pronunciation and IPA link codes, unless there's some reason I'm missing.

Thanks — W.andrea (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Tooltips table footnotes

1. The secondary-stress /ɪəˌr/, /ɛəˌr/, and /ʊəˌr/ tooltips use the same examples as the primary-stress (spheroidal, thereof, plurality). Obviously, these are, strictly speaking, incorrect. Was this done advisedly?
   • If so, then the justification should be stated in a footnote to the table; along the lines of "although these are, strictly speaking, incorrect, they are close enough for the purposes of a tooltip where the fine detail need not trouble the reader".
   • If not, then they need to be replaced. "ear as in two-year-old", "aer as in aerobicization", "ur as in bureaucratization" are the best I could come up with.

   Incidentally, I suggest hereafter and aerobic are less obscure examples than spheroidal and thereof for /ɪəˈr/ and /ɛəˈr/

2. As stated above (Yes, I agree, it could be more explicit than that), the table needs a footnote that /juː/ and /jʊər/ are deprecated and only kept for compatibility.

jnestorius^(talk) 11:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

See Pronunciation of English /r/ ~ oklopfer (💬) 11:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

OK... read it... not helpful. Anybody else? jnestorius^(talk) 11:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

If it was not clear, my comment was made as an editor reading Template:IPAc-en/doc, not as a reader reading Help:IPA/English, which has its own Talk: page. jnestorius^(talk) 11:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

My point in sharing that article was that there is such a variety of realizations of /r/ in English that really the only thing they share in common is typically being considered rhotic (though [ʋ] somewhat challenges this still). Phonologists typically use /r/ as the catch-all/blanket symbol. (dia)phonemes don't actually need to perfectly align with their phonetic values, since they are psychological rather than physical. One could use /c/ instead of /tʃ/ for [tʃ] (as many in fact do) and it would not be considered incorrect.

(My objection to non-rhotic /ɜː/ in foreign words being singled out as its own diaphoneme as mentioned below is similar to this; it is aiming for a value far too narrow for its wider distribution and in a scope that ignores how that same overarching sound occurs cross-dialectically; I feel we should instead be using the broader symbol which captures all dialects, even if most do not realize /œ/ as [œ]. It is better to use a blanket symbol which suggests a broader category with many possible realizations. But that's enough of me bringing that dispute across talk pages, better to be had over there. Just trying to make a comparison to /r/ here.) ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that specifically relates to q1 (or q2) above? If you have a more general point about rhotic transcriptions then I think it belongs maybe at Help talk:IPA, or if on this page then not in this section. jnestorius^(talk) 15:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jnestorius I apologize; I think I completely misread your original question or was otherwise seeing things fueled by not enough sleep, and then just kept running with it. I could have sworn you were asking why /r/ is used in this template. I'm going to strike my replies as irrelevant. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

A third item in my list: "/ɜː/: r-less 'ur' in 'nurse'" should have a note that it is only relevant to non-rhotic accents, and a different transcription needs to be provided for rhotic accents—linking to the relevant Help:IPA footnote and an example such as at Möbius strip. Possibly other rows should likewise cross-reference the Help:IPA page. jnestorius^(talk) 12:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion going on at Help talk:IPA/English#⟨œ⟩ in American dictionaries and correspondence in English accents that I opened about exactly this actually. I find its inclusion quite problematic to begin with. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Could we add a break option?

Occasionally we want a long transcription in a table or infobox with limited width. Currently in infoboxes it just goes off the right edge of the page. Could we have a break option, maybe BR instead of an underscore between words? (And presumably ,BR for ,_) — kwami (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Technical Request: Allow standalone "ɑ" as a valid diaphoneme input

It appears that short ɑ is presently blocked from appearing before a nasal, yet the sequence exists in U.S. English. Can this be repaired/enabled? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no short /ɑ/ in this diaphoneme scheme, so it's not totally clear what you mean. Could you give an example of something that's not currently possible that you want to do? — W.andrea (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You state the problem well: no short /ɑ/ in the diaphoneme scheme. It's not currently possible to report the /ɑ/ of the stressed syllable of the pronunciation of chimichanga, for example, in the diaphonemic representation. It's presently reported as /æ/ in the Chimichanga article, which is false phonemically and allophonically, misrepresenting the U.S. pronunciation (as would also reporting vowel length as in /ɑː/ at any level). (I haven't tried to correct the second vowel of chimichanga, presently given as /ɪ/ rather than the normal short /i/; a less infelicitous representation, as [ɪ] can appear in fast speech.). I'm perfectly willing to use standard phonemics to read /ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə/ in the Chimichanga article, but I fear that could ignite an unpleasant session of bickering. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added this pronunciation to the relevant page. Wolfdog (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort, seriously. But it still shows the stressed vowel as long, not /ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə/. It's probably good to mark that, once it's achieved, as US, or perhaps North American English (i.e. including Canada), but where is the version with /æ/ normal? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

We use a diaphonemic system on WP to broadly incorporate both American and British English, as much as phonemic overlap is possible. So, readers are meant to read "/ɑː/" as: /ɑː/ in (southern) British English and /ɑ/ in American English. This is also explained at WP:RHOTIC. I'm not aware of where /æ/ is the normal pronunciation. It sounds British to me, but also probably various people in the US use it too (see the chart here). Wolfdog (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, OK. There's a few things to unpack here:

1. This isn't a technical request; you seem to be asking to change the diaphoneme scheme.
2. You don't understand how diaphonemes work (sorry to be blunt - I can see how it's confusing). Wolfdog explained above. It does seem kind of backwards to transcribe a US pronunciation using vowel length, which only applies to a UK pronunciation, but that's just how the system works, because it "would be" long in British English.

3. where is the version with /æ/ normal?

   Have you checked sources? OED shows the pronunciation with /æ/ as British. I added a citation to the article.
4. "blocked from appearing before a nasal" is a red herring: if it doesn't exist, then it can't be "blocked".

BTW I'm Canadian and I pronounce it the same way: /ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə/

— W.andrea (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The lack of the length mark does not equal a phonetically short vowel, not even in a phonetic transcription enclosed in brackets (and this is a diaphonemic transcription, two levels of abstraction above that). A few people here seem to be confused about that. /ɑ/ is often rather long in North America, ditto for /æ/. Sol505000 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sol505000 Sorry, what does the phonetic value have to do with this discussion? North American English doesn't distinguish vowels by length. — W.andrea (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but we shouldn't be mixing up phones with phonemes. /ɑː/ just means "whatever the vowel in "spa" is" in our transcriptions. It does seem kind of backwards to transcribe a US pronunciation using vowel length, which only applies to a UK pronunciation, but that's just how the system works, because it "would be" long in British English. tells me you're also confused about this. The lack of phonemic vowel length in a language/dialect doesn't mean that the vowels are phonetically short. The short [ɑ] is definitely not the most common realization in North America, it appears mostly when the vowel is clipped by the following fortes or unstressed syllables (as in chimichanga /-ɡə/, but it's still not "perfectly short" as in Spanish), or just fast speech tempo (which clips everything). Sol505000 (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I never said "phonetically short". — W.andrea (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

First, Wolfdog. Again, thanks. Yes, the glitch lies within the diaphonemic system when its strict application misrepresents or complicates (depending on point of view) what should be as straightforward as possible for a wide readership. Standard phonology of phonemes and (allo)phones is already challenging enough, without introducing the need to guess or somehow discover that /ɑː/ corresponds to /ɑ/ in the U.S.

W.andrea, "This isn't a technical request; you seem to be asking to change the diaphoneme scheme." Technical request to "fix what's broke". I do understand to how diaphonemes work, and I can understand the attraction when they do work. But what does "work" mean -- elucidate, clarify? If so, when they don't work, as apparently in this case in which the genuine native-speaker short vowel cannot be displayed for readers, i.e. the representation obscures rather than clarifies, an adjustment seems to be in order. I appreciate the Pythonesque humor of '"blocked from appearing before a nasal" is a red herring: if it doesn't exist, then it can't be "blocked"', but it's no help to the real-world quandary that it describes.

If it's a mortal sin to adjust the diaphonemic scheme to allow the short vowel where it exists, perhaps a venial sin can be pardoned.

UK pronunciation is now specified, and it's apparently accurate whether construed as phonemic (as the convention / / likely suggests to readers with Intro to Linguistics under their belt), or diaphonemic (which fewer readers will understand) -- welcome coincidence. That leaves a diaphonemic form for what is now the first transcription much less necessary (if necessary at all). Very simple: mark what is now the first transcription as US, and replace what's there with straightforward phonemic /ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə/. Voilà. The vowel that very much does exist in your and my and millions of others' /ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə/ is there, all readers know which is US and which is UK, and non-expert readers with a bit of IPA are informed clearly and accurately, without having to grapple with the long vowel that describes neither the US /ɑ/ nor the UK /æ/. In the words of Google's AI, "Wikipedia editors now use the generic template for custom or narrow strings that do not fit the strict IPAc-en diaphoneme rules." Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

/ɑ/ does not mean "not phonetically long" (just as /ɑː/ doesn't necessarily mean "not phonetically short". Also, our /i/ doesn't mean "always/typically short" but "KIT or FLEECE", so that's another argument against your proposal. Millions of Brits say [ˈhæpɪi], ditto for South African/Welsh [ˈhæpiː]) and the vowel is clearly long(-ish) most of the time in the US and Canada. It's the outcome of the father-bother merger. The vowel (/æ/ in this case) is also clipped in British English due to the following unstressed syllable (called "rhythmic clipping" by John C. Wells, who gives the triplet man [mæːn] vs. manage [ˈmæˑnɪdʒ] vs. management [ˈmænɪdʒmənt] as an example of the TRAP vowel that gets progressively shorter). Maybe not as much as in the US, but still. Also, English bans /ɑː/ from ever occuring before /ŋ/ in native words, so there isn't really anything to compare that word to. It is not a different phoneme to the one in spa, let alone a different diaphoneme. You're introducing a lot of confusion here by mixing up phonetic vowel length with the application of the length mark in (dia)phonemic transcription. I also find it rather dubious that the length of /ɑ/ in "Chimichanga" matches that of /a/ in the Spanish pronunciation of the word. It's almost certainly somewhat longer. Sol505000 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The point is clarity for readers. This wins the prize for illustrating lack of clarity, though it might be comforting to non-native speakers struggling to get their /i/s and /ɪ/s right: "our /i/ doesn't mean "always/typically short" but "KIT or FLEECE". For the item in question, chimichanga, we have "English bans /ɑː/ from ever occuring before /ŋ/ in native words", yet we have a transcription system that demands representing /ɑː/ occuring before /ŋ/. Clarity for readers? The point of creating an encyclopedia of use to any and all readers in the first place? This would come much nearer that goal than the present version: "Wikipedia editors now use the generic template for custom or narrow strings that do not fit the strict IPAc-en diaphoneme rules." Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Is chimichanga a native word? Exactly. Sol505000 (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Nativized, yes, especially in the Southwest, but elsewhere as well. True enough that you'll find hordes of certified gringos ordering [tʃimiˈtʃaŋɡa]s in the U.S., again in the Southwest especially, where Borderland Asymmetric Anglo-Bilinguals are thick on the ground. But you'll also find many anglos ordering the nativized [ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə] in the same restaurants, perhaps at the same tables. Depending on the company, even the same folks who sometimes order a [tʃimiˈtʃaŋɡa]. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

In the words of Google's AI, "Wikipedia editors now use the generic template for custom or narrow strings that do not fit the strict IPAc-en diaphoneme rules."

I'm not sure how that adds to your point, but it is correct: you can use the generic template {{IPA}}, e.g.

{{IPA|/ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə/}} → /ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə/ (which is tagged correctly as IPA in the HTML)

However, that level of precision isn't required here, plus it doesn't link the key for more info (Help:IPA/English) and doesn't include the hover text 'a' as in 'father'.

It's important to remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so for articles that aren't about linguistics, pronunciations are given mainly for convenience (at least as I see it). The source (OED) has a more precise transcription, without the short marker.

But what does "work" mean -- elucidate, clarify?

I mean that they're abstract. A phonemic system basically applies to only one variety, so it can be precise, but a diaphonemic system specifically applies to multiple varieties, so it has to make compromises, and that's what's happening here.

Lastly:

Technical request to "fix what's broke".

I interpreted "technical request" as "change a minor detail" but you're asking to overhaul the transcription system for this diaphoneme.

— W.andrea (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to mention, another option for the generic template is:

{{IPA|en-US|generic=yes|link=yes|ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə}} → US: [ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə]

— W.andrea (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for putting all this together. I've just been called away, but I'll see what I can do with the chimichanga article asap. Here's hoping a straightforward phonemic rendition of the US version isn't shot down immediately for not being diaphonemic. Cheers, and thanks again. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm saying don't do that, even though it's possible. — W.andrea (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

So just leave it with no guide to the US pronunciation. Good grief. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It already has the US pronunciation, just in diaphonemic form. — W.andrea (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly...the vowel length marker of which misleads the reader who might know some basic phonology but hasn't delved into or even heard of diaphonemics (and with the / / phonemic convention present, said reader has no way to suspect what's up other than basic structural phonemics). Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It's only going to confuse ESL readers, because native speakers should recognize it as the spa vowel and pronounce it however they normally do. And even then, lengthening isn't even phonetically wrong, as Sol explained. Yes it's phonemically wrong, but hopefully Ling 101-level folks should know that you need to understand the phoneme scheme to understand any particular symbol, and that's what the link and hovertext are for. Suffice to say, yes it's not perfect, but it's as good as we can do while still being consistent. — W.andrea (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Not to fuel any fires, but I think we're speaking to a larger recurring issue which is: "what is the lesser [least] of several evils"? IPA will confuse plenty of people. Within that: a phonemic system will confuse plenty of people. A diaphonemic system will confuse plenty of people. The respell system will confuse plenty of people. Etc. This issue comes up again and again. For every conceivable transcription system, editors have expressed (sometimes righteous) bafflement and will only continue to do so. (I wonder how many times I've battled with Brits about our diaphonemic /ər/, with them wondering how a Brit *should just assume* to interpret that as nonrhotic /ə/. Their annoyance is not unfounded.) However, whatever systems we have now are based on a general community consensus, I suppose (which however can always change). Not sure what more there is to decide here. (And as W.andrea says, if one insists on workarounds, they do exist.) Thanks all, anyway, for keeping it collegial. Wolfdog (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that ⟨ɑː⟩ is far more commonly used in reputable sources for pronunciation that use the IPA (LPD, CEPD, you name it) than ⟨ɑ⟩. Both mean the same phoneme and that's what we should focus on. Phonetic vowel length is strongly influenced by what follows the vowel in both the US and the UK. Here, the difference is clearly phonemic, but not in the way described by the OP. In the US, the word in question uses the SPA vowel in the stressed syllable, whereas in the UK it has the TRAP vowel, presumably due to the lack of pre-nasal ae tensing. It's a common and predictable pattern described as early as 1990 by Dr Geoff Lindsey. ⟨ɑ⟩ for the diaphoneme has the massive disadvantage of looking almost like ⟨ɒ⟩, and almost no modern source uses it for IPA transcriptions of British English. I think disposing of the length mark is out of question here. Sol505000 (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That's absolutely tangential, but I don't think nasalisation is decisive here. That's how the foreign or Italian A gets redistributed in other words too, e.g. mafia, pasta, taco. – MwGamera (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I know, but it does play a role. [ɛə] or [eɪ] (before /ŋ/) sounds nothing like [a] or [ɑ]. The only connection between these is the letter used to write them in orthography. In the UK, there's no parallel problem as the first two diphthongs would be interpreted as SQUARE and FACE, respectively, rather than /æ/-the-phoneme. Sol505000 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Wolfdog, you're a scholar and a gentleman, and you speak much sooth. I'm trying to do just one thing: keep (inevitably complex) matters as clear and straightforward as possible, i.e. add no unnecessary complexity. (You're right that W.andrea says that if one insists on workarounds, they do exist. Note that he also says don't do it, exactly what I suspected would happen if I did edit the chimichanga article to give the genuine U.S. English phonemic structure.) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think I finally know what the OP means. The primarily stressed vowel in chimichanga can sometimes get shortened if the speaker aims at a pronunciation that's closer to Spanish. I heard more or less the same thing done to the name "Jan", pronounced [jɑn] when the speaker repeated the name after the person, and after that just said [jɑːn], with the expected long vowel. I wonder if we can get WP:RS's to describe this at General American and/or English phonology, because it's definitely interesting. The question is: does anybody keep those unusually short vowels consistently? I think we'd need a WP:RS for that, because it seems to me that this is just a mixed English-Spanish pronunciation. You can get all sorts of mixing with L2 speakers of English whose native language is Spanish, for example. Sol505000 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't swear to this under oath, but I'm reasonably certain that my AmE version of chimichanga has no lengthening of the stressed vowel. It can have length, it seems, if it's hyperstressed, "No, no. I want a CHIMICHANGA, not a plate of tacos!", but that can also have short vowel. And that can be true of "Tom" (short) vs. "That's not Bill! That's his twin brother TOM!" (can be long or short), etc. Ditto with the /i/ of more firmly nativized pizza, it seems; it can be lengthened, but [i] sounds more normal to me. Again, no oath, but even though I never bet on anything, I'd be tempted to wager a nice sum that the short vowel is the norm in these, and that it can "get lengthened" occasionally ("Let's get a p[i]zza." A P[i:]ZZA? We had p[i]zza just yesterday"). An interesting case is that of monolingual AmE speakers trying to emulate an Italian's string of stressed vowel before a geminate consonant. The Italian native speaker's stressed vowel is invariably short in the closed syllable. Something of interest (exotically foreign?) is apparently heard (and misperceived) by the anglophone, with results such as the infamous ['a:ni] rather than ['anni] in giving age: ho trent' ['a:ni] 'I have thirty anuses' rather than ['anni] 'years'. -- But none of this great fun dissolves the problem of the poor /ˌtʃɪmiˈtʃɑŋɡə/ in Wikipedia, alas. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

1. On the surface level, the issue being described here, as W.andrea, Wolfdog, and Sol505000 have all mentioned, is with the interpretation of diaphonemes. From a diaphonemic standpoint, the length mark in /ɑː/ is just a symbol, not a definition of the realized length of the sound by all speakers. Even within phonemic transcription, that is somewhat the case.
2. On a lower level, it ought to be recognized that this template has specific parameters to suggest interpreting from a phonemic position, not a diaphonemic one; or at least, from a highly abstracted position, to a less abstracted one. As soon as a regional parameter is applied, such as in {{IPAc-en|US}}, we are no longer suggesting the same diaphonemic scheme as without a parameter. I think that there is a point to be argued that adding a regional parameter is still using a diaphonemic scheme, but a regionalized one rather than a universal one. Accordingly, then, we have several levels of abstraction here: English diaphoneme > regional diaphoneme > varietal phoneme > realized phone.
3. If we recognize this difference in abstraction that the regional parameter suggests, then I actually somewhat agree with Barefoot through the chollas here. If the template is provided as {{IPAc-en|US}}, then why not make it display the /ɑː/ diaphoneme without the length mark? Since, as has already been recognized in this conversation, AmE has no phonemic vowel length distinction, and it is widely acknowledged that the AmE (dia)phoneme is therefore transcribed as /ɑ/, without a length marker, as are all AmE (dia)phonemes which correspond to long vowels in other regional groupings of English.
4. I think there is further argument for this regional switching given that, for reasons that frankly dumbfound me, we include a vowel in the diaphonemic scheme that arguably violates the principle of what a diaphoneme is! We define /ɜː/ as occurring only in some dialects, and have a written requirement that it must be denoted with a regional parameter because of this, yet for whatever reason don't enforce this on the template level. Realistically, given the written requirements we ask for in its usage, {{IPAc-en|ɜː}} without any regional parameter should result in an error, perhaps even if the US parameter is included (though some AmE speakers might still use this vowel in some overlapping circumstances). We treat the system as being dialectally neutral, yet provide a parameter for a sound which we explicitly acknowledge is in fact not.
5. To the point of regional handling of both /ɑ(ː)/ and /ɜː/, yet another issue arises: for further reasons that dumbfound me, this template treats UK and US English with some kind of exclusivity. From an ENGVAR standpoint, we recognize 17 distinct regional varieties of written English (per Module:Engvar/doc#List of English varieties, and not including Oxford & IUPAC), many of which also correspond to distinct phonological conventions. Why does this template allow for special treatment of only two of those varieties? I recognize the technical burden of supporting all of them, which would undoubtedly be compounded several-fold if we provided such an option for display switching based on region, but the point here is the internal inconsistency.

To summarize my points:

• We treat usage of this template as if it should always be used within a neutral diaphonemic system,
• except for where we provide the option to diverge from that system to a regional level,
• except for where we include sounds within the system that theoretically are required to be denoted with a region,
• except for the fact that we don't even include the majority of regional varieties that we recognize within ENGVAR.

It is no wonder that editors get confused with how this template should properly be used, as it contradicts itself on multiple levels. It is always diaphonemic, except for all of the times that it isn't. ~ oklopfer (💬) 00:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Very well said, indeed. Thank you. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)