Help talk:IPA for Korean
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Tense diacritic
Since ͈ doesn't show up on my (and possibly many others') IE display, maybe we should immitate its graphical equivalent. If it's a "subscript double straight quotation mark" does that mean that ◌͈ is ◌" ? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, because the latter doesn't place as a diacritic. It should be under the letter. There are other symbols which have been used for this, but they're all counter-intuitive.
- We should fix the IE problem if we can. It looks fine when I toggle to IE display (within FF), so maybe it's just a matter of needing to have a font installed which has this symbol. kwami (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure it's a font issue. I'm just concerned that many people who look at Wikipedia don't have the right font. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Me too. I just don't know what to do about it. There's a danger of catering to the lowest common denominator, in that we could retain a legacy of compromised data long after the fonts and browsers are no longer an issue. I can't imagine it'll be too long before IE has proper font support, for example (though that's not the issue here). E.g., if a user hasn't installed full font support in his OS, he might not be able to see hangul at all. kwami (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here's another possibility, the ExtIPA symbol for faucalized voice, [Ħ]. However, besides being obscure and a pain to typeset, it isn't very intuitive. kwami (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure it's a font issue. I'm just concerned that many people who look at Wikipedia don't have the right font. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vowels
The vowels must have different notes! --Kjoonlee 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Different how? Also, I reverted your latest edits, as it mixed up aspiration of the stops. kwami (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- 에 is most certainly not a diphthong like the one in "main". The main Korean vowels all have very flat formants. And about aspiration.. the English examples used aspiration in them. In Korean aspiration is a distinctive feature, so I wanted to point out that final unreleased stops didn't have any aspiration in them. --Kjoonlee 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should say "similar to" the vowel in main. It really is the closest approximation and a number of English speakers pronounce this as a monophthong. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I tried that with "main", but I just can't do the same with "moan". Maybe descriptions from Help:IPA would be better. --Kjoonlee 08:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- shore? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I tried that with "main", but I just can't do the same with "moan". Maybe descriptions from Help:IPA would be better. --Kjoonlee 08:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should say "similar to" the vowel in main. It really is the closest approximation and a number of English speakers pronounce this as a monophthong. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- 에 is most certainly not a diphthong like the one in "main". The main Korean vowels all have very flat formants. And about aspiration.. the English examples used aspiration in them. In Korean aspiration is a distinctive feature, so I wanted to point out that final unreleased stops didn't have any aspiration in them. --Kjoonlee 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- More is also a much lower vowel than Korean /o/, which is almost as high as English moon. kwami (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well I made this suggestion when I looked at the vowel charts at Korean phonology. Depending on dialect, the vowel in more is mid to open-mid; in Korean, depending on length, this vowel is mid to close-mid. I'd say that's the closest we're going to get to an approximation. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- More is also a much lower vowel than Korean /o/, which is almost as high as English moon. kwami (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Plain, aspirated, tense
Hi, Korean has a distinction between plain, aspirated and tense stops.
- Plain is neither aspirated nor tense.
- Aspiration is like in English "pin."
- English "spin" sounds tense to Korean ears.
Thus I strongly object to the use of English words like "spar / star / scar" to denote anything other than tense stops. --Kjoonlee 22:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, but the t in at is frequently aspirated, so it's not a good equivalent of Korean tenuis [t]. kwami (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we could give examples from Spanish?
- Or for [p], maybe napping rather than nap? kwami (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- But in my British accent napping is aspirated as well. Maybe Spanish or French might be better. --Kjoonlee 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Really? I though it was almost universal that there was no aspiration in positions like that. kwami (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- In my case it still counts as "start of syllable" and requires aspiration; so napping, written (if I don't use a glottal stop), retail and booking all have aspiration. I speak mostly RP. --Kjoonlee 23:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I always thought "rilly?" and "napping" (with the same p as in "spin") were American traits, the same way I thought "fingernells" was Canadian. Anyway... I'd say napping would definately be aspirated in RP. --Kjoonlee 23:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Check out the note about sibilants at Help:IPA chart for Polish. Our "notes" description doesn't have to illustrate all contrasts with English examples and an explanatory note could suffice. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Really? I though it was almost universal that there was no aspiration in positions like that. kwami (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- But in my British accent napping is aspirated as well. Maybe Spanish or French might be better. --Kjoonlee 23:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] linked
This chart can now be transcluded through {{IPA-ko}}. kwami (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] correct /n/, please
Given that //tɕoŋlo// is pronounced /tɕoŋno/, our description of /n/ would appear to be wrong. But the claim that both ㄹㄴ and ㄴㄹ may be /ll/ has stood for some time without correction. Can someone elucidate? kwami (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
