Talk:Italian phonology

Not sure about the new rewrite.

The current layout (which includes the two latest edits by Army1987) seems even clunkier than the previous organization. For one thing, the consonants are in sub categories while the vowels are in a list. Furthermore, sub-cating the consonants makes the TOC huge. Finally, it is completely different (and harder to follow) than the other forms of phonology pages. See Spanish phonology, Hmong phonology, German phonology and French phonology for the examples, of which, German and French are probably what all phonology pages should aspire to become.

I propose keeping Army1984's IPA additions but returning to simple lists or moving forward to the more encyclopedic style. Grika 03:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I splitted away the section about spelling, and added a request for expansion.--Army1987 21:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palatal approximant

Why is there no /j/ in the table whereas there's one mentioned in the following paragraph? Pittmirg 09:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Double consonants in the sample text

Since the consonants doubled in the orthography represent geminated (i.e. long) consonants with a single release, shouldn't they be marked with the standard lenght mark ː in the IPA trasncription instead? As they are written as the same letter twice it looks as if they were two separate consonants next to each other, not just a long one. --Imploder (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an Italian speaker and language user, I am completely positive that the article uses the correct IPA transcription for geminated consonants, as done by Italian dictionaries using IPA transcriptions (like the "Zingarelli Italian dictionary" 11th edition, from Zanichelli editing house). The usage of the IPA length mark ':' is restricted to vowels. --Blaisorblade (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about pronunciation of /r/ in the sample text

The claim is made that /r/ is, in Parma, pronounced as a 'velar trill'. This is not physiologically possible, as there's no articulator to flap against the velum. See Velar consonant. I haven't modified the article because I don't know how /r/ is represented in Parma dialect. Jogloran (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sinalefe

The article refers to the concept of sinalefe, using the Italian term. Presumably this is the same as synalepha - would it be more useful to use the English term (perhaps as a translation of the Italian term rather than instead of it) and to link to that article? — Paul G (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I don’t see any particular need to specify the Italian translation, so I’ve made the simple change. —Ian Spackman (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/e/ ~ ɛ and /o/ ~ /ɔ/

I've added the paragraph about this pronunciation difference, even if I'm not a phonology scholar but I'm just a native (Southern) Italian speaker. Some help on it may be needed. However, I verified my information on the corresponding Italian page it:Fonologia_dell'italiano, and I have some knowledge about phonology. The note about minimal pairs is completely unreferenced, but it is something anybody in Italy would agree with (after becoming aware of the issue). I've added {{fact}} anyway, to comply with Wikipedia rules. --Blaisorblade (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the paragraph up, cleaned up the wording, and added more fact tags to it. The problem with it:Fonologia dell'italiano is that it provides no citations. Hopefully we'll find some sourcing on the statements. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that contrast is somewhat weak and there are great regional variations, it is still present, especially in Central Italy, where the difference between botte "blows" and botte "cask" is clearly audible. Saying "only for professional speakers who have been specifically trained" and "most speakers" is an exaggeration. I'm removing the second sentence. -- Army 1987 (t — c) 13:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tendency to use only the close-mid vowels more frequently in Northern Italian dialects

This is not true. There are many Northern accents: 1. in Torinese, all vowels are pronounced open: vèrde, giòrno, stèlla, ventitrè, perchè, tèmpo, bène 2. in Milanese, there are 7 vowels, but many times they usage is different from the standard (based on Tuscan Italian): béne, témpo, Daniéla (standard: bène, tèmpo, Danièla); perchè, ventitrè (standard: perché, ventitré) 3. Venetian accent, Genoan accent and Brescian accent of local persons speaking standard Italian also has 7 vowels, but their distribution is different from both Milanese and the standard Italian (based on Tuscan): the word Vèneto is pronounced in Venice as in standard Italian: Vèneto, but in Genoa and Brescia it's véneto. 4. The local pronunciation of the Northern town of Como is Cómo, but in national RAI newscasts the standard (Tuscan) form is used: Còmo (with the open vowel).

When in doubt, check to Dictionary of Italian pronunciation: The Pronunciation of Italian http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPr_03_Italian.pdf

Dizionario di pronuncia italiana http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/DiPI_3_A-Z.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.48.65 (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"pseudo" -> "sseudo"?

I do not doubt that the source given describes "sseudo" as a usual careless pronunciation for "pseudo" and the like, but I, an Italian living in Italy, never heard such a way of pronouncing this sets of consonants. If anything, somebody introduces a ghost vowel, or perhaps a schwa, sound, saying almost "peseudo". I suppose that, as the source is a 1944 book, something has changed in non-written Italian uses. But of course I am not an acceptable source, so I hope I or somebody else will find a more recent one. (Thanks for correcting the tag!) [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this assimilation may be true for consonants not in syllable-initial position. 84.223.133.56 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard. At most there are people pronouncing pneumatico as /(il) neu'matiko/ (not /(lo) nneu'matiko/, such an effort would be unnecessary). --Erinaceus (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sample Text section with IPA transcription

I'm wondering why the IPA transcription shows some of the letter I sounds (usually [i]) as [ɪ], when the article makes no mention of [ɪ] even existing as a phoneme in Italian. Just wondering if there's any basis to it. Afc0703 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If [ɪ] is an allophone of /i/, the sample text seems to apply it inconsistently. I've replaced all instances with i. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

flap vs trill

I take it from the wording that the diff tween /r/ & /rr/ is a long vs short trill, not flap vs trill as in Spanish, so I made this explicit. A one-vibration trill is not the same as a flap (the aerodynamics differ), but please correct me if I got it wrong. kwami (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, though not on here, Italian has flap R exactly like Spanish, it's a natural allophone in all languages having trill R.. sadly Wikipedia won't accept it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.77.236 (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your source for that? In Spanish, the flap is not at all an allophone of the trill. They are different phonemes, with a minimal pair such as "perro" / "pero". You can't use a trill in the latter. You can in Italian. --LjL (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my source : http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPr_03_Italian.pdf .. Luciano Canepari canIPA, one of the best phoneticians all over the world.. flap R in Italian EXISTS, I'm Italian and I always use it, sometimes, even replacing the trill.. but it's mainly the big allophone of the /r/ sound in unstressed syllables.. Saying a /r/ in unstressed positions is almost impossible and considered ridicolous..

the letter a

This is pronounced like the a in cat most of the time; it is a schwa otherwise. the italianlanguageguide has it mostly right and my Larousse Interprète Français-Italien by Richard Silvestri, says it is pronounced as in French, meaning like the a in cat, a fused ae in the IPA, which is low, front, unrounded, lax, and open, while the a as in father, "a" in the IPA, is low, central, rounded, tense, and open. I am half-Italain and a linguistics student and language buff and as far as I know the "a" sound does not exist in Italian and certainly I have never heard the a pronounced that way in Italian. If you can prove it does by showing real Italians speaking real and standard Italian, the Tuscan dialect, I would be surprised. --Bpell (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem to agree with the phonetic values from Rogers & d'Arcangeli (the source of the vowel chart). Italian /a/ is actually pretty close to RP /ʌ/. French /a/ is not the a in cat (which is [æ]). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should correct myself as there are some variations as some Italians say it as an a in cat and others as something like the a in about. The former is how we pronounce it. I listened to "Volare" and it is like the latter but I also listened to Fabio Triolo-TeleEuropa also on You tube, but which I couldn't find again, and it is like the former also.

But you are very wrong about French as it is indeed like cat in most instances in both Europe and Canada. Anyone who knows french knows that and I am a francophone living in a French community. But this is another matter as this article is about Italian.--Bpell (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of ways that native speakers can help with editing language-related articles but the phonetic particularity of vowels is not one of them. Both the Italian and French phonology articles have sourced vowel charts and your status as half-Italian or as someone living with the French does not give you greater credibility. Nor does your status as a "linguistics student." We rely on sources here and even the sources that you cite above disagree with what you assert. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]