Appendix talk:German pronunciation

Problem with /uː/ Monopthong
The English approximation to the /uː/ monophthong is listed as "true". In Australian English, true approximates the monophthong /y:/ as in the French rue. Looking at the Wiktionary entry for "true", the IPA lists the monophthong true as /u:/ but it is clear that it isn't the same sound as in the German Bruder which also claims to be /u:/. What is going on here?
 * I think the closest thing to the German [uː] one could get in British and Australian English is the allophone of /uː/ before [ɫ], like in the words rule and tool. — 94.137.34.148 21:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Several discussions of pronunciation-transcription conventions
Several discussions of pronunciation-transcription conventions are on Wiktionary talk:About German. These include a discussion of whether to use /broad/ transcriptions, [narrow] transcriptions, or both; a discussion of how to transcribe R; a discussion of 'ch' sounds (ich-Laut vs ach-Laut); and a discussion of /ɔɪ̯/ vs /ɔʏ̯/. - -sche (discuss) 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

List of diphthongs incomplete
There are more than three diphthongs needed to pronounce all German words and that does not include standard loanwords that get pronounced "the German way" by Germans.

/eː/ = face?
face = /feɪs/, not /eː/...?
 * There are accents of English where face has /eː/, and even in accents with /eɪ/ it's still closer to the German /eː/ than any other sound in English is. The column does say "English approximation" after all, not "English identical sound". —Mahāgaja · talk 12:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

/Slash marks/
I don’t understand why these are used in the transcription. Slashes usually denote phonemic transcription, but wiktionary shows phonetic transcription of German words. So, square brackets would be much more appropriate. — 94.137.5.164 18:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we use phonemic transcription. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary transcription has nothing to do with German phonemes. The only book in your bibliography (Duden Band 6) lists them on p. 30 and 36, with all allophones. Actually, I’ve never seen a German dictionary using phonemic transcription, and that’s why nobody knows what phonemes exist in German. — 94.137.34.148 21:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The inventory of phonemes varies according to one's analysis. We (like most dictionaries) don't use a highly abstract analysis (like SPE but for German) but a much more structuralist, surface-based analysis, so where a more abstract analysis would show have, say, voiced obstruents in syllable-final position, we use an analysis that shows voiceless obstruents in the contexts where the contrast between voiced and voiceless is neutralized. Likewise, a more abstract analysis might have a single dorsal fricative archiphoneme that covers both and, but since the occurrence of those two sounds is predictable only if you have access to morpheme boundaries, which we don't show, we need to treat them as separate phonemes in order to distinguish e.g.   from  . But we don't show completely predictable allophones like aspiration of voiced stops or nasalization of vowels – at least, not between slashes. Because this is a wiki, different people have edited different pages and made different decisions, so some entries probably do show a relatively narrow phonetic transcription, but then ideally it would be shown in square brackets and not between slashes. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction between [ç] and [x] seems reasonable, but [ɐ], [ɐ̯], [e], [i], [o], [ø], [u], [y] are still ‘completely predictable allophones’ (or aren’t they?), and I don’t see a reason to treat them as new phonemes. The possibility to make a more narrow transcription doesn’t necessarily make your transcription phonemic. Anyway, all those long explanations mean you just use the standard German transcription which can be found in virtually any dictionary (probably with slightly different symbols). So, can you show me any serious academic source that calls this transcription ‘phonemic’? — 94.137.34.148 11:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course they are allophones. Why are there allophones in this guide? I don’t understand. J. &#39;mach&#39; wust (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)