Module talk:pl-IPA

/a/ vs /ä/
/ä/ is only used when it is necessary to distinguish between /a/ and /ä/ as phonemes or in narrow transcriptions where the difference is necessary to point out. Your edit makes the transcriptions at pointlessly ugly. --WikiTiki89 15:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've always opposed this imprecision generally and it, correct me if I'm wrong, has no history in en.Wiktionary's Polish entries. Aesthetics aside, Polish  is central, even in palatal contexts. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, /a/ can represent either a central or front vowel, depending on context. In the context of Polish, it's a central vowel. As for a history of using /a/ in en.wikt Polish entries, staying with the example, the pronunciation section there has used /a/ since it was first added to the entry in 2008 , and has been that way ever since until just now when you changed the output of this module. I'm going to revert your change until you can demonstrate that /ä/ actually has a history of being used consistently in our Polish entries. --WikiTiki89 15:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

⟨y⟩
On a different note, ⟨y⟩ is universally pronounced with the sound transcribed [ɪ̞] or [ɘ̘] (cf. Ukrainian [ɪ] for the same vowel), why are we transcribing it as ⟨ɨ⟩? Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because it's a phonemic transcription and phonemic transcriptions typically avoid diacritics. — Eru·tuon 23:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, basically same reason as above. Do you have any sources to support [ɪ̞] or [ɘ̘] anyway? We've always used /ɨ/, and so does Polish Wiktionary. --WikiTiki89 14:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally only from experience, but copying the sources Wikipedia uses: Bronisław Rocławski (ISBN 9788370170677), Wiktor Jassem (page 106), Edmund Gussmann (Page 2 (Arabic)). All of these transcribe as ⟨ɨ⟩ out of Slavistic tradition, but in terms of data there is no disagreement whatsoever that ⟨y⟩ is a centralised close-mid sound, or lower than near-close anyway. While I totally disagree about conflating [a] and [ä], that one I get, they're sort of close, close enough that the IPA couldn't be bothered to install a non-combined glyph for [ä]. But this case here...There would need to be made a pretty good argument as for why we should basically deceive our users about the pronunciation of ⟨y⟩. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Brackets missing
At, ar'go is producing a form with neither brackets nor slashes around it, which puts it in CAT:IPA pronunciations with invalid representation marks. Can this be fixed?
 * If I search, it looks like the template expects the user to supply a word with slashes around it. That doesn't make sense to me (it shouldn't be up to the editor to choose the bracketing, because most editors have no way to know whether the module will generate a phonemic or phonetic transcription), and I think the module can automatically supply slashes when they are missing. — Eru·tuon 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Especially since the template does automatically provide slashes when nothing is specified in parameter 1, e.g. at użądlenie where pl-IPA is used without a parameter and the slashes are there. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Some transcriptions may have square brackets, so the module checks for those as well as for slashes before automatically adding slashes. — Eru·tuon 21:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

remove allophones and correct palatalized velar consonants
Since there are slashes around the transcriptions, they should be phonemic transcriptions. According to the Polish phonology page, ki gi chi before vowels other than i are /kʲ ɡʲ xʲ/, not /kʲj ɡʲj xʲj/, while pi bi fi wi mi ri li before vowels are /pj bj fj vj mj rj lj/. Also, voicing of consonants before voiced consonant is not reflected on the module, and rz after voiceless consonants should be treated differently from ż in that position. JeanneAymonier (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right about voiced consonants, I just tried to add a "voice" section (sorry, I don't know what it's called, whatever the "devoice" section is called), but my browser (I think) isn't rendering affricates properly, and I don't know how to do loops anyway. I guess you're also right about "ż" (I'm far from fluent, so I can't think of any examples off the top of my head), but I don't know how to do that, either.  I personally think pi, bi, wi, and fi are truly palatalized and there is a /j/ after palatalized velar stops (again, I'm far from fluent), but you'd better talk to a fellow native speaker about that. Esszet (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Updating the module
Here is where can update the IPA for Polish.
 * If you write out the changes you want to make, I'm sure we can find someone to update them. It was adding /j/ to palatalized consonants, right? anything else? Vininn126 (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's hard to come up with something just like that but the template seems to have a problem with ę and especially ą. For example, "są" is /sɔ̃/ but should be /sɔm/ (or, if you want to be really petty, [sɔ̃m] but let's ignore this one as it's too detailed); "wąż" should be /vɔ̃w̃ʂ/ and "mężczyzna" /mɛ̃w̃ʂˈt͡ʂɨz.na/. I get the reason for not including the nasalised semi-vowel where necessary but the thing is that nasal vowels NEVER occur alone in Polish in any context, they are always assimilated in some way to the surrounding consonants. I don't think it'd be too petty to show all the allophones of ą and ę as we do so with /n/, for example it's /pɔŋk/, not /pɔnk/. It's just antiquated to treat ą and ę as pure nasal vowels but we've already discussed it. I don't know what else; we should remember about being consistent with /j/: so any soft consonant followed by /j/ + any vowel other than /i/ should be of the following form: /Cʲj/, e.g. /'kʲjɛ.dɨ/, but when followed by /i/, it should be reduced to /Cʲ/, e.g. /'kʲi.nɔ/. Shumkichi (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I've got another one: in "cyngiel", for example, /n/ is incorrect. It's incorrectly displayed as /ˈt͡sɨn.ɡʲɛl/ while it should obviously be /ˈt͡sɨŋ.ɡʲjɛl/. [ŋ] occurs as an allophone of /n/ before every /k/, /g/, and /x/, no matter if it's within the same syllable or at syllable boundaries. Shumkichi (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So essentially, word final ą goes to /ɔm/, and before retroflex sibilants nasals goes to /Vw̃/. How do you feel we should approach nasals before /s/ and /z/, given that they tend to allow both the /Vw̃/ and the /Vn/ pronunciation? And then palatals before /a/, /ɛ/, /ɔ/, /u/ acquire /j/, and nasals assimilate? I think they talked about nasal assimilation above, might want to give that a read. Vininn126 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "before /s/ and /z/, given that they tend to allow both the /Vw̃/ and the /Vn/" - really? I mean, maybe, but I can't think of any such word that would be realised as /Vn/. I would pronounce both "wąs" and "kąsać" with /ɔ̃w̃/ and "kęs" with /ɛ̃w̃/ but maybe both pronunciations are in free variation. I will read up on it. Shumkichi (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is based on what I've heard. Go to forvo and listen to the recordings of język, one guy even does both pronunciations in the same recording. Also I just realized something - how narrow should we be doing these transcriptions? This conversation came up on the discord recently with English pronunciation and I'm wondering how much we should. Specifically word final -ą, I wonder if /ɔ̃w̃/ would suffice. Vininn126 (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, also adding voiceless r, right? Should we add other voiceless consonants such as voiceless /n/, /l/, or /w/? (Such as pleśń, motocykl, or plótł). Or would that be too precise? Vininn126 (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Palatalization and nasals
@Vininn126 @Shumkichi @Tashi I wanted to ask what do you think about removing the palatalization and changing the way <ą> and <ę> are transcribed in the module.

As I've already mentioned replying to Vininn on my talk page, I think we could replace /Cʲj/ with /Cj/. Though the /Cʲj/ transcription reflects its pronunciation, I think replacing it with /Cj/ could make the transcriptions easier to read (/mjɛt͡ɕ/ takes less time to read than /mʲjɛt͡ɕ/ (especially since "ʲ" is a small symbol and can require some focus to read on smaller displays)) and could bring more consistency with other parts of module, as it currently doesn't seem to palatalize words where palatalization is represented by a  (f.e. objawiać). Since transcriptions generated by the module are phonemic, I don't think making the change would make the transcriptions any less accurate, as both /pjɛs/ and /pʲjɛs/ represent [pʲjɛs].

I also want to suggest a change of how the nasal vowels are transcribed with the module. Since they're not really nasal vowels, I think we could use either the /Vw̃/ (which is a pretty common way to describe them, but I'm pretty sure it would also require us to update how the module deals with  before fricatives (as "kęs" [kɛw̃s] and "sens" [sɛw̃s] are rhymes)) or the /Vŋ/ (which doesn't add an additional phoneme and avoids the trouble of dealing with  before fricatives as "kęs" would be /kɛŋs/ and sens would be /sɛns/) way of transcribing them. Though it's not really an issue (the transcriptions are after all phonemic and /ɔ̃/ and /ɛ̃/ stand for [ɔw̃] and [ɛw̃] anyway), I think making the change would make the transcriptions more accurate without sacrificing their readability.

I've already tried to implement the suggested changes yesterday, though they were rightfully reverted, as I didn't discuss them before doing so. Mazab IZW (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mazab IZW, well, Shumkichi recently got banned. I'm going to be pinging @Hythonia as our other resident Pole, as well as @KamiruPL. Also tagging @BigDom and @Hergelei.
 * I'm gonna explain what happened here: I recently added the /j/ to soft consonants, and many other (including non-Polish editors) agreed with the decision, but I also left the /ʲ/'s, at the advice of one Shumkichi back when I was working on the rhymes pages. Now I personally wouldn't be opposed to removing the palatalization markers as you did before, as they are more phonetic than phonemic it seems to me, and the main thing would be the /j/'s. If we do so, we're gonna have to mass update the rhymes we've been adding and change their names, or at least I'd like to. Perhaps someone would be willing to make a bot to do that for us. We would also have to update the test cases on both the main module page and the module's sandbox but that's trivial.
 * As for the nasals - your choice again wasn't exactly wrong, but I think the exact implementation was. Polish nasals appear only at the end (except ę) and before sibilants, otherwise they assimilate. Your original change had it as a nasal vowel + ...what was it, a velar nasal? Which is not the standard - they are mostly a nasal vowel + a nasal w, so /ɛ̃w̃/, /ɔ̃w̃/, however these are also not exactly phonemic, but they are basically almost always pronounced that way. This is a change I personally see as less important. If we implemented it, we'd again have to mass update the rhymes and test cases.
 * I should also mention that whenever changes like this are made, many problems start popping up, so get ready to start fixing those :p Vininn126 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wasn't aware that removing the palatalization markers would cause problems/inconsistencies with the rhymes. Yeah, this is something we'll need to take care of if we do end up making the change (though it seems pretty time-consuming to do manually).
 * And I agree the change with the nasals is not really that important. As for my edit, I used the velar nasal as I remember reading somewhere that [w̃] is just its positional variant occurring word-finally and before fricatives. Though it's entirely possible that I messed something up so in this case thank you for reverting! Mazab IZW (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that transcribing kęs as /kɛw̃s/ looks ok. It's pronounce more like /kɛns/. Tashi (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tashi I have noticed that also with /s/ and /z/. język is often /'jɛn.zɨk/. It seems to only be in front sz, ż, and ch. Vininn126 (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Vininn126 As for język being often pronounced /'jɛn.zɨk/, I checked out some YouTube videos I found after searching "język polski" and "język polski lekcje" (1, 2, 3, 4 - with timestamps) and they all seem to be /'jɛw̃.zɨk/. Maybe the /n/ pronunciation is either dialectal or perhaps a form of hypercorrectness? Because aside from one Forvo recording, I can't really recall hearing it anywhere, especially in movies/everyday speech. (Though as I said before, I'm just talking about my own experience. If you have any examples of it being pronounced with a /n/, feel free to share them :) ) Mazab IZW (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Native speakers will also not assimilate in slow, careful speech. In fast speech /ns/ and /nz/ are more popular. Vininn126 (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Vininn126 Ahh, I see. Perhaps leaving them as /ɛ̃/ and /ɔ̃/ is a better idea since the pronunciation doesn't seem to be completely consistent.
 * Anyway thank you so much for all your help! Mazab IZW (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tashi That's interesting, the audio samples from both Forvo and Polish Wiktionary seem to be [kɛw̃s]. This also seems to be the case for other words like dąsać or wąs. I'm not sure if I remember ever encountering the [kɛns] pronunciation either, I often hear Polish speakers pronounce /ns/ (even when it's spelled ) as [w̃s] (sens, balans). Perhaps the [ns] pronunciation is a dialectal thing? Mazab IZW (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... in slow pronunciation, I could pronounce it with [w̃s] but in fast speech I guess it's always [ns]. If it help, I may record a longer speech and then try to figure it out. I have some dialectal features in my speech but I don't think that pronouncing /ns/ is dialectal. I'd say it's rather a part of the standard Polish. I might be wrong though. Tashi (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tashi And how about removing the /ʲ/? And what would you say is the best transcription for nasals before /ʂ/ and /ʐ/? Vininn126 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also /x/, but more importantly, what your thoughts on the n assimilating to /ŋ/ before k and g, as I have updated? I read a fairly convincing argument sent by Shum, but I'm curious what you think. Vininn126 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mazab IZW, @Tashi I think we can probably remove the /ʲ/. As for nasals, my vote is to leave them as they are for now, with the potential exception of having them assimilate with /s/ and /z/. Vininn126 (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Vininn126 Yeah, I agree with that. As for the nasals though, I'm unsure about having them assimilate with /s/ and /z/ as both the [w̃s]/[w̃z] and [ns]/[nz] pronunciations seem to be used in Polish. Mazab IZW (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mazab IZW Surjection helped me remove the palatalization. Vininn126 (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Glottal stops
Hey, just wanted to let you know I removed glottal stops from the module (it used to put them in  and  sequences). While some speakers pronounce those sequences with a glottal stop between the vowels, there are speakers who pronounce them without it (and after all the module generates just phonemic transcriptions). I also found it quite odd that it put them between 's and 's, but not, for example, 's (as in "zaakceptować"). Mazab IZW (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mazab IZW I am okay with this. Vininn126 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the "nki" and "ngi" in the word-final position.
The template wrongly generates words that ends with "nki" or "ngi". I don't know but the problem might be in the line 186 but I don't want to change anything on my own. You can see the wrong results in words such as bratanki, szklanki, Anki, gangi etc (,, , etc. In all these cases it should generate the nasal velar /ŋ/, thus /ʂklaŋ.ki/ for szklanki. I'd really aprreciate that if someone could check it and correct it :) Tashi (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it usual to treat Polish as having a velar nasal phoneme /ŋ/? I see it mentioned on Wikipedia as a recent analysis of the traditional "nasal vowels", but I'd think that phonologically, those would be better analyzed as ending in some kind of underspecified "placeless nasal" archiphoneme with a velar nasal phone [ŋ] as just one possible surface realization.--Urszag (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say it can be pronounced both with /ŋ/ and /n/ but in fast speech, I think it's almost always /ŋ/. But you may be right, it's simply a realization of the /n/ before velar consonants. Either way, szklanki should not be transcribed /ˈʂkla.ki/ cause it's looks like szklaki. Tashi (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Me and Shumkichi had a discussion about this above, as well as on my talk page, if you wanna give that a read. Also pl.wikt has it assimilate. Tash is right - it can be both but in fast speech it's usually velar, and given how we transcribe nasal vowels, we might as well have this nasal assimilation, it just makes sense. Vininn126 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mazab IZW I added test cases - it looks like your fix isn't doing the trick? Vininn126 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Vininn126 The testcase page was for some reason using the sandbox module, it should be fine now. Mazab IZW (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed some problems
@Vininn126 Hey, I managed to fix the module so it generates correct transcriptions for words like "wziął", "giął" or "cięli". I also edited the palatalization markers so the module no longer puts and then removes them. I put the changes in Module:pl-IPA/sandbox, as well as added some testcases in Module:pl-IPA/sandbox/testcases. Let me know if you don't mind me adding those changes to the proper module :) Mazab IZW (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mazab IZW Oh, it was giving /zɡʲjɔw/? Vininn126 (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Vininn126 It was giving /zɡjɔ̃w/. I removed the palatalization markers trying to find an issue I had, and the script seems to be working fine without them (at least by looking at the testcases), so I don't think they're necessary to have. Mazab IZW (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mazab IZWI also see you fixed the g's! I can't believe we had those. Thanks! Vininn126 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They were actually a mistake I made when trying to implement the solution for -ął and -ęł words, they're pretty tricky giving the fact many fonts render them the same :p Is it alright if I deploy the changes now? Mazab IZW (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Approved! Vininn126 (talk) Vininn126 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Corrected stress for some verb forms
(The first part (if you can call it that) of this discussion can be found here)

@Vininn126, @BigDom, @Hythonia, @KamiruPL, @Hergilei, @Chomczurek065, and @Tashi: I've recently suggested a module update which would fix stress for past and conditional forms of verbs. After a few trials and errors, I've managed to get it working and now the module marks stress on the:
 * 3rd last syllable in 1st, 2nd and 3rd person singular, as well as 3rd person plural conditional;
 * 4th last syllable in 2nd and 3rd person plural conditional;
 * 3rd last syllable in 1st and 2nd person singular past. As for this one, Vininn pointed out that most Poles pronounce those with regular stress. Though this seems to be fine in colloquial speech, the recommended pronunciation has antepenultimate stress. Since we list the recommended pronunciation first for words like matematyka and politechnika, I think the module can transcribe past tense forms with antepenultimate stress. Perhaps it'd be possible to update the module to make it add both pronunciations with the (colloquial) label next to the second one.

I've been also thinking about using a bot to remove transcriptions meant to fix the stress that were added in the past. It'd just make things a little more consistent and avoid transcriptions without syllable breaks like this one. Not a crucial problem, but it helps keep things nice and regular.

And that is pretty much it. If something needs to be changed/added/removed, I'll be more than happy to help with that too :) Max19582 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Max19582I really thing for point three we should do what I said - what's recommended seems to be 99% outdated. I've read that too, but noone talks that way, and we are a descriptive dictionary, so we should talk about how people. actually talk. As for -byćie and -byśmy, yeah, it'd be great to have that. And for words ending on -ika/-yka, I think it should be both, because both pronunciations are much more prevalent. Vininn126 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Vininn126 I think in this case the best thing to do is to have both pronunciations (I fully agree that we should include the penultimate pronunciation, but we should also mention that these words might be stressed antepenultimately). I like the solution German entries use for the äh vowel (as in Mädchen) and I've been thinking we could use Module:pl-pronunciation to generate something similar to that if the module detects a past verb form ending. But as for now, I'm really unsure which stress the module should generate, but feel free to edit it and remove the past form endings. Max19582 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's a solution. If both are possible, I think that'd be fine. We might want a dated tag on the -liśmy group, though, if possible. Keep in mind with -yka words, we may have a lot of non lemmas that will need respelling, like języka, or muzyka (gens of muzyk) Vininn126 (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Vininn126 Alright, I added and documented it in Template:pl-pronunciation/documentation :) Max19582 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

/w̃/
(This is kind of related to a suggestion I had for nasal vowels some time ago.)

When I was cleaning entries from unnecessary respellings, I've noticed a lot of words -en- and -on- words were respelled with ę and ą (some examples:, , , , ). Perhaps we could introduce /w̃/ as a phoneme for transcriptions, using it to replace the unassimilated nasal vowels (so /ɔ̃/ becomes /ɔw̃/ and /ɛ̃/ becomes /ɛw̃/), as well as the n before alveolar fricatives (so, for example, /sɛns/ becomes /sɛw̃s/ (check out https://youglish.com/pronounce/sens/polish, people in videos from 2-13 all use the /w̃/ pronunciation).

The previous idea was abandoned, as Vininn pointed out Polish people assimilate ą and ę to on and en before s and z. Personally, I've never heard this happening, and all of the Polish people in videos at https://youglish.com/pronounce/k%C4%99s/polish (searched up "kęs"), pronounce it as [kɛw̃s].

Mainly proposing this so we have more rhymes in the same categories (for example, words from both Category:Rhymes:Polish/ɛns and Category:Rhymes:Polish/ɛ̃s would be put into Category:Rhymes:Polish/ɛw̃s), as well as overall more accurate transcriptions. I've seen many places use /w̃/ for the Polish nasals and I think we can do the same. Max19582 (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Check out how people pronounce język. But also they do it less for other words, as you have pointed out. As for the nasal /w̃/, this does seem to be a popular transcription, alongside this, and is more accurate to what's going on. There's a general vibe on Wiktionary to go for rather phonenemic transcriptions, as opposed to phonetic, but I'm not sure anyone would complain if we had this. We'll have to see how people feel about it if we make that switch. Vininn126 (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited Module:pl-IPA/sandbox/testcases to show how it'd look like (the X cases are the edited ones). I don't think using /w̃/ would be too phonetic, the website Tashi linked also transcribes the nasals with /w̃/. Anyway, if there are no objections, I can deploy the code currently used in the sandbox (and if there are, we can always roll the sandbox back). Max19582 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention the /n/ vs /w̃/ thing for nasal vowels followed by s and z. Personally, I'm for keeping them as they are (unassimilated), as there is a huge number of speakers who don't assimilate them (as opposed to assimilating the nasals before other sounds, which is done by a huge majority). Max19582 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose we can try it, see how the community reacts. As for nasalization elsewhere - what happens is Vn before a sibilant or labial changes into a nasal, so seans has a nasal a, and if it's before f or w, it does too, but let's leave those alone. Vininn126 (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe we should create our IPA transcription according with this chart http://polfon.upol.cz/index.php?page=home. Words like kes can be pronounced with both [w̃] or [en] and it's really hard to say which one is often. But as Vinninn said sticking with phonemic transcription is definitely a safer way Tashi (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Max19582 Hey, I saw you added nasal vowels to ALL possible vowels. And words like enzym. This might be sorta true sometimes but I think that's overkill, I thought this was mostly just gonna be for ę and ą. Vininn126 (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Vininn126 Ah, I thought that adding those would make sense since we're having /w̃/ as a phoneme. If you want to, I can revert the change for words like enzym. Max19582 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Max19582 Thanks. It's just too phonetic as opposed to phonemic, despite being accurate. Vininn126 (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated keys in letters2phones
I found that there are doubled mappings for  i   in letters2phones. In both cases one of them is represents phones ended with /l/. SirPL (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @SirPL Where is a page with this error? Vininn126 (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See lines 423-429 of https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Module:pl-IPA SirPL (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary elseif condition in collect_syllables function
I realized that the long  condition in lines   is irrelevant. If the condition is fulfilled, the  variable is set to. But in each loop run, right before the  block, the variable is set to   anyway. Therefore, if I am not mistaken, lines  can be safely removed from the algorithm. SirPL (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)