Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/bʰréh₂tēr

Pronunciation
Reconstructions are by definition encodings of phonemic (and supra-phonemic when cover symbols are used) contrasts so there is no need for specifying "pronunciations" in terms of phonemic transcriptions. (Contrary to the popular misconception, phonemic transcriptions are not supposed to be guidelines for pronouncing words, but that's a different topic.) Phonetic reconstruction is something different altogether, and cannot be achieved by comparative method as it requires various assumptions on the structure of protolanguage's phonology and the typical typological developments in the history of languages. The form /ˈb̤rax.tɛːr/ added uses phonemic transcription and the phonetic value of the laryngeal-colored [a] which is at odds with the real phoneme */a/ (whose existence is disputed anyway). It also assumes that PIE had a stress-accent, and that */h₂/ had a phonetic value of [x]. All of these assumptions are not generally accepted. Looking up the book referenced in the edit summary (Ringe 2006: 14) it uses the notation for phonetic transcription instead, as well as the acute accent on [á] which presumably indicates high tone. I'm fine with adding reconstructed pronunciations based on an agreed (among editors) and referenced (on the basis of scholarly works) system that is described on some appendix page beforehand, preferably generated in Lua (and not manually specified) and labeled with their origin (e.g. "(Ringe 2006): [bráxtɛ:r]"). Until then, I suggest that all of these ad-hoc reconstructions of pronunciations be removed preemptively so as to avoid contamination of entries with inconsistent and made-up schemes invented by editors themselves. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)