<p>If you're notating a language that uses [β] or [ɓ] <em>but does not distinguish it</em> from [b], that is, if there are no words such that changing one of these consonants to the other changes the meaning of the word (perhaps because [β] occurs only between vowels and [b] elsewhere), then for most purposes you write them all as /b/; so that is a “simplified IPA”.  This is called <strong>broad</strong> transcription, written with slashes to distinguish it from <strong>narrow</strong> transcription using brackets.  A famous example: English /p/ includes both [p] and [pʰ], which are distinguished in many languages including Zulu, Hindustani, Mandarin.</p>
<p>No language makes phonemic distinctions between <em>all</em> pairs of phones represented by distinct symbols in IPA; but every symbol exists because <em>some</em> language contrasts it with others.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-21T01:16:34.090Z
2020-09-12T16:52:14.877Z
2020-09-12T16:52:14.877Z
Anton Sherwood
<p>There is SaypU, which tries to creates a universal phonetic alphabet for all languages with only 24 letters, many of which can be used to represent slightly different sounds in different languages.</p>
<p>&quot;a&quot; in SaypU can represent /a/, /æ/, and /ɑ/, depending on the language. &quot;y&quot; represents /j/, /ʎ/, and /ʝ/. &quot;w&quot; represents both /w/ and /ɥ/.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-09T05:50:54.007Z
I’m not entirely sure this qualifies as a ‘universal phonetic alphabet’ by any means. What happens, for instance, in a language which distinguishes /a æ ɑ/ (e.g. Äiwoo), /j ʎ/ (e.g. Warlpiri, some Spanish dialects), or /w ɥ/ (e.g. French, Abkhaz)?
bradrn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-13T04:31:26.090Z
@bradrn, you use diacritics (a, ä, ã).
Galactic
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-13T07:59:18.163Z
Thanks for clarifying! Do the diacritics have any consistent meaning within SaypU, or are they used in an ad-hoc fashion? I’d call it a ‘universal phonetic alphabet for all languages’ in the former case only.
bradrn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-14T21:50:55.987Z
@bradrn, They don’t have any consistent meaning.
Galactic
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-15T00:42:45.980Z
In that case, I wouldn’t call it a ’universal phonetic alphabet’, since it can’t specify the exact phonetic details of every sound in the same way IPA can. If anything, I’d say it’s a standardised set of mappings for romanization purposes, similarly to e.g. the [General Alphabet of Cameroon Languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Alphabet_of_Cameroon_Languages).
bradrn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-07T04:05:30.327Z
2020-10-07T04:05:30.327Z
Galactic
<p>The reason that all the different characters for &ldquo;the same sound&rdquo; exist is because they&rsquo;re <em>not</em> the same sound, and trained linguists/linguistic researchers <em>can</em> hear the difference. Any &ldquo;simplified IPA&rdquo; wouldn&rsquo;t be a true &ldquo;IPA&rdquo;, and would not be able to accurately represent the difference in sounds; you would end up with the present situation where the spelling of words in a language not suited for the alphabet being used does not accurately reflect the actual pronunciation of the word (for example, Spanish <em>vaca</em>, cow, which some people hear as though it should be spelled <em>baka</em>, because neither <strong><em>b</em></strong> nor <strong><em>v</em></strong> in the Latin alphabet is an accurate representation of the sound used).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-19T13:18:30.397Z
I totally understand, but is there any system for the "regular people" (not trained linguists/linguistic researchers)!? Because some differences in IPA are truly "too minute"! One really could never tell the difference "without training"!
PiggyChu001
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-19T13:31:34.117Z
Any system for the "regular people" wouldn't be "universal" in the sense that IPA is; you'd simply end up with Yet Another Not-Quite-Accurate Transliteration Convention. You might as well pick a dictionary that doesn't use IPA (virtually any dictionary aimed at users below the collegiate level would be a good candidate) and adopt its system for representing pronunciations.
Jeff Zeitlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-19T13:47:06.770Z
Another possible source for an alternative pronunciation representation system might be to look at phonetically-based systems for teaching children to read, such as [DISTAR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_instruction) or the Pitman Initial Teaching Alphabet [[Wikipedia link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_Teaching_Alphabet)] [[Omniglot link](https://www.omniglot.com/writing/ita.htm)], or any of the [alternative systems listed on Omniglot](https://www.omniglot.com/writing/alternative.htm) under the headings "Alternative spelling/writing systems" or "Phonetic Alphabets".
Jeff Zeitlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-19T14:35:15.833Z
OK. Is there any statistic research on the IPA usages!? Maybe I could pick some "most often used" alphabets for my language.
PiggyChu001
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-19T14:47:38.627Z
If you're looking for a transcription system for a conlang that you're creating, just make one up using whatever alphabet (or subset thereof) you're comfortable with, and which distinguishes between the various sounds of _your_ conlang. For example, if your conlang has the sound represented in IPA by ***[β]*** but not the ones represented by ***[b]*** or ***[ɓ]***, there's no real reason not to use the glyph ***b*** to represent it, if that makes it easier to write out the language or to document it.
Jeff Zeitlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-19T15:02:02.737Z
THAT is the problem! I wish to create a language that "contains" all possible pronunciations, but not SO minute! Imagine I create 3 "different" words with [bʊk], [ɓʊk], and [βʊk], my user WILL think "WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM!?". THAT'S why I try to omit those alphabets that could be "considered the same".
PiggyChu001
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-19T15:22:26.773Z
If the language contains _all_ possible pronunciations, then the full IPA is the only possible solution. If you don't want to deal with the minute differences between e.g. [β], [b], and  [ɓ], then your language doesn't actually contain all possible pronunciations, and you can simply choose one of the alternatives to represent whichever sound your language _does_ have.
Jeff Zeitlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-19T15:24:23.783Z
OK, let me ponder over your comment and see what I can come up with. Thanks!
PiggyChu001
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-07T13:41:06.823Z
@PiggyChu001 PHOIBLE has the most common segments cross-linguistically: https://phoible.org/parameters
Duncan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-19T13:04:12.387Z
2019-11-19T13:04:12.387Z
Jeff Zeitlin
<p>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet" rel="nofollow noreferrer">IPA</a>, the sounds of many symbols are so close that they are indistinguishable to me! For example, [bʊk], [ɓʊk], or [βʊk]. Even though they <em>do</em> have some minor differences, but all a listener like me hears is &quot;book&quot;.</p>
<p>So is there any &quot;Simplified IPA&quot; where they contain all possible pronunciations but yet omit all those phonetically indistinguishable symbols?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-20T03:45:41.530Z
They're not indistinguishable at all, and anyone trying to learn a language which distinguishes them will either learn them or never acquire the language to any fluency.
curiousdannii
<phonology><writing-systems>
Simplified Version of IPA?
# Simplified Version of IPA?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-19)

In [IPA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet), the sounds of many symbols are so close that they are indistinguishable to me! For example, [bʊk], [ɓʊk], or [βʊk]. Even though they *do* have some minor differences, but all a listener like me hears is "book".

So is there any "Simplified IPA" where they contain all possible pronunciations but yet omit all those phonetically indistinguishable symbols?

**Tags:** phonology, writing-systems

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: They're not indistinguishable at all, and anyone trying to learn a language which distinguishes them will either learn them or never acquire the language to any fluency.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-11-19. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

The reason that all the different characters for “the same sound” exist is because they’re *not* the same sound, and trained linguists/linguistic researchers *can* hear the difference. Any “simplified IPA” wouldn’t be a true “IPA”, and would not be able to accurately represent the difference in sounds; you would end up with the present situation where the spelling of words in a language not suited for the alphabet being used does not accurately reflect the actual pronunciation of the word (for example, Spanish *vaca*, cow, which some people hear as though it should be spelled *baka*, because neither ***b*** nor ***v*** in the Latin alphabet is an accurate representation of the sound used).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I totally understand, but is there any system for the "regular people" (not trained linguists/linguistic researchers)!? Because some differences in IPA are truly "too minute"! One really could never tell the difference "without training"!  
> **username_5**: Any system for the "regular people" wouldn't be "universal" in the sense that IPA is; you'd simply end up with Yet Another Not-Quite-Accurate Transliteration Convention. You might as well pick a dictionary that doesn't use IPA (virtually any dictionary aimed at users below the collegiate level would be a good candidate) and adopt its system for representing pronunciations.  
> **username_5**: Another possible source for an alternative pronunciation representation system might be to look at phonetically-based systems for teaching children to read, such as [DISTAR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_instruction) or the Pitman Initial Teaching Alphabet [[Wikipedia link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_Teaching_Alphabet)] [[Omniglot link](https://www.omniglot.com/writing/ita.htm)], or any of the [alternative systems listed on Omniglot](https://www.omniglot.com/writing/alternative.htm) under the headings "Alternative spelling/writing systems" or "Phonetic Alphabets".  
> **username_0**: OK. Is there any statistic research on the IPA usages!? Maybe I could pick some "most often used" alphabets for my language.  
> **username_5**: If you're looking for a transcription system for a conlang that you're creating, just make one up using whatever alphabet (or subset thereof) you're comfortable with, and which distinguishes between the various sounds of _your_ conlang. For example, if your conlang has the sound represented in IPA by ***[β]*** but not the ones represented by ***[b]*** or ***[ɓ]***, there's no real reason not to use the glyph ***b*** to represent it, if that makes it easier to write out the language or to document it.  
> **username_0**: THAT is the problem! I wish to create a language that "contains" all possible pronunciations, but not SO minute! Imagine I create 3 "different" words with [bʊk], [ɓʊk], and [βʊk], my user WILL think "WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM!?". THAT'S why I try to omit those alphabets that could be "considered the same".  
> **username_5**: If the language contains _all_ possible pronunciations, then the full IPA is the only possible solution. If you don't want to deal with the minute differences between e.g. [β], [b], and  [ɓ], then your language doesn't actually contain all possible pronunciations, and you can simply choose one of the alternatives to represent whichever sound your language _does_ have.  
> **username_0**: OK, let me ponder over your comment and see what I can come up with. Thanks!  
> **username_6**: @username_0 PHOIBLE has the most common segments cross-linguistically: https://phoible.org/parameters  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-11-21. Score: 18

If you're notating a language that uses [β] or [ɓ] *but does not distinguish it* from [b], that is, if there are no words such that changing one of these consonants to the other changes the meaning of the word (perhaps because [β] occurs only between vowels and [b] elsewhere), then for most purposes you write them all as /b/; so that is a “simplified IPA”. This is called **broad** transcription, written with slashes to distinguish it from **narrow** transcription using brackets. A famous example: English /p/ includes both [p] and [pʰ], which are distinguished in many languages including Zulu, Hindustani, Mandarin.

No language makes phonemic distinctions between *all* pairs of phones represented by distinct symbols in IPA; but every symbol exists because *some* language contrasts it with others.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-10-07. Score: -2

There is SaypU, which tries to creates a universal phonetic alphabet for all languages with only 24 letters, many of which can be used to represent slightly different sounds in different languages.

"a" in SaypU can represent /a/, /æ/, and /ɑ/, depending on the language. "y" represents /j/, /ʎ/, and /ʝ/. "w" represents both /w/ and /ɥ/.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: I’m not entirely sure this qualifies as a ‘universal phonetic alphabet’ by any means. What happens, for instance, in a language which distinguishes /a æ ɑ/ (e.g. Äiwoo), /j ʎ/ (e.g. Warlpiri, some Spanish dialects), or /w ɥ/ (e.g. French, Abkhaz)?  
> **username_3**: @username_4, you use diacritics (a, ä, ã).  
> **username_4**: Thanks for clarifying! Do the diacritics have any consistent meaning within SaypU, or are they used in an ad-hoc fashion? I’d call it a ‘universal phonetic alphabet for all languages’ in the former case only.  
> **username_3**: @username_4, They don’t have any consistent meaning.  
> **username_4**: In that case, I wouldn’t call it a ’universal phonetic alphabet’, since it can’t specify the exact phonetic details of every sound in the same way IPA can. If anything, I’d say it’s a standardised set of mappings for romanization purposes, similarly to e.g. the [General Alphabet of Cameroon Languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Alphabet_of_Cameroon_Languages).  

---

