Help talk:IPA/Italian

[ʎ] and [ɲ] are rather peculiar sounds in Italian. The reality is that no English approximation for them is good enough. They tend to be misleading. E.g., canyon is not a good approximation for [ɲ], and billion is not a good approximation for [ʎ].

While I do understand the desire to have an English approximation for every sound, I also think we should avoid misleading our readers. Maybe we can add a note explaining that those two sounds cannot be reasonably approximated in English(?) 2A00:23C5:3408:4101:6D53:BBAC:E13A:2210 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, actually the same goes for the other neo-Latin languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese) where [ɲ] and [ʎ] exist, the examples in their Help:IPA pages are the same. Perhaps something like "roughly like" could be added before the examples, if everybody agreed. By the way, your change "elica/etto" was unnecessary because, in standard Italian, the E in "elica" is pronounced [ɛ] like the one in "etto".--151.64.156.178 (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Approximations are approximate and, while imperfect, those are the closest that English has. I think a note saying as much would be unnecessary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact is that those are terrible approximations. While the others, as imperfect as they are, run relatively close to mimicking the correct sound, those 2 are completely off. By that I mean that those examples do approximate different sounds of the italian language: billion approximates [l] followed by [j], and canyon approximates [n] followed by [j]. The fact that an approximation for a certain sound actually approximates better a different sound is, IMHO, too misleading. That's why I proposed to add a note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:3408:4101:6D53:BBAC:E13A:2210 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That dynamic is going to be present any time a language makes contrasts that English does not.

What you're missing as well is that, while English does not make a phonemic contrast between e.g. /ɲ/ and /nj/, [ɲ] is a plausible phonetic realization of /nj/, especially in certain dialects, registers, and rates of speech. It's not at all the case that the approximations are "terrible." Again, they're the closest ones present in English. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

In several of his works, including Italiano standard e pronunce regionali, Luciano Canepari describes northern near-standard accents of Italian as featuring /ɲ/ [nʲj] and /ʎ/ [lʲj], so our approximations aren't that un-Italian and misleading. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion was "add a note explaining that those two sounds cannot be reasonably approximated in English," in principle quite reasonable, and helpful to readers who bother to check the details. One of the problems here is that approximation is used pretty loosely: English [b m f v w], to cite just a few, are not just approximations (substitutes), but equivalents; [nj] of canyon and [lj] of billion are not equivalents in the same sense of [ɲ] and [ʎ], but approximations -- substitutes that don't block comprehension. With approximation ill defined, a brief note can serve to clarify the status of English [nj], [lj]. The question at issue seems to be 'Why object to a helpful note?' Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's better for everyone if we restrict the footnotes to helping editors to transcribe the language in question and readers to understand our transcriptions. The suggested footnote definitely doesn't do the former. I also don't think it does the latter.

As someone who periodically goes through these guides to remove excessive footnotes, I'm sensitive to the potential for bloat. While a simple footnote seems reasonable, it would help to articulate why this phonetic note would be warranted while the many other potential notes about the phonetic particularities of Italian would not. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added "allophone of" in this two cases to signify that it is not the common pronunciation of the word, as honestly the suggested words pronounced in standard British or American English are very far from the phonetics that they are supposed to imitate. 151.30.48.65 (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Right. At best the usual anglophone versions are rough approximations. Even given Canepari's near-standard northern examples, though, labeling them allophones of the palatals is at least misleading without a long and somewhat controversial excursus on allophony. Bref: they're not allophones in the usual use of the term. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

What does it mean in IPA for a letter to be doubled? My edit asking for someone to verify why the IPA on Capocollo is [kapoˈkɔllo] and [ˈkɔppa] was reverted and I was told to just look at the linked source where the pronunciation is copied from but I am pretty sure whoever wrote that page doesn't know IPA because I've never seen a doubled letter before. Skimming the article about the IPA I also don't see a mention of that. Surely you don't pronounce it by saying /l/, taking a brief pause and saying /l/ again and extended letters are marked using ː. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

See gemination. What it actually represents phonologically is a bit complicated, but it's intuitive to competent speakers of Italian and some other languages. --Trovatore (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, no pause, just like Tom Mix in English in normal connected speech. Contrast English ten ales vs. ten nails, Phil Esh vs. Phil Lesh, Bob Olan vs. Bob Bolan, etc. etc. In Italian, geminates are distinct (phonemic) word-internally, so that fatto /ˈfat.to/ and fato /ˈfa.to/ are different words with different syllable structures and different pronunciations. To your point, I think: representation varies from one tradition to another, and among linguists generally, but one common custom is to use e.g. /tt/ at the phonemic level, [tː] for phonetics. The first allows showing the syllable structure easily: /t.t/. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The first footnote of this help page says to write them doubled in phonetics brackets. --Ørjan (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Good. Definitely the more readable solution. Clear and easy to show stress placement for fattore, for example: [fatˈtoːre]. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I was surprised to find that the IPA symbol ː can even be used for consonants at all, but apparently it can. I find this peculiar, at least for stops. A [t] can't really be "long"; something else is going on (maybe a longer delay between the stop and the following aspiration?). --Trovatore (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The only requisite component of a stop is the closure. Approach and release are only optional. If [t] can't be long, then neither can t in hint be considered a [t] as it lacks approach and possibly release. Nardog (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm thinking of the closure as an instant, just the moment at which the air stops, which really can't be extended. It seems weird to think of it lasting as long as the air is stopped, because there's no sound during that time. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, whatever you think, lots of languages contrast stops this way and lingusts regard and transcribe them as double or long [t] etc. I bet you too can and do distinguish pastime and past-time. Nardog (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I understand gemination; I speak Italian decently well, though not as well as I used to. I'm just not sure I would describe it as the consonant being "long". It seems more complicated than that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if you're making a simultaneous glottal stop during the closure (glottal reinforcement), which is common in English before voiceless stops, and perceiving gemination (which is mere elongation of a consonant by definition) as more complex than it is as a result. I don't know if it happens in Italian, but even if so, it would be considered a language-specific allophonic epiphenomenon, not part of gemination itself. Nardog (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how you can "elongate" a stop. A stop means the air stops, right? At some later point it starts again, but the stop is just the instant of stopping, not the time in between. --Trovatore (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Surely anyone can hold the breath for at least a fraction of a second, no? In fact that's what a stop is. Gemination of a stop is holding the breath for just a little longer. Otherwise what do you think you're doing when you pronounce geminates in Italian? Nardog (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I just mean that I wouldn't call that "elongating the consonant". When the air stops, you're not making sound, so ipso facto there's no consonant, right? You're elongating the delay between two sounds, maybe. --Trovatore (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that's what a voiceless stop is. It's silent. We only distinguish different kinds of voiceless stops ([p, t, k] etc.) by how the surrounding sounds are warped. The meat of them all sounds the same, which is silence. Nardog (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not an intuitive way of putting it, to me. The two t's in fatto strike me as separate sounds (I suppose what you're calling the "approach" and "release", maybe?) which is why it makes perfect sense to transcribe it as /'fat.to/ rather than /'fatːo/, even granting that the two t's are not the same sound. --Trovatore (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "way of putting it", it's literally what linguists mean when they say "a voiceless stop". If you open any phonetics textbook, one of the first things you learn is that a stop consists of up to three phases: approach, closure, and release, and that it may lack approach and/or release depending on position (while it always has closure by definition). I'd really rather we stop discussing in terms of what's intuitive to us and start discussing what literature says on these talk pages. Nardog (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Out of the several help keys for Romance languages, this is the only major one that transcribes falling diphthongs with the same symbols used for plain vowels (e.g. [ˈkauzi]), instead of going along with the symbols used for rising diphthongs (e.g. [ˈkwaːzi]) or applying the [◌̯] diacritic; the only other exceptions are Sicilian and Venetian. So I was thinking that it would make more sense for Italian IPA to use [j] and [w] in all diphthongs (e.g. [ˈkawzi]) as for the majority of the Romance keys. For reference, here they are:

• • Astur-Leonese
  • Catalan
  • Insular Catalan
  • Emilian-Romagnol
  • Franco-Provençal
  • French
  • Galician
  • Ligurian
  • Lombard
  • Neapolitan
  • Occitan
  • Piedmontese
  • Portuguese
  • Romanian
  • Romansh
  • Sardinian
  • Spanish

What do you guys think? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why not. While we're at it, we could also stop the spontaneous use of ⟨.⟩ to indicate hiatus, which is unusual if not outright OR (the syllable break is present for either all syllables inside a transcription or none in literature I've seen). Nardog (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I still think the dot might be helpful to readers who are unfamiliar with IPA, so I’m not sure about ditching it entirely, at least not for languages where it can help identify the stressed vowel more clearly (e.g. Spanish [ˈri.o] vs [ˈrio] which some might mistake for [ˈrjo]) . I don’t mind a lot for Italian specifically though, given that in stressed syllables the job is already done by the length marker ([ˈriːo]). ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't dug into the diphthong question seriously, so this should be taken as on-the-fly comment only: if [ˈkawzi] is meant to represent 2 sg pres ind It. causi, I wonder how truly accurate the same [w] as [ˈkwaːzi] really is for most speakers. // The syllable break may be unnecessary in e.g. Italian rio for those in the know, but aside from the clumsiness of [ː] and [.] together in transcription, I can't come up with a good reason to suppress it. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that my idea comes from a strictly “graphic” place; I just want IPA to be more intuitive transcription-wise, by aligning it with related keys. How accurately the [w] symbol represents the phonetic quality of either sound is something that I don’t think can raise any problems for ordinary readers coming here to find help. We are still talking about two closely related semivowels that do not contrast because they occur in different contexts. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Right. I hear ya. Often a choice to be made between accessibility/ease-of-comprehension and accuracy, and which should rule -- sometimes easy choice, sometimes not. Is what seems to be the usual [ˈkaʊ] for English cow both accessible and accurate?

What to do with Italian causi, pausa, etc. seems to be located down near the 'not so easy' end of the ease-of-choice scale. Phonetically, Italianists seem to opt more for transcription [au̯], though [aw] can certainly be found. While (IMO) neither is ideal, there are two glitches in [aw]. Accuracy: even without considering [w] used for the quasi type, [w] misrepresents or at least obscures the vocality of pausa. Consistency: considering the [w] in quasi, [aw] more than implies that the features represented by [w] in quasi and pausa are identical. Forced to vote, I'd have to opt for the blend of accuracy and consistency. (And re ease of comprehension for uninitiated readers, I'd be somewhat comforted by comparing the difficulty of deciphering [au̯] with, for example, this from the article Proton: "Protons are spin-⁠1/2⁠ fermions and are composed of three valence quarks".) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This is still not an essay on the exact phonetic value of Italian diphthongs. I think what you are misrepresenting is the very core of the question: do we want to align the symbols of the Italian key with those of related keys – not the precise values the might or might not represent – or we don’t? Hardly anyone who isn’t trained in phonetics can distinguish Spanish Laura from Italian Laura, and yet we choose quite distinct transcriptions. What you seem to say is it’s more of a priority to tell the reader “look, there’s a stark difference between the i in piano and the i in daino”, when there really isn’t. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that Job One of an encyclopedia is to inform readers who are trying to find information, e.g. in the case of phonetic transcriptions reporting pronunciation, look, here's how /n/ of inferno is normally pronounced, and here's how the /n/ of incontro is normally pronounced. One with [ɱ], the other with [ŋ]. Telling them otherwise is misinforming them.

Fully agreed that if the language-specific keys need adjustment to bring them in line with the norms of the non-language-specific International Phonetic Alphabet, they should definitely be adjusted. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Using [w] instead of [u̯] is not misinforming the readers. Both are viable transcriptions of the same sound. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the vocality of pausa"? Nardog (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I've always thought that the most proper way to represent descending diphthongs was using diacritics, that is [Vi̯] and [Vu̯], but for simplicity the diacritic has always been omitted in Italian phonetic transcriptions. I don't think that using the symbols we use for ascending diphthongs, [j] and [w], would be either more accurate or more intelligible for readers. In effect Italian phoneticians normally consider real diphthongs only descending diphthongs, while ascending diphthongs are rather seen as sequences of approximants and vowels. If a change in the pronunciation key must be made it should be the addition of the syllabicity diacritic under the second vowels, not the replacement of vowels with approximants. I even suggest to replace the approximants used in the phonetic transcriptions of the other languages spoken in Italy and related to Italian, such as Sardinian. Junghiano (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Junghiano, well said: "If a change in the pronunciation key must be made it should be the addition of the syllabicity diacritic under the second vowels, not the replacement of vowels with approximants." Nardog, see Junghiano's entire post. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_labial%E2%80%93velar_approximant, and then toss in consideration of the reader inexperienced in IPA who's trying to make sense of [w] being used in both quasi and pausa. Maybe just for fun: using [w], try phonetic transcription first of English few in isolation, then of fewer, or wow and wowee. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The reader inexperienced in IPA who's trying to make sense of [w] being used in both quasi and pausa – like in almost every other help for Romance languages, like I said at the very opening of this talk? The phonetic difference between Italian diphthongs and diphthongs in sister languages is barely noticeable, if there’s any. The only one who seems confused here is you. Let’s change [au] to [aw]. I hate when conversations go on forever like this without new arguments because none can be provided. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your intention stated above, "I just want IPA to be more intuitive transcription-wise", in which case [Vu̯] (with diacritic]) would seem to be the obvious solution. [u̯] recognizes and symbolizes articulatory and acoustic vocality overtly and precludes conflation of the differences between quasi and pausa. All readers can recognize the vowel in [u̯], and neophytes to IPA who are curious can chase down what the diacritic symbolizes, perhaps finding examples of Spanish and Italian [au̯], [eu̯], [ɛu̯] here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphthong#Difference_from_semivowels_and_vowel_sequences -- although the Catalan and Portuguese examples there may be a bit puzzling, as well as e.g. the phonemic-phonetic distinction of /wa/ [u̯a] for French, thus I fully agree with you also that keys should be coordinated when possible. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

So the more obvious solution per the final point is actually [w]. Readers are not interested in that level of phonetic detail when they see a different treatment of Italian as opposed to e.g Spanish. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Good grief. Festina lente. Take another look at Spanish and Italian in the Diphthong article, under Examples: Sp. [au̯] pausa, It. [au̯] auto, etc. -- no different treatment. Armed with that understanding, hit up some first-rate experienced phonologists specialized in Catalan, Portuguese and French to explain those in the same article. Once all that is sorted out as best as possible, adjust keys accordingly where necessary. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

“Hit up some phonologists” I’m sorry but that is an utterly ridiculous statement. I did not open this discussion to debate the phonological features of Romance diphthongs, I did it to pick a symbol for the help page. And related help pages have a different convention than this one. Period. Good grief for real. This will be the last time I repeat myself in this conversation. I’m done talking to a wall. I’ll be waiting for someone else to give some new input before I proceed with the changes. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Good. Reaching the goal of picking appropriate symbols for representing Romance diphthongs phonetically doesn't seem all that promising if understanding the reasons for their considered use by experienced specialists is deemed a ridiculous notion. But I agree that bickering, rather than reasoned discussion of evidence and argumentation, is pointless. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The difference between the semivowels in quasi and pausa is phonetic and is barely noticeable. You're making it sound as if Italians pronounced those words [ˈkβaːzi] and [ˈpao̯za], or similarly, i.e. implying a far greater difference than the one that exists in reality, if it's at all perceptible. I'm all for the change to ⟨j w⟩. The first one is a non-syllabic palatal semivowel/approximant, whereas the latter is a non-syllabic velar semivowel/approximant with lip-rounding. These are ⟨j w⟩ in IPA, with ⟨i̯ u̯⟩ being an alternative transcription. Everyone involved in this discussion should know that, or take a look at the Handbook of the IPA and how it defines ⟨j w⟩ in relation to the vowels. While we're at it, I'd automatically support the change in any other key with this transcriptional issue. Sol505000 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

[fjʊw], [fjʊwɚ], [waw], [wawi]. What about them? ⟨Vj, Vw⟩ are indeed common ways to transcribe high tense vowels and diphthongs of English, see e.g. ANAE and CUBE.

As Ivan and Sol505000 point out, ⟨j, w⟩ and ⟨i̯, u̯⟩ both represent the same categories of sounds (voiced palatal/labial–velar approximant = non-syllabic close front unrounded/close back rounded vowel), which are phonologically consonants and phonetically vocoids. So ⟨j, w⟩ are clearer than ⟨i, u⟩. Nardog (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The current page only provides an unsourced comment saying that "/h/ is usually dropped". Per the discussion at Talk:Margherita_Hack#Pronunciation, this claim should be improved and made more specific. Please find reliable sources which detail the /h/ situation.

(This does not mean that it should be kept as part of the IPA on that page so long as this page is undecided; just because there is a possible marginal pronunciation of someone's name does not mean that it should be detailed when there are not any reliable sources suggesting that people use it.) ^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that that article and likely many more showing Italian pronunciation are using the non standard IPA [(h)] instead of [h]. International Phonetic Alphabet indicates the parentheses should have a different meaning than what we use them for here. This help page doesn't explain what they mean either. Moyogo/ (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

It would probably be more 'correct' to list both pronunciations side-by-side, or else use /broad transcription/ and dispense with the (round brackets) entirely (/h/). Of those two, I prefer the former because otherwise the natural reading of the IPA for anyone who hasn't examined this page is to pronounce an [h] that might be silent.

With that said, I doubt that there's more than one or two uses of "indistinguishable utterance" in the whole of Wikimedia. Round brackets are widely used to indicate that phones are optional and it would probably be more practical to just allow them to have that meaning too. It's pretty obvious when one is used over the other (listing a general pronunciation vs describing specific speech). ^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The footnote isn't wrong "per se", it's possible to forcedly pronounce /h/ (and /x/, and /θ/) in Italian for foreign words and names, but normality is just dropping it (like in French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc...). Only /ʒ/ is regularly pronounced, because it's just the voiced version of /ʃ/ which is an Italian phoneme. Here the mistake is interpreting that "/h/ is usually dropped" as it meant "in all cases of foreign names and words where a <h> is originally pronounced /h/, Italians can always pronounce it depending on their will and this is considered a correct pronunciation in Italian"; the correct interpretation is that "/h/ is a sound that might be pronounced in certain specific cases, depending on the speaker, while in others it'd be considered a mispronunciation". The case of Margherita Hack showed that the footnote could be misinterpreted, either in good or in bad faith. ~2025-35356-71 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense to me. Can you provide some reliable sources that we could use in the article? Neither of the further readings list /h/ even as a marginal phoneme. ^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Luciano Canepari’s DiPI uses it in several pronunciations, like hac with 3 "modern" pronunciations on DiPI Online: [ˈhaʔk], [ˈhak], [ˈʔak], or the previously mentioned hobby and hertz with the modern [ˈɔbbi] and [ˈɛrʦ] and the "tolerated/intentional" [ˈhɔbbi] and [ˈhɛrʦ]. L. Canepari’s earlier Manuale di pronuncia italiana (1992) also lists regional or foreign phonemes which includes [h], it also has a paragraph about it (p. 82):

Nella pronuncia intenzionale (indicata con «↑» nel Pronunciario) di parole e nomi stranieri, in particolare inglesi e tedeschi, si può avere il fonostilema /h/, approssimante glottale − o laringale − non-sonor (lene, F 3.7), per avvicinarsi di più alla forma originaria (anche se le vocali, soprattutto, restano quelle italiane):
Hitchcock, Hegel
/ˈ(h)iʧkok, ˈ(h)ɛɡel/.

--Moyogo/ (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

How do we render the Tuscan /h/ in words like casa? --Trovatore (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This help page is about Standard Italian. Tuscan dialect has a native /h/ sound. ~2025-35356-71 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Right: the use of /h/ sound by an Italian speaker can indicate either a more "precise" pronunciation or a more "ignorant" pronunciation of foreign names and words; normally, in common speech, it's just "dropped". ~2025-35356-71 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Canepari, Luciano. (1992). Manuale di pronuncia italiana. Zanichelli. p. 82

• What does (lene, F 3.7) refer to?
• I think this is more than enough evidence to change the /h/ note to something like "/h/ can be used in the intentional pronunciation of foreign words and names which have /h/ in their original languages". This is probably best exemplified by the DiPI entry for Hugo, which lists variation depending on whether the name is from French, English, German or Spanish.

DiPI

• Does [ˈʔak] mean that we need to add a mention for [ʔ]?
• I had a go at looking for example words to see if there are any underlying patterns:
  • The following mark a ↑ h (intenzionale):
    • Hitchcock, Harry, Haarlem, Hobbes, hamburger (/h/ in English), hertz, Hegel, Hitler, hitleriano, Hoepli (/h/ in German), Habib (/h/ in Arabic surname)
  • The following are marked with ↓ h (trascurata):
    • habanera (/h/ in English but not Spanish)
  • The following don't mark any sort of /h/:
    • Hebron, Harar, Hegiaz, Hamdanide, Hasanide (old Arabic cultural things or cities: /h/?), Hinaut, Hector (no /h/ in French), Hun (historical people?)
• This seems to show that ↑ h is always used for English and German names and words, ↓ h is used for some old Spanish terms (I couldn't find any others though...), and everything else drops the h. There's something weird going on with the Arabic terms, because they don't all neatly fit the definition given above. Please do add more examples if you think they would be useful.

^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

So, is there any argument to remove the phoneme /h/ from the "Non-native consonants" list or can we agree that it "has" to stay there among the others? ~2025-36706-78 (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that it should stay there yes. All we need to do now is detail the bit I've put in bold. Margherita Hack's surname is not pronounced with [h] except in its origin, so that page should not include (h) - unlike Hoepli, of whom the German pronunciation seems to be more usual. ^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The detailed definition is: "/h/ is dropped in foreign names and words unless the speaker wants to show off his culture" (source: DiPI's short guide). About "Hack", no reliable source proves that it may be pronounced with /h/, can we remove the "(h)" added by User:IvanScrooge98 (or even the whole IPA)? ~2025-35356-71 (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Citation unneeded, Moyogo, and Trovatore: ~2025-38931-93 (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I suggest changing the note to "/h/ can be used in the intentional pronunciation of foreign words and names which have /h/ in their original languages, though it is often dropped" citing both Canepari, Luciano. (1992). Manuale di pronuncia italiana. Zanichelli. p. 82 and DiPi's short guide. The IPA in "Hack" should have its '(h)' removed. ^{[citation unneeded]} (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The 2 phonetic dictionaries cited as external links are sources themselves: they certify the possible use of /h/ in specific names and words of foreign origin; so, /h/ (and /x/, and /θ/) can be pronounced in Italian while, for example, /q/ can't. ~2025-35356-71 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

We’ve mentioned examples of /h/ in DiPI (or we can easily find examples of /x/ like jota or /θ/ like thank you). Do we have examples of /h/ (or the others) in DOP? --Moyogo/ (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

An example for /h/ in DOP is "hitleriano". ~2025-35356-71 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35905-61 (talk)

I have no dog in this discussion, I came to fix lint errors. But now I'm curious about this. I went to Google Translate, entered some English, translated into Italian, and pressed the speaker button to hear the Italian spoken. I can hear the "H" sound in the translations of "President Harry Truman" and "Adolf Hitler", but not "Hertz rent-a-car". —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)