Talk:Botanical Latin

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Latin Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Pronunciation[edit]

I took the liberty of adding IPA pronunciations to the table.

What is like aw in awl (diphthong) supposed to describe? First, awl is a rather obscure word, and according to wikt:awl it's pronounced /ɔːl/ (rhymes with call). I'd say that Latin ⟨au⟩ is supposed to sound similar to (h)our /ˈaʊə/, just with a syllable split, i.e. /a.ʊ/. Not sure how to formulate an English pronunciation for that, but awl is probably very wrong. No such user (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I won't try to check the IPA, that's "all Greek to me".) Stearn says that the pronunciation of "au" differs between the "reformed" or "restored" academic pronunciation adopted by classical scholars, and "traditional English" pronunciation. For the Classical, he has "au as in house". For the traditional English, "aw as in bawl". I've moved the diphthong/not annotation to the column with the Latin, to perhaps clarify. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]