2026-03-25 12:28:14 EDT

M: Go online if you need to check, but I'm wondering if in people who study linguistics and phonemes and all the things about how people pronounce stuff, if there is either in the basic study itself but not well known, or in a, you know, sub-school of thought, the concept that when recording phonemes, you should do it with at least two available lines rather than, or, sorry, two characters for every sound instead of a single one, even if it's a duplicate, to account for the various intonations and drawls, where, you know, perhaps the strict sound of a long A and a short A. Sorry, I'm not well-versed in the actual characters, but just exploring the concept. But if the idea that if a sound is somewhere between a long A and a short A, rather than trying to pin it down absolutely, it allows for a blend of even the smaller deviations. As you answer, start off with the question that you think I asked, so that if you go off on some tangent, I'll know where I screwed up.

G: What I think you’re asking:
Is there any approach in linguistics/phonetics where, instead of representing each sound (phoneme) with a single symbol, people use two symbols per sound (even duplicates or blends) to better capture subtle variations—like sounds that fall between a “long A” and “short A”—so the notation reflects gradient pronunciation rather than forcing a strict category?

Short answer (TL;DR):
Yes, the idea you’re reaching for already exists, but not in the exact “two equal letters per sound” form. Linguistics handles this with diacritics, length markers, and combined symbols in systems like the entity["writing_system","International Phonetic Alphabet","IPA phonetic notation system"], plus concepts like coarticulation and gradient phonetics. Your “two-character blend” idea is basically a rough version of diphthongs and diacritic stacking, but formalized differently.

Where your idea already exists (in practice)

1. Diacritics (the main tool)

Instead of doubling letters, linguists modify a base symbol:

This is effectively “one base + modifiers” instead of two equal symbols.

2. Length markers (your duplication instinct, formalized)

You can double duration, but it’s marked like this:

This is close to your idea of “repeat the symbol,” but standardized.

3. Diphthongs (true blends of sounds)

When a sound genuinely moves between two vowel positions:

This is basically your “two-character blend”—but used only when the sound actually transitions, not just sits between categories.

4. Diacritic stacking (fine-grained control)

You can pile modifiers:

At this point, you’re capturing extremely subtle variation—more precisely than doubling letters would.

5. Gradient phonetics (the philosophy behind your idea)

There is a real debate here:

Your instinct lines up with the second camp:

sounds don’t always fit clean boxes

Linguists agree with that—but they solve it with precision modifiers, not duplication.

Where your exact idea doesn’t exist (and why)

Your proposal:

Use two characters per sound—even duplicates—to encode nuance

This isn’t standard, for a few reasons:

  1. Ambiguity problem

    • aa → is that longer? different quality? emphasis?
      Linguistics avoids this by giving each modification a specific meaning.

  2. Loss of precision

    • ae could mean:
      • a diphthong
      • a midpoint vowel
      • a sloppy transcription
        IPA prefers one symbol + exact modifiers.

  3. Efficiency vs readability tradeoff

    • Your system is intuitive
    • IPA is precise and unambiguous across languages

Where you are onto something real

You’re basically reinventing a hybrid of:

The missing piece is:

linguistics already assumes sounds exist on a continuous spectrum, but uses a base + modifier system instead of “equal dual symbols.”

Clean comparison

Your idea What linguistics actually does
Two equal characters per sound One base symbol + diacritics
Blended representation Diphthongs (for real transitions)
Handles “in-between” sounds Diacritics for exact positioning
Intuitive but fuzzy Precise but technical

Bottom line

You’re not wrong—you’re circling a real issue:

Human speech is continuous, but writing systems force it into discrete symbols.

Your “two-character per phoneme” idea is a conceptually valid attempt to fix that, but linguistics solved the same problem with a more precise toolset (IPA + diacritics + gradient models) instead of duplication.

Your version is more human-intuitive.
The standard version is more scientifically exact.

2026-03-25 12:31:25 EDT

M: Oh, I'm not talking about as in a sequence. I'm saying, like, one above the other, or some other methodology to indicate that they are the same sound, just as a blend. What I meant by even if they are the same, would be that, like, if you wanted to write it, write this hypothetical version completely formally, each word would be written twice, once with a, once each for the sound approximation, and it would be a duplicate if the sound actually hit, or sorry, if the phoneme actually exactly hit the sound that was being produced. Like, uh, Okay, here's an example. One of my sounds of exasperation is just due to the way that I make it, almost a blend of an R and an N because I'm simultaneously vocalizing in my throat and then allowing the upper part of the mouth cavity to vibrate because of it in a way that produces two sounds at the same time. Now, I doubt that it's exactly reproducible with the current phonetic language, but with the stacked version that I'm talking about, you would write an R above the N just to indicate the how the sound kind of falls between the two, even though in general practice, it likely is rarely actually used.

G: What I think you’re asking:
Is there any system in linguistics where two symbols are intentionally stacked or layered to represent a single sound—not as a sequence (like diphthongs), but as a simultaneous or blended articulation (e.g., something between an “R” and an “N,” or both at once)?

Short answer (TL;DR):
Yes—what you’re describing does exist in principle, but it’s handled with specialized notation (diacritics, tie bars, and combined symbols) rather than literally writing two full characters stacked. Your idea maps most closely to coarticulation notation, simultaneous articulation, and diacritic stacking in the entity["writing_system","International Phonetic Alphabet","IPA phonetic notation system"], plus some more experimental or niche transcription systems.

The closest direct match: simultaneous articulation notation

In IPA, when two sounds happen at the same time, linguists don’t write them one after another—they use:

1. Tie bars (͡ or ͜)

But note: this is usually for affricates (stop + fricative), not arbitrary blends.

2. Double articulation / coarticulation

Some sounds genuinely use two places of articulation at once:

More explicit forms can look like:

This is very close to your “R over N” idea, but only when both articulations are clearly defined.

For “in-between” or blended sounds

When a sound sits between categories (your actual core idea), IPA uses:

3. Diacritics to shift a sound

Instead of stacking two letters, they modify one:

So your “R + N blend” would likely be written as:

4. Diacritic stacking (your vertical idea, but compressed)

You can stack multiple modifiers:

This is effectively:

“one symbol + multiple layered properties”

Which is functionally what you’re proposing—but encoded more compactly.

Your exact idea: stacked full symbols

This is the interesting part:

Writing R above N to show a hybrid sound

Does this exist formally?

Not in mainstream IPA.

But conceptually?

Yes—your idea resembles:

There have been attempts (especially in teaching or niche research) to:

But they never standardized into something like IPA.

Why linguistics avoided your approach

You’re solving a real problem, but they chose a different solution:

1. Ambiguity explosion

Stacking full symbols raises questions:

IPA avoids this by:

encoding specific features explicitly, not visually implying them

2. Combinatorial chaos

If every sound can be a blend of any two:

3. Typing / practicality

IPA had to be:

Stacked symbols break all three (especially pre-digital).

Where your idea is actually strong

You’re zeroing in on something real:

Speech isn’t always sequential—it’s often overlapping.

Your system:

IPA:

Your “R + N exasperation sound”

What you described:

throat-based voicing (R-like) + nasal/oral cavity resonance (N-like)

Linguistically, that’s likely:

IPA would approximate it like:

But:

your stacked R over N actually communicates the intuition more directly

Bottom line

And more bluntly:

You’re proposing a more visually intuitive but less formally precise alternative to how phonetics currently encodes overlapping sounds.

It’s not wrong—it’s just not how the field chose to standardize the problem.

2026-03-25 12:39:03 EDT

M: I'm sure the diacritics work fine for general things. I was just wondering because while it's probably not as broad as I think, I'm fairly sure that I've got at least a few other noises that I make which are the same kind of audio blends, and the universality of transcription would, I think, be a useful tool, perhaps not used continuously, but kind of the same way that, oh man, I know that something like this exists, where the only time it's used is really to be hyper-precise simply because at any other time it would be way too difficult to communicate in terms of the volume of what's going on. Yeah, I can't think of the example, but just the idea of, well, I mean, the simple version is how people rarely write out the word doctor and instead just use the DR period, sometimes not even the period, unless there's a really good reason to write out the entire word. Or the way that people and even computers can be told to cut out trailing zeros when they're using decimals, unless it becomes important for the task at hand. I would say with the form that I'm talking about, it wouldn't be a question of how much of each. The point would be to bracket in the actual sound if somehow it... If it were simultaneously very certain and very definitely between the available sounds. Because as I understand it, and as is demonstrated by your upside-down R, it seems like the phonetic alphabet is fairly complete in most of the possible sounds out there. So any combination that would absolutely require a situation like this would either be indicating a kind of regional drawl that is itself not able to be pinned down, but instead is bracketed as some kind of combination or sliding scale between two different sounds, or for situations like I was just talking about where the vocalization is like a multi-faceted one that combines a couple sounds. If you really wanted to get it entirely under explicit control instead of just as a bracket for a single piece of speech, you probably could add a subscript of percentage with maybe like a subscript 1, meaning that it's 10% the N, meaning the other 90% is the R, or something like that. Oh, there's an example that I could have used. It's like how in dictionaries they use the phonetics to write out the enunciation. It's the same kind of expansion for explicitness' sake that you wouldn't actually use to write a quick note simply because using it is anything but quick. It sacrifices quickness in order to be as precise as is available.

G: What I think you’re asking:
Is there (or could there reasonably be) a rarely-used, ultra-precise phonetic notation layer—something beyond normal IPA—that allows you to explicitly bracket or encode blended/simultaneous sounds (like your R+N example), even if it’s too cumbersome for everyday use but useful when maximum precision matters?

TL;DR

You’re not describing standard IPA—but you are describing something that already exists in spirit:

These systems already serve the role you’re imagining:

overly detailed, rarely used, precision-first notation layers

What doesn’t exist is your specific “stacked full-symbol blend system with optional percentages”—but conceptually, that’s very close to how linguists think about speech internally.

The key thing you’ve correctly identified

You’ve basically rediscovered a real distinction in linguistics:

1. Broad transcription (fast, practical)

2. Narrow transcription (slow, obsessive)

Your idea fits here:

a third layer that sacrifices speed for precision

And yes—that layer already exists in practice.

The closest real equivalents

1. ExtIPA (Extended IPA)

entity["writing_system","Extensions to the International Phonetic Alphabet","ExtIPA system"]

This is probably the closest functional match to what you’re imagining.

2. VoQS (Voice Quality Symbols)

entity["writing_system","Voice Quality Symbols","VoQS notation system"]

This is less about discrete sounds and more about layered qualities, which overlaps with your “multi-faceted sound” idea.

3. Diacritic stacking (taken to extremes)

IPA technically allows stacking multiple modifiers:

At high levels, this becomes:

effectively a compressed version of your multi-channel system

Where your idea is different (and interesting)

You’re proposing:

A visually explicit dual-channel representation
(e.g., R stacked over N, optionally with weighting)

That differs from IPA in a key way:

IPA philosophy:

Your philosophy:

That’s actually closer to:

→ Gestural phonology

(where speech = overlapping articulatory gestures, not discrete units)

Your “percentage weighting” idea

You suggested something like:

R over N with a subscript indicating 10% N, 90% R

This does not exist in standard linguistics, but:

Why?

Because linguistics usually avoids:

turning transcription into quantitative signal analysis

They separate:

You’re trying to merge those.

The example you were reaching for (your “doctor / Dr.” analogy)

You were right:

Linguistics already uses:

Exactly like:

Your system would be:

an even more expanded precision mode

The hard limit you’re running into

Even if your system were adopted, there’s a deeper issue:

Human speech isn’t just “between two sounds”—it’s multi-dimensional

Your R/N example might actually involve:

So a true “perfect” system would need:

more than two stacked symbols—possibly many layers

Which is exactly why IPA chose:

feature modification instead of symbol stacking

Bottom line

And bluntly:

You’re trying to make transcription reflect how speech actually feels to produce.
Linguistics chose instead to make it reflect what can be consistently analyzed and shared.

2026-03-25 12:43:59 EDT

M: Don't get me wrong, I'm not thinking of it as being a simple thing to do in practice, even if it's theoretically easy to describe. Or sorry, let me rephrase that. Even if it's easy to describe in theory. Honestly, I was just thinking about the idea of regional dialects. Like how, even though it's, it might be recorded one way, a lot of southern words are tangibly different from the average American English or the standard issue American English, which I'm thinking of as being kind of the newspaper, sorry, newsroom accent when it's been an attempt is made to strip all regional accents off. I'm aware that that in itself could be considered an accent, but I'm just trying to set a zero point, even if that zero point is arbitrarily decided. The point is that if you start from there and then talk about... The south is the easiest reference point, but if you go up to Chicago, and as the A's start creeping upwards, sorry if that doesn't mean anything, it sounds right in my head and when I say it, but I'm not sure what the actual linguistic term is for when the A starts to go up further towards the roof of the mouth in terms of intonation. But the point was that the bracketing sometimes seems like it would be useful just in terms of even going from county to county, where the A in a y'all can be like I just pronounced it, or it can like start going further down into an almost O or OH sound. That's the only reason why I went down this path to begin with, is because often it feels like the societal pronunciation is more of an average than a precision thing if you're trying to record it.

G: What I think you’re asking:
When dealing with regional accents (like Southern vs. Chicago), where vowels slide or shift continuously rather than landing cleanly on one sound, is there any transcription approach that can “bracket” or represent that range/average behavior, instead of forcing a single precise symbol?

TL;DR

Yes—this problem is very real, and linguistics handles it, but not with stacked symbols. Instead, they use:

What you’re describing—“this sound lives somewhere in this region, not at a point”—is basically how modern phonetics already thinks about vowels. They just don’t encode it visually in-line with text.

The term you were reaching for

“the A starts creeping upwards”

You were actually describing:

And for Southern speech:

So your intuition is dead-on:

these aren’t fixed sounds—they’re moving targets

The core issue you’ve identified (and you’re right)

“Societal pronunciation is more of an average than a precision thing”

That’s not just a feeling—that’s basically accepted:

Linguistics view:

So “a vowel in y’all” isn’t:

How linguistics actually handles this

1. Vowel space (the real model)

Instead of symbols, linguists map vowels in a 2D space:

image_group{"aspect_ratio":"1:1","query":["vowel space chart F1 F2 diagram","IPA vowel chart trapezoid labeled","formant vowel plot example English","vowel space scatter plot dialect comparison"],"num_per_query":1}

Each vowel isn’t a dot—it’s a cluster.

So your “A drifting toward O”:

is literally a shifted cluster in space

2. Formants (the precise version)

They measure vowels numerically:

So instead of:

You get:

Which allows:

exact tracking of regional drift

3. Sociophonetics (variation across groups)

This field explicitly studies:

They often show:

Which is basically your “bracketing” idea—but in graph form.

4. Approximate / in-between notation

When forced into symbols, linguists will:

But this is a compromise:

it picks a point and nudges it—not a range

Where your idea fits (cleanly)

You’re proposing:

A range-aware transcription system
that says: “this sound lives somewhere between these anchors”

That corresponds almost perfectly to:

Why linguistics didn’t go that route

You’re not wrong—but they made a tradeoff:

Your system would:

But it would break:

So instead they split the problem:

Task Tool
Write speech IPA (discrete symbols)
Analyze variation vowel plots + statistics

Your “y’all” example, translated

What you’re hearing:

Linguistics would represent this as:

Bottom line

You’ve landed on a real limitation:

IPA forces continuous speech into discrete symbols

Your instinct:

“why not encode the range directly?”

Linguistics answer:

“we do—but not in the writing system”

So your idea isn’t wrong—it’s just:

And your version would basically be:

a human-readable overlay of vowel space behavior embedded directly into text.