The question in questio- err, the question being discussed.

I've made a question concerning a rather obscure question, and got a valuable answer explaining a valuable (and seemingly obscure?) discipline of graphematics and term grapheme-phoneme correspondence.

Unfortunately, as Janus Bahs Jacquet pointed out in the comment:

It doesn’t really affect the question itself, but you have some mistakes in which sounds letters actually represent in different languages: Firstly, German and Polish have significant differences between them: ⟨bdg⟩ Pl. voiced, Ge. unvoiced; ⟨y⟩ Pl. /ɨ/, De. /y/; ⟨z⟩ Pl. /z/, De. /ts/; ⟨c⟩ Pl. /ts/, De. mostly /k/. But also, Spanish ⟨j⟩ is /x/, not /h/; the sound /j/ is written ⟨y⟩ in Spanish, not ⟨ll⟩ (that represents /ʎ/); Spanish ⟨x⟩ is mostly one of /ks gz s/, in some words /x/, only rarely /ʃ/ (though it is /ʃ/ in Catalan).

In the light of his comment, it turns out my question is based on a false premise, and contains further factual errors. I don't think I can salvage it on my own, since I can't even implement a simple improvement suggested by Azor Ahai:

I would suggest and ask that you replace quoted graphemes with phones where appropriate to make your question easier to read.

On the other hand, I don't want to deprive Alazon of their valuable answer and associated points.

What is the best course of action here?

  1. I should initiate a vote to close the question.
  2. I should make an edit stating that the question is based on a false premise, and that future readers should refer to the comments for clarification.
  3. As above, but I should copy Janus' comment verbatim into the question.
  4. Other option?

1 Answer 1


The fact that some of your concrete examples were incorrect does not mean that the premise of the question itself is incorrect – there are many cases where letters represent completely different sounds in different languages, including nearly all of your examples. They aren’t quite the sounds you wrote, but they’re still different sounds in different languages.

I’ve made an edit to the question now to generally tidy it up a bit and in particular,

  • give the correct sound–letter correspondences
  • get rid of the phrasing that a letter ‘is pronounced’ in a certain way, which to a linguist is a backwards description (the sound is primary, the letter is just an alternative way to represent it)
  • fix the distinction between graphemes and phonemes (as per Alazon’s comment)

As it stands now, I’d say the question is perfectly fine.

  • Wow, you singlehandedly salvaged my question. Thank you.
    – Dragomok
    Commented Oct 29, 2023 at 11:27
  • 1
    I agree. with Janus.
    – Alazon
    Commented Oct 29, 2023 at 14:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .