This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Linguistics: Phonetics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force. South Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've got a handful of questions/observations.
1) I've never heard Afrikaans long A (as in kaart) realized as /aː/ but always as a very distinctive back vowel, namely . Is /a:/ chosen because of historical reasons or because it is easier to write than the symbol 〈ɑ〉? I know that in many languages /r/ is usually chosen as standard over the actual or for simplicity.

2) From what I've heard, the 〈g〉 is usually pronounced as the voiceless uvular fricative /χ/. In fact, that page even lists Afrikaans as one of the languages that has the sound, namely goed pronounced as , whereas in this article, goed is transcribed as /xut/.
I understand the difference between the /.../ and notation but I find it almost painfully wrong that the softer G variant here is referred to as the sound /ç/, rather than choosing /χ/ and /x/. Is /ç/ and /x/ the actual standard (sort of like English RP, if you will), historical or just because people are more used to the /x/ and /ç/ symbols?
I noticed that the "ch" sound of Swiss German is referred to as "always , or in many dialects even " and as a native speaker of Zürich German (the dialect that probably has the most uvular pronunciation of "ch" of all Swiss regions) I can assure you that the Afrikaans pronunciation of 〈g〉 is even more in the back, so this opposition confuses me.

3) Some information on when 〈g〉 is pronounced as /g/ as opposed to the usual fricative would be very interesting. This article lists the pronunciation of sorge as and I know that Dutch zorgen is pronounced something like /'zɔrɣə/. So this would be an interesting opposition to Dutch and an interesting fact to know in general. 84.75.9.162 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (lKj)

1. "Is /a:/ chosen because of historical reasons or because it is easier to write than the symbol 〈ɑ〉?" Maybe. Either way, that's how Donaldson writes it.

2a. "Is /ç/ and /x/ the actual standard (sort of like English RP, if you will), historical or just because people are more used to the /x/ and /ç/ symbols?" I don't know, that's how Donaldson writes it.

2b. "I can assure you that the Afrikaans pronunciation of 〈g〉 is even more in the back, so this opposition confuses me." There's no /ç/ in Afrikaans, therefore there is no opposition that you're talking about.

3. The only thing I know about is that it's an occasional allophone of /x/. Peter238 (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The vowel section is seriously lacking. Other phonology articles have diagrams of vowel targets, often in table form; this one needs something like that rather than just a list—especially because it's a list of phones, not phonemes. I see that some allophones are noted as such, but it looks to me like at least /iː/, /uː/, and /yː/ are also allophones, as they precede /r/ in their example words. I am not knowledgeable on the subject of Afrikaans phonology, and reading this page in its current form doesn't change that. _{(suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ)} nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not as simple as saying that the page needs a diagram of vowel targets. We need sources for such things. www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10118063.1993.9723910 could be used to make a formant chart. If someone has access to it (or is able to pay for it - it's pretty expensive), go for it. Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 13:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the transcription of "suutjies" is quite wrong - it ought to be something more like 'sykis. I'm not sure enough about the rightness of my transcription though to change it to that, but it should certainly be changed from what it is! 195.171.114.69 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)reply

Done. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 21:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply

What is the best way to transcribe it on wiktionary for example? In the recordings I heard on forvo the variant of Donaldson øə is the most obvious one. Should it be mentioned here as the main variant?
https://forvo.com/word/deur/#af
https://forvo.com/word/neus/#af
https://forvo.com/word/seun/#af
https://forvo.com/word/beursie/#af
85.30.49.168 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)reply

All of these sound like eø or even iø, not øə, so our transcription /eø/ is the most correct one. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply

On second thought, deur does sound somewhat more like øə, but that's probably just a positional allophone before /r/. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply

Update: I changed the transcription to ɪø per Lass and de Villiers - see 1. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply

A couple of days ago I added a monophthong chart to the article. The source is extremely old, but the monophthong chart that it has looks fairly accurate even for modern standard Afrikaans. I didn't include the 'close-mid monophthongs' /eː, øː, oː/, as these are often ɪə, ɪø, ʊə in modern standard Afrikaans, i.e. diphthongs.

However, I advise against using their diphthong chart, as, first of all, it doesn't include ɪə, ɪø, ʊə, the /œi/ diphthong is transcribed ⟨œy⟩ and has too central an ending point (as if it were œy, and it's not - in modern standard Afrikaans it is œi, with an unrounded second element), whereas /œu/ is shown as its outdated counterpart ou. Mr KEBAB (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply

I've just replaced that vowel chart with a much more recent one. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply