Re: Pronunciation keys

Hi,

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> schrieb:

> You know, when you're used to CXS et sim, traditional
> dictionary pronunciation keys, especially the ASCII
> version, can take you aback:
> Main Entry: *shun·pike*
> <javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?shunpi01.wav=shunpike')>
> Pronunciation: 'sh&n-"pIk
>
> In my head I read that pronunciation transcription as
> /,S&n'pIk/, sounds like "shanpick", but with the emPHAsis
> on the seCOND sylLABle.  Only for a second, before I
> decoded it and saw how it does convey the intended
> /'SVn,pajk/ according to Webster's rules...
Then this book will confuse you even more: Oxford Little
Dictionary and Thesaurus, 978-0-19-860225-5 (used to be
0-19-860225-19):

   peruse /pərṓṓz/ v. read carefully

The above isn't completely right, in the book there's a
single dash reaching over both o's, with only one acute on
the top, in the middle of the dash. And yes, this book was
published by OUP -- I wonder why they don't use proper
IPA... you'd expect that from a publisher of scientific
books, at least I would. Here are some more gems: warning
/wáwrning/, gauge /gayj/, serious /séériəss/, time /tīm/
(off-hand I'd expect that to be <team>), motion /mṓsh'n/.
The system they use is not as random as it seems, but IPA
would be easier. And you don't even need a specially
customized font to typeset the pronunciations, except that
the font must contain the IPA extensions.

Regards,
Carsten

--
"Miranayam kepauara naranoaris." (Kalvin nay Hobbes)
Pinena, Kardaying 2, 2316 ya 11:17:01 pd

(Monday, January 29, 2007 at 06:47:57 pm)

Replies