Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Pronunciation keys

From:T. A. McLeay <relay@...>
Date:Monday, January 29, 2007, 3:45
On 1/29/07, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
...
> approximations to try and figure out what is meant...). With other features > the author is using the standard linguistic terminology even where it is no > longer valid, just to avoid confusing the reader who goes on to read other > books in the field; why does that same logic not also suggest JUST USING THE > @#$! IPA?
Try reading the archives of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28pronunciation%29>, paying close attention to American views. As for using the IPA, most Australian school dictionaries use a pronunciation respelling system, but serious ones use a scheme called the "IPA" which uses IPA symbols in non-IPA ways. A similar system is also used by most linguists when the phonemic value is the relevant.[*] When the phonetic value is relevant, they use graphs. (The system was based on one used for RP in the 1960s, and modified in minor ways to show some irrelevant differences, like using /oU/ instead of /@u/ for a diphthong which is today prononuced somewhat like [Vu\]~[Ou], then more like [@u\]~[Ou].) The necessity of a revision is shown by the difficulty linguistics students have in learning the real IPA as used in real languages, because e.g. /a/ and /V/ represent the same quality (differing in length), essentially that of Japanese or Italian /a/ (the qualities of /a/ and /V/ were the same at the time the particular IPA-like scheme was created, but the vowel is now a bit lower than it used to be; in the 1960s it was probably more like the current RP value of /V/). IOW, even IPA schemes need to be revised, and even linguists are reluctant to pursue the revision. For the purposes of pronunciation in a dictionary aimed at native speakers, I'm not sure the IPA adds a whole lot, and probably makes the above situation worse. What would be nice is if the online dictionaries used real Unicode characters (or at least pictures), not the dodgy hard-to-read asciifications they seem to love. [*]: A footnote I've seen in a few articles goes something like "We will use the traditional system because no revised system has caught on, in spite of the fact that it poorly represents Australian pronunciation".

Replies

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Leon Lin <leon_math@...>