Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Table of phonetical transcriptions

I think we need some tables somewhere (linked from the main page) of standardised IPA, SAMPA and AHD (or whatever) symbols to be used in transcribing pronuncations in Wiktionary. There seems to be a fair amount of variation in phonetical transcription due to different versions of IPA (eg, E versus e), regional variations or, perhaps, dare I say, ignorance. A standardised table, perhaps with a note that these are the transcriptions to be used in pronunciations, would help make this clearer. — Paul G 08:50, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried about arguing over all that stuff again like when I first arrived here. We could instead of forcing a standard just explain the variations. But then I think I've got my "Non-IPA Dictionary Style" system pretty well honed for "international" English. The problems are with "American" English especially rhotacisation and cot-caught merger. Most British/Australian/European dictionaries use minor variations of the same set of IPA. The latest Oxford is more radical. No US dictionary uses IPA and the "GenAm" set used by linguists differs substantially from all the "International English IPA" schemes, and from all the non-IPA schemes. English is not alone. I've seen people on Wikipedia get very "outraged" about the usual set of symbols used for Spanish for example. I wonder if we can boil this down to prescription vs description like we can with the definitions? (-: — Hippietrail 14:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) Fair enough, but I want to proscibe phonetic symbols, not pronunciation. For example, I saw o: used somewhere the other day in to transcribe the "or" sound in "paw" into IPA instead of - the symbols used were incorrect rather than the intended pronunciation. What I would like to see is a table showing that, for example, this sound in British English is transcribed as // in IPA (with corresponding symbols for other Englishes). The page at [1] is not sufficient for this purpose and is of no use to those unfamiliar with systems of representing phonemes. Paul G Paul, are you sure you don't mean prescribe instead of proscribe? They are almost opposites. :-) I have no particular objection to these tables to explain the options in an Appendix: pseudonamespace. As in most issues I support a flexible approach to the subject of pronunciation. Nevertheless, I am aware of the dialect problems associated with pronunciation. So for the most part I don't bother with them unless there is a necessary point to be made, and then I do prefer IPA. Eclecticology 16:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) Yep, prescribe, that's what I should have written - not "proscibe", nor even "proscribe" :) — Paul G 20:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC


Post a Comment

<< Home