Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I just assumed that if IPA were widely used, someone might have
mentioned that in previous iterations of the arguments over its use.
Perhaps that assumption is a mistake, if the limit of research done by
IPA advocates is cherry picking Google search results.
David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
To me IPA is likely to remain one of the scripts I will never learn,
and whether I ought to learn it is besides the point The enWP is
written in English. The explanations are in English. The
pronunciations have to be given in a form English readers
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
You forget an important point. enWP has many readers and contributors with
English as second language. They usually use IPA as reference how English is
pronounced and have been taught English this way. So effectively
Nathan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
You forget an important point. enWP has many readers and contributors with
English as second language. They usually use IPA as reference how English is
pronounced and have been taught English this
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Oops, if the world contradicts the list and a WP article, the world is
out of step?
Anyway, not much googling on TEFL and IPA needed to find this quote:
Pronunciation guidance is a major feature of
Just my take on the matter: I find the 'pronunciation respelling key' next
to impossible to read, and IPA fairly simple (apart from some of the rarer
symbols or diacritics...)
On 21 April 2010 18:45, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
(Crossposted to wikien and foundation:)
Some points about
Okay, but which pronoucation should we use? Australian English?
British English? Canadian English? Does this matter with IPA?
Emily
On Apr 24, 2010, at 12:31 AM, David Goodman wrote:
To me IPA is likely to remain one of the scripts I will never learn,
and whether I ought to learn it is
Has anybody actually studied the effect on actual users of removing
schemes like [[Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key]] in favor of IPA?
It's obvious that having IPA pronunciations advances our mission for a
certain highly educated segment of user. But for the rest of our
readers, the
William, those are my concerns exactly (along with the and which
standard dialect of English should we use? concern).
Emily
On Apr 24, 2010, at 10:17 AM, William Pietri wrote:
Has anybody actually studied the effect on actual users of removing
schemes like [[Wikipedia:Pronunciation
And like DGG said, we're fortunate to have a single internaʃonal
standard in the first place.
I had a thought. We put so much cultural value into proper spelliŋ.
One of the reasons for why theres so much dislike for a strange scheme
like IPA is that repelling English words using a different
Question - Is this wrong:
Socrates (pronounced /ˈsɒkrətiːz/)
Or really wrong?
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To me IPA is likely to remain one of the scripts I will never learn,
and whether I ought to learn it is besides the point The enWP is
written in English. The explanations are in English. The
pronunciations have to be given in a form English readers can read,
even if it is only approximate. sound
stevertigo wrote:
Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the prospect of a nice machine
synthesizer in the future (with the ability to provide real
recordings, of course) is probably sufficient justification for
continuing to use IPA all by itself.
Ah. The minimalist
Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I'm seeing arguments like too international (not so handy for
English readers) and not international enough (too Anglo-centric).
Hm. People, myself included, don't understand it too well in a couple
of ways: Too international to me
Joseph Reagle joseph.2...@reagle.org wrote:
I've never been able to. I always hoped that the theory was that from the
IPA, you could translate it into some scheme that
would make sense in different vernaculars, but I never found
the IPA - English pronunciation link.
Well let's face it that
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the point of using a phonetic alphabet that 95% of our
readership can't interpret? If the idea is to help readers understand
how a word is pronounced in English, it should actually be useful to
the majority of readers and
Of course, this requires people actually learn the IPA. This is more
difficult for some than others; neuroatypicalities can make it harder
or easier, and polyglots can probably learn a lot easier. I don't know
if it translates well into braille. I wish I did.
I'm concerned that those who
As the page banners say, it's a recurring question. These are some of
the relevant links:
Discussions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Phonetic_Alphabet
The templates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:IPA-en
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:04 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
The idea behind IPA is, that there be a single standard alphabet that
everyone can use which can help us all communicate a bit better when
speaking a new language or just using a term from another language.
It's basic and
Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a hard time understanding this claim that using IPA improves
communication. Surely a device intended to facilitate communication
should make accessibility its first priority?
OK, its not about communication per se, its just a transcription
system for
On Wednesday 21 April 2010, Nathan wrote:
What's the point of using a phonetic alphabet that 95% of our
readership can't interpret?
I've never been able to. I always hoped that the theory was that from the IPA,
you could translate it into some scheme that would make sense in different
21 matches
Mail list logo
