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 can or do have a lot of difficulty learning the IPA will be "left out" if we end up depending on this. Emily On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:04 PM, stevertigo wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> 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 not largely useless but academically >> perfect. > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Emily Monroe <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I'd have to agree with you, Nathan. I can't read IPA to save my life! > > 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 encyclopedic information and should be included. > Consider a word we've all seen recently: Eyjafjallajökull, which > apparently just means "island-mountain glacier" (I suggest that > "Eyja-fjalla glacier" is the sensible English translation). It's not > necessary that anyone pronounce it exactly as [ˈɛɪjaˌfjatla > ˌjœːkʏtl̥], > still its basic information about the name itself. A name is a key > into a concept, and a foreign name is a key into a foreign concept. We > don't omit basic information just because it gives us too much of a > window into strange and foreign ways of conceptualization that we just > don't understand. > > The issue of accessibility is valid, but I can answer that by > understating IPA's usability as flexible, ranging from the basic to > the expert. Most people I imagine start with learning few of the IPA > vowels, and the consonants are mostly intuitive. Being flexible means > that its also quite forgiving, and that anyone who makes an honest > attempt at writing in IPA is making a contribution, even if they are > politely corrected here and there by someone a bit more.. 1337. > > I agree that IPA can seem a bit cumbersome and even ambiguous when > used at extreme detail (ie. it gets into reproducing whole > foreign-language phonologies at a single-word level, which isn't > always useful nor necessary). At least I can understand why it's not > universally accepted and used on our foreign encyclopedias, namely > that its still a bit esoteric enough for us on en. Nevertheless its, > again, encyclopedic and necessary. > > -Stevertigo > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
