Talk:Pronunciation respelling for English

[Untitled]

This page is a copy from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols [note: a page which as of 17 March 2006 redirects to this article], which deserves a place as a normal article. I added a column for the Concise Oxford Dictionary. I do not know if the "Oxford Dictionary" uses the same system. Technically I have not yet found a way to render an overarching bar or bow over two letters, so I represented the occurrances as two separate bars and bows. I have not found y-bar and y-bow either (alternatives for ī and ǐ). −Woodstone 14:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Most British dictionaries, including Oxford ones, use IPA phonemic transcriptions (although their IPA transcription schemes vary from dictionary to dictionary, e.g. for the vowel in cat Oxford uses /a/ while Collins uses /æ/). The main exception is Chambers, which uses a diacritic-heavy system fairly similar to the American ones. At the moment the IPA column gives GenAm pronunciations; I'm not sure what the best way is to accommodate British dictionary transcriptions. One possibility might be a separate table with columns for the different IPA schemes used and for Chambers (and any other non-IPA schemes used in British sources.)--JHJ 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The focus of this page is on the various respelling methods in dictionaries. By the "example" column, speakers of a specific variant should be able to see what sound is meant. The IPA column should be seen as a rather wide phonemic indication (but indeed originally based on US-En). There are several other pages describing with more precision the many English pronunciation variants, using IPA. Splitting the table would defeat the idea of showing how many different systems are in use. −Woodstone 20:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As British dictionaries mostly use IPA, if that's your view I think you should put it back to making it clear that it's essentially about General American (which it is, even in the examples column - it thinks that horrid and hoarse have the same vowel).--JHJ 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My copy of the COD has no IPA and uses the system I entered in the corresponding column. I would like to keep the COD column, but have no objection against stating that the IPA column is based on GenAm. A few phonetic merges/splits in the examples do not harm the general concept. −Woodstone 21:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made an edit along those lines. I was thinking of the OED (except for the 1st edition) and the New Shorter Oxford, which do use IPA.--JHJ 12:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates of publication

Dictionaries do change their systems. The dictionaries referred to must be cited with their edition and date of publication. —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 16:56 Z

...

The COD referred to above is I believe either the 6th (1976) or 7th (1982) Edition. The pronunciation key, which I too have always thought especially useful, was a continuation of the system originally devised for the 1st Edition of the COD by H. W. Fowler , author of "The King's English" and "Fowler's English Usage", reference works that are still in print, and still much admired. Later editions followed (unfortunately I think) the lead of the 2nd Edition of the OED, which abandoned James Murray's extensive and detailed system in favour of a simpler IPA notation.

Fowler's original key for the COD, maintained I believe through the 5th Edition (1964), was arranged (if memory serves me correctly) in the following, self-explanatory manner:

mate, mete, mite, mote, mute, moot;

rack, reck, rick, rock, ruck, rook;/

mare, mere, mire, more, moor. (de)mure;/

bah, bawl, boil; how, hour; far, for, fur;/

plus unaccented ago, token, basin, flagon, bonus.

For emphasis, the main vowel of the first line was marked with a macron, those of the second line with a breve, and the third with a macron above both vowel and following r.

dshep/08aug2006

...

So the full version would look like this?

māte, mēte, mīte, mōte, mūte, mo͞ot;

răck, rĕck, rĭck, rŏck, rŭk, ro͝ok;/

ma͞re, me͞re, mi͞re, mo͞re, mo͞o͞r. (de)mu͞re;/

bah, bawl, boil; how, hour; fa͡r, fo͡r, fu͡r;/

ago, token, basin, flagon, bonus.

In "moor", I used overlapping double-macrons to create a triple macron—works in Safari and Firefox/Mac, but I don't know what it looks like in your browser.

Actually, "moor" was shown without a macron. Whether or not this was because of a technical restriction, perhaps no three-letter macron being available at the time, I do not know. In any event 'moor' was in some editions removed from the mare-mure chain and relegated to the end of the series to become 'boor" together with 'brow' and 'bower'. --dshep/21aug/2006

If this is correct, it looks like some of the transcriptions in the article are wrong. —Michael Z. 2006-08-09 17:16 Z

...

Yes, I didn't think it was possible to actually show the superscript markings, but you have done so. There is in fact another: the far-for-fur series had a down-pointing arch over the vowel-plus-r, but I couldn't think of the name of that particular marking.

The transcriptions in the article need not be incorrect, it all depends upon which edition of the COD was used. Almost every edition made some minor changes to the pronunciation key, perhaps in an attempt to reflect the changing nature of pronunciation in the eighty or so years since the COD was first published (or merely changing editorial tastes). As I am of the pre-boomer generation I regret these changes, but people who have grown up not knowing of the greater range of sounds once common do not miss them and find them unnecessary (I refer specifically to the several mergers that have taken place in my lifetime). How did you do that extended-breve over "rook"? -regards, dshep/09aug/2006 (I also use Mac/Safari)

I forgot to mention one of the features noticeable in the continuing development of the Oxford pronunciation keys, namely the problem (if that's what it is) of rhoticity. Earlier versions allowed the possibility of rhotic pronunciation, newer versions do not, reflecting the near-total abandonment of r-pronunciation in southeast England, the trend-setting region of the country, and the subsequent modification of adjacent vowels, a development rendering the OED of somewhat dubious value for rhotic American speakers, at least for pronunciation purposes. -dshep/10aug2006

Unicode includes the following double-width combining diacritics, which are placed between the two letters they modify. I can enter them into the Safari edit field using the Mac OS character palette, or type them using a custom keyboard layout (don't have one including these, but it's not too hard to make). You can probably enter them in Windows by typing something like alt+0-3-5-d.

• U+035A Combining double ring below o͛o (new in Unicode 4.1.0, doesn't work for me)
• U+035B Combining double zigzag above o͛o (new in Unicode 4.1.0, doesn't work for me)
• U+035C Combining double breve below o͜o (new in Unicode 4.1.0, works with DejaVu Sans font installed)
• U+035D Combining double breve o͝o
• U+035E Combining double macron o͞o
• U+035F Combining double macron below o͟o
• U+0360 Combining double tilde o͠o
• U+0361 Combining double inverted breve o͡o
• U+0362 Combining double rightwards arrow below o͢o

Should it be fa͡r, fo͡r, fu͡r?

As it is entered, the information is not verifiable, since we can't say for sure that it doesn't come out of some other edition. If you have a version of the COD, we should enter the transcription used, and cite the exact edition. —Michael Z. 2006-08-10 06:02 Z

....

Should it be fa͡r, fo͡r, fu͡r?...... Yes, as shown. Do you know the name of that particular superscript marking? it must have one.

I have one of the COD editions I referred to, even a facsimile of the first edition, but unfortunately they are boxed up in storage as I am currently attempting to move. However, I do have at hand a copy of the first edition of the Oxford American Dictionary, published from 1980 through 2002, which may be the last Oxford dictionary still reflecting Fowler's influence. Sadly, in my opinion, the current edition of the OAD reverted to a pronunciation scheme similar to that used by Webster's.

Pronunciation key of the the OAD(1): a/act, ă/ago, ah/father. ahr/arm, air/air, aw/all, ay/age, b/boy, ch/chin, d/dog, e/egg, ĕ/taken, ee/eat, eer/ear, f/fat, g/get, h/hat, hw/wheat, ĭ/if, ı̄/pencil, ɪ/ice (dotless i), j/jam, k/king, l/leg, m/me, n/no, ng/bring, o/odd, ŏ/official, oh/oat, ohr/four, oi/oil, oo/ooze, oor/poor, or/for, ow/out, p/pin, r/red, s/sit, sh/she, t/top, th/thin, th/this (italics), u/up, ŭ/suppose, ur/her, uu/book, v/van, w/will, y/yes, z/zebra, zh/vision (italics). There is no separate listing of yoo/unite, though that was included in the Oxford Paperback Dictionary (Joyce Hawkins, 1979), the model for the OAD, and in the text unite is respelled yoo-nɪt. If you compare this list with that of the COD in the article you will find only minor changes of an editorial nature, such as the elimination of superscripts except for unstressed vowels, two uses of italics, and one non-standard letter (the OPD had used a capital "I" instead of a dotless 'i' for the sound of "ice"). The basic arrangement, and I believe, intent, is still the same. I would be happy to send you a copy of the key if you like.

I am still fairly confident that the COD column shown in the table is that of the 6th or 7th edition of the COD. Couldn't the article author verify this? -dshep/11aug/2006

I was the one who originally added the COD column and I used my copy of the fifth edition of 1964 (revision of 1974), ISBN 0198611072. −Woodstone 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, good; that's settled then. I thought the 6th was the first to present the key in a different fashion but was apparently mistaken. --dshep/15aug/2006

Unicode calls the o͡o character a combining double inverted breve, but this is their functional/descriptive name in the context of computing. In the ALA-LC romanization tables it is called a ligature. I'm sure I've seen it called a tie bar somewhere.

Thanks for the citation, Woodstone. I've added the bibliographic listing to the table's key. It would be great to get all of the dictionaries properly cited.

OED

Come to think of it, this table seems incomplete without the original OED's pronunciation system (I had assumed the COD used the same). —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 15:11 Z

I can see two problems with that. It makes a lot more distinctions than the American systems, so it wouldn't fit well into the table, and it uses some strange symbols - are they all in Unicode?--JHJ 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the OED system. If it's so different, then this article would benefit from at least a description or comparison, to show that the scope of the represented systems is limited. Is there an online reference? —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 16:24 Z

There's a scanned version at http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/elearnaid/oxf-oed-pronunciation-key.jpg

Note different vowels in e.g. watch and lot, all those different "obscure" vowels, etc. Exactly what the phonetic differences referred to were (and who made the distinctions) I don't know. --JHJ 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Incorporating it into this article would be a project. And it looks like some of the symbols might be pushing the limits of the Unicode character set—I suspect some of the obscure letters may be hard to find in the required italic font. Do you know which edition of the OED this is from? —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 17:44 Z

According to the page it's linked from, it's scanned from the Compact edition, but I think there's only one non-IPA OED scheme. The 2nd and 3rd editions use (different) IPA-based systems.--JHJ 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if I can find all of the OED phonetic symbols from the scan:

Consonants:

b, d, f, k, l, m, n, p, t, v, z have their usual values

g, h, r, ɹ, s, w, hw, y
þ, ð, ʃ, tʃ, ʒ, dʒ, ŋ, ŋg
foreign: ṅ, lʸ, n, χ, χʸ, ɣ [?], ɣʸ

Vowels

ordinary	long	obscure
a	ā	ă
ai
au
æ	æ̆
ɑ
ɑu
ɒ	ɒ̄	ɒ̆
e	ēə	ĕ
e	ēi	ĕ
ę
ę̄
	ə̄	ə
əi
ə
i	īə	ĭ
i	ī	ĭ
o	ōə	ŏ
oi
o	ōə	ŏ
	ōu
ǫ, ǫ̀ or ǫ̀ *	ǭ	ǫ̆
ö
ȫ
ö
ȫ
u	ūə	ŭ
iu	iū, iū	iŭ, iŭ
u	ū	ŭ
iu	iū, iū	iŭ
ü
ü
ǖ

OED notes

italicized small letter o with ogonek + combining grave accent (ǫ̀) or small letter o grave + combining ogonek (ǫ̀)

---

The low hooks on letter o appear to be ogoneks, but they might be cedillas. Hard to distinguish modifier aᵃ or schwaᵊ, etc, and breve from háček in the scan. —Michael Z. 2006-08-13 14:30 Z

I've got a photocopy from the 1973 Shorter Oxford. The hooks on e and o are indeed ogoneks, and breves are breves, not haceks. If by "modifier a^" you mean an a-superscript, there are in fact no a-superscripts, only schwa-superscripts, i-spuerscripts, and u-superscripts.--CJGB (Chris) 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That helps. I think most of the symbols in the table above are now correct, or close. If the combining ogonek ( ǫ ) doesn't work, there's also a similar retroflex hook ( o̢ ) and Greek ypogegrammeni ( oͅ ). I think horn ( ơ ) is the right modifier, but there is also a hook above ( ỏ ), comma above ( o̓ ), comma above right ( o̕ ), and vertical line ( o̍ ). Please double-check that all of the modifier (superscript) letters are correct—they're very hard to distinguish in the scan.

All of these characters are supported in Unicode, but some don't display correctly in Safari and Firefox/Mac, due to missing glyphs in my font set. Firefox seems to display them all, but almost none italicized (just i, o, ö). Conversely, Safari italicizes all the right ones, but some italicized combining diacritics show up as an empty box after the letter—I think this is better, because at least you can tell where there's a problem.

I've made these class=IPA for the sake of MSIE, but I haven't tested this in Windows, and have no idea how much of it displays correctly. —Michael Z. 2006-08-13 16:54 Z

I've edited your table to match my photocopy. I wasn't sure how to code an o-ogenek with a grave accent. I've used the symbol (#) to represent a the double pipe that's used to mark non-English sounds. Hope this helps.--CJGB (Chris) 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, because of it's complexity, I think this should go into a separate table in the article. The historical significance of the OED would justify that special treatment. In fact, there may be a case for splitting the existing table between IPA-like and "traditional" transcriptions, just because it's getting a bit crowded. This would also leave room for documenting the IPA conventions used by different dictionaries.--CJGB (Chris) 20:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the hash (#) with double table cell borders. An alternative would be to add a character like "double vertical line" (‖), "box drawings double vertical" (║), or "Latin letter lateral click" (ǁ), but then the cell contents wouldn't align neatly.

Also put in two versions of italic o with ogonek and grave (Safari seems to reduce these to the same combination, and displays them broken the same way, although they do work when not italicized: ǫ̀, ǫ̀). —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 06:01 Z

^ə(^ə), ⁱ(ⁱ), and ^u(^u) are probably more correctly represented by the phonetic modifier characters U+1D4A modifier letter small schwa (ᵊ), U+2071 superscript Latin small letter i (ⁱ), and U+1D58 modifier letter small u (ᵘ). But I suppose MSIE botches those. —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 06:11 Z

The double table borders seems obtrusive. Maybe we should just asterisk these characters - after all, the double pipe is not part of the transcription, it just Murray's (or whoever's) way of flagging certain characters. It's not as if he transcribed café as [kaf||e•]--CJGB (Chris) 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't mean this table for the article yet, just trying to get a solid handle on the original data. Perhaps an asterisk and a table cell background tone. —Michael Z. 2006-08-17 00:55 Z

....

The 1st edition of the OED (and I assume the system of sound notation therein) was chiefly compiled by James Murray. The Concise Oxford was first put together by H. W. Fowler before the much larger OED was complete, and used Fowler's own much simpler system of notation. The various versions of the Shorter Oxford were to begin with based upon Murray's system, but with occasional small modifications, some of which I believe you have incorporated into your table above. The various versions of the Concise Oxford were based at first on Fowler's simpler system, again with minor modifications in succeeding editions until IPA notation was adapted for all varieties of Oxford dictionaries. One can quibble about which of all these is preferable, but thank you for making the effort to get these earlier more comprehensive symbols right. I did notice a few differences between your table and the original OED scheme:

line 2, ai (aye) was not marked as foreign in the OED(1), (but was in the Shorter Oxford); line 3, #au, was not included in the OED(1), (but inserted later in the SOD); line 7, the turned script-a was in italics in all positions; line 9, italic-e (survey) was not marked as foreign in the OED (but was in the SOD); line 11, a simple schwa was shown in the ordinary column, with an ordinary e with dot superscript in the obscure column (added); line 18, italic long-o had a small-u superscript (as you have shown below), not a schwa ; then there seems to be a line missing, that of non-italic-o with ogonek (what), with macron (walk), and obscure with breve (authority); in the next line all symbols were in italics; --dshep/13aug/2006

....

An oversight in the OED ?! Surprisingly, the pronunciation key for the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (thank you for the web site) does not include an obscure 'u' ( = u-breve); that is, a symbol to indicate that unstressed 'u becomes a schwa, a symbol similar to that furnished for the other vowels. Fortunately there is a library near me that has this edition (from 1978, with supplement) and indeed no such symbol is shown in either key. For the words 'circus' and 'discus', two words frequently used in other dictionaries to illustrate a weakened 'u' ( = schwa), the OED(1) uses an italic turned script-a with breve, the obscure variety of the vowel of 'cut'. However, in the body of the dictionary itself, the pronunciation of the words 'doubtful, hopeful, playful' thankful, wilful, ', and probably others of similar construction, are all described with a u-breve, a symbol that does not occur in the OED key, but does occur in the OED derived Shorter Oxford, using the keyword 'thankful'. Perhaps this symbol should be included in any table that reflects the original notation of the Oxford Dictionary, a more inclusive notational system better suited for American purposes than the current edition of the OED with its uncompromising insistence upon RP pronunciaion. --dshep/16aug2006

....

Canadian Oxford Dictionary

The slightly adapted IPA scheme of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary can be seen at Talk:Canadian English/Archive 1#Vocalic differentiation of Canadian English from American English. It reflects some of the differences in Canadian pronunciation (e.g. /ʌu/ in house), seems to be slightly simplified for some very common pronunciation (/a/ in cat), and includes a few French sounds which are common in Canadian English (/ɑ̃/ in franglais, /ã/ in Canadien, and /ɔ̃/ in Brayon). —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 17:45 Z

Practical English Dictionary for Brazilians

This is interesting, but slightly outside the topic. Perhaps foreign respelling schemes for English belong in a separate table or a different article? —Michael Z. 2006-07-05 14:19 Z

I agree, this article is about respelling English for English speakers. So indeed the Brazilian variant does not belong here. −Woodstone 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet no one removed it. I'm doing so now, and replacing it with Kenyon and Knott. —Angr 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ch-sound

In this chart, loch is given as an example for x. However, according to the Oxford Dictionaries, loch is pronounced lɒk, not lɒx. The x sound is rather for Dutch words, such as Scheveningen.

Which of the two is wrong?

• the dictionary (meaning, loch is pronounced like in the table)

or

• the article (meaning, loch is pronounced like in the dictionary and loch is an incorrect example)

MrTroy 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

About loch, Scots pronounce the ch as [x] or [χ]. As a speaker of Canadian English, I say [lɒx], and I don't feel it's a affectation. Naturally a lot of speakers will realise [x] as [k]. The Oxford dictionaries tend to be parochial in their pronunciations, using an RP dialect that's spoken by a minority even within the British Isles.

The [sx-] pronunciation of Scheveningen is a real jaw-breaker for most non-Dutch. Practically everyone says [sk-].--CJGB (Chris) 16:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian Oxford dictionary gives the pronunciation as /lɒk, lɒx/. They seem to think that the latter is well-known enough in Canada, at least, that the pronunciation guide at the bottom of each page includes "x loch". Our chart's "loch (Scottish)" is more than sufficient to get the point across. If the [x] sound is completely foreign to a reader, than no set of symbols or examples will help them anyway. —Michael Z. 2006-08-09 16:51 Z

I think the point behind the original question is that the example words in the table should be spelt using the relevant symbol in the relevant dictionary. If the COD uses <x> for [x] but not in <loch> then we shoul find another example. Of course, if the COD only uses it for Dutch words, there may not be any such word listed in all the other dictionaries in the table. jnestorius^(talk) 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's getting too picky. The examples are meant only as illustrations of the phoneme in question - and "loch" does that very well for [x]. If someone insists on footnoting the Oxford pronunciation, that's all right with me.--CJGB (Chris) 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't want to list dictionary-specific examples, that would only make matters more confusing. What I am saying is, if a lot of speakers pronounce loch as lok, they may misunderstand the example. They may think that [x] means [k], because they pronounce loch as lok. Isn't there a word that most English speakers know, but do pronounce correctly? P.S. As far as I know, the COD doesn't include Dutch words with ch. I only listed the Scheveningen example because that's a word that definitely uses the [x] sound. MrTroy 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But I think in this case "loch (Scottish)" makes the point. If you really want completeness, maybe a Hebrew example could help some readers, but I can't imagine a better-known English-language example of the [x] sound than loch. Perhaps "Bach", but if you've only ever heard [lok] then you probably think that's pronounced [bak], and not [bax]. —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 01:52 Z

Having multiple examples surely increases the likelihood of at least one being helpful for a given reader. Of course, many English speakers never use [x], but there's no cure for that; it only really causes a problem interpreting the key if they substitute one sound in one word and another in another ([k] and [h], maybe, in loch and hannukkah). Or maybe even that's not a problem; at least they might guess [x] sounds somewhere between [h] and [k]... jnestorius^(talk) 22:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to this. Shall it be chutzpah, channukkah, or something else?--CJGB (Chris) 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Provide a link to voiceless velar fricative, and perhaps to all of the phonemes. Keep in mind that this article is comparing notation systems. We should give the reader every opportunity to learn about foreign phonemes elsewhere, but this article shouldn't go too far in describing pronunciation. —Michael Z. 2006-08-12 15:13 Z

Foreign sounds

The table should be expanded to include sounds used in foreign words, since these are listed in at least some of the dictionaries, for foreign words which are used in English. For example, the AHD[1] should include the following. —Michael Z. 2006-08-17 03:47 Z

œ	French feu, German schön, French oeuf, German zwölf
ü	French tu, German über
KH	German ich, German ach, Scottish loch
N	French bon (bôN)

The last has a note:

The Dictionary uses N to reflect that the preceding vowel is nasalized. In French four nasalized vowels occur, as in the phrase un bon vin blanc: AHD (œN bôN văN bläN)

In IPA: [œ̃ bɔ̃ vã blɑ̃]

There is no [ã] sound in French.

IPA

I found some specific info about the use of IPA in dictionaries. This section should be preceded by some similar info about the use of other earlier respelling schemes. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-08-17 07:47 Z

In the long run, the best layout for the article would be a history of respelling systems first, history of IPA second, and finally the table and notes at the end. The table should eventually have columns for standard Gimson IPA for British English (perhaps from a recent edition of the EPD), a Gimson scheme adapted for Brit/US English (e.g. from the Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner's English Dictionary, 4th ed.[2]), and Upton's revised IPA (COED9 or later). —Michael Z. 2006-08-17 15:24 Z

There's also Kretzschmar's American English IPA scheme used by the OED: see the links I just added.

I also have two questions:

Who says that /əu/ (which should actually be /əʊ/ in the Gimson system, I believe) "is probably more accurately replaced today by /ou/ in both British and American English"? My impression of "modern RP" is still very much that it uses [əʊ] or similar (though there's a lot of variation in British accents other than RP; is that the reason for the comment?), and I don't think I've seen a source saying anything like that.

I know Upton's scheme is controversial (at least, Wells doesn't like some of the changes) but what's the reason for the bit about it representing a "narrower regional accent"?

--JHJ 18:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you know more about this than I do. All the information I gleaned from the online references cited. Apologies if I misinterpreted anything. Please do improve it or add material from better sources.

Is there an authoritative up-to-date reference on "the official" Gimson system? Wikipedia needs to find such a standard, because IPA transcriptions are all over the place. Many seem too technically precise to me, and invite criticism that IPA is too difficult. This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (pronunciation) .  —Michael Z. 2006-09-11 01:29 Z

I think the place (on the Web) for an authoritative description of Gimson's scheme is Wells's page. --JHJ 11:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, excellent ref. Copied it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (pronunciation). −Woodstone 12:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

IPA in Mac OS X's "Dictionary" application

Mac OS X 10.4 Dictionary (NOAD2) has a preference pane that allows me to select from:

1. US English (Diacritical)
2. US English (IPA)
3. British English (IPA)

A copy_all-paste conveniently gives all three forms (even though only the selected one is shown).
Examples:

church | ch ər ch | |tʃərtʃ| |tʃəːtʃ|

which |(h)wi ch | |(h)wɪtʃ| |wɪtʃ|

pleasure |ˈple zh ər| |ˌplɛʒər| |ˌplɛʒə|

and

ran |ran| |røn|

run |rən| |rən| |rʌn|

pupil¹ |ˈpyoōpəl| |ˌpjupəl| |ˌpjuːpɪl| |-p(ə)l|

pupil² |ˌpjupəl| |ˌpjuːpɪl| |-p(ə)l|

The question is, when I fill out a pronunciation for Wikipedia, should I use: all, none, or a specific IPA? --Charles Gaudette 21:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Such questions are being discussed in the last couple of sections at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (pronunciation). I'm just going to catch up on the last week of discussion there. —Michael Z. 2006-09-11 01:23 Z

Well that wasn't a very useful response. Let me try again:

Firstly, only enter the pronunciation if there's a good reason to do it. Use an IPA pronunciation. If the Am. and Brit. pronunciations are the same, great! If the American and British pronunciations are substantially different, then you might decide to include both. If the article is on an American or British-related subject, then use the respective pronunciation—if it's not clear which is being used, then label it as American or British pronunciation. —Michael Z. 2006-10-24 03:40 Z

PEDB?

The list of Title Abbreviations omits "PEDB". Can someone supply the proper expansion? The only expansion I know of is "Prostate Expression Database", which I assume is not what was intended here. :-) --128.125.196.55 18:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I wanted to ask it myself. --82.139.47.117 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you hover your cursor over "PEDB" you see that it stands for "Practical English Dictionary for Brazilians". —Angr 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

K&K?

Since nobody agreed with me to move the IPA section to the IPA for English article, then either the name of this article should change, or else update Pronunciation respelling if in fact IPA is regarded as a form of pronunciation respelling. In any case, I think the Kenyon & Knott key belongs in the IPA section, not the first table. jnestorius^(talk) 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article pronunciation respelling is simply incomplete. IPA is used for phonetic respelling of English, although perhaps its full range of uses is more accurately called transcription. Perhaps a more general title for this article would be phonetic transcription for English, but I don't know if it should be moved, because it is still restricted to the narrower topic of transcription in dictionaries.

The main reason I opposed moving the section there is that it is written as a complete overview for IPA as used in dictionaries. I would consider it somewhat narrowly-focussed and incomplete as a general history of IPA for English. —Michael Z. 2006-10-24 03:55 Z

Arranging the table rows

It would be nice to rearrange the table rows, placing similar systems close to each other (as I've done with the first three: IPA, an IPA-based system, and another linguistics system). Then it would be easier to see what's common and what is contrasting between them. Any objections? Insights?

An alternative arrangement would be to arrange them in some family-tree order, with derived systems to the right of their parent system, and divided up into groups. This may be harder to do accurately without a lot more information, and may or may not make the relationships clearer. —Michael Z. 2006-10-24 04:17 Z