Help talk:IPA/English/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

code switching

from a user's talk page addressed to Kudpung:

In order to continue, I need to know whether you have linking or intruding ar or not, something you've so far refused to say. Without that, I can't evaluate your claim. So, would you, speaking your best (snobbiest?), say "Worcester is home" (or any appropriate linking environment) with an /r/ before "is"? If you don't, would it be considered correct to do so? Then, take "Anglia is home" -- is there an /r/ there? If there is, is that considered correct? kwami (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, to set the record straight, the claims are not mine; several Wikipedians, among them the micromanagers of Wikipedia Projects, have suggested on this discussion and on other talk pages that there may be some weaknesses in the way the Wikipedia assumes that British place names should be transliterated into the IPA, and because they are probably not linguists, it has not been possible for them to express their concern in a way that the linguists here can understand and address in simple, non lingo-technical terms.

For the benefit of readers of this thread who are not linguists, and to answer the question in italics above: My best, snobbiest RP does NOT pronounce the linking r at the end of Worcester when the next word begins with a vowel. There are in fact several kinds of RP and they have all changed over the last 60 years since I started speaking and was educated in awfully rather posh schools. That 'posh' unlinked r is how BBC newscasters spoke in the 50s and how the Queen still speaks when reading from a prepared script - such as her speech at the opening of the parliamentary session, and her Christmas speech to the nation, and on other formal occasions. In more private circles and when on a walk-about, her speech has become a tiny bit more laid back, while two generations later, her grandchildren William and Harry speak much the same as any reasonably well educated kids of their generation. The accent of their father, Prince Charles, is still in many ways, more affected (snobbish) than that of his mother, the Queen. Contrary to some popular ideas expressed on this encyclopedia and elsewhere, nobody in Britain is in a hurry to speak with the same accent of the Queen. A form or RP, or regionally and socially devoid accent, is becoming exponentially widespread in the land, and regional accents among the younger genrations are becoming barely discernible.

However, in TESOL, for example, we expose our students to a wide variety of English accents to enable them to even distinguish words from the worst American slur, to perfectly fluent, but educated, native Indian English, and Thai and Chinese English gibberish (Tinglish & Chinglish). What I teach them is a more modern RP without the awful affectations of the 40s and 50s, but they very often have to learn the bulk of their pronunciation from either their indigenous non-native English speaking teachers, or from native English TEFLers who may speak with a strong American or British regional or cultural bias, and are not capable of code switching to any form of RP. Generally, the IPA is only of interest to those who need a pronunciation reference across several langauges. Anyone just learning one second language just has to 'listen and repeat' in the traditional way, with some help from the teacher in the physical aspects of producing some sounds that may be new to the learner. Very few second langauge learners will ever achieve even a near native pronunciation, it's rarely necessary, and their utterances will allmost always be coloured by traces of their own first language accent. You can be in a conference room full of mixed nationalities all speaking perfectly fluent French for example, but you will notice their origins from their accents. In TESOL, (outside the US), frequent use of the IPA is made because many exams, including TESOL certification, demand it. (just so you know, in my university I taught phonetics, phonology, morphology, and syntax in the Graduate School). Unlike some of the IPA specialists that contribute to the IPA articles in the Wikipedia, they are not expected to become perfectly fluent in their use of it. They will however, be able to look at a word of up to , say, three sylables, and recognise quite accurately how it will sound. One side effect of learning the IPA is that because it is a script, it can be an immense help in preparing learners how to use non Roman scripts. Musicians score quite well when learning the IPA because they have already learned to read a language in a non Roman script that represents sounds: that of music. Generally, the IPA is a working tool for teachers, linguists, and students learning several languages simultaneously. It does not demand total understanding of it as a stand-alone subject, any more than I speak fluent Thai, without a university degree in it, for running my business here. One of the problems in this discussion has been as far as I can see, is that the non linguists here have been brushed off and scared away by a lot of technical gibberish by IPA specialists who consider any non IPA experts as complete idiots, failed linguists, and trolls.

1. It has been my suggestion that the IPA transcription of British place names should represent as closely as possible, the natural way that most speakers in that country would pronounce it, or at least most easily recognise it wen hearing it. This means that more attention should be given to the questions of Who are the readers of the IPA articles? and What are their needs? Too many editors think the only people who read the Wiki are the one who write it.
2. It has been my suggestion that a Standard Global English is a fallacy. Alone in the United Kingdom,my homeland, I do not understand one word of very broad Scots. As a lexicographer, and author of an American-British bilingual dictionary and grammar, I can vouch (I can't supply citations here for obvious reasons) for the fact that there are hundreds of fundamental differences between General American, and modern, common RP.
3. It has been my suggestion that where differences between AE and BE are great, then two pronunciations of a place name should be shown.
4. It has been suggested by those who opposed dual entries that this would mean every pronunciation in every accent of English would also then have to be shown. That is, IMHO, a silly argument to use in opposition.
5. Notwithstanding the current discussion, some editors have deliberately antagonised the debate and stretched the GF of participants by carrying out a programme of disruptive editing, by turning non rhotic place names into rhotic place names.
6. Serious editors who started the discussion felt they were not getting satisfactory explanations to their enquiries. They either gave up trying or they took their discussion elsewhere.
7. Finally, after all these weeks, the dicussion has been reviveed albeit through a particularly nasty echange, and we have a detailed explanation that could have been provided if Good Faith from its author had been demonstrated weeks ago.
8. I partly agree with that explanation, but do not agree to implement it on the Wikipedia for the reasons stated in the preamble to this message.
9. This thread is far from closed. Any suggestion to close this discussion prematurely is because the issue is too embarrassing to those who don't want to waste their time addressing questions from non IPA specialits. No consensus has been reached, and if it were it would represent my White House analogy.
10. Because of constant incivility, I'm not going to answer any questions on the above. If you can be bothered to read it (and some of you have admitted that you are not interested in reading every post in detail), and you find it in any way helpful, please dicuss it amongst yourselves and leave me out of it.--Kudpung (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Great! I think I finally understand what your objections are. If you had answered such simple questions when I'd asked them months ago, it would have saved a lot of frustration on all sides. I'll ignore your repeated and I can only assume knowing misrepresentations of what's going on here, and skip to the useful bits. (Yes, I've previously skimmed some of your missives, as I'd found them overly long and generally devoid of content. I'm glad we're back to the point where it's profitable to read what you have to say.)

It is true that our IPA conventions were not designed with the ESL student in mind. This is certainly worth discussion. How much should our transcriptions be targeted to the reader who knows English, and how much to the reader who's learning it? If we target the ESL student, should we then pick a representative dialect or dialects for WP, say just RP or just RP and GA, and ignore the other dialects of our native speaking readers? Should any of this be the job of the Special English WP maybe? Or is that inadequate for it?

We do use conservative RP as the basis for our pronunciations. For example, we maintain the hoarse, horse distinction, which is now merged among most RP speakers. This is because it's easier to make a merger than to undo one, if the distinction is not made in the transcription. Of course, this is also s.t. we can revisit.

We did use to have multiple transcriptions of a word, RP, GA, and Oz. It started to become a mess, and general consensus is that we should use a single transcription where possible. True, as you point out, there are numerous cases where this is not possible, as in the alt pronunciations of "graph", but it works the vast majority of the time. This is also s.t. that can be revisited, but I for one have no desire to go back to the mess that we once had. Of course, it would make a difference if we only used RP for English place names, but I can already see the objections to that.

We do, and always have, supported the inclusion of local pronunciations. No-one has ever had any problem with that, except in trivial cases. But although it's quite useful to know how locals pronounce the name of their town in their own dialect and accent, it's also useful to know how one should pronounce the name in one's own accent when talking with one's compatriots. If two Torontans are talking, and one of them mentions "Yawk", the other might not recognize that he means "York". Even if it were recognized, it might sound pretentious. So both are important, both are desired, and IMO where they differ, both should be included. Your POV would seem to be, based on your deletions, that only the local pronunciation should be provided. I find that unfortunate.

As for "Global English" being a fallacy, no-one has said that this is how people should speak. In fact, we've been careful to say just the opposite: the IPA is a key that enables the reader to decode the pronunciation of a word in their own dialect (within what we support; we have unfortunately not been able to support Scottish). Nowhere do we say that they should try to imitate our transcription as their pronunciation. If we've implied that, please point out where, and we'll change it. That is not our intent.

Once again, you say that we all need to carefully consider your opinions, and discuss them among ourselves, but that you have no intention of actually defending them or answering questions if we find them unclear. This is not due to any incivility, but has always been your approach. It's difficult to take you seriously as an editor with such an attitude. kwami (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on this post in my talk page, I think your interpretation of Kudping's stance is correct.

While Kudping may not be returning here, I'd like to point out that Kwami has shown that using multiple systems actually requires a more thorough knowledge of the IPA and phonology than a single system. People complain enough about our using IPA without us making it more complicated. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Coming from the opposite POV from Kudpung, I just got an objection that paradigm should have the "merry" vowel rather than the "marry" vowel, because that's how it's pronounced by most North Americans, and therefore by most English speakers.

And why haven't people objected to Hampshire having an /h/? kwami (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The "paradigm" objection came from me. After having read the "Wikipedia:IPA for English" page, I think I have a better comprehension of what you're trying to do here, and I applaud your efforts. I am still concerned, though, that you may be fighting a losing battle against people who simply do not understand the problem, simply will not go read this page, and will continue to insist that various IPA transcriptions in Wikipedia are just plain wrong. And I'm not totally sure that readers should need to become dialect experts in order to understand pronunciation notes in WP — though I realize you've all been dealing with that question for a long time now, and I'm not sure if I have any useful suggestions that you haven't already thought of. Richwales (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Understanding the Key" section should always be completely visible

It's pretty clear and well-written, and might help with some of the confusions. Even though I come to this page constantly (mainly to cut and paste), I wouldn't mind seeing it every time. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's try that. I hid it assuming that it wouldn't be needed after the first visit.

Do you not have the list of IPA symbols under your edit window that you can click on to place IPA in text? kwami (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's so hard to find the symbols that I need among all the jumble there that I find it much easier to copy/paste from this page. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd even propose to keep the list of symbols itself hidden, with an instruction to read the "Understanding the Key" section first near the [show] link. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to try that out? kwami (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. If we're expanding the "understanding the key" box because we think people might be missing it, we don't want to compliment that by hiding the actual key since there will be people who miss it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a way to set user preferences so that regulars can default to hidden while newbies default to visible? Grover cleveland (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone understand this?

This phonetic alphabet uses characters, that I'm afraid most are unfamiliar with. I prefer the pronunciation provided by Merriam Webster over the IPA. Can we incorporate both into the articles?

For example: Washington Merriam Webster: "/ˈwȯ-shiŋ-tən" is easier for me to understand than IPA: "/ˈwɒʃɪŋ.tən"

99.73.184.21 (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That depends on your education. For most people, the IPA is easier. But yes, the other can be added; it's just that few editors are going to bother, for the same reason they don't bother with pounds or inches in an article. kwami (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, despite my (colorful? to put it kindly) protests on the main IPA talk page, I would not argue that IPA is less suited to this purpose than some other form of pronunciation guide... wȯ-shiŋ-tən is really no easier to interpret than anything else: either you know what the silly glyphs stand for, or you don't.

Point is that, either way, some people are actually just going to have to look it up. The question I would raise is whether or not it would not also be beneficial to include, inline, the explanation of the symbols found on the IPA-EN key page (this thing, I guess), since a lot of readers are going to be forced to look it up anyway. (Otherwise, why is this page linked?)

I can concede that space and flow may be issues. In response I would suggest that maybe pronunciation doesn't belong inline in the first paragraph of an article to begin with; if there isn't enough room to do it right, there just isn't enough room to do it there at all.

Other than that, my biggest gripe about the guys running this IPA stuff is that the articles where I most want to see a pronunciation guide don't actually include it. :(

J.M. Archer (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is done right. That's like saying we shouldn't use kilometers "if we can't do it right" because some people have to look up what a km is. An encyclopedia cannot be responsible for the educational deficiencies of its readership, whether it's the metric system, IPA, standard abbreviations, big words, dates in the Common Era, spelling conventions from across the pond, etc.

We do have a mod to the template that enables hover-over keys, but it will be a while before we can roll it out. But if we don't have the IPA where you'd most like to see it, tell us, and if we can confirm the pronunciation we'll provide it. kwami (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not a project like this is "done right" often depends on what exactly the goal is. If all you fellows are interested in is shoehorning a given set of characters into a given set of paragraphs, then--by all means--bravo, mission accomplished, this is the end of fighting in Iraq.

However, if the point is to help people to pronounce words they've not heard, then, I would argue...

Bah. You prally get my point by now.

And please don't be so disrespectful as to misrepresent my position. I did not claim that something other than IPA should be used. In fact, above, I stated the opposite. I only argued that it would be nice if information from the key (the pronunciation guide, found here, for the pronunciation guide) could be transposed to the article pages. I had actually been going to suggest the onhover thing you mentioned above, but I figured if anyone cared enough to implement it, someone would already have been working on it.

My point, as I felt I presented it above, was that if the stuff found here at this key is good enough to be found here at this key, it should also be good enough to appear in the articles themselves. Either it's accurate and effective or it isn't.

Oh, and my most recent annoyance was Aristeia, which I can't remember clearly from my classics courses. Tragically, the top zillion search results on Google are mirrors of the Wikipedia page, which does not include what I was looking for. Short of writing my old prof to ask how they pronounced it back when he was young (and Homer was in his sixties), I seem to be up a creek without a paddle. I don't remember any others at the moment, but I'll let you know if I run across any. :)

J.M. Archer (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I feel that equating other pronunciation guides to non-metric measurements is utterly ridiculous; people develop an instinctive understanding of "miles and "gallons," but the average person (for whom newspaper articles are written at a junior high reading level) is probably just as confused by Webster's pronunciation symbols as by any other form of rocket science. J.M. Archer (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you learned at school. A lot of US kids learn s.t. like the Webster's system in elementary school, so they think that's what we should use, not realizing that it's gibberish to most of the rest of the world.

I'll take a look at Aristeia. kwami (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Until I get my OED back, I'm going to assume that it can be predicted by blending aristocracy and oresteia, so that's what I added. kwami (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; I distinctly remember learning that Webster's gibberish in about second grade. It was only ever useful in second grade. Completely irrelevant to the usability issues that bug me about Wikipedia itself--and my contention with regard to pronunciation is about usability, not which pronunciation guide would be the more useful.

Thank you for looking into that funny Greek word. It's very useful, to the extent one can use it at all, in certain (rare) kinds of discussions--which happen way too often in certain lines of work.

J.M. Archer (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I nearly edit-conflicted with you, Kwami. I went the other direction and tried to resurrect the Ancient Greek pronunciation, which, happily, seems to agree with your English one. This reminds me: we really need WP:IPA for Greek, ideally covering the Classical, Byzantine, and Modern phonologies. That will be quite a chore. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! It's not so much that it'd be a chore, but the Greek 'pedians who would edit war over it, claiming that Classical Greek pronunciation is an English conspiracy to deprive Greeks of their heritage. (You do know that Classical Greek was pronounced identically to modern Athenian, don't you?) Well, maybe those editors have given up on WP by now. kwami (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

CLOTH group

How are these words to be categorized? With THOUGHT (as in the U.S. and Conservative RP), or with LOT (as in most of the U.K., and I presume, the Southern Hemisphere)? 82.124.231.186 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we don't have a special letter for this vowel, we need two transcriptions. kwami (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that go for BATH as well? I note that Bath, Somerset is simply given as /ˈbɑːθ/. Lfh (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is the local pronunciation, and should be labeled as such. (Any GA speaker giving it that pronunciation would sound pretentious.) There was a semi-serious proposal to use /aː/ for the BATH vowel, but given the low frequency compared to how often that's erroneously used for /ɑː/, it was thought best to avoid it. kwami (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the explanation now, above the key. Lfh (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. 82.124.231.186 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Kilogram vs. omission

For me, the o in kilogram is a schwa, whereas the o in omission is not, even if reduced. The note seems to imply that this sound may be absent altogether in some dialects, but doesn't hint at the fact that those that do have the sound may disagree about which words fall into the omission category.

I suspect that a majority of North Americans would agree with me on these two particular words, and the Merriam-Webster would seem to support that. 82.124.231.186 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What vowel do you have in omission when reduced? Lfh (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Probably a centralized version of [o]. I'm willing to believe that the [ɵ] suggested by the table is accurate. My main point is that there's no rounding for me in kilogram. 82.124.231.186 (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Kilogram has been removed now anyway. Lfh (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)