Wikipedia talk:Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, British)
Ver. 0.9 of American page as foundation
[edit]Placed first draft of American page here for British modification.
Ver. 0.91 Changed symbols to aa, oh, and uu
[edit]What a difference a day makes. Can see clear advantages to changing three symbols:
| Old | Used in | Changed to | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | past | aa | PAAST- past |
| o | bone | oh | BOHN- bone |
| u | book, would | uu | BUUK- book |
These changes seem to make more pronunciation markups intuitive and less confusing, changing the markup for goat from GOT to GOHT, for example. Doubtless these changes will cause a few oddities I can't predict, but I believe they largely make sense.--NathanHawking 21:58, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
Disagreement
[edit]For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with this approach to pronunciation. I know this form of ad-hoc pronunciation is popular in American Encyclopedias, etc, but I believe this approach is misguided. There is an internationally agreed phonetic alphabet that works in all languages (within reason) and is value-free. This system is the opposite. I truly hope this will not cause a proliferation of these "pronunciations" throughout wikipedia - especially as I have removed them whenever I've discovered them as being essentially worthless. A British version is even more error-prone and loaded than an American one, as British accents and pronunciations vary so widely. You may think the same could be said of IPA, but IPA permits an absolute pronunciation to be given to a word in ANY ACCENT. This system could conceivably do that, but only if a "standard accent" is agreed upon in the first place. There is no such thing, and so this ad-hoc system is self-referential and ultimately conveys almost no useful information at all, if you don't already know how to pronounce English (and if you do, it's redundant). I think there needs to be considerably more discussion before anything like this is deployed - I for one will be seriously turned off WP if it gains currency. Graham 05:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, Graham, for your opinion. Let's not confuse two issues. Yes, there is a standard. But it is very cumbersome, absurdly so for many applications.
- IPA ALLOWS for pronunciation of any accent, but are you seriously suggesting that a reference work list all possible pronunciations for every entry? The serious flaw in your reasoning is that given your premises and implied conclusion, no dictionary would ever list a "standard" or suggested pronunciation. Clearly that would be an absurd outcome.
- It would be no less absurd on Wikipedia. In compiling a List of heteronyms, for example, words which are spelled the same and pronounced differently, it would be absurd merely to SAY they're different but not to suggest HOW they're pronounced. If a pronunciation must be given to avoid such absurdity, which one would be selected?
- All pronunciations in all dialects?
- None?
- Those are equally absurd.
- Consider the simple word "past". Merriam-Webster suggests a single pronunciation, 'past, where the a is pronounced like the one in ash. There are numerous ways Americans say the word, however, and they include, using my suggested markup:
- PAAST (The equivalent of M-W's version)
- PAHST (New England)
- PAHyuhst (Southern U.S.)
- Dictionaries have to make choices, and I believe that Wikipedia must as well, for some articles, or be crippled as a serious reference. I have moved the discussion over to Wikipedia:Simple_pronunciation_markup_guide for policy consideration. I will take the liberty of copying this conversation to the talk page of the proposal, where we may continue the debate if you wish. --NathanHawking 08:49, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
Page move
[edit]I've moved this to the Wikipedia namespace to match Wikipedia:Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American) . Angela. 13:40, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)