There was never such a “standard”. That’s what gets us into trouble sometimes 
This is important. The alternative to using IPA is describing each sound. Instead of using the notation /ð/, we can say “voiced dental fricative”, “unrounded open back vowel” for /ɑ/, and so on. That’s the sort of precision needed when discussing pronunciations.
Dang it – I flubbed this part of my post #98 above. Here’s the correction:
… I found [URL=“https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Encyclopedia-Language-David-Crystal/dp/0521736501”]this book](David Crystal - Wikipedia) – The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language by British linguist David Crystal (tell me that guy didn’t step right out of casting 
).
[quote=“Paxx, post:91, topic:847369”]
These are all theoretical, because I don’t know the particulars by heart, but this is how you would use I.P.A. –
In accent X, “caught” and “cot” are both pronounced [kɑt].
In accent Y, “caught” is pronounced [kɔt] and “cot” is pronounced [kɒt].
In accent Z, “caught” is pronounced [kɒt] and “cot” is pronounced [kɑt].
In accent X, “bath” is pronounced [bæθ].
In accent Y, “bath” is pronounced [baθ].
In Accent A, “Mary” is [meɪri], “marry” is [mæri], and “merry” is [mɛri].
In Accent B, all three are [meɪri]
In Accent C, “Mary” and “marry” are [meɪri] and merry is [mɛri]
In Accent D, “Mary” and “merry” are [meɪri] and marry is [mæri]
In Accent E, “Mary” is [meɪri] and “merry” and “marry” are [mæri]
I’m not sure that this question or its answer is either very interesting or relevant to this thread.
The I.P.A. is a tool for discussing pronunciation in a written form. If you’re not discussing pronunciation in a written form, then there’s nothing more to say.
It’s like asking “Why should I bother to learn how to use a thermometer?,” being told “So you can take your temperature,” and then replying “I’m not interested in taking my temperature.” The only reply to that is “…”
I think I can characterize you, because of the words you use, the overtones of sarcasm and dismissal. I could be misinterpreting it. But if you’re point is simply that “I am not motivated to learn I.P.A., because I don’t find myself needing to transcribe pronunciations in a written medium,” then you could just say that, and that would be the end of that conversation.
There’s no need to reference drinking beer or to make comparisons to learning how to read Cyrillic script or using sarcastic “Cheerios,” especially since it’s objectively silly to claim that learning Cyrillic script is inherently easier than learning I.P.A. notation.
Speaking for myself, I’m no more fanatic about using I.P.A. to transcribe pronunciation than I am in using the English alphabet to write in English, or using Hindu-Arabic figures to record numbers or using dishwashing liquid to clean dishes. It’s the tool for the job. It might not be the only conceivable tool in existence, but if someone is going to ask me to do one of those things, I’m going to choose the logical tool, and I’m going to look sideways at someone who wants to engage in that activity, but disparages or is dismissive of the tool.
Yep.
Yes, you are.
OK. I am not motivated to learn I.P.A., because I don’t find myself needing to transcribe pronunciations in a written medium.
I still find your belief that you can characterize me to be patronizing and offensive.
By the way, it’s “your point,” not “you’re.” Cot ya. 
Never mind. Duplicate caused by server glitch.
Moderator Note
This is getting far too snippy.
This is IMHO. Everyone is free to have their own opinion. Do not attack someone just because their opinion is different from yours.
Let’s not turn this into an argument. Instead of snipping at each other, focus on the actual topic of the thread, please.
Don’t you get Macron involved in this discussion.
Dear Elmer: not to highyack this thread I have just opened another one inspired by your signature. I thought it would be fair to tell you, I hope this is the right way to do it. Here is the thread I mean:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=22122866#post22122866
Used to be able to write in IPA even, but that was a long time ago and much of my skill with it (which wasn’t great to begin with) was lost in the mists of hops. I think I could still muddle my way through reading a sentence though.
Yup. That and the whole fricative/labial/whathaveyou mouth diagram.
When I was 12, the Publishers Clearinghouse catalog offered Dictionary of Linguistics by Mario Pei at a discount. I grabbed a copy. I read it cover to cover backwards & forwards for the next couple years. It had an IPA chart and a basic explanation of it.
Then when I was 14 I started French class in which the textbook gave all the pronunciation in IPA alongside audio tapes of it being pronounced. This was back in 1973. The textbook title was Son et Sens (sound and meaning), an apt title for the method. It all demonstrated beautifully how valuable and useful a toolkit the IPA is. I took first place in my state in the Concours National de Français each of the four years I competed in it.
The way that example was given was unfair. The IPA is a flexible instrument that can be fine-tuned for minute distinctions of sound or used just as well for the much more elementary phonemes. In fact, such fine-tuning for closely rendered phonetics is a highly specialized sub-discipline in phonology, but is not normally required for anyone else. Whenever we hold discussions about pronunciation here—or you learn pronunciation of a new language from a textbook—the IPA will be set to the phonemic level, which is not scary to the uninitiated like that close phonetic transcription [tʰə̥ˈmɐːtʰɐʉ] is. It’ll be /təˈmeɪtoʊ/, using plain English phonemes. You’ve all seen the schwa symbol; it’s no mystery. You’ve all been introduced to diphthongs in grade school. That’s part of the beauty of the IPA: how you can zoom in for phonetics or zoom out for phonemes, as needed. There are various power of magnification available, you might say, like on a microscope.
Good explanation! The square brackets “” indicate a phonetic transcription, which is an encoding of the physical methods of producing the sounds. The forward slashes “//” indicate a phonemic transcription, which is an encoding of the representational partitions of the sounds for a particular dialect. Here is a nice description of the difference.
Making things difficult is that the human brain automatically converts the sounds it hears into phonemes. It takes training to be able to distinguish phonetic differences that your dialect lumps together into a single phoneme. Hence the problem that caught-cot mergers have distinguishing the vowels of those who don’t merge.
That’s interesting, and I wish the pronunciation guides in the dictionary rigorously distinguished tʰ from t and so on. I understand why they don’t, but it would be enormously useful in a beginner’s dictionary, so that people who do not speak English could learn how the words are actually pronounced (according to whatever standard).
I’m not sure that this level of granularity would be useful to a learner. First of all, what’s the purpose of a pronunciation guide in a dictionary? Is it to teach a specific accent? I don’t think so. And if it were, which accent would you use for the basis of a phonetic transcription? And on top of that, even two people speaking the same accent will have some differences at a fine level of granularity. At that level, you’re also talking significant study of languages to understand the phenomena being transcribed.
It seems to me that phonemic transcription of the most common pronunciations is appropriate for a dictionary.
And combined with the fact that most native speakers won’t actually distinguish between the allophones within a phoneme, a learning speaker doesn’t have to get it exactly right to be understood. It’s only when trying speak a specific dialect, including removing a foreign “accent”, that the exact phonetics matter.
That said, if the learning speaker is coming from a language that makes a phonemic distinction between their new language’s allophones, it can be a big help in their comprehension. For example, many languages hear aspirated plosives as separate phonemes from unaspirated ones. Knowing English lumps the aspirated voiceless alveolar plosive and the unaspirated one into a single phoneme* makes it easier for them to understand what the native English speaker is saying.
*Avoiding IPA for those who don’t know it. For those who do: [tʰ], [t] = /t/.
I was indeed picturing a learner who would rather learn to speak like a BBC announcer (or whatever; even the “official” received pronunciation guides get updated periodically) than be saddled with a thick, or even thin, foreign accent. Of course, these days there are electronic dictionaries that will speech-synthesize any word at the push of a button, in addition to the ever-growing volume of accessible audio and video clips online.
It’s not all that difficult.
I happened to take Russian in Jr. College and Japanese when I started at the 4yr college. By the time I added an ESL Teaching Certificate program to my grand plan, I was well-trained at looking at funny characters and instantly (well, almost) understanding them.
The ESL (English as a Second Language) Teaching Certificate program included a lot of courses from the Linguistics department and the literature of the linguistics field tends to scatter International Phonetic symbols throughout the pages so there was a need to learn IPA and I had a mind flexible enough to grok it.
–G!
What she said.
It’s not an illustration of the limitations of I.P.A. as a teaching tool, any more than the English alphabet to someone who hasn’t learned it, mathematical notation to someone who hasn’t learned it or the underlying Concepts, or chemical notation for the same.
You seem to be suggesting that I.P.A. should be apparent without any effort to learn it. It takes minimal effort, but not zero effort.
As Johanna said, I.P.A. is flexible in that you only have to use the notations that mean something to you.
At first, many of the notations are Going to be intellectually or theoretically understood. Should your interest in pronunciation deepen, you will start to hear more things, and indeed you will start to be able speak more sounds, to an extent. At that point, the symbols that were only theoretical will become more meaningful.
And you might need to have a cheat sheet at first. The fact that you might have trouble remembering some of the symbols is not a weakness of I.P.A.
Here is a quick cheat sheet for General American vowels—
- meet, heat
[ɪ] mitt, hit
[eɪ] mate, hate
[ɛ] met, het
[æ] mat, hat
[a] (-) just know that this exists in Boston accents
[ä] or [a] (father) (a and ä rarely exist together so often the distinction is ignored)
moot, hoot, food, boot
[ʊ] foot, book
[oʊ] foal, moat, boat
[ɔ] (caught, bought)
[ʌ] mutt, hut, Fudd, butt
[ɑ] Mott, hot, cot, bother
[ɒ] (-) just know that this exists and it’s a rounded vowel
[ɚ] murder, hurt, curt
[ə] unstressed vowel in about, because, diverse, provide
[aɪ] height, bite, might, kite
[aʊ] house, bout, cow
[ju] beauty, cute
[ɔɪ] boy, moist, coil
[e], [o], [ɥ], [y], [œ], [ɜ], [ø], [ʏ] aren’t phonemic in most American speech, but you can be generally aware that they might pop up if you are trying to learn British, Australian, or New Zealand accents or pronunciation in, say, French, German, Spanish, or Italian.
A couple of those vowels don’t exist in your accent, but tha’s okay. Seeing them will tell you “that’s different from how I say it.”