I’m not one who thinks it should be compulsory (although I certainly agree that any other system (with the possible exception of X-SAMPA) is going to be necessarily ambiguous), but the argument that it’s hard to produse, at least on non-mobile platforms, is a non-starter.
I use http://upodn.com/ to get the broad transcription and then I modify it, if necessary, using the chart on wikipedia.
IPA is totally messed up. An incredible hodgepodge of symbols that make no sense whatsoever. While a “universal” alphabet is desirable, the way the IPA has gone about it is unbelievably bad.
Avoid it around “normal” people. I.e., nearly everyone.
Do you have specific criticisms to back up your claims or is this just the usual argument from ignorance that seems to surround this issue?
Unless you have a legitimate claim to expertise in linguistics or other disciplines in which the IPA is the standard tool, claiming that it’s a terrible system is telling those experts that they are wrong about their own field. In that case, you better put up. (And if you are an expert, you should have ready-formed argument.)
But you see, that’s completely useless and unhelpful to most of us. I have no idea of even what words are there. It might as well be in Russian.
Sure, they can use it all they want-* in their own field. And I doubt if many posters here qualify as "experts’ working in this field. *
I mean, if you feel you need to- say something like The ‘a’ is like the A in apple, or in IPA ^#~.
If I were actually demonstrating a pronunciation, I would have included another transcription for the benefit of those who don’t understand IPA, as I’ve already explained in this thread that I do.
However, since it was just a demonstration of the ease of entering IPA, your complaint is perfectly irrelevant.
The claim is that IPA is a terrible system to represent pronunciation. Period. We’ve had claims that it is “fatally stupid” and a “hodgepodge of symbols that make no sense whatsoever”. Claims that it’s esoteric and helpful only to those who understand it aren’t the issue. The fact is, it is helpful to people who understand it, several of whom are posting in this thread.
I’ve now stated several times that I think that IPA transcriptions should be accompanied by less formal systems for the benefit of those who don’t know IPA. Do you object to IPA in that context?
No, as long as there are **BOTH. **
If someone doesn’t know about (non)rhotic-R, then they likely don’t know about IPA, either. No one who knows about it would use that transcription, since they’d know inherently it would be misunderstood by those who have rhotic-R. So no amount of telling people to use IPA will fix this.
Similarly, if they have a merger, then they will most likely use the wrong symbol for the sound. And they won’t be able to distinguish the correct sound in those who don’t have the merger. They could easily write /ˈmɛr ri/ for marry, even though no one pronounces it that way. The use of IPA will not fix the underlying problem.
Yes, if everyone knows IPA, then it is definitely superior. But they don’t. And, when they don’t, using it doesn’t really fix the problem. I will still have to assume that my audience doesn’t understand it and explain it, and that someone using it may not know how to use it correctly.
But this is also true for an English-based transcription system. The ambiguity is removed from these systems, just like it is for IPA. But they do so using the orthography that people are already familiar with. Much fewer sounds have to be explained.
The only problems I encounter are OO and TH, since there’s no clear way to distinguish them without making up symbols. But I’d similarly have to explain /u/ vs /ʊ/ and /ð/ vs /θ/. I might also have to explain that A by itself means the sound as in cat. But I’d have to use the same explanation for /æ/.
In IPA, I additionally have to explain all vowels, and a good number of consonants. And I have to take thirty seconds to type what would normally take less than one. Either I interrupt my train of thought, or I leave blanks and come back and fill them in–if I remember.
Not only does it take longer to write, it takes a bit longer to read. “THROHT WAW-bl’r MANG-grohve” is much easier to read than /θɹoʊt wɔblɝ mæŋgɹoʊv/. (I would quibble about the transcription, but now is no the time.)
I just don’t see how, given proper explanations, IPA accomplishes much of anything. If it’s easy and quick, I may use it. But, if it’s not, I won’t.
It accomplishes the task of quick information transfer between people who understand the system*. Also, maybe people who don’t know it may learn something. Again, I’m an advocate of using a backup system. I have never claimed that its use should be compulsory. Do what you want.
*(Just as a silly example, I recently decided I wanted to learn how to pronounce Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. The IPA was far more helpful to me than either audio examples or an exhaustive review on the particulars of Welsh phonology.)
I think the folks who object to IPA have a point.
If we were in a technical thread, and I started throwing out TLAs (three letter acronyms) and heavy engineering-speak, then other engineers would know what I was saying fairly precisely, but no one else would have any idea what we were talking about.
It’s the same with IPA. Sure, it’s helpful to those who understand it, but for those that don’t, it only makes things worse. And most people around here don’t understand it.
Using BigT’s example, THROHT WAW-bl’r MANG-grohve is something that I can understand. On the other hand, /θɹoʊt wɔblɝ mæŋgɹoʊv/ is almost meaningless and doesn’t help me at all.
Saying that we should learn it doesn’t help. I don’t want to learn it. It would be something that I would use so infrequently that I would likely forget half of it before I ever had to use it again.
Do I object to people using IPA? No, I don’t. But there are other pronunciation methods out there, and many of them are much more friendly to inexperienced users.
IMHO, you need to know your audience. If I said something like the input from the RTD measured just above the human TRPV1 activation level, how many people here do you think would understand that? But if I say we measured the temperature and it was so hot that it would feel like it was burning your skin, most folks would get it. The former sentence does have more information in it that would benefit someone with a technical understanding, but the latter isn’t so technical and is much better at getting the point across to most people around here.
It’s the same with IPA. If the question is “how is Odin pronounced in the original Norse?” then posting IPA isn’t a helpful answer for most folks.
[just to be clear, speaking as a poster, not a moderator]
Wrong Thread
I include both forms here usually, but with very qualified statements regarding the “lay” explanation (or, as I’ve done, resorted to audio samples), as the way vowels are pronounced vary wildly whether you’re an American English, British English, Australian English, South African English, etc., speaker. That’s part of the difficult thing about these pronunciation threads: this is an international audience and pronunciation analogies do not work across all these dialects. If one has a serious interest and curiosity about pronunciations, accents, and dialects, it’s worthwhile to learn IPA. I am not a professional linguist at all, but I love language in its myriad forms, local pronunciations and dialects especially. It’s fun to learn if you’re into this sort of stuff and helps with communicating with others who also share this interest. Sure, like I said above, include the lay explanations, but understand that they may cause confusion and even communicate the wrong sound altogether if someone from a different English dialect region is reading it, which is extremely common on this board, where speakers are from everywhere.
IPA is only rarely useful, because the people for whom it would be useful aren’t going to be surprised by marry-merry, cot-caught, pen-pin and so on. And for you people who adamantly believe that your idiolect is the only sensible way to pronounce words, and that standard English orthography faithfully transcribes that pronunciation, it won’t help a bit.
It’s probably just me, but I honestly have no idea who you’re talking to here.
Yes, of course there is, because that’s the only way you can meaningfully post here. All text on this board is encoded in Unicode.
This is, again, simply incorrect.
Test of Unicode IPA in the Quick Reply box: þ ð ø
Do you, or do you not, think everyone talks the same way you do?
If you do, you think everyone uses your idiolect. An idiolect is the way of talking specific to a single person. If enough people share the same idiolect, we say they share a dialect.
If you don’t, you’re probably educated enough to realize the need for IPA, or to, at the very least, refrain from trying to derail threads by complaining about it when other posters use it.
And, sure IPA might not be helpful for most people here. So what? It’s immensely helpful for the people who learn enough to use it, and we deserve to have an SDMB where we’re not constantly interrupted by people who try to condescend from a position of pure ignorance.