I mean that you don’t need to type in Unicode numbers to render IPA in the quick reply box; you can simply copy and paste from an IPA source. Your subsequent reply to kunilou seems to be agreeing with me on this point. Was this sarcasm?
Thank you. I know what an idiolect is. I’m just having trouble untangling just who Lemur866 is talking to.
This whole post is rather strange, given that as far as I can tell, we agree with each other entirely.
Okay, I simply have no idea what you guys mean. When I say “quick reply doesn’t support IPA,” I mean there is nothing in the quick reply box that lets me type those odd characters. Bold, italics, underline - yes. Adding a hyperlink, inserting a smiley, yes. Typing characters that don’t appear on a standard keyboard - I don’t see it. If it’s some standard function that I have overlooked for the past 15 years, please let me know. Who knows what else I may have overlooked.
As for going to another website, typing IPA, copying, coming back to this website, pasting, then continuing to write a message, that’s pretty much exactly what I meant when I said, “open an appropriate text program, enter unicode symbols, then copy, paste, close the text editor and continue on with their day,” except you can do it with a website rather than a program.
FWIW I was able to figure out “ʌv kɔrs wi ʃʊd juz «IPA» tu post sʌtʃ θiŋgz. Its ∂ǝ stændɚd” without too much difficulty, but “θɹoʊt wɔblɝ mæŋgɹoʊv” is a mystery. Even with Big T explaining it, I can’t get “throatwarbler mangrove” out of those symbols.
I get it if you want to use IPA because it’s more precise, but don’t get all huffy on a message board intended for the general public if someone comes along and asks “does that rhyme with goat?”
Actually with just those two sentences, and knowing what they’re meant to represent, you should be able to learn quite a bit of IPA in about 10 minutes, using nothing more than logical deduction. This requires no special knowledge.
First of all, again, [θɹoʊt wɔblɝ mæŋgɹoʊv] was not a serious attempt to represent pronunciation; it was a demonstration of the ease with which one can produce IPA, if one is so inclined. If one is not so inclined, I don’t really care. If I had intended it as an actual demonstration of pronunciation, I would have included a more normal-language transcription to accompany it, as I have continually stated I do.
Also, if you don’t know, or care to know, or plan to use IPA, why do you care how difficult it is to produce?
But we’re usually talking about 1 or 2 words. I don’t read IPA, but I will, from time to time, look up the pronunciation of a word if I see it spelled out thusly, and it does help give me a definitive pronunciation guide. If we were talking about whole sentences, no I wouldn’t bother. But a word or two? No biggie, and it’s not completely useless.
No, just me not understanding what you were saying. “Typing in numbers” doesn’t have much to do with Unicode; typing normally and copying-and-pasting involves Unicode just as much.
You’re right, you just phrased it in a way which utterly confused me. I thought you were saying that you can’t enter anything other than basic ASCII into the Quick Reply box.
We’re not getting all huffy over that. We’re getting annoyed over people who barge into threads involving IPA and huffily attempt to derail them by reporting us for using a “foreign language” or similar, as if IPA is, or should be, against the rules here.
You don’t have to use it. You don’t have to understand it. Just don’t try to prevent us from using it.
Ah. I guess my thought process was that since the whole character set is Unicode, there’s no reason to mention Unicode unless you’re talking about something more complicated than typing or copy-pasting.
So let’s just agree to agree or something.
Bah. Is complaining about grammar or spelling or paragraph use also Thread shitting"?:dubious: Not even close. Now, it could turn into a hijack, yes.
We have said it is acceptable when you use a more common system also. Just not by itself.
I’ve got no problem with IPA being used alongside a more conventionally understandable phonetic rendering. It’s just incomprehensible to me on its own.
X-SAMPA and IPA do, attempts at using respellings based on English do not. That’s because X-SAMPA and IPA are phonetic renderings and the respellings are not.
Yes, they almost always are.
This may be a specialized niche interest, but if you would learn how to discover what they’re actually saying on records when played backwards— Or learn to pronounce whole sentences and paragraphs backwards, so that a recording played backwards would come out forwards but sounding weird, like on Twin Peaks—
The only way to accomplish these things is to analyze the discrete phonemes. Do you have a phonemic transcription system of your own that works equally well backwards and forwards? With equal ease but without loss of accuracy? Because IPA is optimally suited to working with discrete phonemes analytically. Even though the label says “Phonetic,” IPA is robust and flexible and scalable enough to encode accurate data either phonetically or phonemically. It works well at various zoom settings of how broad or close a transcription you need. You can zoom out for phonemes and zoom in for various levels of phonetics.
No other system can do all that.
Johanna, now that you’ve joined this thread, I would be interested in your views on a question asked in the “Odin” thread that sparked this poll:
This thread has given me the resolve to always use IPA (along with inferior “sounds like X” charades for the recalcitrant) when discussing pronunciation from now on. No more skipping it for fear of showing others up 
I am interested in seeing more feedback on this same question, as well.
Great! Did you want that in this thread or the other one? (which I’m now reading to get cot up)
I see it’s about the caught/cot merger, though I’m not sure what exactly is the question being asked. Some dialects pronounce two definitely different vowel sounds, while some pronounce only one sound for both. Those who use only the one sound aren’t likely to hear my pronunciation of two different ones, without listening carefully, because in everyday conversational speech our brains filter out all kinds of extraneous sounds and focus in on the specific ones that convey information. However, I believe with careful listening a one-vowel speaker could learn to hear the difference between the two. After all, they vibrate at different frequencies. If nothing else, you can *see *the difference on a spectrogram to prove they aren’t the same.
A good concise but informative explanation is here; I don’t know if anyone’s linked to it yet, but it’s a good place to start.
(such a \kʌt ʌp\ 
)
Yeah, I actually did respond to Dr. Strangelove in that thread – mine was the last post as of this morning. Dr. S didn’t respond, but I was kind of late to the party … not sure whether or not he thought the thread was done and no further response was forthcoming.
The gist I got from his posts in that thread is that he didn’t seem to believe that the cot/caught vowels, even for non-merging speakers, were distinct from one another when produced at conversational speed.
Thanks! I think between your answer and mine the question has been covered. A merger is unlikely to hear the difference, ordinarily, but it isn’t impossible that they could learn to perceive it. They’ve just never had a reason to.