As I gather it, the IPA is meant to be the universal phonetic alphabet, capable of recording any language accurately. However, their own rewrite of “The International Phonetic Association” as it appears at the top of the page seems to quite clearly spell it out as Th-ee I-n-t-uh-n-a-sh-u-n-a-l F-u-n-eh-t-i-k A-s-oh-oo-s-ee-ay-sh-n.
So, we’re dropping the ‘r’ sound in ‘international’, and ‘association’ has it’s ‘c’ pronounced as an ‘s’ rather than a ‘sh’, has an odd ‘oo’ sound added in after asso, and is missing the ‘uh’ sound in the ‘tion’ bit, going straight from ‘sh’ to ‘n’.
I do note that the group was founded in 1886, so perhaps their spelling of their own name is how it was pronounced back then, and they have not updated to modern pronunciation?
When you are able to “read” the symbols of the IPA, you can then accurately imitate any accent. I’ve done so with Russian, German, and Italian accents (to name a few) speaking English for drama class, but you can also reproduce how the words are said in different languages, in such a way that anyone who can understand the symbols can say them correctly. First you have to grasp what sounds each symbol depict, and then put them all together. Probably they are reproducing a “general” accent for their spelling.
My understanding is that this reflects a common British usage.
See above. However, I am an American from Louisiana, and I pronounce that ‘c’ as an ‘s’, not an ‘sh’. YMMV.
This is reflecting the status of English “long o” as, phonetically, a diphthong – the ‘o’ symbol is the onset of the diphthong, and the subsequent symbol represents the offglide (essentially similar to the vowel in American English ‘wood’).
This is representing the ‘n’ used as a syllabic nasal. A schwa is not necessary there for close phonetic transcription, because the ‘n’ itself is regarded as carrying the syllable. However, in some looser transcriptions, you may sometimes see a schwa inserted in the final syllables of words like association, sudden, and button.
Regarding specifically what the OP is asking about:
The International Phonetic Association was founded in Paris, France, and currently has offices in Glasgow, Scotland. Additionally, the Journal of the International Phonetic Association is published by Cambridge University Press. Accordingly, when the IPA folks transliterate English, I’ve found a strong tendency to start with British pronunciation (presumably RP).
The nice thing about phonetic is that there’s no “right” way of spelling any word, except as a function of full agreement about the right way to pronounce it.
That (the IPAssoc’s rendition of its own name) is not how I’d pronounce it, but I certainly recognize the phrase when pronounced that way.
In my own classes, when asked to render various phrases in IPA, I would always ask the teacher to read the phrase first, and then I’d render the phrase as the teacher had pronounced it. Otherwise, there would be long acrimonious arguments (“That’s not the right symbol sequence for that sound” / “But that’s how I say that word!”)
I just went by the notations and didn’t really have any trouble. I was reproducing a specific accent, as it was transcribed, not how I’d say a thing. Maybe I got lucky though, in that Kansas has a “generic” accent to start with for the most part. I’ve had people in other states ask me if I was from England because my virtual lack of accent (with some exceptions, I tend to say -ing endings as “in” for example, if I’m not being careful and precise) is an accent in itself if that makes sense.
Hm, alright I had been expecting that they would write their name “fully enunced”–and then saw ‘international’ written like a mobster would pronounce it. Threw me for a moment.
I guess that a truly phonetic alphabet would, then, not be as much of a tool to the general populace if it would just cause “proper” spelling to become a matter of debate. Ah well.
It’s my understanding that the people writing pieces for the association rendered things as they would say them in their own speech, so there was necessarily variation.
Anyway, who are you to say that your own pronunciation is any better “enunciated” than R.P. is? It’s all rather arbitrary.
The alphabet **is ** phonetic. The IPA rendering used there is based off of one pronunciation, and each symbol is representing one sound, so it is a phonetic rendering.
Here’s about how I’d say “The International Phonetic Alphabet” (in CXS ASCII rendering, go here for it: http://www.theiling.de/ipa/)
/D@ Intr=n&S@n@l f@nEtIk @sowsiejS@n/
Here’s the thing about the IPA. It’s NOT meant to be for writing “proper” language (Proper language means “frozen, and archaic spellings, usually to keep etymological relationships”), it’s meant to render languages AS speakers pronounce it, not write it. In that case, IPA is incredibly useful for someone to understand how to pronounce a language correctly (Even relatively phonetically spelled languages, like Spanish are not as crystal clear in their pronunciation from the standard orthography as most people assume). IPA is also useful for seeing how the mechanics of a language’s sound system works as well.
Yes, that’s the problem with phonetic spelling of English (and other languages, presumably, but especially English): a true phonetic spelling would mean that speakers of every accent would spell the language differently.
Howdy, Sage Rat! Y’know, I have a pretty American accent, & I don’t pronounce the “c” in “association” with a “sh” sound. Don’t assume your local accent is the English standard.
And the dropped “r” & the “oo” in a long “o” sound to me like an upper-class British accent.
Exactly. The IPA is meant to be phonetic. The question in OP is whether the rendition of their title is an accurate rendition of what OP thinks is the “correct” pronunciation, or maybe a consistently accurate rendition reflecting a real, regionalism.
