Help talk:Pronunciation respelling key

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page to maintain chronological order.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Is this page still here? 1.1 Survey 1.2 Discussion 2 Overcomplicated key 3 Comments on the system itself 4 Archive? 4.1 Tidy archive 5 Classical names

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 March 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Is this page still here?

If there's no consensus to delete it, it should at least be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace, because it's not an encyclopedia article. —Keenan Pepper 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation respelling key → Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key … Rationale: It's not an encyclopedia article and it's full of self-references, so it should not be in the main namespace. … Please discuss/vote at Talk:Pronunciation respelling key —Keenan Pepper 14:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

True, it's not an article, but no, it's not full of self references (there were two, but they've been removed). kwami 00:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support: this is original research by the editors and therefor cannot be in the main namespace. Indefatigable 17:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not original research. That term means a "novel interpretation" of material, and there is no interpretation involved here. It's simply a convention, the way the layout of an article is a convention. kwami 00:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Our conventions on the layout of articles are not documented in the main namespace; they are in the Wikipedia: namespace. This article also fails the verifiability criteria, so this is another reason it ought to be moved out of the main namespace. Indefatigable 03:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, there's nothing to verify! It's a convention. The same as in any print encyclopedia. kwami 09:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Print encyclopedias also have a division between the actual articles and things like the index and pronunciation key. This is not an article, so it doesn't belong in the article namespace. —Keenan Pepper 10:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you there. kwami 10:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We're not getting any votes, but I'll move it myself if I can get answers to the questions below. kwami 07:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Support, if reluctantly, re-spelling. While IPA notation may be more precise, and may have other advantages as well, I fear that most people (at least in the United States) simply will not make the effort to learn it sufficiently well to be able to use it in any practical manner. This must be the conclusion reached by American dictionary publishers as all (unlike British publishers) use some form of (slightly different) re-spelling schemes in their pronunciation keys. I suppose the underlying philosophy could be expressed by the old notion that the familiar is preferable to the ideal. dshep/07aug2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.154.111.221 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

Would it be possible to devise some re-spelling scheme that does not require bold letters, nor for that matter (not that you have them), italics, capitals, underlines or any other modification of standard letter-forms? -- dshep/21aug/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.154.121.107 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Support - reluctant and, yes, too late since it's already been done. No, it does not belong in the main namespace. The problem is that it doesn't belong in the helpspace either.

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

If it's in namespace, can we still link to it from main Wikipedia articles? kwami 18:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If anything, shouldn't it go in Wikipedia Help, the way WikiHiero syntax is? kwami 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Support moving to Help namespace Ashibaka tock 02:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. However, I'll move it back if people start objecting to links within articles. kwami 07:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I commend your attitude. But I'm not sure whether or not it's a good idea to move it. Once it's moved, getting it back may will be difficult. On the other hand, it does seem a sensible way forward. The problem is, people are trying to use Wikipedia to promote IPA, and this isn't likely to stop, however much other Wikipedians show that they are not ready to adopt it as a policy.

So my advice is, let's be crystal-clear about the policy on wikilinks from articles to help pages first. Andrewa 16:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Andrewa 16:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A little late now! :)

I also promote the IPA; I just don't see why we can't have both for English names, just as we have both IPA and sound files for foreign names. kwami 17:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can even make a case for using IPA exclusively. But, IMO such a policy won't have any chance of adoption. So I must go with the community decision. Andrewa 18:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If we could use only one system, it would be no contest. But since the whole point is to help as many people as possible ... kwami 00:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're not getting any votes. It's impossible to tell what proposal we're voting for or against. —Michael Z. 2006-08-07 06:09 Z

....

Readers of this page will probably be interested in the respelling scheme used by the BBC to assist its broadcast speakers. To quote from J. C. Wells' blogsite, "The BBC uses a special respelling system rather than IPA, since it is intended for native speakers of English (not phoneticians) addressing other native speakers of English." You may see it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/delivery/phonetic.pdf...--dshep/22aug2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.154.103.187 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

....

I was too late to vote on the move to the help namespace but I voted to support it anyway because, as I mentioned, the page doesn't belong in the main namespace. The problem, as I also mentioned, is that it doesn't belong in the help namespace either.

Kwami is absolutely right: this is not original research but a convention and as such doesn't need varification. However, the problem is that it is not the convention agreed upon by the editors at Wikipedia. The agreed convention is to use the IPA. This page goes against accepted practice.

Now, going against accepted practice is fine, however, typing up a rival convention is not a productive way of going about it. The way it should be done is to discuss it at the Manual of Style (pronunciation) talk page.

It doesn't belong in the main namespace but it doesn't belong in the help namespace either. It just doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into it and I'm not suggesting that it's a particularly bad system, however, until it is accepted as an alternative transcription system for Wikipedia this page should not exist. I missed the vote for deletion too.

Jimp 08:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy to oblige, if you can come up with an alternative. (It should be obvious from the debate at Manual of Style (pronunciation) that the IPA is not a functional alternative, or at least wasn't the last time I checked.) kwami 16:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Functional or not, Kwami, what I'm saying is that it's the IPA which (at least currently) is the agreed-upon standard. It's your key which is an alternative. Yeah, I think that I could cover the discinctions you make here using an IPA-based system but it would be my version and would have no place here at Wikipedia without concensus. Anyhow I'm off to sleep. Jimp 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See also

[edit] Overcomplicated key

If this is a key, why not just have "a as in cat" and leave it at that? What's the point of showing how the vowel in cat is pronounced in several dialects of English here? That information may belong in an encyclopedia article, but isn't it just superfluous clutter in this guide. —Michael Z. 2006-08-30 01:49 Z

[edit] Comments on the system itself

Questions of where the page should go and whether is should exist at all aside, I feel like making a few comments on the system itself.

1) The word "after" is transcribed as (af'-tər) whilst the word "fern" is transcribed as (fərn). These two (ər)s are quite different vowels to me. Now, I assume that stress marking is intended to take take care of this. However, this is not mentioned anywhere on the page and, indeed, there is no mention of the "er" of "after" in the table. - Jimp

True. Remedied easily enough; there's already a proposal to use er, ir, ur for the sounds in words like fern. However, I'm not competant to make the change, since I don't control these distinctions. - Kwami

Using er, ir & ur would be good for those who still make the distinction and would be fine for those of us who don't ... but how do you transcribe "word" and "work"? Jimp 01:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

2) Talking of stress marking, Kwami, why indicate it by an apostrophe after the stressed syllable? Why adopt an ad hoc convention contrary to the IPA system when neither would appear more intuitive? Indeed what might be most intuitive would perhaps be to use bold for stress but this would not be possible unless another way of distinguishing /ʊ/ & /uː/ were found. - Jimp

I was trying to keep the system as close as possible to the US dictionary systems that many people are already familiar with. (And Usonians, of course, are the main demographic that has trouble with the IPA.) Nearly all of these (at least that I've seen) have the opposite convention of the IPA. Bold for stress might be a good idea. (Easier on the eyes than ALL CAPS, at least.) - Kwami

I didn't know that US dictionaries used the opposite convention. I wonder why they do this. You could, of course, use SMALL CAPS but I'd prefer bold. SMALL CAPS could, however, be a nice way of avoiding the use of digraphs (e.g. "I might meet my mate." ==>> (I mIt mEt mI mAt)) but now we're moving away from a spelling-based system. Jimp 01:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

3) Which brings me to my third point. Why use bold this way? I'd prefer to use uu verses oo than oo verses oo. I would make for a more straight-forward system. Either way the reader would have to refer to the key to know the difference. Jimp 05:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a hard time with this. Most keys use diacritics for this. I even used ew instead of oo in places where there would be no confusion, just to avoid bolding the text. Uu would be okay, I guess, but would be unfamiliar to most people. (With oo at least they know it's going to be one "oo" sound or the other.) But then we've gotten rid of conventional ah and oh because a couple people made a fuss, so we might as well add one more. kwami 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If this article is to be believed the number of places where using ew instead of oo would cause no confusion will be exactly zero ... at least for the Welsh. A number of spelling reform proposals I've seen use uu. I've even seen an Oxford dictionary which used uu in its pronunciation key. The question would remain, though, as to which digraph to use for which phoneme. The dictionary I mention used uu for /ʊ/ and oo for /uː/. This has the advantage of keeping the key for /ʊ/ similar to the symbol for /ʌ/ which will be nice for those of us lacking the foot-strut split. However here's a good counter argument (though this is in the context of spelling reform). Jimp 01:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive?

This page is getting a bit too long and I feel that it is time to archive this page. If there are no objections over this, I shall be doing this within the next 24 hours. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is done now. If other editors have any issues regarding this, please inform and discuss it with me. Thank you for your patience! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy archive

I've moved #Is this page still here? back from the archive as #Discussion was an orphaned subsection left here. jnestorius^(talk) 21:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classical names

This section has several problems. For one thing, it makes generalizations about pronunciation that are not so, for instance that "r always closes a syllable" (and the incorrect stressing of Elara), or the speculation on the change in vowel quality before semivocalic i and e (which, if followed, would make people pronounce "Sirius" like "Cyrus"). For another, it omits a good deal of necessary information on the English pronunciation of classical names. I am reluctant to make corrections, however, since the information really doesn't belong in a help page about "pronunciation respelling", since the pronunciation is really a completely separate question from questions of spelling. It deserves its own page. RandomCritic 17:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's write that page. I've been longing to see it. As to the idea that "r always closes a syllable", you are right that this is incorrect: but the author obviously meant that "r colors the preceding vowel regardless of what syllable it is in." (Don't know about "Elara": what syllable is that properly stressed on?)

As to vowel tensing before "semivocalic" i: the rule as originally stated is generally correct, though you have identified the one big exception: the vowel "i" is not so tensed. (Compare "tibia" with "Boethius".)

--Gheuf 04:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)