Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have a hard time understanding this claim that using
IPA improves
communication. Surely a device intended to facilitate communication
should make accessibility its first priority?
OK, its not about "communication" per se, its just a transcription
system for phonetics, that we chose a few years ago to use for
pronunciation keys.
I suppose forcing all the various projects to use
English might make it easier for the
people who understand English to read them all; but as it
happens,
there are quite a few people who don't read English comfortably and
we've sacrificed rigid uniformity for actual usefulness.
Straw man. Your confusing English with "Roman alphabet" - the latter
of which is just about universal at this point. The rest of your
argument sort of got lost.. I don't understand what you are saying,
except that you are misrepresenting my argument as one about
"universality."
Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think the prospect of a nice machine
synthesizer in the future (with the ability to provide real
recordings, of course) is probably sufficient justification for
continuing to use IPA all by itself.
Ah. The minimalist argument. :)
-Stevertigo