On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:04 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
The idea behind IPA is, that there be a single standard alphabet that everyone can use which can help us all communicate a bit better when speaking a new language or just using a term from another language. It's basic and encyclopedic information and should be included. Consider a word we've all seen recently: Eyjafjallajökull, which apparently just means "island-mountain glacier" (I suggest that "Eyja-fjalla glacier" is the sensible English translation). It's not necessary that anyone pronounce it exactly as [ˈɛɪjaˌfjatlaˌjœːkʏtl̥], still its basic information about the name itself. A name is a key into a concept, and a foreign name is a key into a foreign concept. We don't omit basic information just because it gives us too much of a window into strange and foreign ways of conceptualization that we just don't understand.
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? 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. Is it too much to ask that pronunciation guides actually help normal readers pronounce words? Or is some vague notion of "key into concept" (but only for the 'l33t' few) more important?
As quiddity notes, and most everyone is probably already aware, this is an old argument. For anyone who hasn't heard it before, it should now be clear that Steve's demand for uniformity doesn't have universal support.
Nathan