Tarquin wrote:
I suggest we formulate a policy on using SAMPA for pronunciation of words In the long run, IPA might be nicer, since paper dictionaries & encyclopedias use it. However, until there's good support for Unicode, sampa is readable on any browser. If at some point we can switch, the two are in direct correspondance.
I think that Evan Kirschenbaum's system is better for our purposes.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/faq.html
More of the common European phonemes are easy to read here, at a loss of the ability for precise phonetic transcription. But then the possibility of precise transcription is returned at the cost of using incomprehensible codes like <unx> ("unexploded"). Since we'll be wanting phonemes almost exclusively, this is good.
The downside is that we *don't* have a one to one correspondence with IPA, but it's still possible to do machine translations later if desired, with some ambiguity about which letters to use for phonemes. (There's no ambiguity in the *meaning* of the symbols, however; this is just the usual ambiguity in phonemic symbols, deciding between /k/ and /x/ for a phoneme with both allophones.)
-- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia-l@math.ucr.edu
The plot thickens:
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~dpb/ascii-ipa.html
First, American English and British English do not have the same
pronunciation for the same words, yet the two are intermixed in the English wikipedia.
I am not suggesting we start adding pronunciation *everywhere*, but that we standardise pronunciation guides where they are given.
Some sort of IPA version has the huge advantage that the symbols can be copied to *any* other Wikipedia in any language.
I contributed to the article [[Karel Capek]], including the sentence:
"For English speakers, the name is pronounced something like CHOP-ek."
Someone added:
"(or in SAMPA: ['tSApek])."
I appreciate the SAMPA addition, but I'll bet that for every English speaker who can process ['tSApek] there are 100 (conservative estimate, off by a factor of 10) who can process CHOPek and produce a facsimile of his name for another English speaker.
Likewise SHO-pan, chai-KOV-sky, BAY-to-ven, TO-mas MONN, GER-teh, LOKH LO-mond.
Capek's name doesn't get his little Czech checkmark anyway. And without a "schwa" we couldn't give the pronuciation even of most English words, much less foreign words.
So even with SAMPA or some other scientific system, I believe we should retain the option, or even requirement, to render pronunciations, as needed, in non-standard, non-scientific, not-truly-phonetic, phonetic English spellings.
This list seems to have a bias in favor of leaping into snake pits: tables, math formulas, SAMPA. Next, musical notation?
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia-l@math.ucr.edu |Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 23:29:35 -0700 | |Tarquin wrote: | |>I suggest we formulate a policy on using SAMPA for pronunciation of words |>In the long run, IPA might be nicer, since paper dictionaries & |>encyclopedias use it. However, until there's good support for Unicode, |>sampa is readable on any browser. If at some point we can switch, the |>two are in direct correspondance. | |I think that Evan Kirschenbaum's system is better for our purposes. | |http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/faq.html | |More of the common European phonemes are easy to read here, |at a loss of the ability for precise phonetic transcription. |But then the possibility of precise transcription is returned |at the cost of using incomprehensible codes like <unx> ("unexploded"). |Since we'll be wanting phonemes almost exclusively, this is good. | |The downside is that we *don't* have a one to one correspondence with IPA, |but it's still possible to do machine translations later if desired, |with some ambiguity about which letters to use for phonemes. |(There's no ambiguity in the *meaning* of the symbols, however; |this is just the usual ambiguity in phonemic symbols, |deciding between /k/ and /x/ for a phoneme with both allophones.) | | |-- Toby Bartels | toby+wikipedia-l@math.ucr.edu |[Wikipedia-l] |To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: |http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |
I can't determine accurately how to say "CHOP-ek.". Did the writer mean "CHOP" like the word "chop"? Or does it rhyme with "SHOW"? Or did they in fact *mean* "SHOW", since "CH" is soft in many languages? And for that matter, how does the writer pronounce the word "chop"? AmEng and BrEng have different vowels for that word.
The IPA (or a variant like SAMPA) is: * portable. My Collins, Fowler's Modern English Usage, my French Larousse -- they all use the IPA. * international: the Esperanto, the German, the Spanish Wikipedias can ALL use the same SAMPA transcription for the same article
"Hand-made" pronunciation guides are: * individual & idiosyncratic. Two people with the same accent may write different things, and may read them differently * non-portable: people speakling different accents will interpret them differently
Paper encyclopedias expect their readers to learn the order of the letters of the alphabet. Learning SAMPA is relatively simple. While the table on [[SAMPA]] is increasingly complex, there is a shorter version on a sub-page which a link like [[pronounced]] should direct readers to. It's a small effort to learn, for a large gain afterwards.
Tom Parmenter wrote:
This list seems to have a bias in favor of leaping into snake pits: tables, math formulas, SAMPA. Next, musical notation?
I don't think this is the same over-complexity as tables and maths formulae (may) prove to be. It's a common sense standardization, using an internationally-accepted system.
At 2002-08-05 17:03 +0100, tarquin wrote:
Paper encyclopedias expect their readers to learn the order of the letters of the alphabet. Learning SAMPA is relatively simple. While the table on [[SAMPA]] is increasingly complex, there is a shorter version on a sub-page which a link like [[pronounced]] should direct readers to. It's a small effort to learn, for a large gain afterwards.
Unlike what is possible in a paper encyclopedium, why not add a small wav file of someone pronouncing the word correctly?
Some weeks ago I tought my mother how to add the pronunciation of some of the words to her Esperanto course (which is in Dutch): http://www.xs4all.nl/~wvganswk/les1.htm
Greetings, Jaap
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
At 2002-08-05 17:03 +0100, tarquin wrote:
Paper encyclopedias expect their readers to learn the order of the letters of the alphabet. Learning SAMPA is relatively simple. While the table on [[SAMPA]] is increasingly complex, there is a shorter version on a sub-page which a link like [[pronounced]] should direct readers to. It's a small effort to learn, for a large gain afterwards.
Unlike what is possible in a paper encyclopedium, why not add a small wav file of someone pronouncing the word correctly?
This is a much better idea than most attempts at divining pronunciation into a strange set of symbols including highly accepted sets such as IPA. The .wav file would, of course, be by a native speaker of the language. It could also be a vehicle for understanding the precise manner in which Americans don't speak English.
There would still be room for making written explanations about words that are not pronounced in an intuitive manner, such as "mnemosyne" and "more" when used to refer to a custom.
Eclecticology
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:41:46AM -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
At 2002-08-05 17:03 +0100, tarquin wrote:
Paper encyclopedias expect their readers to learn the order of the letters of the alphabet. Learning SAMPA is relatively simple. While the table on [[SAMPA]] is increasingly complex, there is a shorter version on a sub-page which a link like [[pronounced]] should direct readers to. It's a small effort to learn, for a large gain afterwards.
Unlike what is possible in a paper encyclopedium, why not add a small wav file of someone pronouncing the word correctly?
This is a much better idea than most attempts at divining pronunciation into a strange set of symbols including highly accepted sets such as IPA.
As a reader I think I would prefer having all three options. Sometimes I only want to quickly get a rough idea of the pronounciation, sometimes I want to know it exactly, and in some cases I even want to know how a Russian pronounces Glasnost. So what is the problem with having all three solutions?
-- Jan Hidders
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
Unlike what is possible in a paper encyclopedium, why not add a small wav file of someone pronouncing the word correctly?
This is a much better idea than most attempts at divining pronunciation into a strange set of symbols including highly accepted sets such as IPA. The .wav file would, of course, be by a native speaker of the language. It could also be a vehicle for understanding the precise manner in which Americans don't speak English.
There would still be room for making written explanations about words that are not pronounced in an intuitive manner, such as "mnemosyne" and "more" when used to refer to a custom.
Ah, but WHICH prononciation of an English language word? American? English? Australian? Canadian? The correct official dictionary version often varies by country, and what people actually say is even more widely different.
Actually, this would be a good addition to the page on international language differences... instead of just seeing that the Yanks say a-LOOM-in-um and the rest of the world prefers al-u-MIN-e-um you could hear it and it might make more sense...
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is a much better idea than most attempts at divining pronunciation into a strange set of symbols including highly accepted sets such as IPA. The .wav file would, of course, be by a native speaker of the language. It could also be a vehicle for understanding the precise manner in which Americans don't speak English.
Ah, but WHICH prononciation of an English language word? American? English? Australian? Canadian? The correct official dictionary version often varies by country, and what people actually say is even more widely different.
Actually, this would be a good addition to the page on international language differences... instead of just seeing that the Yanks say a-LOOM-in-um and the rest of the world prefers al-u-MIN-e-um you could hear it and it might make more sense...
All could provide a sample - or maybe the same rule should apply as with spelling, and the first to the post gets to have his version kept. ;-)
Eclecticology
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
Ah, but WHICH prononciation of an English language word? American? English? Australian? Canadian? The correct official dictionary version often varies by country, and what people actually say is even more widely different.
Let's have all of them. And if the difference is interesting, let's have an article that discusses the pronounciation. Let's forget about that old "correct official dictionary version". This is Wikipedia. Time to be radical.
On 05-08-2002, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote thusly :
At 2002-08-05 17:03 +0100, tarquin wrote:
Paper encyclopedias expect their readers to learn the order of the letters of the alphabet. Learning SAMPA is relatively simple. While the table on [[SAMPA]] is increasingly complex, there is a shorter version on a sub-page which a link like [[pronounced]] should direct readers to. It's a small effort to learn, for a large gain afterwards.
Unlike what is possible in a paper encyclopedium, why not add a small wav file of someone pronouncing the word correctly?
Someone has started it already on the page 'Clitoris'.
Regards, kpj.
|From: tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com |Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:03:19 +0100 | |I can't determine accurately how to say "CHOP-ek.". |Did the writer mean "CHOP" like the word "chop"? Or does it rhyme with |"SHOW"? Or did they in fact *mean* "SHOW", since "CH" is soft in many |languages?
Actually, it's pronounced "Throatwarbler-Mangrove".
I wrote: "For English speakers, the name is pronounced something like CHOP-ek." That seems modest and accurate (I discussed Capek with a Czech at some length once and he knew who I was talking about.)
|And for that matter, how does the writer pronounce the word "chop"? |AmEng and BrEng have different vowels for that word.
I surrender (and actually anticipated and made this argument more concisely in my original note), but this strikes me as disingenuous. The intimidating SAMPA table gives examples like { "as in London English cat". Would that be Cockney or BBC? I don't speak either. The best system for me would be to render it in Spanish, Norwegian, or German, phonetic languages that I know how to pronounce. (smiley)
[rest snipped]
| |Tom Parmenter wrote: | |>This list seems to have a bias in favor of leaping into snake pits: |>tables, math formulas, SAMPA. Next, musical notation? |> |I don't think this is the same over-complexity as tables and maths |formulae (may) prove to be. It's a common sense standardization, using |an internationally-accepted system. |
I first heard of it day before yesterday. As Donald Knuth says, "The great thing about standards is that there are so many of them."
Any kind of markup drives away writers, so the less the better. I grant you that SAMPA is a lesser case, but the big SAMPA page is too complex and scary and the little SAMPA page doesn't cover enough.
In the end, I'm agreeable to all you say, but reluctantly so. I think I'll leave CHOP-ek in.
Tom P.
Tom Parmenter wrote:
The intimidating SAMPA table gives examples like { "as in London English cat".
Hm. Must go clean that up!
Would that be Cockney or BBC? I don't speak either. The best system for me would be to render it in Spanish, Norwegian, or German, phonetic languages that I know how to pronounce. (smiley)
Absolutely. We could have a SAMPA/German, SAMPA/Norwegian and SAMPA/Spanish pages, each giving pronunciation guides for the same common symbols. And there's another case for using the IPA or a derivative: non-English speakers won't necessarily know how to pronounce "CHOW-pek"
tarquin wrote:
I can't determine accurately how to say "CHOP-ek.". Did the writer mean "CHOP" like the word "chop"?
Probably. That's certainly my interpretation.
Or does it rhyme with "SHOW"?
That would be CHO-pek or perhaps CHOPE-ek.
Or did they in fact *mean* "SHOW", since "CH" is soft in many languages?
But not in English.
And for that matter, how does the writer pronounce the word "chop"? AmEng and BrEng have different vowels for that word.
I would expect that same difference to be reflected in their *anglicized* pronunciation of "Čapek". Am I wrong?
"Hand-made" pronunciation guides are:
- individual & idiosyncratic. Two people with the same accent may write
different things, and may read them differently
- non-portable: people speakling different accents will interpret them
differently
Both true. The same is true of the pronunciations! IPA/SAMPA is even more closely tied to the accent of the transcriber; it is thus useful for describing the pronunciation of foreign words in the official or prestige dialect, or specific dialectical variation, but a lot less useful for describing English words and common anglicized pronunciations of foreign names.
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
Unlike what is possible in a paper encyclopedium, why not add a small wav file of someone pronouncing the word correctly?
See [[Clitoris]] for an example: it has a link to [[SAMPA|pronounced]], a SAMPA representation (correctly in [phonetic transcription brackets]), an approximation in English orthography, and a wav file (should it be an ogg?).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Tom Parmenter wrote:
I contributed to the article [[Karel Capek]], including the sentence: "For English speakers, the name is pronounced something like CHOP-ek." Someone added: "(or in SAMPA: ['tSApek])."
Isn't the solution here to submit an MP3 file where you speak the name? Isn't that what Microsoft Encarta would do? Does your computer have a microphone?
|X-Authentication-Warning: bryant.aronsson.se: lars owned process doing -bs |From: Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se |Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com |X-BeenThere: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 |Precedence: bulk |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |List-Help: mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=help |List-Post: mailto:wikipedia-l@nupedia.com |List-Subscribe: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l, | mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=subscribe |List-Id: An unmoderated discussion of all things Wikipedia <wikipedia-l.nupedia.com> |List-Unsubscribe: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l, | mailto:wikipedia-l-request@nupedia.com?subject=unsubscribe |List-Archive: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/ |Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:04:57 +0200 (CEST) | |Tom Parmenter wrote: |> I contributed to the article [[Karel Capek]], including the sentence: |> "For English speakers, the name is pronounced something like CHOP-ek." |> Someone added: |> "(or in SAMPA: ['tSApek])." | |Isn't the solution here to submit an MP3 file where you speak the |name? Isn't that what Microsoft Encarta would do? Does your computer |have a microphone? | | |-- | Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) | tel +46-70-7891609 | http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/ | |[Wikipedia-l] |To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: |http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l |
Instead of my naive transliteration/translation/rendering, we would have my naive spoken rendering, lingering Valdosta, Georgia, accent and all.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org