[WikiEN-l] IPA issues

[Nathan]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:04 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg at 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