Substitute for ASCII IPA

Question

Dena Jo and others want a way other than ASCII IPA to represent pronunciation. I have objected to ad hoc transcriptions because there's no way to pin down what the symbols stand for.
It has occurred to me that we have a ready-made system that's more intuitive and more mnemonic than ASCII IPA and also has sound files that can be listened to to show what the symbols mean.
The ready-made system is the pronunciation guide at http://m-w.com . The sound files are available because for each word in the guide you can look up the word in the dictionary and click on the little loudspeaker to hear the word pronounced. (But see "Note:" below.)
All of the symbols can be typed in ASCII except for the two that have the two little dots over them, the vowels in "mop" and "loot", and the underscore for the "th" in "the". I suggest that we use a colon in place of the dots, like (ma:p) for "mop" and (lu:t) for "loot", and a vertical bar for the underscore, (th>e) for "the".
An unfortunate situation is that Merriam-Webster uses the same symbol for both vowels in "butter". That is, they think for some reason the schwa symbol can represent "u" as in "but" when it's stressed and the schwa when it's unstressed. For many people, including me, the two sounds are entirely different. I suggest modifying the M-W system to use (U) for the "u" in "but". This shouldn't
inconvenience too greatly people who think the sounds are both representable by the schwa symbol.
I've copied and pasted below the M-W "Guide to
pronunciation", and I've made the changes I've discussed above. I've prefixed each line with the ASCII IPA symbol corresponding to the M-W symbol.

\&\ as a in abut
(V) \U\ as u in abut

\&\ as e in kitten
(@r) \&r\as ur/er in further

\a\ as a in ash
(eI) \A\ as a in ace
(A) \a:\ as o in mop

\au\ as ou in out
(tS) \ch\ as ch in chin
(E) \e\ as e in bet
(i) \E\ as ea in easy
(g) \g\ as g in go
(I) \i\ as i in hit
(aI) \I\ as i in ice
(dZ) \j\ as j in job
(N) \(ng)\ as ng in sing
(oU) \O\ as o in go
(O) \o\ as aw in law
(Oi) \oi\ as oy in boy
(T) \th\ as th in thin
(D) \th>\ as th in the
(u) \u:\ as oo in loot
(U) \u\ as oo in foot
(j) \y\ as y in yet
(Z) \zh\ as si in vision
This system has the further advantage that you can verify your representation of any word you want to represent by looking it up in the dictionary to see how they represent it. If your pronunciation is the same as theirs, you can feel safe in using their transcription. It it isn't, you can find, and listen to, a word whose vowel does agree with yours.
Unfortunately, there's a flaw in the system: They're not entirely consistent in the way they pronounce words and the way they transcribe the pronunciations. For example, they transcribe "law" and "lore" with the same vowel, but their sound files sound to me like, in ASCII IPA, (lA:) for "law" and (lOr) for "lore"; in modified M-W, (la:) for "law" and (lor) for "lore".
But we have to take the rough with the smooth. The modified M-W notation may be the best we can do if we don't want to use ASCII IPA.
I can foresee all sorts of nitpicking about the proposed scheme. For example, someone may want to take issue with using the same symbol for the "ur" and the "er" in "further". I say we don't need to be that finicky.

2. Click here to listen with your default audio player.

You may need to do something else.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]They're not entirely consistent in the way they pronounce words and the way they transcribe the pronunciations. For example, they ... in ASCII IPA, (lA:) for "law" and (lOr) for "lore"; in modified M-W, (la:) for "law" and (lor) for "lore".[/nq]
There's an excellent side-by-side illustration of this sort of discrepancy at the entry for "lawyer". They have two pronunciations, and they provide a sound file for each of them. Their pronunciation transcription is
Pronunciation: 'lo-y&r, 'loi-&r
That says the two pronunciation sound files should be nearly identical, the main difference being in syllabification. In fact, they differ greatly in the sound of the first vowel.

In ASCII IPA, I would transcribe their pronunciations as

('lA: j@r), ('lOi @r)
In modified M-W notation
('la: y&r), ('loi &r)
Interesting to see, at "sawyer" they have two pronunciations but only one pronunciation sound file, and the vowel in the sound file seems to agree with that in both transcriptions.

Usenet · Answer

( . . . )
[nq:1]There's an excellent side-by-side illustration of this sort of discrepancy at the entry for "lawyer". They have two pronunciations, and they provide a sound file for each of them.[/nq]
I should have said I was referring to the Merriam-Webster dictionary at http://m-w.com .

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Dena Jo and others want a way other than ASCII IPA to represent pronunciation.[/nq]
Actually, what Dena Jo asked for was an informal way. What you propose below is another formal way. It may be easier for many people to learn, but it still has non-alphabetic symbols and other obstacles for people who don't want to learn anything that doesn't look like English.
On the other hand, it may be particularly hard to learn for people who already know ASCII IPA, since capitalization has a different and sometimes reversed meaning.
[nq:1]I have objected to ad hoc transcriptions because there's no way to pin down what the symbols stand for. It ... "u" in "but". This shouldn't inconvenience too greatly people who think the sounds are both representable by the schwa symbol.[/nq]
I'm with you here. However, I believe their reason is that the transcriptions are phonemic, not phonetic. You can make a case that the two sounds are actually allophones of the same phoneme appearing in accented and unaccented syllables. (I don't believe it, though.)

If they used phonetic transcriptions, they'd need a lot more symbols. They'd also reject every accent but one and it's not yours or mine.
[nq:1]I've copied and pasted below the M-W "Guide to pronunciation", and I've made the changes I've discussed above. I've prefixed ... using their transcription. It it isn't, you can find, and listen to, a word whose vowel does agree with yours.[/nq]
Hardly. For instance, most New Yorkers will not find anything that agrees with their "law" vowel, nor will most Texans find their "ace" and "out" vowels. I could add a lot more examples.
[nq:1]Unfortunately, there's a flaw in the system: They're not entirely consistent in the way they pronounce words and the way ... in ASCII IPA, (lA:) for "law" and (lOr) for "lore"; in modified M-W, (la:) for "law" and (lor) for "lore".[/nq]
Again, this is because the transcriptions are phonemic, not phonetic. They believe these two different sounds are how a single phoneme is realized, depending on whether or not it's followed by /r/.
[nq:1]But we have to take the rough with the smooth. The modified M-W notation may be the best we can ... the same symbol for the "ur" and the "er" in "further". I say we don't need to be that finicky.[/nq]
Some people would say exactly that about your and my distinction between /@/ and /V/.
M-W already provides \a'\ as in "father" for people who don't rhyme it with "bother". I think a great many speakers, including most residents of the two biggest English-speaking cities, will need a new symbol for the accented vowel in "Mary" to distinguish it from "merry".
[nq:1]2. Click here to listen with your default audio player.[/nq]
I had the same problem, only I couldn't find that link.
[nq:1]You may need to do something else.[/nq]
Jerry Friedman

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I've copied and pasted below the M-W "Guide to pronunciation", ... listen to, a word whose vowel does agree with yours.[/nq]
[nq:1]Hardly. For instance, most New Yorkers will not find anything that agrees with their "law" vowel, nor will most Texans find their "ace" and "out" vowels. I could add a lot more examples.[/nq]
So could I, including my vowel in "lore".
[nq:2]Unfortunately, there's a flaw in the system: They're not entirely ... in modified M-W, (la:) for "law" and (lor) for "lore".[/nq]
[nq:1]Again, this is because the transcriptions are phonemic, not phonetic. They believe these two different sounds are how a single phoneme is realized, depending on whether or not it's followed by /r/.[/nq]
In some dialect of AmE, that would be the case, wouldn't it?
[nq:1]M-W already provides \a'\ as in "father" for people who don't rhyme it with "bother".[/nq]
But that's not included in the list Bob above, making this idea even less appropriate for those of us for whom the vowels of "father" and "bother" are so different that we can't imagine how some dialects came to have them as the same.
[nq:1]I think a great many speakers, including most residents of the two biggest English-speaking cities, will need a new symbol for the accented vowel in "Mary" to distinguish it from "merry".[/nq]
For UK use the system is confusing and doesn't have enough symbols. Stick to ASCII IPA, or use ad hoc transcriptions in spite of their flaws.

How would Bob have reacted if I'd proposed using Chambers' system?

Jonathan

Usenet · Answer

( . . . )
[nq:1]How would Bob have reacted if I'd proposed using Chambers' system?[/nq]
Boo!
The Chambers Dictionary (1993 edition) has a pronunciation symbol that they say corresponds to the vowels in "lean, keel, dene, chief, seize, gear, sheer, here, beer, query".

Is there anyone in the English speaking world who pronounces "here" and "lean" with even approximately the same vowel?

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has
lean /li:n/
here /hI/
That is, they pronounce "here" with the vowel of "bin", not the vowel of "bean".
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary essentially agrees with NSOED .

Usenet · Answer

(about the pronunciation guide at m-w.com)
( . . . )
[nq:1]If they used phonetic transcriptions, they'd need a lot more symbols. They'd also reject every accent but one and it's not yours or mine.[/nq]
I think that's a common misconception. A broad phonetic transcription may need only the symbols that are shown in the IPA vowel chart, with no diacritics. A broad phonetic transcription can cover a variety of accents.
"Phonetic" doesn't necessarily mean "narrow phonetic".

( . . . )
[nq:2]Unfortunately, there's a flaw in the system: They're not entirely ... in modified M-W, (la:) for "law" and (lor) for "lore".[/nq]
[nq:1]Again, this is because the transcriptions are phonemic, not phonetic.[/nq]
I don't believe that's true. (A) and (O) belong to two different phonemes. That they are in contrastive
distribution is shown by the pair "bar/bore".
I don't think the M-W transcriptions are phonemic. I think they're broad phonetic.
[nq:1]They believe these two different sounds are how a single phoneme is realized, depending on whether or not it's followed by /r/.[/nq]
Think again of "bar" and "bore", or "tar" and "tore", "card" and "cord", "far" and "for", "Lahr" and "lore".
I think the reason for the discrepancies in talking dictionaries between the pronunciation transcriptions and the sound files is that the speaker's dialect differed from that of the people who specified the transcriptions, and no one bothered to try to make the pronunciations true to the transcriptions; or to provide transcriptions that agreed with the sound files.
If two pronunciations have vowels from different phonemes, then the broad-phonetic transcriptions of those two pronunciations should use symbols corresponding to the appropriate phonemes.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]How would Bob have reacted if I'd proposed using Chambers' system?[/nq]
[nq:1]Boo! The Chambers Dictionary (1993 edition) has a pronunciation symbol that they say corresponds to the vowels in ... query". Is there anyone in the English speaking world who pronounces "here" and "lean" with even approximately the same vowel?[/nq]
I think of them having the same phoneme, certainly, though phonetically there's a clear distinction. Phonemically they both have what I think of as /i/, or, informally, "the 'ee' vowel".
This might be difficult for the substantial majority of AmE speakers who rhyme "mirror" with "nearer" to understand.
In that Chambers list, I approximately have two allophones for that 'ee' or /i/ vowel. One comprises the vowel heard in lean/dene/chief/seize; the other comprises the vowel heard in keel/gear/hear/sheer/query. The second allophone might be something like (I@), BINS.
[nq:1]The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has lean /li:n/ here /hI/ That is, they pronounce "here" with the vowel of "bin", not the vowel of "bean".[/nq]
If I try to pronounce "here" with the vowel of "bin", I get something that is very foreign-sounding.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The Chambers Dictionary (1993 edition) has a pronunciation symbol that they say corresponds to the vowels in "lean, keel, ... query". Is there anyone in the English speaking world who pronounces "here" and "lean" with even approximately the same vowel?[/nq]
My vowels in "here" and "lean" are phonetically approximately the same; and phonemically, they're exactly the same; that is to say, I think of them as the same vowel, and it is only with effort that I'm conscious of the difference between them. The vowels in my "hear" and "lean" are much more similar than those in my "mat" and "man".
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]In that Chambers list, I approximately have two allophones for that 'ee' or /i/ vowel. One comprises the vowel heard in lean/dene/chief/seize; the other comprises the vowel heard in keel/gear/hear/sheer/query.[/nq]

"Gear"? Say, for my whole life I've been pronouncing "gear" with two syllables, /gi @r/, so it rhymes with "peer" 'one who pees' and not with "peer" 'one's equal'. I see this pronunciation isn't in AHD. Did I just make it up?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]If two pronunciations have vowels from different phonemes, then the broad-phonetic transcriptions of those two pronunciations should use symbols corresponding to the appropriate phonemes.[/nq]
From this paragraph it sounds like what you're advocating is a phonemic transcription under the name of a broad phonetic transcription. For instance, under any reasonably broad phonetic transcription my pronunciations of "man" and "mare" would have the same vowel, but as they belong to different phonemes, you'd suggest that they be transcribed by different symbols.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Substitute for ASCII IPA

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions