Adam Raizen wrote in part:
You malign ad hoc pronunciation schemes, but they do
have *some*
redeeming value. You can use a single ad-hoc system to represent
different dialects more easily than you can use IPA for the same
purpose, since users will read their own dialect into the pronunciation
guide for the ad-hoc system. Still, I can't imagine making up an ad-hoc
scheme for wikipedia; IPA is probably best for us.
This is what morphophones are all about --
a scheme where all dialects read in their own sound.
We don't have to invent our own ad-hoc scheme,
since linguists have been studying morphophones,
and quite often in the context of English, since 1962.
(IPA, in contrast, does phonemes, or even lower-level structures.)
The "Webster's Dictionary" systems often seen in US dictionaries
are roughly morphophonic, but not very sophisticated linguistically.
(But Merriam-Webster's current system is phonemic,
despite it's old-fashioned non-IPA, Webster's-ish look.
Therefore the worst of them all, IMO.)
-- Toby