--- Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote:
On Apr 3, 2004, at 18:55, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> fabiform <fabiform_wikipedian(a)yahoo.com> writes:
>> I'm comfortable with using the IPA, but many people do find all the
>> symbols
>> off-putting. In fact, very few dictionaries use it, presumably for
>> that
>> reason. Perhaps SAMPA is a bit friendlier?
What I meant by this was that at least all the symbols used in SAMPA are
recognisable. Like in the IPA you have the upsidedown e (schwa), or the E
which is like a rotated 3, or the long s. These can be off-putting. It's true
that X-SAMPA is just as complicated though (in fact more so, it has a few extra
symbols).
All printed
dictionary I am own use the IPA. Maybe, online ditionaries
are different? If yes, they might be different because editor don't
know how to enter IPA symbols.
IPA seems to be fairly uncommon in monolingual English-language
dictionaries, which tend to use their own idiosyncratic systems. My
bilingual dictionaries are pretty much all IPA, though.
I don't own any printed dictionaries which use it. None of my printed English
dictionaries even offer pronunciation guides for words they assume you know how
to pronounce. Even my bilingual French/English and monolingual French
dictionaries don't use the IPA, although at first glance they appear to
(they've changed at least one symbol). So, the full OED on CD is the only
dictionary I own which actually uses it (much to my annoyance, I wish they all
would).
Fabi.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/