I tend to agree. But at some point, the effort put
into correcting this might overshoot the effort of
simply adding Vorbis audio ("speex" codec, whenever it
comes out) to each entry.
Pinyin covers those-- not in a linguistic way, but a
political way. There are far more positives for using
IPA -- namely that its compatible with SAMPA, and that
this might someday be used on WP to machine read text
-- which would be velly nice.
~S~
--- Delirium <delirium(a)rufus.d2g.com> wrote:
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.
>
>
I agree with this criticism of IPA -- how can IPA
even be remotely
useful for us, given that there is no one correct
phoneme mapping for
nearly *any* word in the English language? Are we
going to have dozens
of different IPA entries for each word, representing
the full range of
pronunciation in the English of England (including
many dialects),
Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Australia, South Africa,
India, the United
States (including many dialects), etc.? And how
about for the range of
pronunciation of Chinese words within different
parts of China, or
countries outside China that also have significant
Chinese-speaking
populations? The whole thing just seems pretty
useless.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software