Wikipedia talk:Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American)/Version 0.90 Introduction

Version 0.90 Introduction
This issue has been raised on the policy thinktank list.

The need
In my view, Wikipedia needs a simple guide to pronunciation. This need came to my attention when I began the List of heteronyms. Heteronyms are words that are spelled the same but mean different things when pronounced differently. Examples from that list:

Pronunciation was indicated with Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American) (called Simple Guide herein). The need for some kind of pronunciation guide is obvious in lists like this. In addition, however, without a Simple Guide some are tempted to use ad hoc devices, as in the article:


 * Ayn Rand (Ayn rhymes with "mine"), Alissa (Alice) Zinovievna Rosenbaum...

With a Simple Guide, that could be written:


 * Ayn Rand (AHYN RAAND), Alissa (Alice) Zinovievna Rosenbaum...

Just as important, using a redirect the author of this line could have easily linked the pronunciation markup to the Simple Guide, something like this:


 * Ayn Rand ( AHYN RAAND), Alissa (Alice) Zinovievna Rosenbaum...

Within seconds the Simple Guide loads, and even an unfamliar user can quickly ascertain the pronunciation. The posited alternatives, SAMPA and IPA, have large pages and are extremely cumbersome to use.

The alternatives
X-SAMPA and IPA have their virtues. They are comprehensive, standard and international. But using them for indicating all pronunciation is overkill, the linguistic equivalent of using a 4 GHz computer instead of a pencil to print Post-it notes.

One contributor marked the above-mentioned heteronym list using IPA. Examples:

Assuming your computer can read the codes and display properly, you can compare for ease of use through the eyes of the average reader.

Just as important, when writing an article just entering the IPA codes codes is much more work:


 * Instead of AAGruhgayt we must enter
 * Instead of AAGruhguht we must enter
 * Instead of AAGruhguht we must enter

Design criteria
The Simple Guide I propose has drawn from many other schemes, and is intended to be:
 * Simple to learn
 * Simple to use for writers—no special characters
 * Simple to use for readers
 * Mostly intuitive without sacrificing simplicity
 * Adequately comprehensive without sacrificing simplicity

Simplicity is obviously the principal criterion. To achieve simplicity, some accuracy and freedom from ambiguity must be traded off. Nevertheless, I estimate that 999 words out of 1000 ordinary English words can be very closely approximated using the Simple Guide.

Response to objections
Con: This is not an encyclopedia article.

Pro: Agreed. A Simple Guide--this or another-- would be similar to Policy pages, meta-content.

Con: We don't need Yet Another Pronunciation Scheme. We already have IPA.

Pro: Wikipedia needs a Simple Guide. IPA is complex. It has its place, but so does a Simple Guide.

Con: IPA is international. A Simple Guide would not be. This is only useful for American pronunciation.

Pro: The Simple Guide can be used as a foundation to construct – in a very short time – a British guide, an Australian guide, etc. (Even better, it is probably possible, by carefully selecting sample words, to integrate the British, American and other English dialect versions. The early draft is "American" because that's what I know.)

Con: The Simple Guide is non-standard.

Pro: If you know of a "standard" which better meets this need, and is also available for Wikipedia use, by all means suggest it. Otherwise, let's fill a demonstrable need with a decent solution and be done with it.

Con: A Simple Guide would be biased toward particular pronunciations.

Pro: If choosing the predominantly-used pronunciation(s) is "bias", then yes, bias is essential. Very few reference works list every extant pronunciation by every English dialect. In pronouncing past, for example, Merriam-Webster ignores both an eastern and southern dialect of American English. The preponderant pronunciation is the exactly right choice for some articles, comparative dialect studies the right choice for others. Furthermore, many lesser-used dialects can be easily represented with a Simple Guide. Those less susceptible, like Cajun, might require IPA to achieve more accuracy where necessary.

Con: Your Simple Guide is not really intuitive. I didn't know what to make of the aa and uu symbols.

Pro: It's more accurate to say that for some users a couple of symbols are somewhat less intuitive than the others. That's unavoidable, given the nature of expressing the complex with just a few symbols. But the most obvious alternatives introduced ambiguity and problems of their own. Besides, most other schemes use symbols like ä and &, which are even less intuitive. All suggestions for improvement are most welcome, of course.

Con: How do you transcribe words like marry and merry and entrepreneur using this scheme?

Pro: Using the most common American pronunciations, according to Merriam-Webster, marry would be MAARee, merry would be MEHRee, and entrepreneur would be AHNtruhpruhNUHR. Alternate pronunciations are as easily indicated using the Simple Guide.

Con: How do you mark secondary stress?

Pro: An example is entrepreneur above. I prefer CAPS to other marks, just to keep things simple. Entrepreneur is probably pronounced ten different ways in the U.S., with heavier emphasis on the first or last syllable being among the variants. If the need to be that precise exists, use IPA; if not, use the Simple Guide. I prefer the caps scheme (AHNtruhpruhNUHR) to something like "ahn-truh-pruh-'nuhr or Merriam-Webster's "änn-tr&-p(r)&-'n&r. Simple is good.

Con: This scheme will not do some foreign words/sounds used in American (or whatever) speech.

Pro: You got me there. Bring out the nukes (IPA, SAMPA) for that.

Con: But IPA is really easy to use.

Pro: If IPA is "easy", the Simple Guide is for morons. We morons need love too, my friend.

Con: IPA makes it possible for people in other countries to learn English pronunciation.

Pro: You mean a particular English pronunciation, don't you? Fine. If that's what an article needs, that's what an article needs. Other articles, like List of heteronyms, are better served with a Simple Guide.

Con: The Simple Guide is biased toward American English.

Pro: An American Guide would be, just as a British Guide would be British. With some help from experts in dialect, however, it's probably possible to fashion a guide with example words which are common to over 90% of English speakers using many dialects.

Con: A Simple Guide would "assume a knowledge of English."

Pro: Of course. So does the page you're reading. So does the English-language Wikipedia. A tool, any tool, must assume certain knowledge to build more.

Con: Wouldn't a Simple Guide allow article writers to select a regional pronunciation?

Pro: Of course. Would this be any less true for IPA, if article writers actually USED it to indicate pronunciation? Furthermore, we use regional spellings in Wikipedia—you write humour and I write humor. We survive those differences and we would survive differences in pronunciation, actually being enriched by inclusion and cultural variety.

Conclusion

 * Wikipedia should adopt a simple means of indicating English pronunciation.
 * In my view, the advantages far outweigh the concerns.
 * The absense of a guide leaves a hole in many articles, and prompts nonuniform ad hoc solutions.

Any suggestions for improving the proposed guide are most welcome.--NathanHawking 02:05, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)