Talk:List of place names with unpredictable pronunciation
I am aware that this pronunciation guide is not perfectly clear (and incomplete), but I think this is a more generally useful approach than using phonetic characters (but by all means add them). I realised a need for this list when I could find no other reference guide to the pronunciation of place names. Possibly the article title could be bettered. Shantavira 19:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are we aware that there are two of this page? The other being, of course, List of names in English with non-intuitive pronunciations. Actually that one is much more extensive, one might consider deleting one or the other... Oh, and no one pronounced San Diego, Sandy Yego, I live there.... Horatio86
- Yes, they should be merged. I was unaware of that article when I created this one. The main task would be rendering the pronunciation uniformly. Unfortunately the phonetic characters don't show up in my browser. And I guess "non-intuitive" is more correct than "unpredictable"? Shantavira 11:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think that using the normal, english, characters to render the pronunciation is a better idea... at least a more useful one. And the title you chose, "unpredictable" is better since the residents who use the odd pronunciation think it is quite intuitive. ViteroHoratio 15:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- There are several problems with using what you call "normal, english, characters". Some sounds are hard to represent: I know that Worcester is pronounced /wʊstə(r)/, with the same vowel as put, but to someone who doesn't know, the spelling "Woos-ter" could easily suggest /wu:stə(r)/ or even /wu:ztə(r)/, with the vowel of boot. For Warwick, "Woh-rick" suggests the vowel of coat in the first syllable, which is just wrong. ("Worrick" would be better.) And as for "Luff-bra",... --JHJ 08:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- It is true that the IPA characters are more precise but many people (me included) don't have the softwear to support those characters, everyone has the ability to see normal characters, and the point is, afterall, to make the information availiable to the most people possible...HororatioVitero 16:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- So why not use both? (IPA for those who prefer its precision, and the existing "ad hoc representation" for those uncomfortable with IPA). It's not as if we're short of paper here... -- Picapica 12:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is true that the IPA characters are more precise but many people (me included) don't have the softwear to support those characters, everyone has the ability to see normal characters, and the point is, afterall, to make the information availiable to the most people possible...HororatioVitero 16:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please make any changes you see fit. Shantavira 09:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- There are several problems with using what you call "normal, english, characters". Some sounds are hard to represent: I know that Worcester is pronounced /wʊstə(r)/, with the same vowel as put, but to someone who doesn't know, the spelling "Woos-ter" could easily suggest /wu:stə(r)/ or even /wu:ztə(r)/, with the vowel of boot. For Warwick, "Woh-rick" suggests the vowel of coat in the first syllable, which is just wrong. ("Worrick" would be better.) And as for "Luff-bra",... --JHJ 08:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think that using the normal, english, characters to render the pronunciation is a better idea... at least a more useful one. And the title you chose, "unpredictable" is better since the residents who use the odd pronunciation think it is quite intuitive. ViteroHoratio 15:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
No special software should be needed for IPA characters. All that's needed to see the characters correctly is for the editor to remember to use the {{IPA}} template around the characters. As for merging this with List of names in English with non-intuitive pronunciations, I'm all in favor! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Read this for guidance: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm#13Aug
- I support the merger of the two articles but I must say that I prefer this article's approach. I don't mind if IPA characters are added but I find them difficult to interpret and do not wish to
spend time learning them. The comments by JHJ are a little too pedantic and presumably the suggestions could be refined to better approximations.--User:AYArktos | Talk 08:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it's particularly pedantic to point out that Warwick isn't pronounced "Woh-rick" or that some English vowel sounds don't have unambiguous spellings associated with them. As it happens, I'm perfectly happy to see some combination of IPA symbols with some other sort of explanation, maybe a respelling such as "Wooster" or "Worrick". I just think that the IPA transcriptions should be included.--JHJ 09:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have now changed "Woh-rick" to "Worrick".--JHJ 09:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Adding IPA
[edit]I will attempt to add IPA pronunciations for these, but where the "pro-NUN" style is ambiguous, I will add "(?)" after them. Ardric47 01:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Redirected
[edit]I have redirected this page to List of names in English with non-intuitive pronunciations. Any entries that were on this page, but not in that article, have been moved to the talk page there for a decision on whether they should be included. Kcordina Talk 09:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)