Friday, May 16, 2003, 07:16 GMT
> If you use [th] and [TH], why not use [sh] and perhaps [SH]?
Because [S] is better -- it looks like the equivalent IPA symbol.
> If you have [s], [z], [S] and [Z] it follows that you'd have [t], [d], [T] and [D].
Really? Why?
I appreciate your comment about "lighthouse" etc., but we recommend using spaces to separate syllables anyway: ['lait haus].
I don't think our discussion is going anywhere. For me, [T] and [D] are the second best choice after [th] and [TH]. You consider [T] and [D] to be the best choice. Let's agree to differ.
<<<<
If someone were to ask about "the British accent" how better to set them straight on the fact that there is no one "British accent" than to give them a few examples of the different accents heard in Britian. To do this you might want a symbol for the glottal stop, the unvoiced [w] as opposed to the voiced one or [hw], etc.
>>>>
If someone were to ask such a question, you couldn't rely on their knowledge of phonetic symbols anyway, and you'd have to define every symbol you used. In such a case, you could use [?] and [hw] and whatever else you found appropriate. Or you could use one of the ASCII alphabets that are copies of the IPA.
Please remember that the Antimoon ASCII alphabet was conceived as a tool for learners of English as a foreign language. Trust me -- learners don't need to worry about such subtleties as the glottal stop, the [hw], and the subtly different way in which [ai] is pronounced in Australia. What's more, too many symbols could scare them off.
In other words, the Antimoon ASCII alphabet is not a tool for linguists to carry on discussions about the phonetics of English.
About the "two dialects of English" thing -- I'm sorry, but:
1. 99% of English learners are simply learning "English" and ignoring pronunciation. To them, the distinction between American and British is totally useless.
2. At least 90% of the other 1% are learning either British (RP) or American.
Because [S] is better -- it looks like the equivalent IPA symbol.
> If you have [s], [z], [S] and [Z] it follows that you'd have [t], [d], [T] and [D].
Really? Why?
I appreciate your comment about "lighthouse" etc., but we recommend using spaces to separate syllables anyway: ['lait haus].
I don't think our discussion is going anywhere. For me, [T] and [D] are the second best choice after [th] and [TH]. You consider [T] and [D] to be the best choice. Let's agree to differ.
<<<<
If someone were to ask about "the British accent" how better to set them straight on the fact that there is no one "British accent" than to give them a few examples of the different accents heard in Britian. To do this you might want a symbol for the glottal stop, the unvoiced [w] as opposed to the voiced one or [hw], etc.
>>>>
If someone were to ask such a question, you couldn't rely on their knowledge of phonetic symbols anyway, and you'd have to define every symbol you used. In such a case, you could use [?] and [hw] and whatever else you found appropriate. Or you could use one of the ASCII alphabets that are copies of the IPA.
Please remember that the Antimoon ASCII alphabet was conceived as a tool for learners of English as a foreign language. Trust me -- learners don't need to worry about such subtleties as the glottal stop, the [hw], and the subtly different way in which [ai] is pronounced in Australia. What's more, too many symbols could scare them off.
In other words, the Antimoon ASCII alphabet is not a tool for linguists to carry on discussions about the phonetics of English.
About the "two dialects of English" thing -- I'm sorry, but:
1. 99% of English learners are simply learning "English" and ignoring pronunciation. To them, the distinction between American and British is totally useless.
2. At least 90% of the other 1% are learning either British (RP) or American.