I'm not here to discuss the pros and cons of it. We've done that. Tom suggested that we could agree to dissagree. Tom, I can agree to that.
What I want to suggest is that we make use of it. There are posts all about with pronunciation attempted using the plain 26 letter version of the Roman alphabet without any explanation of what people mean.
My advise: use
http://www.antimoon.com/how/pronunc-ascii.htm it makes things much clearer.
My thoughts exactly. It doesn't help when each post uses a different ad-hoc transcription scheme.
I prefer to use SAMPA, as it is more universally used. I'll provide links to SAMPA guides whenever I post on pronunciation.
Jim,
Antimoon ASCII is PHONEMIC with a few exceptions to make it suitable for English learning.
Tom,
Actually, you're right, it is. I stand corrected. Though, you have called it "The ASCII Phonetic Alphabet". Perhaps that's was what was throwing me, no excuse really, though, because if you look at it, you find that, yes, it is indeed phonemic. I should think before I write.
Should you change it's name? The name makes sense, let's face it, how many learners will have heard the word "phonemic"? It would be likely to scare the living whatsername out of them, "phonetic" is bad enough.
Anyway, here's some asciibets which are phonetic (a more thorough look at SAMPA included) not that I want to discourage folks from using Antimoon's Phonemic ASCII Alphabet but sometimes you want something phonetic as well as something phonemic.
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~dpb/ascii-ipa.html
Jim,
Yeah, exactly what I thought -- "phonemic" sounds too scary.
Besides, phonemic transcription is a TYPE of phonetic transcription, according to some sources.
Thanks for your input.
