New Post
Search
Help
Archivespronunciation of names - generally
I'm not sure where to post this, but I think the "key" to pronouncing names (http://www.behindthename.com/pronunciation.php) is incomplete/ inaccurate for a number of names and languages:
The explanation of ah and aw sounds (as well as the a in care etc.) apparently refers to American English pronunciation. So there seems to be no short o (such as a British speaker would use in pronouncing e.g. "pot").
There is no equivalent for the É (as opposed to È, which is closer to the e in let) sound common in several European languages, like French and German. It's usually rendered in English as AY but is really one vowel, not a diphtong.
In most non-English languages A is usually pronounced as in heart, U as in put, O as in board etc., so the use of UW etc. for these sounds is mostly confusing when it comes to non-Egnlish names.
For the U and O, there are no accurate representations; the AH is slightly misleading (both for British speakers and for those who can tell A and the Scandinavian °A apart); for the E, there is no symbol at all.
So all in all, the current "key" is only useful in explaining the pronunciation of English names - those that are least likely to even need explaining.
Maybe add to it?
Or use a different code that has more in common with IPA, and is thus more intelligible and helpful in explaining the pronunciation of non-English names.
The explanation of ah and aw sounds (as well as the a in care etc.) apparently refers to American English pronunciation. So there seems to be no short o (such as a British speaker would use in pronouncing e.g. "pot").
There is no equivalent for the É (as opposed to È, which is closer to the e in let) sound common in several European languages, like French and German. It's usually rendered in English as AY but is really one vowel, not a diphtong.
In most non-English languages A is usually pronounced as in heart, U as in put, O as in board etc., so the use of UW etc. for these sounds is mostly confusing when it comes to non-Egnlish names.
For the U and O, there are no accurate representations; the AH is slightly misleading (both for British speakers and for those who can tell A and the Scandinavian °A apart); for the E, there is no symbol at all.
So all in all, the current "key" is only useful in explaining the pronunciation of English names - those that are least likely to even need explaining.
Maybe add to it?
Or use a different code that has more in common with IPA, and is thus more intelligible and helpful in explaining the pronunciation of non-English names.
1
Replies
Please don't move to IPA exclusively. I find it impossible to sight-read, and find your user-friendly alternative invaluable. Dictionary.com uses a similar system to yours, with an option to switch to IPA (though it would be good to have them side-by-side to assist learning the latter.)
Let's not forget what these simplified keys primary purpose is - in helping the pronounciation of Anglophones. There are many sounds which lifelong English speakers simply can't make, so it is far more useful to show the nearest equivalent that they can, with maybe a couple of alternatives to account for different Englishes.
Let's not forget what these simplified keys primary purpose is - in helping the pronounciation of Anglophones. There are many sounds which lifelong English speakers simply can't make, so it is far more useful to show the nearest equivalent that they can, with maybe a couple of alternatives to account for different Englishes.
1
I'd like IPA too, but am very aware that this is a non-profit site, and that IPA-ing all the names would be a horrendously long job.
And if you really need to know how to pronounce something, there's usually somewhere else you can look it up.
And if you really need to know how to pronounce something, there's usually somewhere else you can look it up.
1
Totally agree.
1
I'd love to see the IPA, but for people who don't know it, confusion could and would result. I do agree that the pronunciations given are in the main American English rather than British English, but there are plenty of Commonwealth Englishes as well. If not the IPA, then perhaps a bilingual or bi-English list, US and UK, would be helpful? Not for most non-English names, granted ... but at least it would indicate to the sceptics that John is not universally pronounced with an ah or an aw.
1
I'm American and I have trouble with the pronunciation key as well. I would prefer using the IPA (or an adapted form of it) as that's the international standard.
1
I agree
It took me awhile to figure out the pronunciations used here, and some of them I still have to think twice about. IPA or some toned-down version of it would definitely be nicer to have I think. There could always be a key on it, maybe some audio clips or links too.
It took me awhile to figure out the pronunciations used here, and some of them I still have to think twice about. IPA or some toned-down version of it would definitely be nicer to have I think. There could always be a key on it, maybe some audio clips or links too.
1
I agree with every word
I'm Swedish, and I often have problems explaining the pronunciation of Scandinavian names, or the guide's examples just don't match with the English I know. Something closer to actual IPA would be great.
I'm Swedish, and I often have problems explaining the pronunciation of Scandinavian names, or the guide's examples just don't match with the English I know. Something closer to actual IPA would be great.
1