How should one find pronunciation dictionaries (printed books that use
IPA)?

Is there a pronunciation dictionary for Spanish? I haven't been able
to find any. And no, I don't want a web site with audio files.

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:43:17 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:

Is there a pronunciation dictionary for Spanish? I haven't been able
to find any. And no, I don't want a web site with audio files.

Are there words in Spanish whose pronunciation is not predictable from
their orthography? How many?

Wow! PTD agrees with me?!?

IPA isn't particularly useful in dictionaries of pronunciation,
because its symbols aren't language-specific. You'd need to read pages
and pages of introduction to know what they specifially indicate for
each language and dialectal variation.

Exaggerated nonsense, especially in the case of Spanish.

How should one find pronunciation dictionaries (printed books that use
IPA)?

Is there a pronunciation dictionary for Spanish? I haven't been able
to find any. And no, I don't want a web site with audio files.

Is there a pronunciation dictionary for Spanish? I haven't been able
to find any. And no, I don't want a web site with audio files.

Are there words in Spanish whose pronunciation is not predictable from
their orthography? How many?

IPA isn't particularly useful in dictionaries of pronunciation,
because its symbols aren't language-specific. You'd need to read pages
and pages of introduction to know what they specifially indicate for
each language and dialectal variation.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:43:17 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:a1fd5bf3-902d-4654-bc57-3cafd3061bba@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:

On Apr 19, 7:40 am, p.nummi...@suomi24.fi wrote:
How should one find pronunciation dictionaries (printed
books that use IPA)?
Is there a pronunciation dictionary for Spanish? I
haven't been able to find any. And no, I don't want a
web site with audio files.
Are there words in Spanish whose pronunciation is not
predictable from their orthography? How many?

Not many, so far as I know.

IPA isn't particularly useful in dictionaries of
pronunciation, because its symbols aren't
language-specific. You'd need to read pages and pages of
introduction to know what they specifially indicate for
each language and dialectal variation.

Piffle.  A pronouncing dictionary typically gives standard
pronunciations and ignores most dialectal variation, so
that's not likely to be an issue.  And for all that it's no
substitute for hearing the real thing, IPA is extremely
useful for giving a decent first approximation.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:43:17 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
IPA isn't particularly useful in dictionaries of
pronunciation, because its symbols aren't
language-specific. You'd need to read pages and pages of
introduction to know what they specifially indicate for
each language and dialectal variation.

On Apr 19, 12:07=A0pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

Piffle.  A pronouncing dictionary typically gives standard
pronunciations and ignores most dialectal variation, so
that's not likely to be an issue.  And for all that it's no
substitute for hearing the real thing, IPA is extremely
useful for giving a decent first approximation.

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:

The purpose of a pronouncing dictionary is not a "first approximation."

So what else do you propose as an alternative, for pronouncing
dictionaries to use if IPA "isn't particularly useful"?

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:6cbdc25c-5d43-4f85-a7fa-ec7c15d2bd8a@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:

On Apr 19, 12:07 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:43:17 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:a1fd5bf3-902d-4654-bc57-3cafd3061bba@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:

[...]

IPA isn't particularly useful in dictionaries of
pronunciation, because its symbols aren't
language-specific. You'd need to read pages and pages of
introduction to know what they specifially indicate for
each language and dialectal variation.
Piffle.  A pronouncing dictionary typically gives standard
pronunciations and ignores most dialectal variation, so
that's not likely to be an issue.  And for all that it's no
substitute for hearing the real thing, IPA is extremely
useful for giving a decent first approximation.
The purpose of a pronouncing dictionary is not a "first
approximation."

Depends on who's using it.  You're right, if you're talking
about its use by native speakers or those already familiar
with the actual sound of the language, but they're hardly
the only users.  (And that's *decent* first approximation.)

On Apr 19, 7:40 am, p.nummi...@suomi24.fi wrote:

How should one find pronunciation dictionaries (printed
books that use IPA)?

Is there a pronunciation dictionary for Spanish? I
haven't been able to find any. And no, I don't want a
web site with audio files.

Are there words in Spanish whose pronunciation is not
predictable from their orthography? How many?

IPA isn't particularly useful in dictionaries of
pronunciation, because its symbols aren't
language-specific. You'd need to read pages and pages of
introduction to know what they specifially indicate for
each language and dialectal variation.

How should one find pronunciation dictionaries (printed books that use
IPA)?

Is there a pronunciation dictionary for Spanish? I haven't been able
to find any. And no, I don't want a web site with audio files.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:43:17 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
IPA isn't particularly useful in dictionaries of
pronunciation, because its symbols aren't
language-specific. You'd need to read pages and pages of
introduction to know what they specifially indicate for
each language and dialectal variation.

Piffle.  A pronouncing dictionary typically gives standard
pronunciations and ignores most dialectal variation, so
that's not likely to be an issue.  And for all that it's no
substitute for hearing the real thing, IPA is extremely
useful for giving a decent first approximation.

The purpose of a pronouncing dictionary is not a "first approximation."

On Apr 19, 12:07 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:43:17 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:a1fd5bf3-902d-4654-bc57-3cafd3061bba@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:

IPA isn't particularly useful in dictionaries of
pronunciation, because its symbols aren't
language-specific. You'd need to read pages and pages of
introduction to know what they specifially indicate for
each language and dialectal variation.

Piffle.  A pronouncing dictionary typically gives standard
pronunciations and ignores most dialectal variation, so
that's not likely to be an issue.  And for all that it's no
substitute for hearing the real thing, IPA is extremely
useful for giving a decent first approximation.

The purpose of a pronouncing dictionary is not a "first
approximation."

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:53:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:3fded5df-a670-4499-a06f-76f524e61e60@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:





On Apr 19, 2:39 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:6cbdc25c-5d43-4f85-a7fa-ec7c15d2bd8a@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
On Apr 19, 12:07 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:43:17 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:a1fd5bf3-902d-4654-bc57-3cafd3061bba@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
[...]
IPA isn't particularly useful in dictionaries of
pronunciation, because its symbols aren't
language-specific. You'd need to read pages and pages of
introduction to know what they specifially indicate for
each language and dialectal variation.
Piffle.  A pronouncing dictionary typically gives standard
pronunciations and ignores most dialectal variation, so
that's not likely to be an issue.  And for all that it's no
substitute for hearing the real thing, IPA is extremely
useful for giving a decent first approximation.
The purpose of a pronouncing dictionary is not a "first
approximation."
Depends on who's using it.  You're right, if you're talking
about its use by native speakers or those already familiar
with the actual sound of the language, but they're hardly
the only users.  (And that's *decent* first approximation.)
Second-language learners aren't likely to find a dedicated
pronouncing dictionary particularly useful; for them, the
pronunciation key in a standard desk or student
dictionary is well-suited.

*If* it uses IPA.  Which rules out most U.S. desk and
student dictionaries.

On Apr 19, 2:39 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:6cbdc25c-5d43-4f85-a7fa-ec7c15d2bd8a@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:

On Apr 19, 12:07 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:43:17 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:a1fd5bf3-902d-4654-bc57-3cafd3061bba@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:

[...]

IPA isn't particularly useful in dictionaries of
pronunciation, because its symbols aren't
language-specific. You'd need to read pages and pages of
introduction to know what they specifially indicate for
each language and dialectal variation.

Piffle.  A pronouncing dictionary typically gives standard
pronunciations and ignores most dialectal variation, so
that's not likely to be an issue.  And for all that it's no
substitute for hearing the real thing, IPA is extremely
useful for giving a decent first approximation.

The purpose of a pronouncing dictionary is not a "first
approximation."

Depends on who's using it.  You're right, if you're talking
about its use by native speakers or those already familiar
with the actual sound of the language, but they're hardly
the only users.  (And that's *decent* first approximation.)

Second-language learners aren't likely to find a dedicated
pronouncing dictionary particularly useful; for them, the
pronunciation key in a standard desk or student
dictionary is well-suited.

On Apr 19, 7:19 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:53:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:3fded5df-a670-4499-a06f-76f524e61e60@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:

Second-language learners aren't likely to find a dedicated
pronouncing dictionary particularly useful; for them, the
pronunciation key in a standard desk or student
dictionary is well-suited.

*If* it uses IPA.  Which rules out most U.S. desk and
student dictionaries.

A student of English needs to be able to use the pronunciation keys
found in English dictionaries,

which except for the (new) OED, isn't IPA. (Has IPA been
inflicted on the whole family of smaller Oxford
dictionaries?)