It isn't. The problem with a vernacular pronunciation guide is that you need to think about ambiguity.
/a-sim-TO-ti-klee/
is a much better syllable break, but /TO/ is likely to be mispronounced /'tu:/. And /TOH/ could be interpreted as /'toʊ/. So /TOT/ splits the difference between syllable break and pronunciation for (imho) maximum clarity.
I wish people would use the IPA instead of their absurd ad-hoc systems. I learned IPA at school, and it has served me well.
All the pronunciation systems based on some other language are unreliable and idiosyncratic. And English, with its near-absence of reliable pronunciation/spelling rules, is particularly ill-suited.
That's why people use their ad-hoc systems. Because many many many people don't know IPA. It's so far removed from English and uses so many letters that don't occur in English that it's close to being a completely different language.
The word "ɪn·tərˈnæʃ·ə·nəl" may make complete sense to someone who knows IPA but to to the many people who don't, it's complete gibberish.
> That's why people use their ad-hoc systems. Because many many many people don't know IPA.
I was disagreeing with parent's claim that ad-hockery was better than IPA. Nothing more, nothing less.
However if ad-hockery is the best someone can do (I say this without snark), then fine. Certainly better than nothing.
> It's so far removed from English and uses so many letters that don't occur in English that it's close to being a completely different language.
English is far removed from my native language, so either way I have to learn a pronunciation system (and the English one is... special).
While we're at it, do we use pseudo-American or pseudo-British pronunciation in our ad-hockery? Pseudo-US-East-coast or pseudo-Southern-US?
I think ad-hockery provides a trap in that it gives a false sense of security. You think you know to pronounce something, but if you actually try, chances are your native speaker conversation partner will go ¿que?
> The word "ɪn·tərˈnæʃ·ə·nəl" may make complete sense to someone who knows IPA but to to the many people who don't, it's complete gibberish.
I agree that it looks like gibberish to those who don't know IPA. But I'm honestly not sure "intaneshenel" (or "intönäschänäl", or whatever) is better. For me at least, it's equally confusing.
As an aside: making up pronounciation if it's of little relevance to what you're writing is one thing. What really grinds my gears is language books (or, say, the language section of guide books) that make up their funny ways of writing pronunciation. They might use that same amount of effort to teach the basics of IPA, which is about the same amount of effort, and provides the reader with something lastingly useful.
They even write multi-page explanations, complete with examples, on how to interpret funny charecters in their script. I remember the absurd contortions the Lonely Planet Germany guide went through to explain umlaut sounds to people in terms of English words, and then coming up with ways that weren't the IPA to type those sounds.
The aim is communication. When the aim is very precise communication between knowledgeable parties, a technical language is reasonable. Expecting people to learn that language before they're allowed to have even a basic discussion is a recipe for existing in your own irrelevant bubble.
It is human tendency to think that the things that you know should be known by everyone, and the things you don't know are probably not worth knowing.
On IPA specifically, it can often be overspecified, particularly with regard to vowel sounds and vowel position in the mouth. It isn't clear when a vowel position is determined by accent or by the word, or whether a vowel becoming a shewa is idiomatic. By relating to similar sounding lexemes (or obvious parts thereof), vernacular pronunciation guides have fewer problems in that regard. IPA is easy to learn a little of, but it's a deep deep well to throw people down when all they want is a glass of water.
> The aim is communication. When the aim is very precise communication between knowledgeable parties, a technical language is reasonable. Expecting people to learn that language before they're allowed to have even a basic discussion is a recipe for existing in your own irrelevant bubble.
> It is human tendency to think that the things that you know should be known by everyone, and the things you don't know are probably not worth knowing.
You're over-interpreting what I said, and being not nice about it by assuming a hostile or superior stance on my part.
I didn't expect anyone to do anything. Parent stated that pseudo-English was better than IPA, and I disagreed. The end.
Theoretically, yes. Asymptotically is one of those words that you often read about, but rarely hear in speech. There are plenty of words I come across in text that I understand the meaning of, but often am not familiar with the correct pronunciation as nobody I interact with in daily life use them. I can see this one falling into that category quite easily.
Whether or not the pronunciation is valuable information given that the communication method is again text remains to be seen.
I was amazed by this too. Why focus on how one pronounces it rather than the mathematical properties of asymptotic behaviour (i.e., that one gradually approaches but never reaches something)?
Yeah, this is a little odd. But in the writer's defense, I read a lot more than I speak, and I often comically mispronounce a useful word when I have to use it in speech, so while I'm familiar with this particular word, I do wish writers would do this with words a little more often than they do.
Honestly my brain read it as "asymptomatically" at first... Also why deprive a reader who is not familiar with the term? Does it really hurt you that it is included?
Would a person interested in an article about quantum gravity not be familiar with the term asymptotically?