In the Wikipedia Help page (Help:IPA for English) which serves to explain how WP uses its version of IPA symbols for representing pronunciations there is a large chart which at its bottom right-hand corner has a rather odd section. Superficially, the use of the dot ‘.’ to mark a syllable division is perfectly normal, and we use it in all polysyllabic words in the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary. WP gives an explanatory note which says
“Syllables are indicated sparingly, where necessary to avoid confusion, for example to break up sequences of vowels (Moai) or consonant clusters which an English speaker might misread as a digraph (Vancouveria, Windhoek).”
In other words, the dot helps the reader interpret the spelling in a way that avoids wrong interpretation of letter-sequences. The transcription of Moai is given a dot to indicate that there is a syllable division after ‘Mo’, and Windhoek has a dot apparently to stop the reader from interpreting ‘dh’ as a single consonant.
But these examples only show a need for a syllable division when the word is seen in its spelling form. As soon as one looks at the IPA symbols, the possibility of confusion disappears. When Moai is transcribed as /məʊaɪ/ the pronunciation (assuming it is being read by an English speaker) is quite predictable without the need for a dot. I can’t see how ‘Windhoek’ and ‘Vancouveria’, which are transcribed /ˈvɪnt.hʊk/ and /væn.kuːˈvɪəriə/ in this work, could be pronounced any differently if the dot were removed. The most puzzling is the example of Mikey/Myki, where the writer transcribes the former as /maɪki/ while the latter is given a syllable-boundary dot thus: /maɪ.kiː/. I can’t see what purpose the dot serves, as the boundary is bound to occur in the same place in both words.
NOTE: I have now changed the box marked 'Syllabification', and hope that this has made it better. I can't decide whether to go through WP now to eradicate redundant syllable-boundary dots where they have been put in.
“Syllables are indicated sparingly, where necessary to avoid confusion, for example to break up sequences of vowels (Moai) or consonant clusters which an English speaker might misread as a digraph (Vancouveria, Windhoek).”
In other words, the dot helps the reader interpret the spelling in a way that avoids wrong interpretation of letter-sequences. The transcription of Moai is given a dot to indicate that there is a syllable division after ‘Mo’, and Windhoek has a dot apparently to stop the reader from interpreting ‘dh’ as a single consonant.
But these examples only show a need for a syllable division when the word is seen in its spelling form. As soon as one looks at the IPA symbols, the possibility of confusion disappears. When Moai is transcribed as /məʊaɪ/ the pronunciation (assuming it is being read by an English speaker) is quite predictable without the need for a dot. I can’t see how ‘Windhoek’ and ‘Vancouveria’, which are transcribed /ˈvɪnt.hʊk/ and /væn.kuːˈvɪəriə/ in this work, could be pronounced any differently if the dot were removed. The most puzzling is the example of Mikey/Myki, where the writer transcribes the former as /maɪki/ while the latter is given a syllable-boundary dot thus: /maɪ.kiː/. I can’t see what purpose the dot serves, as the boundary is bound to occur in the same place in both words.
NOTE: I have now changed the box marked 'Syllabification', and hope that this has made it better. I can't decide whether to go through WP now to eradicate redundant syllable-boundary dots where they have been put in.
RSS Feed