Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:25:56 GMT
name wrote:
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > name wrote:
> > >
> > > Alan wrote:
> > > > "name" <dohduhdah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:1130983102.347606.272200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > name wrote:
> > > > >> Hello.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Often I look up words at www.m-w.com and I love their online
> > > > >> dictionary.
> > > > >> One thing I don't understand though, is why they sometimes partially
> > > > >> leave out the pronounciation of a word.
> > > > >> For instance, if you look up the word 'vehement' (which is not exactly
> > > > >> trivial for a foreigner to pronounce), they only specify how the
> > > > >> last part of it is pronounced.
> > > > >> Can anyone please explain what possible rationale might be governing
> > > > >> their decision to leave out a portion of the pronounciation with no
> > > > >> obvious way to figure out what it should be (as far as I can see)?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks in advance for any comments, kind regards, Niek
> > > > >
> > > > > Oops... pronunciation that is.
> > > > >
> > > > Perhaps because they're still following the format of their printed version
> > > > wherein "vehement" follows "vehemence" ---- assuming that you're looking at
> > > > the printed page, just above "vehement" will be "vehemence" and it's not
> > > > necessary to repeat the pronunciation of the "ve-he.." portion. Does make it
> > > > a bit user-unfriendly, though, when you pull up the on-line version which
> > > > shows only single entries......
> > >
> > > Ah yes, thanks. It occurred to me after posting. It would be nice if
> > > they included some sort of reference to 'vehemence' in their entry for
> > > 'vehement' so it becomes a little more obvious where to look in order
> > > to figure out the pronunciation.
> > > Although they did recently modify their interface to allow for browsing
> > > words alphabetically.
> >
> > It's explained in the front of the dictionary.
>
> OK, to some extent.
>
> >
> > Why do people never read the fronts of dictionaries?
> >
> > And the print version is cheap enough -- I think the book -- the 11th
> > Collegiate -- including the CD (which I promptly gave away) was under
> > $20, and it's a lot easier to use than the on-line version.
>
> A book easier to use than the online version?! You must be living in
> the previous
> century... I bet you think cooking over a fire is easier than using a
> microwave too huh?
It's a lot better for an awful lot of recipes. (Yes, I insist on a gas
stove, not an electric one.)
> > For the above reason, if no other.
Your use of the on-line version caused you to post a rather silly
question here -- on paper, it's perfectly clear that when partial
pronunciations are given, you're supposed to look at the next entry up
to get the rest of the word.
Moreover, with a book I can flip among any number of places instantly,
for instance to compare subtle differences in whatever I'm checking.
And I can even consult when I'm at a place where my computer isn't.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- From: name
- Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- References:
- pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- From: name
- Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- From: name
- Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- From: Alan
- Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- From: name
- Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- Prev by Date: Re: What was Noam Chomsky's contribution to *LINGUISTICS*?
- Next by Date: Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- Previous by thread: Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- Next by thread: Re: pronounciations at www.m-w.com
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|