#721 hors d'oeuvre unpalatable in 9.4

[Piotr Banski]

The in-line example of the entry fragment for "hors d'oeuvre" in 9.4. (http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/DI.html#DIHW ) lists the variant pronunciations as:
,aw'duhv
O:r dœvr)
'duhv(z)

while the XML example lists, respectively:
%aU"dUv
OR d0vR
"dUv(z)

which seems hardly helpful or clear.

[Hugh A. Cayless]

Piotr, can you clarify how you think this should be fixed?

[Piotr Banski]

Clearly, two different phonetic alphabets are used here, possibly as a relic of pre-Unicode times (the one in the XML example looks Sampa-like, i.e., ASCII-friendly). Nowadays, this switch is unwarranted, and in fact might confuse the reader.

I believe that the proper way to proceed is to use the transcription from the inline example throughout.

[Hugh A. Cayless]

Assigning to Stefan to implement.

[Stefan Majewski]

Reading through the remainder of the article I have the strong feeling that most other examples are sampa. I think this may have slipped. For consistency sake I would suggest changing the inline text.

The example for mackle, biryani hospitaler in DI read inline as:
biryani or biriani (%bIrI"A:nI)
mackle ("mak^@l) or macule ("makju:l)
hospitaller or U.S. hospitaler ("hQspIt@l@)
bevvy ("bEvI) Dialect

Or this might be a case where we could use the @notation which is defined for <pron>, to make clear that here we use IPA (as the source probably uses IPA while the source for the other is the OED which appear to all be using sampa.</pron>

I think I have to discuss this further, especially as I think this could be a good opportunity to also introduce @notation to the description.

[Laurent Romary]

The use of @notation is definitely appropriate!

[Piotr Banski]

You mean, @notation on the <pron>s with sensible transcriptions in them, and the latter is exactly Stefan's worry, and I don't envy him.</pron>

This is a mess. Sampa is used in inline examples for dictionaries that were around before Sampa existed. Next, cf. mackle: IPA in the XML (1st pronunciation), Sampa inline... SO wrong.

Next, what is "CED"? The reference expanded from the abbreviation is almost meaningless ("Collins English Dictionary. London: Collins"), given the multitude of editions of the CED. It may be the online version of CED, but that version has different text in its entries from what is provided in this chapter... The world and the CED have moved on, for sure, but the biblio reference does not indicate that.

Several procedures suggest themselves. One is: throw Sampa away altogether, this isn't meant to be a museum... Next: update the inline examples for what the referenced dictionaries REALLY provide (hint: it's not Sampa). Next, put the real pronunciation info into the XML examples, potentially using @notation and commenting on that briefly.

Ayes/nays?

[Martin Holmes]

Council 2015-05-30: Stefan to implement Piotr's final suggestion:

Update the inline examples for what the referenced dictionaries REALLY provide (hint: it's not Sampa). Next, put the real pronunciation info into the XML examples, potentially using @notation and commenting on that briefly.

If there is difficulty in accessing originals of specific dictionaries, go to the rest of Council to see if their libraries have copies.