'Irreparable' - whose pronunciation scheme do you prefer?

<b>Forum for ideas on how to teach pronunciation </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

Post Reply
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

'Irreparable' - whose pronunciation scheme do you prefer?

Post by fluffyhamster » Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:33 am

With reference to their representation of the word 'irreparable', which dictionary's pronunciation scheme do you most prefer?

1) Oxford's, and later COBUILDs' ("Full transcription"):
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictio ... rreparable

2) Longman's: apparently not shown in the online version, but the LDoCE4 paper version uses an italicized schwa to show when it may or may not be pronounced (i.e. may be omitted) by one speaker versus another.

3) Macmillan's ("Bracketed"):
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dict ... rreparable

4) The original COBUILD's, and BBC English Dictionary's (whose similar if not identical pronunciation systems were devised by the late David Brazil): used a small superscript zero after/to indicate an omissible schwa.

5) Cambridge's ("Complete omission" - The dots you can see are apparently to show syllable boundaries rather than mark any schwa omission i.e. omissible schwas have been cut out completely, it seems!):
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... rreparable

6) Other. (Please describe).

User avatar
Posts: 1374
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 4:14 am
Location: San Francisco, California

Post by Lorikeet » Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:25 am

I use the Oxford Dictionary's American version. MacMillan's sounded the same to me to. I think I have 5 syllables, although one of them is pretty reduced. Somehow, "irreprable" doesn't sound quite right. The example in Cambridge sounded like it was really dropped.

Post Reply