Lerner's Dictionarys should explain spelling-sound link.

eito(jpn) --- lerner   Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:53 am GMT
As a lerner of English, I think IPA is necessary to check how each word should be pronounced. However, it's not evrything. I wonder why dictionarys for ESL lerners do not fully explain any relationship between spelling and pronunciation. Generally, they don't even mention terms like magic-E, long-I, short-O, braud-A, consonant dubbling, soft-C, or hard-G. I'm sure these terms will make it easier for lerners to memorize how to pronounce meny words. It is good for lerners to kno of what is regular and what is iregular.

Another point is that they don't provide the list of iregular
spellings. They should provide it for us as they provide the list
of iregular verbs. Grammar is important, but spelling is important,
too.

Thank you for your atention.
Mxsmanic   Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:58 am GMT
A dictionary is not a treatise on pronunciation; it is just a word list with a pronunciation key. Users of the dictionary are assumed to already be familiar with English phonology. Those who are not can consult a specialized reference on phonology to learn it.

What is "magic-E"? Keep in mind that some of the concepts you mention are actually misleading: for example, vowel length is not phonemic in English, despite the common names given to some vowels ("long I" is a completely different vowel from "short I," and not just a difference in length).
eito(jpn)   Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:17 pm GMT
>>What is "magic-E"? <<

Magic-E is a silent letter that makes the preceding vowel "long". Ex. tAkE, mEtE, kItE, nOtE, UsE. In this context, "long" doesn't hav enything to do with vowel length. What I mean here is the vowel letter that is pronounced the same as the sound of its name by adding the silent-E. This is about conection between spelling and pronunciation. This is not about phonology.

short-I: i as in "bit"----without "magic-E"
long-I : i as in "bite"--- with "magic-E"

I was talking about the difference between /bIt/(bit) and /baIt/(bite).
I was not talking about the difference between /bIt/ and /bi:t/.

>>Keep in mind that some of the concepts you mention are actually misleading: for example, vowel length is not phonemic in English, despite the common names given to some vowels ("long I" is a completely different vowel from "short I," and not just a difference in length).<<

Yes, indeed. Maybe, that could be part of the reason Lerner's dictionarys do not refer to Long-A, Long-E, Long-I, Long-O, or Long-U (in conection with spelling).
Uriel   Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:24 am GMT
Sometimes there is no relationship between spelling and pronunciation, eito.
eito(jpn)   Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:21 pm GMT
Good greef!
Greg M.   Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:12 am GMT
<<Keep in mind that some of the concepts you mention are actually misleading: for example, vowel length is not phonemic in English>>

Huh? At least for me there are words contrasted by vowel length. For example:

mood - /m}d/

mooed - /m}:d/

pause - /pOz/

paws - /pO:z/

sod - /sOd/

sawed - /sO:d/

clause - /klOz/

claws - /klO:z/
Mxsmanic   Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:27 am GMT
If linguists really have learned anything about language, why do they continue to embrace such absurdities as vowel length not being phonemic?
eito(jpn)   Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:42 am GMT
Some of my (AmE) dictionarys do not use the ":" simbol in IPA. For example, /bit/ for "beat", not /bi:t/. (And /bIt/ for "bit".) It took me a lot of time to get acustomed to that trend.
Greg M.   Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:50 am GMT
<<If linguists really have learned anything about language, why do they continue to embrace such absurdities as vowel length not being phonemic?>>

What do you mean?