I guess I wasn’t clear though I thought I was. In the dictionary there are symbols (diacritical marks) to indicate the pronunciation. Letters alone often do not suffice.
For example, in the methyltestosterone example, when one reads “er,” is that “eer” or “err” or “ur” or what is it? (For that matter, what is “ur,” is it “oor” or “your” or what? And what is “oor”? Is it the sound rhyming with lure, or the sound rhyming with poor?"
Or take my example of water again. With no diacritical mark, and giving no reference to what the first syllable rhymes with but using only some spelling, how can you unambiguously give the “wa” sound? No matter how you try spelling it, you cannot avoid ambiguity.
This is why they use diacritical marks in dictionaries
I see what you’re getting at, Bill. Unlike a dictionary, I assumed that the proposed glossary wouldn’t have to cater to the lowest common denominator (i.e. someone that had never heard the relevant word components).
The obvious solution, as nkeago pointed out, is to use diacritical marks in the glossary. Unless the site can't support their use, then it shouldn't be a problem.
Okay first off Bill’s post on this thread are really funny to me for some reason. Second the diacritical marks may not help us all. As Bill himself is not 100% sure if he’s pronouncing everything correct. It would be cool if there was a page on t-mag that had the words listed but they linked to a wav. file or whatever. Then you could hear the proper pronuciation. Yeah that will happen. Heheh. Plus who’s gonna say it. For that matter who would have 100% correct pronunciation of all the words were after. Okay diacritical marks it is. Ciao.
