Verwijderde inhoud Toegevoegde inhoud
Regel 363:
:::Yeah, that's a huge problem that I'm aware of. I actually own only one Dutch dictionary (Polish-Dutch Dutch-Polish one), it has no IPA, but I've read multiple times people saying that in dictionaries very common diphthongal pronunciations of EE EU OO arent't always mentioned, and more open AU EI UI are treated as if they never existed. Of course this is about the pages '''before''' or '''after''' the actual dictionary, I'm yet to find one with modern diphthongs as a part of IPA transcriptions. Perhaps you could confirm this.
 
:::I'll never understand people pushing through artifical pronunciation model, which is a lot closer to Belgium than most of the Netherlands. It strikes me as a hipocrisy that there are no rules on how to pronounce the 'r', and yet the diphthongisation of EE EU OO and lowering the onset of AU EI UI is "not standard". That's idiotic.
 
:::Anyway, I don't have a big problem with standard Dutch transcriptions (as long as you're transcribing standard Dutch, not speech of someone that doesn't speak it), but if one doesn't mention very common pronunciations, then it's basically editing the reality like one wishes it to be. Not to mention using obsolete IPA symbols, which confuse the reader. Nowadays a lot symbols are used "out of tradition", especially in English, Dutch and Danish. Noone seems to want to make the first step, and start consequently transcribing accurately. Like doing so could be anyhow sanctioned, apart from some criticism. Which you'll always get no matter you do. So what's the bloody problem.