After reading at ACF Fall (for Wesley, in fact, who can certainly tell me that my approach was dreadful if that's the case) I've been thinking a lot about this too. My preference is decidedly against sill-A-bick approach, since it always seems to slow me down and often keeps me from really comprehending the word in question, although having it as a parenthetical guide behind the word in question would help. There was only one instance of this in ACF fall and it threw me far more when I ran across it than when out of nowhere I had to read the principles of Sikhism. My preference, which I suspect may not be the most common one, is that non-English words be spelled in the Roman alphabet, but as close to the original as possible. I realize it's a lot tougher for those of you who don't use Macs to type in accents, but if I know the language or language group and know what special characters are being used, it's not to hard to get at least an approximate pronunciation. Without accents, though, even in French, which I know, it's hard to get the right pronunciation without the right accent marks. And what I think is hardest of all is names of scientists, because I have no idea what their own preferred pronuncaiation is. And I often ended up spelling those out or dealing with them in other awkeard ways because I just can't guess linguistic origin from one name taken out of any cultural context. At any rate, I'm sure this debate has been had many times, but I'm glad to know others are thinking about it, too. Rose
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST