4 ms·
> The theory called asymptotically (as-em-TOT-ick-lee) safe gravity was proposed in 1978 by Steven Weinberg. Would a person interested in an article about quan
by jpeg_hero 9y ago
> The theory called asymptotically (as-em-TOT-ick-lee) safe gravity was proposed in 1978 by Steven Weinberg.
Would a person interested in an article about quantum gravity not be familiar with the term asymptotically?
- laretluval 9y agoMoreover knowing the pronunciation doesn't give you any help if you don't know the meaning.
- intrasight 9y agoThat bothered me as well (pronouncing rather than defining)
- sago 9y agoParticularly as the pronunciation is strange. Strange place to break syllables, and I'm not sure the second vowel is a 'e' in most pronunciations. /a-sim-TOT-i-klee/
- gnulinux 9y agoThis is how I pronounce it in IPA: /a.sim'to:.ti.kli:/ Why is TOT one syllable?
- jsmthrowaway 9y agoThe weird thing about IPA is that the non-IPA pronunciation you’re replying to seems easier to understand.
- InternetOfStuff 9y agoOnly to you. I feel exactly the opposite way. <Rant> I wish people would use the IPA instead of their absurd ad-hoc systems. I learned IPA at school, and it has served me well. All the pronunciation systems based on some other language are unreliable and idiosyncratic. And English, with its near-absence of reliable pronunciation/spelling rules, is particularly ill-suited. </Rant>
- freehunter 9y ago>I learned IPA at school That's why people use their ad-hoc systems. Because many many many people don't know IPA. It's so far removed from English and uses so many letters that don't occur in English that it's close to being a completely different language. The word "ɪn·tərˈnæʃ·ə·nəl" may make complete sense to someone who knows IPA but to to the many people who don't, it's complete gibberish.
- InternetOfStuff 9y ago> That's why people use their ad-hoc systems. Because many many many people don't know IPA. I was disagreeing with parent's claim that ad-hockery was better than IPA. Nothing more, nothing less. However if ad-hockery is the best someone can do (I say this without snark), then fine. Certainly better than nothing. > It's so far removed from English and uses so many letters that don't occur in English that it's close to being a completely different language. English is far removed from my native language, so either way I have to learn a pronunciation system (and the English one is... special). While we're at it, do we use pseudo-American or pseudo-British pronunciation in our ad-hockery? Pseudo-US-East-coast or pseudo-Southern-US? I think ad-hockery provides a trap in that it gives a false sense of security. You think you know to pronounce something, but if you actually try, chances are your native speaker conversation partner will go ¿que? > The word "ɪn·tərˈnæʃ·ə·nəl" may make complete sense to someone who knows IPA but to to the many people who don't, it's complete gibberish. I agree that it looks like gibberish to those who don't know IPA. But I'm honestly not sure "intaneshenel" (or "intönäschänäl", or whatever) is better. For me at least, it's equally confusing. As an aside: making up pronounciation if it's of little relevance to what you're writing is one thing. What really grinds my gears is language books (or, say, the language section of guide books) that make up their funny ways of writing pronunciation. They might use that same amount of effort to teach the basics of IPA, which is about the same amount of effort, and provides the reader with something lastingly useful. They even write multi-page explanations, complete with examples, on how to interpret funny charecters in their script. I remember the absurd contortions the Lonely Planet Germany guide went through to explain umlaut sounds to people in terms of English words, and then coming up with ways that weren't the IPA to type those sounds.
- 9y ago
- sago 9y agoIt isn't. The problem with a vernacular pronunciation guide is that you need to think about ambiguity. /a-sim-TO-ti-klee/ is a much better syllable break, but /TO/ is likely to be mispronounced /'tu:/. And /TOH/ could be interpreted as /'toʊ/. So /TOT/ splits the difference between syllable break and pronunciation for (imho) maximum clarity.
- saalweachter 9y agoMaybe you should write an article on a popular website where you off-handedly promote your preferred pronunciation of asymptotic.
- rubber_duck 9y agoMaybe author hears it mispronounced often and it bugs him.
- Maro 9y agoIt's a her :)
- ConceptJunkie 9y agoMaybe author hears her mispronounced often and it bugs him.
- qubex 9y agoI was amazed by this too. Why focus on how one pronounces it rather than the mathematical properties of asymptotic behaviour (i.e., that one gradually approaches but never reaches something)?
- bcaulfield 9y agoYeah, this is a little odd. But in the writer's defense, I read a lot more than I speak, and I often comically mispronounce a useful word when I have to use it in speech, so while I'm familiar with this particular word, I do wish writers would do this with words a little more often than they do.
- bornonline1 9y agoThis is the first time i see this word so I'm thankful.
- cpuguy83 9y agoHonestly my brain read it as "asymptomatically" at first... Also why deprive a reader who is not familiar with the term? Does it really hurt you that it is included?
- randomdata 9y agoTheoretically, yes. Asymptotically is one of those words that you often read about, but rarely hear in speech. There are plenty of words I come across in text that I understand the meaning of, but often am not familiar with the correct pronunciation as nobody I interact with in daily life use them. I can see this one falling into that category quite easily. Whether or not the pronunciation is valuable information given that the communication method is again text remains to be seen.
- liberte82 9y agoSince I finished school, my frequency of hearing that word seems to be asymptotically approaching zero.