Additional diacritics (was: Phonological equivalent of...) (Eric Chris

Well I guess the one and only reason I thought first of _h_! is that X-SAMPA and
CXS by tradition uses only postposed diacritics, and the _! to my mind is a
diacritic on the _h. Of course _!_h would work as well if we agree on it, but
note that X-SAMPA uses even the catchall backslash as a postposed diacritic,
which CXS has never changed, though the subject has been up. The notation _!h
would be shorter, but I'm not sure I want that. I find myself using "not" in
Perl because I find ! too inconspicious -- I simply don't see it when I read
something like if($x && !$y) but != and !~ work better, and since I have the
same visibility problem with | in the midst of a regex it must be something
with the salience of thin verticals. :-/

As for the issue of the desirability of CXS being a superset of X-SAMPA I'm with
Mark and Herman. The redefinition of & was one of the original and most desired
changes, perhaps
_____________________________
Sent from my phone using flurry - Get free mobile email and news at: http://www.flurry.com

--- Forwarded Message ---
Date: 2007-02-07 14:04:00.0
From: Conlang Mailing List
URL: http://archives.conlang.info/wu/teirsun/cualtuekuan.html
Subject: Re: Additional diacritics (was: Phonological equivalent of...) (Eric
Christopherson, Feb 7 '07, 22:02)
---

On Feb 6, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> Seconded. At least in CXS, as it is running out of
> underscore+character combinations anyway. We can then
> easily accomodate wathever symbols (Ext)IPA comes up with
> analogously to the explicit unaspirated symbol John
> mentioned. I suggest _! since that symbol is not yet taken
> in CXS and it recalls the C and Perl negation operator.
> Too bad Unicode not yet has any raised exclamation mark,
> and the raised not sign is taken for No audible release --
> _} in CXS.[snip]
> Hence I propose _h_! for Unaspirated and _z for explicitly
> alveolar -- the latter because fricatives are the only MOA
> where the IPA table explicitly distinguishes dental,
> alveolar and palatoalveolar, and z looks at least somewhat
> similar to an equals sign!
Out of curiosity, why not _!_h or _!h, to better match C and Perl?

And off-topic: Does anyone else think it would make sense to P
instead of p\ for the voiceless bilabial fricative? The current P,
the labiodental approximant, already has an alternate symbol, v\,
which looks more like the actual IPA symbol. (Apologies if this has
already been addressed!)