Re: Sorting PIE with IPA

Paul Bennett wrote:
>
> I think I agree, but part of me will not stop worrying about readers who
> know the IPA but do not know the PIE symbols.
Assuming that your audience is _IE-ists_, is that a concern? Or linguists in
general, who can all be assumed to have a nodding acquaitance with both
systems.

Re alphabetization: Dempwolff's system for Proto-Austronesian used a mix of
IPA, diacritic-ed and "Greek" symbols: schwa, gamma, t/d+acute, n+acute,
k/g+acute, t-sub.dot, d-sub.dot; smooth-breathing for 0-initial,
rough-breathing for /?/ in citations (not in reconstructions-- that was *h);
and quite inexplicably, "v" for *w. He alphabetized his list a la romaine,
with 'a, 'i, 'u in the appropriate places; d, d-dot, d-acute; *@ preceded
*g, g+acute followed; then gamma, h, etc. k, k-acute...n, n+acute...t,
t-dot, t-acute etc.  It was internally consistent, but has been considerably
modified in the intervening years. As with PIE, the phonetic correlates are
uncertain, though it seems in many cases more easily hypothesized.