Re: IPA -> Ascii website
|From:||Tristan Alexander McLeay <zsau@...>|
|Date:||Friday, October 19, 2001, 7:47|
At 10.41 p.m. 18.10.2001 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:04:34 +1000, Tristan Alexander McLeay
> >Um.. I've seen OE before, but that's obviously not good. If people don't
> >mind me making a suggestion:
> >OE Ligature: <&>
> >ae Ligature: <&\>
> >u-dashed: <1\>
>Lately I've been using [æ] for the ae ligature.
Although emails are _supposed_ to be encoded in Latin-1 these days, not all
readers and servers are capable of dealing with eight-bit characters such
as <ash>. Anyway, the point of ascii-IPAs is that it is in ascii.
>The central u is another
>problem. Anything out of the ordinary like [1\] would need to be explained
>every time it's used.
Not if everyone started to use it.
>On the one hand, it might be confusing to have lots
>of minor variations of ASCII-IPA rather than one or two commonly used
>standards. But on the other hand, X-SAMPA is clunky enough that it
>practically begs for improvements. It's easy to forget that ["] is primary
>stress and ['] is another way to write the palatalized diacritic, while [']
>would make more sense as primary stress, and I can't see any reason not to
>use [,] for secondary stress. These sorts of minor changes pass by almost
>unnoticed, becoming almost a standard of their own.
The more logical and internally-consistant _j can by used in X-Sampa, thus
_j is the recommended palatisation mark in CX-Sampa. And I agree with you
on the issue of secondary stress. % is a really dodgy marker.