Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 ><zsau@...> wrote: > > >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. Tristan