Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...> wrote:
> Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >
> >The possible alternative to (X-)SAMPA as a list standard seems to be
> >to choose one of various new schemes proposed by people on the list,
> >each of them best liked by the inventor.
>
> While the best liked by the inventor remark likely applies to (X-)SAMPA
> too,
> I just like to add to personally I find say Jörg's CPA generally more
> intuitive and eye-friendly than X-SAMPA.
Thanks!
> The only real strong point of
> X-SAMPA as I see it is the fact that I happen to know (most of) it.
Well, not a very strong point, and leads to keeping with the old ways
no matter how bad (or good) they are ;-)
> PS Apart from it's other failings, X-SAMPA also boasts one of the
> unwieldiest names of ASCII-IPA schemes. Couldn't we collapse it to "XPA"
> or
> something?
On which Muke Tever <alrivera@...> replied:
> Well, "Kirshenbaum" (c or no c) isn't a picnic either.
>
> We could just raise our information density and call them "X" and "K",
> confusing
> everyone whatever when our fingers slip ;)
However, "K" is ambiguous as there is also KPA.
Jörg.