Re: CXS suggestions

First of all, as one of the contributors to the present version of CXS, I'd
like to state that the exclusive advantage of CXS is its stability that may
accept it as a de facto standard. It originated from X-SAMPA that should be
machine-readable, and made ***A FEW*** adjustments to make it more
human-friendly.

Also, caeruleancentaur wrote:


> With respect to my own conlang's phonetics, I've always been puzzled
> by the pairs /c/ /J\/ and /j\/ /C/, the voiceless and voiced palatal
> plosives, and the voiced and voiceless palatal fricatives,
> respectively.  The present symbols offend my sense of order!  :-)
This issue was discussed some time ago. The stability of the standard was
the main argument against changing it.

> Why aren't the symbols, e.g., /c/ and /C/, and /j\/ and /J\/, or some
> such?
Contact Tristan McLeay - he is the Keeper. Or promote it by using: CXS came
into being from usage, not from discussion or agreements. Amendments like
/ts)/ or /i\/ have the same origin. Now a palatalization sign /;/ is being
used more and more, not being canonized. So, if somebody wants changes (I
don't) - use them (with explanations!), and  things may change one day.

======================
John Vertical wrote:

> Most of you apparently use X-SAMPA or Henrik Theiling's CXS
It's not Henrik's. It's a kinda freeware. For details contact Tristan
McLeay, but I think he is nomail now.

> I'd like to suggest a few additional symbols for CXS:
> - /a\/ for /a_"/ (low central vowel)
Makes sense. Although, CXS is NOT changed by voting (see above).

> - /e\ 2\ 7\ o\/ for /e_o 2_o 7_o o_o/ (middle vowels)
I am not aware of a natlang that distinguishes five levels of vowels. So
normally if the middle vowels are merely middle (without opposition
close-mid :: open-mid), ppl usually use symbols for close-mid with a
footnote about their real nature.

> Currently, /F J/ do not really suggest nasality, ... And /K K\/ suggests
neither laterality
> nor fricativity.
CXS is not mnemonic.

-- Yitzik

Replies