Re: ASCII IPA (Was Re: Zetowvu / Ezotwuv (new conlang))

Danny Wier wrote:

> Maybe we can come up with our own ASCII-ization of IPA... call it the
> Conlanger's IPA! Though there are already at least five different
> systems, including X-SAMPA and Kirshenbaum, and I have my own
> Latin-1-based system which I haven't really perfected.
I think this would be an interesting idea; I at least would be
interested in comparing notes on our personal systems we've
developed.  Even if such a system is not adopted as a standard among
conlangers, it might help us in our personal notes.  Frankly, even
when I have the option of using IPA fonts (and I do of course) I
find it easier to just use my ASCII-IPA for my personal uses.

In creating my system I began by listing what my _personal_ needs in
an ASCII IPA are and worked from there.  Here's the thing: X-SAMPA,
Kirshenbaum, and Carrasquer (a system I rather like) were all
designed to fulfill different needs and expectations in an IPA ASCII
transliteration.  Carrasquer, for example, wants to reserve the
usage of digits (1, 2, etc.) to tones instead of using them for
vowels as in SAMPA - and in working with my East Asian conlangs I've
found that a great system to follow.

So, if it can be demonstrated that we, as Conlangers, have different
needs and expectations of an ASCII IPA system that can be better
fulfilled by a new system (or an altering of an existing system)
then an argument could be made for a Conlanger's IPA - for personal
use or public use.

For my own system, which I call Svara in the experimentation phase,
I placed a premium on visual similarity and regularity in using what
I call "diacrits" - charaters like ^ or * that modify a character.
On the other hand I also tried to keep it as close as possible to
SAMPA, Kirshenbaum or Carrasquer.  The big difference is in the
vowels: the back vowels are [u], [o], [O] and [A] and to make them
unrounded you simply add a *.  Central vowels all have " except for
@ (but using " may change when I work on stress diacrits - which I
haven't worked on yet).  For me, it's not an issue if [O] can be
confused with zero, because I reserve numbers for tone, and tone
zero is simply unmarked.  However, for someone else this might be a
big issue.  So again, the question is one of need - what does the
individual - or group in question - need in a system.

Getting people to use it as a standard might be difficult because
you get major coolness points for using the system that the
professionals use.  However, even here there is room for diversity:
in creolistics I've seen a couple different systems used, usually
home-grown systems, and as long as they are clear and defined, no
one really cares.

Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> Maybe I should really propose the underlying rules of the scheme and the
> current implementation and let the list bring its wisdom in, so that it becomes
> a real Conlanger's IPA :)) .
I'd love to see that!  Please do.

"Isaac A. Penzev" wrote:

> Maybe I'm too conservative, but I don't think it's a good idea to make > new
> ASCII-zations. It can bring to further confusion. X-SAMPA (with all > its
> shortcomings) is widely recognized as a kind of standard in the > linguistic
> world.
I have to respectfully agree and disagree with my good friend
Yitzik.  I agree on the one hand that standards are a wonderful
thing.  However, tinkering is the engine of progress; when someone
comes along and says "hey, I can do a better job" they very often
fail, but often as well they invent something that goes on to be the
new standard when it does do a better job of fulfilling the needs of
the users in question.  If it fails, the tinkerer at least learns a
great deal about the structure and benefits of the original system.
Tinkering should be encouraged, that's one of the reasons why we're
here.

Personally I don't care for Pittman shorthand, and Gregg, while
better to me, has some shortcomings too, so I'm working on my own.
It will never be adopted as a worldwide standard, but I've learned a
lot about Pittman and Gregg while designing it.

As for standards, diversity of standards is a common thing in
academics.  In university I studied psychology and philosophy, and
in both areas there were different standards of notation, thesis
formatting, bibliography, etc. - two different ways to express the
same thing.  The reason for the two different systems was the
different needs (and yes, traditions and probably marketting).

I also agree with Yitzik about Latin-1: although it's very tempting
to take advantage of it, if the system is meant for public
consumption it would be best to stick with the usual ASCII.

Cheers,
Eamon

Replies