Re: CPA - An ASCII-based phonetic alphabet
|From:||Boudewijn Rempt <boud@...>|
|Date:||Friday, November 16, 2001, 22:59|
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Christian Thalmann wrote:
> --- In conlang@y..., Dirk Elzinga <Dirk_Elzinga@B...> wrote:
> > At 9:44 PM +0000 11/16/01, Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:
> > >As far as I can tell, noone finds X-SAMPA inadequate. Non-mnemonic,
> > >over-complicated, and ugly, perhaps, but not inadequate.
> > Exactly. It doesn't "lay under the fingers" as well as I'd like.
> That's an understatement... it's always a pity when flawed systems get
> declared standard just because they were first. See imperial units, or
> the definition of the Euler Gamma function... ;-)
> As an amateur who hasn't used X-SAMPA for long, I would have no scruples
> to switch to CPA. However, most of the pros and veterans on this list
> are obviously quite attached to X-SAMPA, and I can see the sense in
> keeping up an established standard. I guess it's time for me to learn
> it. =P
Frankly, I don't care either way - and since Unicode has become mandatory
for mail clients since January 2000 (a 'must' according to some rfc I
forgot the number of), you might as well use real IPA. If you can find
some way to key it in, I'll find a way to display it.
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org