Re: CPA - An ASCII-based phonetic alphabet

On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:

> > X-Priority: 3
> > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
> > Date:         Sat, 17 Nov 2001 20:45:28 -0500
> > From: Muke Tever <alrivera@...>
> >
> > From: "Tristan Alexander McLeay" <anstouh@...>
> > > > [That page can't do [w`] !  I shed tears.]
> > >
> > > Is that even a proper X-Sampa? It put me off until I ignored it and read
> > > the next few chars (and then it became obvious).
> >
> > Hmm, it probably isn't even proper IPA to write a [w] with a retroflex tail.
> > The "proper" is probably [r\`_O] or [r\`_w], which are just plain evil.  (In
> > "CPA", whose thread this is, it looks like it would be [*r._)] or [*r.^w]...)
>
> Well, IPA (and thus SAMPA) /w/ is a voiced labial-velar approximant,
> but I think that Tristan wants a labial-retroflex approximant, without
> a velar element. So [w`] seems misleading to me too.
Hmm? I didn't want anything! Or maybe I `wanted' a voiced
labial-velar-retroflex approximate from what I saw, but it was Muke who
used the [w`] in the first place!

> That aside, the converter page in question seems to balk at any
> combination of the X-SAMPA rhoticity/retroflexion diacritic with a
> base letter that doesn't have a corresponding combined form in the
> Unicode charts. I.e., it accepts things like [r\`], but not [@\`].
There is so a rhoticisied schwa! U+025A according to the PDFs at
unicode.org, which I think is the closest thing to a definitive guide
other than those books that I'm never going to get my hands onto :(...
Anyway, enough rambles from me...


Tristan

anstouh@yahoo.com.au

War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
                       - BSD Games' Fortune

Reply