Re: CPA - An ASCII-based phonetic alphabet

> Date:         Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:37:47 -0500
> From: Herman Miller <hmiller@...>
>
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:15:41 -0500, Steve Kramer <scooter@...> wrote:
>
> >With all of the various ideas being offered for ASCII-IPAs, is
> >there a feeling among the list that X-SAMPA is inadequate for our
> >needs here? I must admit to finding it counter-intuitive, but then,
> >I'm a beginning student. If so, perhaps we could all agree on
> >modifications to CPA or the other standard advanced, and use it
> >instead as our own list standard?
>
> I (and likely others) settled on X-SAMPA because it _was_ adequate
> for my needs, where other proposed systems had been lacking. But
> there's no doubt that X-SAMPA is inelegant, and it's not hard to
> come up with more pleasing systems that work better. The problem is
> that everyone has a slightly different definition of "better". But
> I'd gladly switch to another system if we set one up as an informal
> Conlang list standard (assuming that it can represent all the sounds
> and diacritics of the IPA).
I actually feel the same --- if ALL of the list members who want to
get rid of X-SAMPA can agree on one single replacement system with the
same expressive power, I'll learn it and use it. I'm sure there are
lots of ways to make better systems than X-SAMPA, I'm just not very
optimistic about the agreement part.

What I really don't like is the use of not-quite-X-SAMPA --- that is
why I started this whole discussion --- but it seems to me that most
people have seen my point on that.

Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@...> (Humour NOT marked)