Re: CPA - An ASCII-based phonetic alphabet

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Herman Miller wrote:
> 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).
>
Well, I'm not attempting to start a revolt or anything...just asking
whether or not we should adopt a different standard.  I guess the
corollary to that would be if we decide to standardize on X-SAMPA, is
there an easy way to learn it?  Muke Tever posted something concerning how
intuitive it was, except for certain parts...of course, I find those
"certain parts" to be exactly the problem!  /4/ simply isn't intuitive, no
matter what I do.

--
  Steve Kramer           ||           scooter (at) buser dot net          ||
  _____________________  ===================================================
 |  __/^\__        ,-^,|
 |/~       \_     {  / |         "I'm a little teapot, short and stout,
             \/\   |!  |                   Here is my handle,
               /  / )  |___            Here is my other handle --
              (_  \ \     /           Oh, crap, I'm a sugar bowl!"
                ~v^  ?_,-'

Reply