Re: X-SAMPA confusion (sorry)

Quoting "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <dragon@...>:


> In addition, CXS allows the choice of (I think) three different
> conventions for indicating stress. Like X-Sampa, it allows {'} for
> primary stress and {,} for secondary stress, which is the system I
> vastly prefer. It also allows {'} for primary stress and {"} for
> secondary stress, which is a system that I hate and despise with great
> passion. Fortunately, I don't have to use it.
Technically, {'} for primary stress and {,} for secondary is NOT valid X-SAMPA;
it's supposed to be {"} and {%} (which convention I hate alot). The
appostrophe, moreover, is assigned to indicate palatalization in X-SAMPA*.

The most recent version of the CXS chart I've seen doesn't recognize {,} for
secondary stress either, but I think it can fairly be called an established
list convention by now. It's what I use, anyway.

* X-SAMPA also allows for {_j} for palatalization, which is the only recognized
way in CXS. However, in practice, {;} seems to be the most common way to
indicate palatalization on the list. If CXS is supposed to codify usage, it
ought recognize {;} and {,}.

                                                Andreas

Reply