Re: Lax counterpart of [&]?

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 05:15:59PM -0400, Isidora Zamora wrote:
> > I (Isidora) was not the original enquirer.
>
> Oh, whoops.  Sorry.
>
> > I am pretty new to the list and had no idea
> > that most people used & to represent ash.  Now I know.
It didn't make you curious when people said they pronounced (say) 'mat' as
(X-SAMPA) /m&t/? Or do you just have the self-restraint necessary to
abstain from EPTs?

> See this chart, which someone (Tristan, I believe?)
Yes, 'twas I.

> was nice enough to
> create, showing the deviances from X-SAMPA that are common on
> here:
>
> http://cassowary.free.fr/Linguistics/cxschart.png
>
> The system, which he dubbed CXS, is almost identical with X-SAMPA.
> The main substitutions are [&] for [{] and [u\] for [}], to
> avoid punctuation, and [i\] for [1], because the latter is
> indistinguishable from [l] in many fonts (it's nearly so in the
> one I'm using).
>
> Also, we allow ) to tie the preceding two letters together,
> since the underscore is also used for diacriticals in X-SAMPA,
> and only knowledge of the semantics distinguishes these two uses.
> For instance, we only know that [g_G] is an affricate while [t_G] is
> a velarized [t] because we know that velarizing a velar doesn't
> make any sense, and that the stop and fricative components of an
> affricate must share the same place of articulation.
XSampa [&] becomes CXS [&\]*; there are also two additional methods of
stress to enhappify people who dislike %-signs for secondary stress. [']
is not a valid way of marking palatisation _even if you use [" and %] for
stress_ as it becomes ambiguous (is [tal'ce] [tal"ce] or [tal_jce]?).

* Because [&\] is rather rare, there was no real standardisation on it. In
previous discussions it turns out that a number of people expected [{] and
[&] were switched. I couldn't stand for such a solution (it defeated half
the purpose of using [&] for ash in the first place) and so used the
regular XSampa diacritic.

--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

Yesterday I was a dog. Today I'm a dog. Tomorrow I'll probably still
be a dog. Sigh! There's so little hope for advancement.
                -- Snoopy

Reply