Re: OT: Help reading Indic transliteration?

Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>:

> I appreciate the many responses, but in the sheer volume and
> disagreements I kinda lost track.  :)  A web search revealed the
> following guide for the original pronunciation of Sanskrit; if anyone
> has any corrections or additions, please let me know.  Thanks. :)
>
> Transliteration         CXS
[snip]
> r                       r` or r\
> á¹› (r . below)           r`= or r\=
> ṝ (r . below macron)    r`:= or r\:=
If Adrian don't trust me that I do retroflex trills, then this is further
ammunition heading his way! :)

[snip]
> v                       v or P
[P] is easily one of the most poorly chosen signs in X-SAMPA, IMNSHO.

Since we already also have [v\] to indicate a labiodental approximant, I
suggest we reassign [P] to voiceless bilabial fricative (currently [p\]) - it
would create a nice parallelcy with [B T D G] vs [b t d g], and [p\] seems to
be a sound more commonly transcribed here than [v\] anyway, thus having the
greater claim to single-letter representation. Indeed, this is the first time
I've seen anyone use [P] or [v\] in a very long time.

[p\] would of course be left in as an alternative notation, unless someone can
think of a more fitting use.

                                                         Andreas

PS For the record, I do not suggest we reassign [K] to a voiceless velar
fricative - symmetry is nice, but should not be the only consideration!

PPS A for me nice consequence of this change, if implemented, is that the
phonetic transcription of Meghean _phaph_ "the father" gets 40% shorter! Not
counting the brackets, that is; [PaP] vs [p\ap\].

Reply