Re: C-IPA

Quoting Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>:
[snip]
> > Incidentially, it seems pointless to ban using these diacritics from
> > creating representations of sounds that lack an IPA equivalent
> (using
> > eg
> > [t+] for a dental voiceless stop), since allowing it in no way hurts
> > C-IPA's
> > ability to transliterate IPA.
> >
>
> Oh, but this use is *not* banned! Since it's unambiguous it can be used
> at
> will. It's just that if you simply want to transliterate the IPA, you
> *needn't*
> use such a construction as [t+]. But I ban nothing. That would be
> against C-
> IPA's spirit :) .
OK.

> > Certainly, I did use that X-SAMPA diacritic, and I may even concede
> that
> > it
> > transcribes an IPA diacritic. However, I used [s_d] to mean
> "voiceless
> > dental sibilant fricative", not "IPA s-with-dental-diacritic".
> >
>
> That's the main problem. You were referring to a phone while I was
> referring
> only to characters (which is the purpose of a *transliteration* of the
> IPA. I
> never said I was making an alternate phonetic alphabet ;))) ).
OK. The answer to my question is then; look up what a voiceless dental sibilant
fricative is in the IPA, then transliterate (which incidentally lands us on
[s^[]).

> > It was, essentially, your "without changing any of its other
> > parameters"
> > comment that confused me. Since IPA signs (when not having
> diacritics)
> > aren't modular, keeping some parameters and changing one of an IPA
> > sign
> > isn't a thought that occur very easily to me.
> >
>
> Ah, OK. It's just that I have descriptions of the IPA characters in
> terms
> of "voiceless bilabial fricative" (basically: take the two dimensions of
> the
> pulmonic consonant chart + voice) and I've always found it easier to
> think of
> them in those terms.
Then this'd be one of life's little reminders that no two people's brains are
wired the same way. My brain resolutely treats (non-diacritic'd) IPA as entirely
non-modular.

> Anyway, the mover diacritics + - { } are only a part of C-IPA. I didn't
> hear
> much comments about the Manner of Articulation diacritics (in a "moving
> in the
> chart" manner of speaking, those diacritics could be called
> "teleportation
> diacritics" as they make a character jump on another row - while staying
> on the
> same column - or jump out of the table completely - like the click
> diacritic ! -
> ) and if they were well-chosen. I mean, | for stop may be kind of
> logical (if
> you remember that ! is for clicks), but what about \ for fricatives or <
> for
> approximants? but I cannot find anything better. The problem is really
> the
> ASCII. They should have chosen nicer non-letter characters!! ;)))
IMHO, the click marker is a good mnemonic, the rest, well, aren't, but I don't
know what you could more profitably use.

Remind me; is the pound/libra sign "£" ASCII-friendly? If it is, it'd could be
used for IPA's l-with-a-tilde-thru'-the-middle.

                                                          Andreas

Reply