Re: C-IPA

En réponse à Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>:

>
> You seem to've snipped part of what you're replying to, but [@}] for
> IPA
> turned a seems sensible. Was [a-] being [A]?
>
No, [a-] would have no equivalent in IPA (unless they modify it to include a
low central unrounded vowel). [a--] would be [A], but [A] will be simpler ;)) .
And as I said earlier, [@}] is actually incorrect, because turned a is
explicitely defined for roundedness (or rather unroundedness). Although I've
seen it also undefined for roundedness by checking further, so [@}] may
actually be valid... In this case, it seems the IPA is ambiguous.

>
> I've spoken about IPA diacritics in this thread? What did I say?
>
You did refer to X-SAMPA [s_d]. [_d] is the transcription of an IPA diacritic.
So you've indeed confused the C-IPA diacritic + (which doesn't correspond to
anything in the IPA) with the "dental" diacritic of the IPA (which is ^[ in C-
IPA, unless a better proposal for it comes around).

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.