Re: C-IPA

Quoting Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>:
>
> >
> > One could even argue that you shouldn't be using the exclamation mark
> as
> > a
> > diacritic, since it's the IPA sign for a (post-)alveolar click.
> >
>
> This rule applies only to letter signs, not to non-letter ones. Was I
> unclear
> about that?
You were, but certainly its a drawback for a transliteration scheme not to keep
the value of a grapheme when it occurs in both the source and target character
set? (In this case, the benefits of turning "!" into a diacritic is probably
greater than the drawback, but that's a question of weighing the pros and cons
in a specific case, not something of principle.)

[snip]
> > It'd perhaps be simplest to decree that the rule about keeping the
> > values of
> > IPA signs doesn't apply to the non-pulmonic consonants, but that's
> > rather
> > against the spirit of the C-IPA, isn't it?
> >
>
> Not in this case. I had made it clear that I don't want to have a
> geometric
> correspondence. Only the letter signs follow the rule of being taken
> straight
> from the IPA.
Yep, but surely it doesn't hurt if other signs to so too, where practical? The
primary stress sign is a case in point.

> > One solution'd be to introduce an extra diacrticizer along with "^",
> > which'd be
> > used for turning signs from their IPA values into diacritics that
> > doesn't
> > correlate to an IPA one. Say we'd use the double quote sign ("),
> which's
> > not
> > entirely dissimilar to the circumflex for this purpose; we'd then
> have
> > [!] as
> > for an alveolar click, and ["!] as the clickizer (eg [p"!] for a
> > bilabila
> > click. Similarly [|] would be a dental click and [f"|] for a
> voiceless
> > labiodental stop.
> >
>
> But this would be completely against the spirit of C-IPA, because it
> would make
> everything much longer than necessary. No, this extra diacriticizer is
> exactly
> what C-IPA *mustn't* have.
There's no reason it'd make everything much longer; I did suggest removing the
C-IPA characteristics as a class, only the particular ones [! |].

> > For languages where clicks don't turn up, one could write simply
> [f|],
> > and for
> > ones that has clicks but not stop+click clusters, [p!], similarly to
> > how
> > aspiration, for phonemic purposes, is sometimes simply indicated by
> a
> > following
> > [h]; eg [th] for [t^h].
> >
>
> Not in the base form of C-IPA. Since it's completely modular, you
> could
> probably make it work like that, but I'm personally not in favour of it.
> It
> destroys the main principles of C-IPA.
Naturally not in the base form of C-IPA, just like [th] isn't acceptable for
aspirated "t" in base IPA. I was merely pointing out how one could simply the
system used for a specific language.

                                                Andreas

Reply