Re: C-IPA

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

>
> Seeing how the IPA chart is organized (or my copy at least), the
> easiest
> description of the + - { } diacritics then seems to be that for
> consonants
> they they move one box in the relevant direction, with the addition that
> the
> dental-alveolar-postalveolar area counts as three columns, and for
> vowels
> they move one line segement, possibly with some special rule for those
> IPA
> vowel signs that don't lie at an intersection of lines (schwa, turned
> a,
> small caps I, Y and U). Is this correct?
>
Yes. This is exactly the same definition as mine, except that I was using the
labels of the rows and columns directly.

> 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 :) .

>
> 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 ;))) ).

> 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.

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!! ;)))

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

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

Reply