Re: C-IPA underlying principles and methods

En réponse à Tristan <kesuari@...>:

> Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> >>And is [R+] impossible or a palatal trill?
> >
> > Impossible, unambiguously. Having productive rules doesn't mean all
> outcomes
> > are useable. It just means that all possible outcomes can be rendered
> in a way
> > or another. Again, it's a system of rules to *transliterate* the IPA
> into
> > ASCII. And as such, you're supposed to go from the IPA form and
> *transliterate*
> > it. C-IPA has no purpose in replacing the IPA itself.
>
> Fair enough. You seem to have misunderstood that as an attack on your
> system. It was an honest question.
>
Not this question in particular. And I didn't take your mail as an attack on
the system, but as invalid criticism completely missing the point. That was
what annoyed me. Sorry for that.

>
> Can I suggest a better definition: { and } move a previous vowel
> up/down
> a third the space in the vowel chart.
OK.

 + and - move a previous vowel
> forward/backwards half the space.
OK too.

 Though it means seperate definitions
> for the vowel and consonant uses of the symbols, it does mean that
> there
> should be less confusion with what [&{] would mean, should a front mid
> vowel ever be created (that distinguishes from both [e] and [E]).
If you prefer this definition, fine by me :)) . It doesn't change how the beast
works anyway :) . Your definition takes the actual chart geometry, I take the
labels of the rows and columns. The result is the same.

>
> Pardon me! I don't need to groundlessly attacked.
Pardon *me*. You were the one who looked like he didn't read my posts. I just
reacted in this way.

 I was merely using
> the
> same meaning that you were when you defined [e] in terms of [i]!
>
If you were, you wouldn't even have proposed that [i}-] could mean [I]
(especially when I used as example that [i-] was barred i. Since - and } move
on different directions, they are obviously commutative, or should I have
mentioned that too?).

>
> I personally don't see what the dot has to mean. I've always assumed
> that a dot is used when two IPA characters co-exist at the same place;
> otherwise, the centre of the character is the point. Thus, [&] *is* in
> between [a] and [E] (notice: the line disappears).
Not on my chart.

 (With my
> definition,
> it becomes clearer, and I would have no objection to [a{]==[E].)
>
As I said already, our definitions are equivalent, as I'm just using the labels
when you're using the actual geometry. If your definition is clearer for you,
good for you. It's not for me because I usually don't have the chart geometry
in my head, but I do have the actual definition of each IPA character in.

>
> Criticism, actually. (Just a reminder.)
>
True, thank you.

>
> I hope you prefer my suggestion.
>
I'll note it as a possible definition for those C-IPA diacritics. I still
prefer mine, but that's probably because I work more with the labels of the
charts than with the charts themselves.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

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