Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: C-IPA underlying principles and methods

From:Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 14:11
En réponse à Tristan <kesuari@...>:

> > No, but by saying that the diacritics changed the P/MoA, it made it > seem > to me like you were saying it changed the point *or* manner of > articulation, depending on what it was.
Well, they do, *on the chart*.
> > Clear? I misunderstood. Andreas misunderstood. Doesn't sound clear to > me. >
That's your (plural) problem if you both can't read correctly what I wrote. I made it clear that they weren't IPA diacritics but special movers. Clearer than that is impossible, especially since I did explain that I was referring to the organisation of the IPA chart.
> > Actually: between CXS [@] and [6] is CXS [3].
Look at the chart and you'll see it is *not* between them. C-IPA [@}] would more
> likelily be CXS [3], wouldn't it? >
No. As I said, } moves one *rank* down in height of vowels, i.e. from close to close-mid, close-mid to open-mid and open-mid to open. There's not such a rank between [@] and [3], but there is between [@] and [6]. In the same way, [i}] is [e], not [I], and [a{] is [E], not [&] (ae-ligature in IPA). And again in the same way, [E-] is [3], not [@]. Christophe. Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.


Roger Mills <romilly@...>
Tristan <kesuari@...>