Re: C-IPA underlying principles and methods

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.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

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

Replies