Re: C-IPA underlying principles and methods

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> En réponse à Tristan <kesuari@...>:
>
>
>>I think I understand, but it would seem to me that it would be  better
>>to describe it in terms of the IPA i.e. the simple diacritics of C-IPA
>>move the sound to another box|dot on the IPA consonant|vowel charts.
>
> But *that*'s how I described it!!! Is it my fault if the IPA consonant chart is
> organised in terms of place and manner of articulation?!
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.

> I can't understand how you get that from my explanations. I made it clear that
> I was referring to movement *in the IPA chart*!
Clear? I misunderstood. Andreas misunderstood. Doesn't sound clear to me.

>>Really? I would've thought [a-] be a low central unrounded vowel (no
>>IPA, but would be useful in discussing English: RP [a] != Aussie [a-]
>>!=
>>GA [a--]) and [@}] would be C(onlang)X(-)S(ampa) [6], upside-down a.
>
> It is. Since IPA doesn't have anything lower than upside-down-a as central
> vowel, that's what I was referring to. As I said, C-IPA's purpose is *not*
> to "repair" the IPA, just to transliterate it. Still, since for vowels - moves
> only one box back (from front to central or central to back *on the chart* -
> this way nobody can tell I didn't describe it right -), [a-] would indeed be a
> low central vowel different from [@}]
Okay, I guess I can understand that.

> (logical: @ itself is a bit higher than
> open-mid, so it's normal that [@}] is a bit higher than low).
Actually: between CXS [@] and [6] is CXS [3]. C-IPA [@}] would more
likelily be CXS [3], wouldn't it?

Tristan.

Reply