|Date:||Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 13:44|
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) , 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  is CXS . C-IPA [@}] would more likelily be CXS , wouldn't it? Tristan.
|Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>|