Re: C-IPA underlying principles and methods

Christophe wrote:

> En réponse à Tristan <kesuari@...>:
>
> > 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'm afraid you'll have to add me to the list.

>I made it clear that they weren't IPA diacritics but special movers
I think I understand that, but don't see the virtue of it. Why have two
symbols to represent the same thing?
As, IIRC your [s+] = [T]; but an [s] moved forward wouldn't in my view turn
into [T], but would still be some kind of s-like sound.  Similarly--
> 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 [@].
If [i}] is [e] etc., what's the point of a modified symbol to represent
something that already has a symbol of its own???  I can see using
diacritics to represent sounds that have no official IPA/SAMPA symbol; or in
a very close transcription, to indicate sounds that are intermediate between
one norm and another-- e.g. in my speech, the vowel of e.g. "tier, pier,
beer" is neither [i] nor [I], but something in between, which IPA can
represent with _[I with "raised" diacritic]_ or perhaps _[i with "lowered"
diacritic]_ (as X-SAMPA can do too, I think, though I haven't reached that
lesson yet).

Lordy, IPA/SAMPA is complicated enough, without introducing the possibility
of representing the _same_ sound with two distinct writings....!  :-))))

Replies