Re: C-IPA underlying principles and methods

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
[snip]
> > The s-oid sounds being what they are, things seems to be going a little
> > to
> > easy here. How to indicate X-SAMPA [s_d] as opposed to [T], for
> > instance?
> > I'm having an idea on the later down, so read on ...
> >
>
>I think you misunderstood the system here. As I said, the simple diacritics
>are
>peculiar to C-IPA itself and are P/MoA movers, not IPA diacritics! (there
>are
>based on IPA diacritics, but that's just for mnemonics!) [s+] can *only*
>mean
>the same as SAMPA [T], i.e. a true voiceless dental fricative, never
>X-SAMPA
>[s_d] (is there a difference anyway between those. C-IPA makes it only
>because
>IPA has an actual dental diacritic). [s_d] would be likely [s^[] in C-IPA
>(don't forget: IPA diacritics are *always* marked with the tiebar mark ^.
>That's what separates them from the special C-IPA diacritics).
I'm obviously missing something here. Do you mean that the C-IPA diacritics
causes to symbols to move between different positions on the IPA chart
rather than between different actual PoAs?

I disagree about X-SAMPA [s_d] not being a true voiceless dental fricative.
I mean, it's voiceless, dental and fricative! Indeed, I can produce [T] and
[s_d] at the same PoA - don't ask me what the essential articulatory
difference is*, but it's not PoA.

* I guess it has something to do with the difference between sibilant and
non-sibilant fricatives, but I don't know what that difference is. I'm
getting out of my depth here, I'm afraid.

[snip]
> > There's quite a few letters whose small caps versions don't mean
> > anything in
> > IPA, but whose uppercase versions have pretty well-established values in
> > the
> > traditions of ASCIIIPAs (sorry, couldn't resist triple capital "i");
> > I'm
> > thinking primarily of [A E O S Z T D]. I'd heartily recomend including
> > those, tho' of course not rejecting the alternative analytic notations
> > like
> > [a-] (or [a--] if you think there's room for low centrals).
>
>Well, there's one, but I think I prefer writing it as @} (lowered schwa).
IPA, however, has no symbol for it. ( Up-side-down "a" being on the same
height as ash.)

>Of course, that's the spirit of C-IPA, and I indeed forgot to say that
>C-IPA
>has an advantage: it is modular. It tries to leave as much characters
>unused to
>allow for shortcuts, as long as they are defined before use. But the ones
>you
>listed are indeed used by C-IPA in the same way as X-SAMPA does. I didn't
>talk
>about them because I was concentrating on explaining the analytical
>features of
>C-IPA. Also, contrary to its analytical features, those ones are not part
>of
>the "core" of C-IPA, and are thus redefinable (as are any capital letter
>which
>has no small capital equivalent in IPA) to provide shortcuts when the usual
>groups they stand for isn't used in the phonology you want to describe.
Sounds like a good idea.

[snip]
>  Having [T] for X-SAMPA [T] also frees [s+]
> > for
> > X-SAMPA [s_d].
> >
>
>It doesn't, since [s+] *cannot* mean the same as X-SAMPA [s_d]. You're
>mixing
>two systems here. But I think you understand now what I mean.
Well, then "+" obviously does not merely shift the PoA forward (since it's
able to change the "sibilancy", or whatever). Moving on the IPA chart works,
of course.

But I don't understand what two systems I'm supposedly mixing?


                   Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Reply