Re: C-IPA underlying principles and methods

Christophe Grandsire wrote:

>>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.
Rule one of communication: if your audience ever misunderstands you,
it's your fault for not expressing yourself properly. After all: is the
point of communication to hear/see your own voice/writing, or to let
others know your thoughts? (I actually won an argument yesterday with
that rule with someone who you *never* win an argument with.)

> 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.
Okay: here is one place where the lack of clarity is (from your first
post on this topic):

 > which can be used behind any meaningful character to put it in the
 > place, manner or whatever of articulation *without changing its other
 > parameters*. Basically those diacritics are shortcuts to move in the
 > IPA tables.

In one sentence, you say that [s+] should be an unvoiced dental sibilant
fricative (i.e. [s_d]), and in the very next, you say that [s+] should
be an unvoiced dental non-sibilant fricative (i.e. [T]). I think you
should be able to agree with me that it wasn't clear. Emphasising that
it doesn't change its other parameters almost certainly got rid of at
least some unambiguity, but the entire bolded phrase was a mistake.

Oh, and what is [t+]? [p], labio-dental, or [t_d]? Your definition of
moving within the tables makes it ambiguously either lab.-dent. or dent.
(there being a header but no column for dentals, and if [s+]=deantl, why
shouldn't [t+]?---but there's no IPA column for it, and you don't fix
the mistakes of the IPA). Your definition that they move characters
would make it (unambigously) [p].

And is [R+] impossible or a palatal trill?

>>Actually: between CXS [@] and [6] is CXS [3].
>
> Look at the chart and you'll see it is *not* between them.
Yes it is. The POA is at the dot, not where the character is, because
sometimes two sounds are articulated at the same point with roundedness
being the only distinction. It's not my fault (nor is it yours) that [@]
and [6] are either unmarked for rounding or unrounded (I'm not sure which).

> > 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 [@].
Okay, that's fully open to interpretation (I can understand that [i}]
could unambiguously be [e] because [I] moves more towards the centre
than [e], so it would be [i}-] (I think), but saying that [a{] should be
[E] is just asking for confusion, and if you don't think it is, you're
being stubborn because it has caused confusion.)

Tristan.

Reply