Re: C-IPA underlying principles and methods
|From:||Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 13:23|
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?!
> Because otherwise it would seem like [s+] should maintain it's
> sibilantness and become a dental sibilant fricative, which sounds
> different from a dental non-sibilant fricative, and vice-versa for
> (taking [T] to represent IPA theta).
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*!
> 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 [@}] (logical: @ itself is a bit higher than
open-mid, so it's normal that [@}] is a bit higher than low).
> course, I'm almost certainly confusing the two kinds of diacritics in
> C-IPA here.
Not this time.
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.