Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 > [T-] > (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) [6], 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).
> Of > course, I'm almost certainly confusing the two kinds of diacritics in > C-IPA here. >
Not this time. Christophe. Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.


Tristan <kesuari@...>