Re: C-IPA underlying principles and methods
|From:||Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 21:12|
En réponse à Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>:
> First things first; how am I supposed to pronounce "C-IPA"? [sai.pa]?
I personally simply pronounce each letter (I do the same with the IPA, although
it can be an obvious acronym). But you're free to make it into an acronym if
you want :)) .
> The s-oid sounds being what they are, things seems to be going a little
> easy here. How to indicate X-SAMPA [s_d] as opposed to [T], for
> 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).
> The first impression is that it may be uglier than X-SAMPA for
> things ([TIN] morphs into something like [s+IN+]!!),
Well, I don't find it ugly at all :)) .
but nicer for
> exotic things ([u+:t] for [}:t] for something that's not exotic to me at
Indeed. At least, they look similar. And C-IPA provides enough freedom of
choice to take more aesthetic things (the velar nasal can also be [g~] for
instance, and the dental fricative can be [f-] :)) ).
> 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
> traditions of ASCIIIPAs (sorry, couldn't resist triple capital "i");
> 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
> [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).
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.
I took this idea from the fact that everyone does modify a bit X-SAMPA when
they use it, so why not build this ability to be modified in the scheme itself?
As long as the shortcuts list is presented before use, I don't see a problem.
It's just like saying "X-SAMPA with the usual modifications", only more precise
and more codified.
> everyone use these already, and it helps alleviate the [s+IN+] thing.
Of course. In a way, C-IPA is a bit like TeX: great potential, but you need a
macros file to use all its power. The use of A, E, S, Z, etc... is an example
of a standard "plain" macros file.
> [;] for half-length too, but that may be just me (altho' I challenge
> list to argue against the mnemonic value of colon indicating length
> _semi_colon _half_-length).
I agree with this one too. In fact, I couldn't find any other character better
for the job :)) .
Having [T] for X-SAMPA [T] also frees [s+]
> 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.
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.