Re: ASCII IPA

On 17 Aug 02, at 15:44, Arthaey Angosii wrote:

> From what I saw in the recent archives at Yahoo, it looks like you
> guys belong to the SAMPA camp. Why do you prefer it over
> Kirshenbaum's scheme?
Some people like it, others hate it.

I came here with Kirshenbaum, since that was what I was used to from
alt.usage.english and, later, sci.lang (though you have to be careful
there to use it to describe English only when Peter D. Daniels isn't
looking).

However, I noticed that most people used X-SAMPA, so I use that on the
list as well. Not especially because I like it better, but because it's
better IMO to have one transcription scheme (possibly with slight
variations, as with /{/ vs /&/ for /æ/) than several slightly different
ones.

(For example, I suppose one could also use Smith-Trager phonemic
analysis, or whatever it's called, when discussing English, which
distinguishes the two pronunciations of "read" as /riyd/ and /red/,
IIRC. But I prefer to write /i:/ rather than /iy/, assuming the length
is phonemic [which it isn't in English -- so I write a broad phonetic
transcription rather than a phonemic one, strictly speaking. I also
distinguish between shwa and /V/, the vowel sound I use in "up"].)

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>