Re: ASCII IPA

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:44:07 -0700, Arthaey Angosii <arthaey@...>
wrote:

>>From http://www.cs.brown.edu/~dpb/ascii-ipa.html:
>
>"Kirshenbaum is popular among hobbyists because it tries to stay close to
>the physical representation of ASCII, or else have a decent mnemonic, for
>most things. SAMPA seems more popular among professional linguists for
>reasons which elude me."
>
>>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?
X-SAMPA can represent all the characters of the IPA, including the
diacritics. I often use sounds without a simple Kirshenbaum equivalent:
specifically, the lateral fricatives and the labiodental approximant, and I
occasionally need the laminal diacritic. When I was using the Kirshenbaum
alphabet, I'd arbitrarily use the extra symbols (+, =, $, %) that are
explicitly provided for this purpose, but they require explanation each
time I use them. X-SAMPA is clunky, but at least it's got all the necessary
sounds. (Plain vanilla SAMPA without the X- is unusable, since too many
sounds are missing.) Better alternatives like CPA (Jörg Rhiemeier's
alphabet) are available, but not as well known as X-SAMPA.

--
languages of Azir------> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/lang/index.html>---
hmiller (Herman Miller)   "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com  email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" /  there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

Reply