Re: ASCII IPA

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?
>
I can't claim that I've studied Kirshenbaum much, but to me (X-)SAMPA
appears closer to IPA, which means it's less of a load on memory.

Another scheme, probably only known on this list, is CPA (a search in the
archive should turn it up). Personally I like it rather better than either
(X-)SAMPA or Kirshenbaum, but it hasn't gained much following. My favourite
thing about it is that it uses ^j and ^h to represent palatalization and
aspiration respectively, which's very easy to remember for anyone who's any
familiar with the IPA and ASCII-fied math. I sometimes use these particular
notations even when otherwise sticking to X-SAMPA.

                                                  Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Replies