Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: X-X-SAMPA (Keeping the Standard)

From:Lars Henrik Mathiesen <thorinn@...>
Date:Thursday, December 27, 2001, 19:58
> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:26:15 +0100 > From: Christian Thalmann <cinga@...> > > --- In conlang@y..., Lars Henrik Mathiesen <thorinn@D...> wrote: > > Anyway, wanting to separate two symbols doesn't necessarily imply a > > syllable break. For instance, you might want to contrast /i-ts/ (with > > an affricate) and /it-s/ (with separate consonants). > > Does anyone actually make a difference it speech there?
That would depend on the phonotactics of your language. I don't think there's a distinction in English (unless a syllable break is also involved) but I'm pretty sure that I've seen (natural) languages mentioned on this list that do make this or a similar distinction.
> > > As for /1 }/, I just noticed we still have /i* u*/ available. > > > > Not if you want to use * for diacritics --- otherwise, /i*t/ could be > > either a breathy-voiced /i/ or /1t/. > > No. Breathy-voiced /i/ would be /i_t/, not /i\t/, which is what /i*t/ > represents.
Right. It was John Wells who had wanted to use * for the current _, and you want to use it for the current \. I'm beginning to remember why I don't like improved schemes and optional alternates at all --- there's always too many to keep track of. Anyway, you're really saying that i\ and u\ are unused, and could be aliases for 1 and }. Very true, but unless you propose to remove 1 and } as well, I don't think it's a good idea --- options only confuse. Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@...> (Humour NOT marked)

Reply

BP Jonsson <bpj@...>