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

> 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