Re: "Proposed IPA" characters not in Unicode

Paul Bennett wrote:
>I have a chart of what I think is the latest IPA (it includes the
>labiovelar flap (which is not yet in CXS, and about which bloody
>battles have IIRC been fought)).
Labiodental, actually. As for CXS, /V\/ is probably the closest
available thing. Z-SAMPA uses W\_d, where W\ is the bilabial flap;
V\ is there reserved for a voiced velar lateral fricativ (does
anyone actually use that??)

>For example, there are "belted" versions of /l\/, /L/, and /L\/,
>symbolizing lateral fricatives. Also, the long-leg /r\/ is back (for
>the sound I might CXSify as /4_l/), and brings with it a long-leg
>/r\/ with retroflex hook (the retroflex equivalent, i.e. /4`_l/).
Wait... in standard X-SAMPA & variants thereof /l\/ is the lateral
flap (and l/turned-r digraph - as I read it - for the IPA equivalent
has been around for a while I think.) But you seem to be using it
for some other purpose here, apparently some lateral approximant
judging by the company?


>I've currently been dealing with them by using the COMBINING RETROFLEX HOOK
>and COMBINING PALATAL HOOK, but that's obviously not such a hot
>prospect for the velar lateral fricative.
>
>So, my questions are:
>
>Should I just ignore them unless and until I need to use them?
Unless you foresee yourself needing them at some point, why not?
They're bound to get into Unicode sooner or later anyway.

>If not, how should I best represent them in typeset text?
>Paul
WP uses cyrillic izhitsa for the labiodental flap. I think there
exist custom fonts for the laterals (if only with a combining belt
diacritic); I suspect Doulos SIL, but don't hold me to that.

The custom of just using the diacritic for "voiceless" is common
too, as vl. lat. fric. <> vl. lat. appr. contrasts are almost
nonexistent.

John Vertical

_________________________________________________________________
Uutisista turhaan tietoon. Mitä ikinä etsitkin, MSN Search löytää hakemasi.
http://search.msn.fi

Reply