Re: "Proposed IPA" characters not in Unicode

----- Original Message -----
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <conlang@...>

> Here be Unicode!
FWIW, my webmail client renders all non-Latin-1 characters as "?",
which is so braindamaged that it
hurts -- then again, see also the myriad other ways it's equally
broken (for example, the double-
wrapping of line ends).

> Paul Bennett skrev:
> > I have a chart of what I think is the latest IPA
>
> Would you mind showing us that document? (I.e. link to it
> -- if you have it on paper, can you scan it? If you lack
> a webspace to put it you can email it to me and I'll
> upload it.
I *think* I got it from Wikipedia, though there's a small chance it
came from the IPA official site.

I don't have it with me, but I'll host it tonight. I'd actually be
interested in discovering the font
it uses. It's a pretty standard though attractve Roman, and the small
pieces of italic have a slight
whiff of Zapf Chancery about them -- it works surprisingly well.

> > (it includes the labiovelar flap (which is not yet in
> > CXS, and about which bloody battles have IIRC been
> > fought)). It contains a number of "proposed" characters,
> > some of which I'm familiar with and which are in Unicode
> > (such as the qp and db labiovelar stop symbols), and some
> > of which fall into the "easy to read, but apparently not
> > well- known" camp.
>
> Does it by any chance include Chao's proposed letters for
> alveopalatal sounds: ? ? ? ? \u0221 \u0234 \u0235
> \u0236? My conlang Kijeb has a phonetic distinction
> between plain palatals, including [J] and alveopalatals
> including '[n\]'
(I typoed labiodental flap, btw)

It does not, but they're in Code2000, and possibly others, in their
Unicode places. Code2000 is a bit
ugly, but it's better than some.

> (My idea for how to represent these in CXS is d\ l\ n\ t\
> analogous to s\ z\, but unfortunately l\ is already in use
> for ? the alveolar lateral flap.
Not in CXS, as far as I can see. Taking this into account, I'm temped
to suggest /4_l/ and /4`_l/ for
the alveolar and retroflex versions (since I hate /r`/ instinctively).

> My preferred solution
> would be to reassign l\ to the alveopalatal lateral and use
> the hitherto unused 4\ for the lateral flap -- too bad L\ is
> taken too! :-/)
Yeah. CXS is organic, which is a huge strength, but it makes it hard
to systematize it.

It is worth posting an RFC for the formation of a CXS2.0 committee or
something?

> > 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/).
>
> Something seems to be off with your CXS
Yes. I have /l\/ for /l`/ and the rest of the confusion flows from
there. I explained it bit better to
John Vertical. Sorry. I'm prone to typoes lately.

I'll reply to the Unicode-containing stuff from home.

> > So, my questions are:
> >
> > Should I just ignore them unless and until I need to
> > use them?
>
> You mean if you should create a font for them?
That's an option, for sure. The Freemono/Freesans/etc family is GPL or
FDL or something, right? Do I
recall the new-incarnation SIL family being Open Source, too?

I could dump them in the Private Use Area in the BMP for now...

> > If not, how should I best represent them in typeset text?
>
> I'd those workarounds we've mentioned (mainly _l = ? =
> \u02e1 after the appropriate tap/flap/fricative character,
> since it can hardly be misunderstood.
Sounds a bit more sensible.

> > Would it take official IPA homologation before the
> > characters make it into Unicode,
>
> Probably.
>
> > or are they likely to slip in as part of one of the
> > Phonetic Extension blocks?
>
> I'd expect them to end up in some new IPA Extensions A
> block.
Me too.



Paul

Replies