Re: "Proposed IPA" characters not in Unicode

----- Original Message -----
From: John Vertical <johnvertical@...>

> 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.
Yes. Typo, sorry. Or a thinko, or something. I don't even know what a
labiovelar flap would be. I
guess it was just on my mind given the qp and db signs.

> 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??)
I'm a fan of /v`/ due to the "rhotic" nature of taps & flaps,
retroflexes and rhotaicized vowels.
There's a certain graphic similarity, too. However, this gets
religious fairly quickly (based on past
experience), so watch out.

> >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?
Another typo. My /l\/ should be /l`/.

Anyway, /l\/ seems like an eminent choice (though absent from CXS
AFAICT) for the alveolar lateral
flap, which is the "long leg turned r" in IPA, though in IPA it's IIRC
deprecated as "not attested as
distinctive", which only adds to the confusion. Still, CXS is
concerned with attestation in conlangs
at least as much as natlangs.

Regardless, it still leaves the question open for the fricative set.
The /_0/ diactritic seems like a
decent option, but it's nonsatisfactory (to me) in the long term).

> >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.
I should probably not need them in the document I'm producing, except
that they're shown as "proposed"
on the IPA chart I'm using in that work, and so I'd like to at least
be able to account for their
absence if I decide to do so.

> >If not, how should I best represent them in typeset text?
>
> 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.
Izhitza's not a bad choice in typgraphic text in the right font. I'm
leaning more and more towards the
voiceless diacritic in the case that I'll need those phonemes.




Paul

Reply