Re: "Proposed IPA" characters not in Unicode

On Jan 16, 2007, at 11:03 AM, 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)). 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.
>
> 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/).
>
> 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.
Do you mean that you've been using the symbol /K/ with a combining
palatal hook for the palatal lateral fricative?

I don't know if it's necessarily true, but Wikipedia says combining
palatal hook is obsolete as part of IPA. In addition, it seems that
its proper use is to show palatal*ization*, not palatal primary
articulation; so I think that might not be the best representation
(but then I don't have any helpful ideas for a better one).

>
> So, my questions are:
>
> Should I just ignore them unless and until I need to use them?
>
> If not, how should I best represent them in typeset text?
>
> Would it take official IPA homologation before the characters make it
> into Unicode, or are they likely
> to slip in as part of one of the Phonetic Extension blocks?
>
>
>
>
> Paul