CXS-IPA stuff (Modified by Tristan McLeay)
|From:||Tristan McLeay <conlang@...>|
|Date:||Monday, January 31, 2005, 14:52|
On 31 Jan 2005, at 2.15 am, Henrik Theiling wrote:
> "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <dragon@...> writes:
>> Henrik Theiling wrote:
>>> I just finished enhancing my CXS/IPA page a bit by face-lifting, and,
>>> more importantly, by adding a small script that allows online
>>> conversion between IPA and CXS (both directions)
>> Looking at the page ... can we *please* have the comma alternative for
>> secondary stress back?
> Ok, I checked that the comma it is a free character not otherwise used
> by CXS and then made it an acceptable alternative in the CXS->IPA
> conversion and documented it as an alternative. The main alternative
> is currently still " when IPA->CXS conversion is performed.
> Since there is no collision, and , is intuitively clear due to its
> similarity with IPA, I think there is problem allowing the
> alternative. I found myself using it accidentally, actually.
> What do others think?
It's always been on my chart (or at least, I've always meant to have it
on my chart, but I think I forgot it in the first version, and it's
possible you maintain a fork of the original version).
Stress markers are probably the least standardised, with everyone using
what they want. Some people use ' and " some use ' and , others still
(like me) prefer the original XSAMPA and go for " and %
I say we should standardise it---and I vote we should all be using
XSAMPA-style " and % ;) (More seriously, I'm planning on redoing my
chart---I ought to investigate your site---but I might look at a
non-random sample of stress use and see what's most frequent, and use
that to order the new version. Hopefully I'll find that ' and " has
hardly been used recently and so CXS can become CHRXS: Computer- and
Human-Readable X-SAMPA. That'll show those jerks ;) who make things
(This is the message I sent to Henrik which he referred to in another
post. I was over my limit at the time.)