Re: Two questions about the IPA and English.
|From:||julien eychenne <eychenne.j@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 10:57|
le mer 10-07-2002 à 12:10, Tristan McLeay a écrit :
> Why would you want to print anything you hadn't done with LaTeX? :)LOL. Actually, I've been looking for a good alternative to M$ Word for
months. I recently discovered Tipa for LaTeX, and this is exactly whas I
was looking for !!!. Now my workstation, and (almost) all my linguistic
stuff, runs under linux.:).
> More seriously, though, I imagine you'd have about the same level of
> difficulty finding a j-haczek as an ezh, probably more given the amounts
> of IPA fonts there are.That's a good point, you're right : this character is really hard to
find. But one mustn't forget that IPA is just a phonetic chart, that
works pretty well for european languages (coincidence???), but not so
well for other languages. So, as [y] is rather rare, you can free up 'j'
by using 'y' for [j]. A lot of transcriptional systems are not strictly
phonetic, (or phonemic) but are near to an unambiguous writing system,
so that the language can be handled pretty well, unambiguously, without
the heavy IPA machine. I read a lot of stuff on french quebecois where
[ts] (an allophone of /t/ as in [ptsi] "petit") and [dz] (allophone of
/d/ as [dzy] 'du') are written [c] and [barred-z] (don't know it in
SAMPA) respectively ;).