|From:||Paul Roser <pkroser@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, July 11, 2002, 15:44|
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:22:24 +0100, Barbara Barrett
>It began as a soellinf reform movenemt inthe 1800s I thinks, but as it
>expanded to have all phonems described (the Idea was a one-world
>alphabet) it because a tool of phoneticians decribing languages and
>remains for that purpose. Althoug some, alsa very few, language course
>use it for pronounciaton guides for their words.
I should probably have known better than to try replying from the online
Yahoo site... my reply seems to have been posted to the ether. If it does
pop up, my apologies for repeating myself.
The IPA's official journal, originally titled Le Maitre Phonetique, began
publishing in 1886. In the late 1800s there were a number of phonetic
alphabets in circulation, most designed with a specific cluster of languages
or dialects in mind. There was one for Finno-Ugric, and I believe Anthropos
had one around the turn of the century that was almost as universal as the
IPA, though I can't recall if it had clicks...
My own aesthetic favorite was Lundell's Swedish dialect (landsmal) alphabet
which maintained a typological resemblance between consonants produced at
the same point of articulation (most effective in the coronals). Karlgren
used it (or a derivative?) in his book on Chinese dialect phonologie, with
some additions (at least they weren't in the version of Lundell's alphabet
that I've been able to track down) for postvelar/uvular and some additional
The biggest drawback to Lundell that I can see is that, given its dialectal
focus on European languages, it lacks any means of indicating non-pulmonic
segments (clicks, ejectives) and more 'exotic' points of articulation (like
pharyngeal) - other than those two gripes, it is far more attractive to me
than the IPA.
BTW if anyone has any info on Lundell's alphabet, I'd be very interested!