Re: X-SAMPA { and }

Lars Henrik Mathiesen <thorinn@...> writes:

> I'm not talking about using another system if X-SAMPA doesn't suit
> your needs --- noone can object to that.
No.  For example, I find that X-SAMPA doesn't suit my needs when I am
going to present phonological data in e-mails (whether in CONLANG or
in private communication with friends) or on web pages, and thus
I don't use it.  After all, this application is AFAIK not what
X-SAMPA was made for anyway.  X-SAMPA is intended to be converted
into actual IPA *automatically*, or so I am told.  Hence it need not
be human-readable; all it needs to do is to stick to 7-bit ASCII
characters and be unambiguous.  I want an intuitive, easy-to-read
(by *humans*, not conversion software) system, which X-SAMPA is not.

> I'm talking about people who find that X-SAMPA is exactly what they
> need, except that it would look so much nicer if we just made this
> teeny little change, the use of which will of course be intuitively
> obvious to everyone seeing the transcription.
If people say they use X-SAMPA, they should strictly follow the
X-SAMPA standard.  But if they don't say they use X-SAMPA, they can do
what they want!  (As long whoever the message is meant for, still
understands what the author means.)  And if someone thinks that he
doesn't like the way X-SAMPA does this or that, he is free to change
it, only that it is no longer X-SAMPA then.  But that doesn't hurt.
While X-SAMPA is *a* standard, it is (fortunately, IMHO) not *the*
standard on CONLANG.

> So next week we make another undocumented change to suit our innately
> superior aesthetics, and the world will be a better place for it. Or?
Well, better document the change, otherwise people might be confused.

Jörg.

Replies