Re: X-SAMPA { and }

Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:
>
>X-SAMPA is a standard.
>
>Some people here may not like a few details in it, but if you go
>changing standards just because you think you are clever, you're on
>the slippery slope that leads to MicroSoft(R) TCP/IP(TM) and other
>abominations.
>
>And who among the let's-gratuitously-fiddle-with-X-SAMPA gang has
>upped and produced reference materials for their version that are as
>useful as John Wells' writeup or Andrew Mutchler's annotated chart?
We-ell, it is generally true that a bad standard is better than no standard,
but Conlang already seems to've developped it's own dialect of X-SAMPA
(C-SAMPA, perhaps?) - [&] seems to be more common than [{] for IPA ash for
instance. As long as there's some kind of consensus, this needn't cause much
problems.

Also, the annotations I suggested aren't used for anything in standard
X-SAMPA, so the worst thing that should happen is that someone don't
understand what's intended and asks.

                                                Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp