Re: X-SAMPA { and }

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:51:59 +0100, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
wrote:

FLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAMEFLAME
FLAMEFLAMEFLAME

neede I say morre??~!~

>Hi!
>
>Lars Henrik Mathiesen <thorinn@...> writes:
>...
>>     Using these codes, you can for example include IPA-phonetic
>>     transcriptions of all kinds in e-mail messages or other forms of
>>     electronic exchange. Wherever an IPA character set is not
>>     available, X-SAMPA will provide a workable alternative.
>>
>> Straight from the keyboard of the designer. (It's not like that page
>> is hard to locate, it's the first one Google finds when you search for
>> X-SAMPA).
>>
>> > X-SAMPA is intended to be converted into actual IPA *automatically*,
>> > or so I am told.
>...
>>
>> Which is one reason I'm arguing so hard for using the standard version
>> of X-SAMPA: I don't want people complaining to me that they get small
>> caps OE's instead of æ's when they run someone else's pseudo-X-SAMPA
>> through my converter.
>
>I very much prefer established standards, too!!!
>
>X-Sampa is well documented and random changes should not be done.  For
>the sake of standard conformance.  Especially if they interfere with
>something already defined differently in the standard.  The only
>permissible thing to do should be to *extend* the standard version if
>it does not provide enough expressiveness.  But, please(!), without
>interfering with the established symbols.
>
>X-Sampa is an established quasi-standard, so there is really no need
>for new attempts for other systems.  A efficient way of expressing IPA
>in ASCII is defined already.  One definition should be enough.
>
>This is all for efficiency of communication, for preventing confusion
>and for providing for automatic conversion.  Remember what happens on
>this list whenever someone tries to define their ConLang's phonemes
>with English examples...
>
>**Henrik
>
>Oh yes: X-Sampa is not especially a bad standard.  It fulfills its
>    purpose well.  Because it maps IPA to ASCII, there are naturally
>    cosmetic flaws in the subjective view of many people.  Still,
>    getting used to them is better than changing the standard.
>
>Oh yes: Kirshenbaum is a proposed standard as well, used by many
>    people, so we already have to deal with two ways of encoding.
>    More will definitely enlarge the chaos.

Reply