Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: "Godless phonemes without complex voice modulation apparatus"

From:J. 'Mach' Wust <j_mach_wust@...>
Date:Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 0:37
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:54:12 -0700, B. Garcia <madyaas@...> wrote:

>On 4/25/05, Joe <joe@...> wrote: >> >> >> Because, I suppose, IPA things have a specific meaning. Natural >> alphabets do not.
I belief it's the point of alphabets that there is a certain correspondence between letters and sounds. Of course, that correspondence is often imperfect either because not all the sounds are represented or because of historical spellings. Yet still in any alphabet, most letters correspond to certain sounds, and most sounds to certain letters. If one concentrates too much on the oddities of, say, English spelling, this is often forgotten. On the other hand, many IPA transcriptions (or even most IPA transcriptions assuming that most use of IPA is made in dictionaries and not in narrow phonetic analysis) are not that specific in their meaning. In traditional French IPA use, the sound that is represented by [t] is not the same one as the sound represented by [t] in traditional English IPA use.
>Well, yes, I understand that. > > >>For example, I could express an alien sound as 'qrxp', which is >> perfectly fine, but I could never transcribe such a thing into IPA.
I don't see what's wrong about [qrxp]. It makes perfectly sense in IPA (though it does less so in the 'English alphabet').
>True, but it's useless to tell someone about it without giving a >description about it.
Perhaps you shouldn't have asked that person for the sounds of that language, but for a romanization of that devanaagarii letters. It may be that the sounds are inconceivable to human understanding, but there is no question that devanaagarii is romanizable. kry@s: j. 'mach' wust


Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>