Re: Unilang: the Phonology

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, David Peterson wrote:

> Sorry.  I saw those +/- tables and just skipped right by
> them.  I think that way of classifying sounds is quite
> possibly the worst way every invented.  I was just
> introduced to it this semester.  There are dozens of sounds
> which can't be distinguished with that system.  I think the
> IPA is much simpler. Or just saying things in plain
> "English" (insert your natural language--or any other
> language you prefer--in between the quote marks).
Note that the alphabet of the IPA also contains implicit
assumptions concerning the nature and organization of
phonological elements--the most potentially damaging of them
that there are in fact such things as segments. The segment is
at best an entity derived from more basic elements--whether you
want to represent them via distinctive features, atoms,
particles, elements, or what have you. (There are some
conventions used in the alphabet of the IPA which seem to
recognize that segments are not primitive linguistic elements--
such as the devoicing or nasalization marks--but in general the
segmental bias of the scheme is hard to overcome.)

It should also be noted that the alphabet of the IPA is only
intended to show the range of contrasting sounds in natural
languages; it is not intended to be a universal phonetic
transcription scheme. This means that there are multitudes of
sounds that the alphabet of the IPA will also not be able to
distinguish (at least not without lots of ad hockery).

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga                          dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu

"The strong craving for a simple formula
has been the undoing of linguists."               - Edward Sapir