Re: Additional diacritics (was: Phonological equivalent of...)

On 11/02/07, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
> Count me among the [P]-for-the-bilab-fric proponents too, as well as the
> can-read-but-not-send-IPA crowd. And now, some comments:
>
> (Benct:)
> >and while we're at fool-proofing, why not introduce a\ for
> >æ and 9\ for Œ, to remove the main source of confusion
> >between CXS and X-SAMPA?
>
> I use [a\] for the lo _central_ vowel (when plain [a] is not sufficient), as
> per Z-SAMPA. [9\] for Πis fine for me, but how commonly does anyone
> actually NEED it?
My conlang Føtisk uses a low front unrounded vowel; I've always
transcribed it as [&\] and I'm pretty sure that's what my chart's
always used for that vowel. I don't think any natural language
actually uses the vowel, except maybe for some dialects of German.

--
Tristan.