Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:T. A. McLeay <relay@...>
Date:Saturday, February 10, 2007, 22:11
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 Œ is 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.