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

Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Eric Christopherson writes:
>> ...
>> And off-topic: Does anyone else think it would make sense to P
>> instead of p\ for the voiceless bilabial fricative? The current P,
>> the labiodental approximant, already has an alternate symbol, v\,
>> which looks more like the actual IPA symbol. (Apologies if this has
>> already been addressed!)
>
> I want to write /P/ all the time, too.  The problem is, just as you
> write, that /P/ = /v\/ and IIRC, this is X-Sampa.  I think
>
>    1. we probably don't want to break compatibility with X-Sampa
>       (except for historical cases where it's already done: { and })
>
>    2. we probably don't want to *change* CXS, but merely extend it
>
> Both 1. and 2. to avoid confusion.
>
> **Henrik
I think /P/ might even go back to original SAMPA. But since v\ makes
more sense, is there any reason to use /P/ at all for this sound? It's
similar to the situation with ' , which in X-SAMPA represents the same
IPA character as _j even though it looks like primary stress (and is
often used that way in CXS).

I'd just as soon reassign P to the voiceless fricative, since v\ is
available for the approximant, and using P for an approximant sound is
just plain confusing.