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

On Feb 6, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> Seconded. At least in CXS, as it is running out of
> underscore+character combinations anyway. We can then
> easily accomodate wathever symbols (Ext)IPA comes up with
> analogously to the explicit unaspirated symbol John
> mentioned. I suggest _! since that symbol is not yet taken
> in CXS and it recalls the C and Perl negation operator.
> Too bad Unicode not yet has any raised exclamation mark,
> and the raised not sign is taken for No audible release --
> _} in CXS.
[snip]
> Hence I propose _h_! for Unaspirated and _z for explicitly
> alveolar -- the latter because fricatives are the only MOA
> where the IPA table explicitly distinguishes dental,
> alveolar and palatoalveolar, and z looks at least somewhat
> similar to an equals sign!
Out of curiosity, why not _!_h or _!h, to better match C and Perl?

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!)

Replies