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

I disagree on both counts.  The only reason CXS exists is that we were
dissatisfied, as a group, with X-SAMPA.  We could just use X-SAMPA and be
done with it, but as long as we have our own version, there's no reason not
to extend it and even change it.  Arbitrary changes should be avoided, of
course, but logical ones should be adopted if there's enough support.


On 2/7/07, Henrik Theiling <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
>


--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

Reply