Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
Date:Monday, February 12, 2007, 16:34

René Uittenbogaard writes:
> Somewhat off-topic: > > Henrik's cxs/ipa page ( says: > > > Note 2: The schwa, @, does not seem to be defined to be rounded or > > unrounded in IPA as the chart gives the letter in the very center. > > We need a conlang that distinguishes these two to force IPA to include > > both variants (you can write e_x and 2_x to indicate the two variants, > > though). > > I have always been wondering whether /@_c/ and /@_O/ wouldn't be > better choices to write down these variants.
Although those mean 'less rounded' and 'more rounded', resp., suggesting a specification wrt. to roundedness exists, which the symbol /@/ lacks. To me, it feels like 'undef-1' vs. 'undef+1', if you can read Perl. :-) Another reason I wrote the above is that the schwa was probably meant to be a phone*m*ic symbol, not a precise phonetic one, therefore lacking the roundedness specification. So using /e/ or /2/ as the base letter seems to me as more canonical in phone*t*ic environments, since these symbols do specify roundedness. E.g. for German, /@/ ~ [e_x] and for French, /@/ ~ [2_x], I think. Of course, that's probably a matter of taste. **Henrik