Re: Additional diacritics (was: Phonological equivalent of...)
|From:||Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>|
|Date:||Monday, February 12, 2007, 16:34|
René Uittenbogaard writes:
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.
> Somewhat off-topic:
> Henrik's cxs/ipa page (http://www.theiling.de/ipa/)
> > 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.