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

----- Original Message -----
From: Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>
> I am sure the stability is the main positive feature of CXS. Last
> additions like [i\] for [1], [;] for palatalization etc. were made
> by extensive usage.
> So, if one wants a symbol to be used, let him use it, and specify
> what it means, untill the community sees the advantages
Excellent advice. That's pretty much how CXS condensed out of the
ether in the first place, isn't it?
Common consensus about silly assignments in X-Sampa lead to uniform or
near-uniform on-list deviations
that eventually had a name assigned to them, and were thereby cast in
 ... um ... plasticine?





Paul