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

Mark J. Reed skrev:

 > On a somewhat unrelated note, I find myself wishing there
 > were an IPA diacritic for "unaspirated", for cases when I
 > wish to emphasize that aspect of a phone.

Yes, how often have I not wished for such a symbol!

 > Obviously, the lack of the "aspirated" diacritic should be
 > sufficient, in narrow phonetic transcription, to indicate
 > a corresponding lack of aspiration, but if the associated
 > sound is usually aspirated it would be useful to be able
 > to show that lack explicitly...

That goes for most secondary articulations, I think. E.g. in
Swedish /x/ and /s`/ are usually labialized, so it would
make sense to have a diacritic to show explicitly Eh/when
they aren't.

 > in general, a "negation" operator would seem to be
 > helpful.

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.

 > But then we're starting to veer dangerously in the
 > direction of feature notation...

So what? Isn't all the secondary articulation diacritics
going in that direction already? I see no problem with it.

John Vertical skrev:

 > The extIPA uses a superscript equality sign ("=") for just
 > that. Also, as a combining subscript, it is used to mark
 > coronals as explicitely alveolar, which is handy too.

Too bad both = and _= are used synonymously for
Syllabic in CXS!

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!

FWIW since there is an explicit Dental diacritic in IPA I
have on occasion used t_+ (Advanced t) and t_- (Retracted t)
etc. for explicitly alveolar or palatoalveolar sounds. In as
far as [T]/[s] and [D]/[z] differ in MOA as well as POA the
notation is expandable to those too.

 > And there's more along similar lines; I suggest you check
 > it out yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExtIPA

I have. We should cover those in CXS! Anyone mind if I come
up with a proposal? ;-)
--

/BP 8^)
--
   B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@melroch.se (delete X)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Truth, Sir, is a cow which will give [skeptics] no more milk,
and so they are gone to milk the bull."
                                     -- Sam. Johnson (no rel. ;)

Replies