Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:John Vertical <johnvertical@...>
Date:Saturday, February 10, 2007, 19:09
Count me among the [P]-for-the-bilab-fric proponents too, as well as the
can-read-but-not-send-IPA crowd. And now, some comments:

(Benct:)
>and while we're at fool-proofing, why not introduce a\ for >æ and 9\ for Œ, to remove the main source of confusion >between CXS and X-SAMPA?
I use [a\] for the lo _central_ vowel (when plain [a] is not sufficient), as per Z-SAMPA. [9\] for Œ is fine for me, but how commonly does anyone actually NEED it? Furthermore, the Kirshenbaum system also uses [&] for æ, and then there's also the mnemonic that it's the vowel in the English words "and" and "ampersand". I'll hang on to this for one. (Mark:)
>On the other hand, the use of F for the nasal is, to me, one of the most >baffling of the current symbols. I find m\ much more legible. Again, >there's an analogical argument for M instead, but that would require >finding >a new symbol for unrounded u. If we were to go that route, I'd suggest w\. > >But I'm not proposing any such domino-effect changes. I simply support the >use of P for the bilabial fricative and m\ (currently unused in CXS) as an >alternative symbol for F.
I suspect the "F" stems from an intention to assign every single ASCII glyph to something before mooving over to digraphs. I don't think this is crucial in any way, however; how commonly have you needed to transcribe a labiodental nasal? Especially, in a context other than /mv/ or /mf/? (Tristan, in reply to Benct:)
>>Moreover I think b\ and p\ should be (re)assigned to ȸ >>U+0238 LATIN SMALL LETTER DB DIGRAPH and ȹ U+0239 LATIN >>SMALL LETTER QP DIGRAPH > >Now that idea I am wholly against. It's one thing to redefine an >unrecommended symbol when there's perceived to be a problem. >It's another thing to redefine a default symbol for something to a >character that isn't even standard IPA.
I figure anyone's free to use those in ad hoc transcription, however. (Isaac:)
>So, if one wants a symbol to be used, let him use it, and >specify what it means, untill the community sees the >advantages or at least start understanding what you mean. >At the same time, apply common sense and avoid radicalism. >Stability is the best guarantee that we will be able to >understand one another. Remember the tower of Babel ! :)
Amen. John Vertical _________________________________________________________________ Uutiset ja kasvot uutisten takaa. MSN Search, täyden palvelun hakukone. http://search.msn.fi

Replies

T. A. McLeay <relay@...>
Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>