Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

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

Expand Messages
  • John Vertical
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 45 , Feb 5, 2007
      >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. 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... in general, a
      >"negation" operator would seem to be helpful. But then we're starting to
      >veer dangerously in the direction of feature notation...
      >
      >--
      >Mark J. Reed

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

      John Vertical

      _________________________________________________________________
      Uutisista turhaan tietoon. Mitä ikinä etsitkin, MSN Search löytää hakemasi.
      http://search.msn.fi
    • Henrik Theiling
      Hi! ... Although those mean less rounded and more rounded , resp., suggesting a specification wrt. to roundedness exists, which the symbol /@/ lacks. To
      Message 45 of 45 , Feb 12, 2007
        Hi!

        René Uittenbogaard writes:
        > Somewhat off-topic:
        >
        > Henrik's cxs/ipa page (http://www.theiling.de/ipa/) 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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.