From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: RFC: ASCII representation of IPA (technical draft)
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:13:15 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Sep8.194517.21824@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum) writes:
>In article <10642@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>My Slavic ear and tongue insist on the articulatory and acoustic
>>distinction between an affricate and a stop followed by a fricative.
>>I know that the distinction is not relevant for English, but English
>>is not the only language discussed here.
>
>Hmm.  My phonology course (which wasn't English specific) insisted
>that there was no such distinction (other than that introduced by
>syllable boundaries),

I think mine said that affricates were indeed stops followed by
fricatives at a lower level, but then the two halves were mapped onto
single segments of the melody, eg

   d   l        d   l
   |   |   vs    \ /
   C   C          C

where the first is the /dl/ of Russian _dlina_ [dli'na] `length' and
the second is the Zulu "dl", written as a lambda in extended IPA, or
as /%l/ according to my latest proposal.  Pullum and Ladusaw list a
number of such symbols in their _Phonetic Symbol Guide_, with the
remark that they are to be used for affricates "when they function as
single segments phonologically".

>In any case, my inclination would be to add the
>diacritic to the stop rather than the fricative.

I'm afraid this won't work.  There are not enough stops for that.
/%D/, /%z/, /%Z/, /%l/ all contain a /d/-like first part.

>>>ejc     ejective
>
>I think that "glottalised" is the meaning I meant.  Ladefoged defines
>"ejectives" as "made with a glottalic egressive airstream mechanism"
>and gives examples from Hausa and Amharic.

And I believe the Caucasian "abruptive" consonants are the same thing.

>I'm not sure how Arabic
>"emphatics" are made, but I think that the notation is usually the same.

Usually it is, although we are told that in Arabic the emphasis may be
realised as pharyngealisation.  I suppose it varies across dialects.

>>>B    -- Unused --
>>
>>I suggest that {vcd,blb,frc} (Greek small letter beta, currently /V/)
>>be moved here.  Reason: It looks like it.
>
>The only reason that I used /V/ and /F/ was the symmetry.

We don't have to lose it.  Shift the current meaning of /F/ onto /P/
(for "p-hi").  This will immediately give you a neat increase of
symmetry (/b/:/B/ = /d/:/D/ = /p/:/P/ = /t/:/T/).

Talking of symmetry, isn't /c/:/J/ = /C/:/j/ cute?

>>>F {vls,blb,frc}         U+03A6 GREEK CAPITAL LETTER PHI
>>
>>Actually, Greek small letter phi.
>
>Sure looks like a capital to me:  full height, no slant, serifs on top
>and bottom.

Pullum & Ladusaw want it to look like an "o" with a bar with serifs
through it, as tall as "b", as deep as "p", and say that both Greek
lowercase phi (what I'm used to) and Greek capital phi are
non-standard.  Not that it matters, really.

>>>M {pal,nas}         ??  U+0272 LATIN SMALL LETTER N HOOK
>>>  {lbd,nas}         ??  U+0271 LATIN SMALL LETTER M HOOK
>>
>>The second, I'd say; the letter doesn't _look_ like an enya.
>
>Yeah, I wasn't too satisfied with this choice.  My reason for choosing
>palatal over labio-dental was that it seemed more useful to be able to
>spell the palatal with a single letter,

Yes, while the engma is as good as useless, as {lbd,nas} is never
phonologically different from {blb,nas}.  But what other tricks can
"M" be taught?  It has an amazingly consistent use across Roman-written
languages.  Except it can signify nasalisation in Portuguese.  How
horrible it will be to make /M/ a diacritic?  /aM/ would be a nasalised
/a/, while /a~/ would be a pharyngealised /a/.

>and with the bias toward English, I wanted to reserve /N/ for the velar.

It's not just English, the velar nasal is quite common (all Turkic
languages bar Modern Turkish have it, for instance), and it also makes
sense because small capital "N" is used for the uvular nasal in IPA,
which is similar in a way.

>I could see making /V/ a vowel, perhaps {low,cnt,unr,vwl}? 

Actually, a more natural function for V is {lbd,apr} (IPA script "v").
Not something you need too frequently.

>>>^ {lmd,bck,unr,vwl}     U+028C LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED V
>>>* {vcd,alv,flp}         U+027E LATIN SMALL LETTER FISHHOOK R
>>
>>Both of these look more like diacritics than letters; wouldn't it be
>>better for them to be used as such?
>
>Well, /^/ certainly *looks* like the IPA character on most terminals.

Then it must be just my perception.  When I look at it, what strikes
me first is that it is a character floating in the air, as diacritics
have been seen to do -- not a normal-sized letter.  Its shape comes next.

>I couldn't think of a better character to use for a flap.

Fine.

>>>{dnt,nas}       /n<d>/
<...>
>>We'll have to agree to be able to omit the /<d>/.
>
>Yup.  I'd like to find a good single-character diacritic for dentals,
>though.

No, we don't need that, since dental and alveolar consonants are
unlikely to coo"ccur.  What I meant was that one should be warned
that, say, all /n/s in a certain language may actually be /n<d>/s.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: sci.lang