[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Status of IPA patch?

From: Aidan Kehoe
Subject: Re: Status of IPA patch?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:35:59 +0100

 Ar an t-ochtú lá is fiche de mí Lúnasa, scríobh Juri Linkov: 

 > >  > The omission of those two was intentional, since U+20A7 is
 > >  > equivalent to tʃ (note that that digraph doesn’t include the tie
 > >  > that would be necessary to have it as a phoneme distinct from /t/
 > >  > followed by /ʃ/) and g is equivalent to U+0261 for the purposes of
 > >  > the IPA.
 > I don’t understand why do you omit U+20A7 and U+0261 if they exist in
 > X-SAMPA and Kirshenbaum?

The IPA standards (which X-SAMPA and Kirshenbaum build on) define _U+20A7_
and _U+0261_ as being equivalent to _a succession of U+0074 and U+0283_, and
_U+0067_, respectively. The former two code points just represent
compatibility glyphs (with U+20A7 leading to needless confusion, since
people might reasonably believe that it meant the same as U+0074 U+2040
U+0283, including the tie I mention above).

Kirshenbaum mentions ASCII g as mapping to both U+0067 and U+0261 without
comment. Including both would not add to the semantic range of what the user
can input (in terms of the IPA), and would again be needlessly confusing
(the user types g; wonders if 0 or 1 is more appropriate; when it doesn’t
actually matter, and U+0067 is always more certain to be preserved by
software). Kirshenbaum ignores U+20A7.

X-SAMPA ignores both U+20A7 and the U+0067 vs. U+0261 question. 

¿Dónde estará ahora mi sobrino Yoghurtu Nghe, que tuvo que huir
precipitadamente de la aldea por culpa de la escasez de rinocerontes?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]