Web page with askii IPA?
David Barnsdale
Can anyone giv me a link to the askii representation
of IPA as used here?
(If it's on the FAQ can I hav the link to the FAQ, please?)
Thanking you in advance
David
--
David Barnsdale
Perique des Palottes
>
> Can anyone giv me a link to the askii representation
> of IPA as used here?
> (If it's on the FAQ can I hav the link to the FAQ, please?)
Use google, search: ascii ipa
FAQ: Representing IPA Phonetics in ASCII
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/faq.html
Or use Internet FAQ Archives at:
http://www.faqs.org/
In particular:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-lang-faq/
And there:
19. How can I represent phonetic symbols in ASCII?
...
--
All true believers shall break their eggs at the convenient end.
news:soc.culture.catalan FAQ at http://www.gea.cesca.es/~ipa/SCC/
Dr. Des Small
> Can anyone giv me a link to the askii representation
> of IPA as used here?
Sci.lang uses the Kirshenbaum ASCII IPA, found at
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/
> (If it's on the FAQ can I hav the link to the FAQ, please?)
The FAQ lives at http://www.zompist.com/langfaq.html
If you are planning to settle in for a spell as Resident English
Spelling Reform Loony, you will also want to see Mark Rosenfelder's
(partial) defence of the current system -
http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
You might also benefit from knowing the difference between phonetic
and phonemic notation, that only phonemic distinctions are even
potentially of interest for spelling, that Peter Daniels insists on
using the Trager-Smith notation for the phonemics of English, for
which there seems to be no web page - the best description is reputed
to be in Gleason's (out of print) Introduction to Descriptive
Linguistics.
It wouldn't hurt, either, to bear in mind that significant changes in
orthography tend to borne on the tides of massive political change
(the Norman conquest in England, or Ataturk in Turkey) as part of a
drastic break with the continuity of tradition, and that this is
widely considered not to be a coincidence.
I don't tend to follow spelling reform threads, though, so forgive me
if these are well-sucked eggs.
Des
--
Des Small, Scientific Programmer,
School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, UK.
Bertilo Wennergren
> It wouldn't hurt, either, to bear in mind that significant changes in
> orthography tend to borne on the tides of massive political change
> (the Norman conquest in England, or Ataturk in Turkey) as part of a
> drastic break with the continuity of tradition, and that this is
> widely considered not to be a coincidence.
But still significant spelling reforms do occur even when there is no
massive political change, general break with tradition etc. E.g. the
German orthography was recently reformed. Swedish has also seen such
reforms. I'm sure there are more examples.
--
Bertilo Wennergren <bert...@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Dr. Des Small:
>
> > It wouldn't hurt, either, to bear in mind that significant changes in
> > orthography tend to borne on the tides of massive political change
> > (the Norman conquest in England, or Ataturk in Turkey) as part of a
> > drastic break with the continuity of tradition, and that this is
> > widely considered not to be a coincidence.
>
> But still significant spelling reforms do occur even when there is no
> massive political change, general break with tradition etc. E.g. the
> German orthography was recently reformed.
Very, very minorly -- yet couldn't the recent reform be considered a
side effect of Unification?
(Cf. the minor differences between UK and US spelling, instituted at a
similar political turn.)
> Swedish has also seen such
> reforms. I'm sure there are more examples.
Dutch. Again and again. Yet they never seem to get it right ...
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Bertilo Wennergren
> Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
>> Dr. Des Small:
>> > It wouldn't hurt, either, to bear in mind that significant changes in
>> > orthography tend to borne on the tides of massive political change
>> > (the Norman conquest in England, or Ataturk in Turkey) as part of a
>> > drastic break with the continuity of tradition, and that this is
>> > widely considered not to be a coincidence.
>> But still significant spelling reforms do occur even when there is no
>> massive political change, general break with tradition etc. E.g. the
>> German orthography was recently reformed.
> Very, very minorly
Indeed. But the Germans still find the changes big enough to quarrel about.
> -- yet couldn't the recent reform be considered a
> side effect of Unification?
Maybe, but that could also be pure coincidence.
>> Swedish has also seen such
>> reforms. I'm sure there are more examples.
> Dutch. Again and again. Yet they never seem to get it right ...
The Dutch have done without any political upheaval to back it, I think...
Actually French has also been reformed lately, but the reform was never
implemented. It's still official law though, if I'm rightly informed,
though everyone (including the politicans) act as if they've never even
heard about it.
Any more examples?
Dr. Des Small
> Dr. Des Small:
>
> > It wouldn't hurt, either, to bear in mind that significant changes in
> > orthography tend to borne on the tides of massive political change
> > (the Norman conquest in England, or Ataturk in Turkey) as part of a
> > drastic break with the continuity of tradition, and that this is
> > widely considered not to be a coincidence.
>
> But still significant spelling reforms do occur even when there is no
> massive political change, general break with tradition etc. E.g. the
> German orthography was recently reformed. Swedish has also seen such
> reforms. I'm sure there are more examples.
The last I heard the German reform wasn't really catching on; has it
picked up momentum?
Danmark reformed its spelling (including dropping the use of capital
letters for nouns) in _1948_. I'm told there was something of a purge
of German words, too.
Sweden reformed its spelling in 1906, a year after conceding
independence to Norway. Does anyone know enough of the historical
context to say whether these are related? Certainly Sweden had just
gone through an immense upheaval in the late 19th century (with
rural famines and massive emigration to America) and was just getting
into the swing of industrialisation.
More information, and more examples are welcome of course - doesn't
Dutch get periodically tweaked? - but in any case, these reforms seem
like cosmetic tinkering compared to what is traditionally proposed for
English - it is customary to insist that all textual software and
encodings, all keyboards and the literacy of all the people using the
language world wide should be sacrificed in the interests of better
representing the proposer's dialect. All of which is going to happen
precisely when they rule the world, and not before.
Des
isn't holding his breath.
Philip Newton
<bert...@gmx.net> wrote:
> But the Germans still find the changes big enough to quarrel about.
And simultaneously small enough to complain about. (Some would have
liked to abolish capitalisation of all nouns, for example. Or to
regularise even further which compound words are spelled separately,
together, or hyphenated.)
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <nospam...@gmx.li>
That really is my address; no need to remove anything to reply.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Philip Newton
Small) wrote:
> The last I heard the German reform wasn't really catching on; has it
> picked up momentum?
I'd say yes. Print media, by and large, use the new spelling. I think
people are starting to become familiar with it.
Peter T. Daniels
Indonesian, for instance, went from a Dutch-based (!!) romanization to a
phonemic (one letter/one sound) orthography upon independence; Jakarta
used to be Djakarta (and before that it was Batavia: try lining up
_those_ phonetic correspondences!).
Uyghur is the only Muslim language that spells Arabic loanwords
phonetically rather than retaining/using all the letters it otherwise
has no use for.
Arthaey Angosii
> Can anyone giv me a link to the askii representation
> of IPA as used here?
Also: http://www.cs.brown.edu/~dpb/ascii-ipa.html
--
Arthaey
Torsten
> Danmark reformed its spelling (including dropping the use of
> capital letters for nouns) in _1948_.
Correct.
> I'm told there was something of a purge of German words, too.
Not really. Some purists argued for it, though. In addition
to dropping the capital letters, the past tense of the verbs
<kunne>, <skulle> and <ville> were changed from <kunde>,
<skulde>, <vilde> to <kunne>, <skulle>, <ville>. The digraph
<aa> was changed to <å> (except in some names). Changes to the
spelling of a relatively small number of words were also made in
1955, 1986, 1996 and 2001. In some cases the new forms replace
the older ones, in other cases the older forms have been kept
alongside the newer. These gradual adjustments seem to be an
ongoing thing, with new changes being introduced with each new
edition of the official orthographic dictionary. The newest, from
2001, reduced the number of double forms. Where, for instance,
the 1986 and 1996 editions had
bud - bud(d)et - bude - budene,
the 2001 edition has
bud - buddet - bude - budene.
A quick look in a 1952 dictionary reveals it had
bud - budet - bude - budene.
While the newer forms with -dd- may seem inconsistent, they
do have the advantage of reflecting a shortening of the first
vowel. This change, which has also happened to some other words,
is slightly controversial because the shortening has not yet
happened to all speakers. Some people therefore feel that the
removal of the single d form from the dictionaries was premature.
The gradual changes are decided by an official language council.
The council also makes the official orthographic dictionary.
Schools, government offices, etc. are required by law to follow
its decisions. The rest of us are of course free to spell in
whatever way we please.
--
Torsten
David Barnsdale
<des....@bristol.ac.uk> writes
>It wouldn't hurt, either, to bear in mind that significant changes in
>orthography tend to borne on the tides of massive political change
>(the Norman conquest in England, or Ataturk in Turkey) as part of a
>drastic break with the continuity of tradition, and that this is
>widely considered not to be a coincidence.
At the moment I'm debating with someone on whenever the
conquest had any effect on English spelling. The old
West Saxon spelling lasted a long time after 1066. I'v
been arguing that indirect effects of the conquest were
important in the break down of that standard but
I'm not sure I'm getting the best of it against the
counter argument that the effect of 1066 on spelling
was zero.
>
>Sci.lang uses the Kirshenbaum ASCII IPA, found at
>
>http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/
>
>> (If it's on the FAQ can I hav the link to the FAQ, please?)
>
>The FAQ lives at http://www.zompist.com/langfaq.html
Thanks for those and to the others who hav givven similar links.
>
>If you are planning to settle in for a spell as Resident English
>Spelling Reform Loony,
Ummm, I guess the stress is on resident and not loony
so I'll take that as a backhanded complement.
>you will also want to see Mark Rosenfelder's
>(partial) defence of the current system -
>http://www.zompist.com/spell.html
I'd hav missed that. Thanks
David
--
David Barnsdale
Lee Sau Dan
Peter> Indonesian, for instance, went from a Dutch-based (!!)
Peter> romanization to a phonemic (one letter/one sound)
One letter / one sound? What are the graphemes for /ng/ and /nh/, then?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Lee Sau Dan
Philip> And simultaneously small enough to complain about. (Some
Philip> would have liked to abolish capitalisation of all nouns,
Philip> for example.
why? and why not abolish capitalization completely?
Philip> Or to regularise even further which compound
Philip> words are spelled separately, together, or hyphenated.)
aren't they always spelttogetherwithouthyphens in german?
Brian M. Scott
<pne-news...@newton.digitalspace.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:21:46 +0200, Bertilo Wennergren
><bert...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> But the Germans still find the changes big enough to quarrel about.
>And simultaneously small enough to complain about. (Some would have
>liked to abolish capitalisation of all nouns, for example. Or to
>regularise even further which compound words are spelled separately,
>together, or hyphenated.)
I still stumble slightly over <so genannte> instead of the expected
<sogenannte>.
Brian
Philip Newton
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> >>>>> "Philip" == Philip Newton <pne-news...@newton.digitalspace.net> writes:
>
> Philip> And simultaneously small enough to complain about. (Some
> Philip> would have liked to abolish capitalisation of all nouns,
> Philip> for example.
>
> why?
Difficult to remember when to capitalise things, especially when
adjectives are used as nouns (e.g. "das Gute im Menschen" = "the Good
[goodness] in man") -- the boundaries can be fluent. At least, I find
this part of German orthography confusing. Also, pretty much all other
languages using the Roman alphabet get by without capitalisation on
other nouns.
> and why not abolish capitalization completely?
Might be an option. Probably mostly tradition that sentences start with
a capital letter. But "start of sentence + proper nouns" seems to be
what most other European languages do. (Though they disagree on some
points such as days of the week.)
> Philip> Or to regularise even further which compound
> Philip> words are spelled separately, together, or hyphenated.)
>
> aren't they always spelttogetherwithouthyphens in german?
No; that's the problem.
Lee Sau Dan
Philip> And simultaneously small enough to complain about. (Some
Philip> would have liked to abolish capitalisation of all nouns,
Philip> for example.
>> why?
Philip> Difficult to remember when to capitalise things,
Philip> especially when adjectives are used as nouns
I, still being a learner, do not have any problem with this. When I
don't capitalize a noun, I just *feel* something wrong! This is not
unlike what you feel when you come across an ungrammatical sentence in
any language you're familiar with.
Philip> (e.g. "das
Philip> Gute im Menschen" = "the Good [goodness] in man") -- the
Philip> boundaries can be fluent.
I don't think so. It's clear. I expect a noun after "das" (unless
you use it as a relative pronoun). So, it must be "Gute", because
"im" would start another unit (which requires another noun:
"Menschen").
Philip> At least, I find this part of German orthography
Philip> confusing.
Philip> Also, pretty much all other languages using the Roman
Philip> alphabet get by without capitalisation on other nouns.
Why won't you find capitalization of the first letter of a sentence
confusing, then? Should I capitalize after a ":"? And ";"?
>> and why not abolish capitalization completely?
Philip> Might be an option. Probably mostly tradition that
Philip> sentences start with a capital letter. But "start of
Philip> sentence + proper nouns" seems to be what most other
Philip> European languages do.
Is "Monday" a proper noun? This rule of capitalizing a proper noun
used to be very very confusing to me, a Chinese learning English. And
when I came to French (e.g. "lundi"), it find myself revisiting the
same confusion!
Is "June" a proper noun? Are "xerox(v.)", "kleenix" still proper
nouns? Why make the distinction at all? We do well without this in
Chinese. And many other scripts do well without a capital
vs. small-case distinctions, e.g. Arabic, Korean, Tibetan, Thai,
Hindi, Tamil.
Philip> Or to regularise even further which compound words are
Philip> spelled separately, together, or hyphenated.)
>> aren't they always spelttogetherwithouthyphens in german?
Philip> No; that's the problem.
Examples? Which German compound nouns are spelt separately?
Torsten
> I, still being a learner, do not have any problem with this.
> When I don't capitalize a noun, I just *feel* something wrong!
> This is not unlike what you feel when you come across an
> ungrammatical sentence in any language you're familiar with.
Yet, difficulties with getting the capitalization right was one
of the main reasons for the Danish orthographic reform of 1948.
--
Torsten
Philip Newton
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
I said compound *words*, not *nouns*. Especially things such as verbs
and particles ("mehrteilige Adverbien, Konjunktionen, Pr鄡ositionen und
Pronomen") cause problems.
For example, "zurzeit" used to be written "zur Zeit". But "derzeit" was
always one word. And "zugrunde (gehen)" can now be spelt "zu Grunde".
"Um so" is now spelled as one word "umso" (which I confess I would have
done previous as well). "Irgend jemand" (pronoun) is now "irgendjemand".
It was "radfahren" but "Auto fahren" -- and "Fahrrad fahren" (now: "Rad
fahren"). One wrote "maschineschreiben" but "er schreibt Maschine"
(capital).
One differentiated between "stehen bleiben" (to remain standing) and
"stehenbleiben" (to stop). The verb "kennenlernen" is now "kennen
lernen". The adjective/participle "schwindelerregend" is now "Schwindel
erregend".
This is the sort of thing I was talking about.
David Barnsdale
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes
>
>Is "Monday" a proper noun? This rule of capitalizing a proper noun
>used to be very very confusing to me, a Chinese learning English. And
>when I came to French (e.g. "lundi"), it find myself revisiting the
>same confusion!
I find capitalization of proper nouns very useful when
reading a second language because I know there is no
point in looking them up in a dictionary.
Dejvid
--
David Barnsdale
Brian M. Scott
<pne-news...@newton.digitalspace.net> wrote:
[...]
>For example, "zurzeit" used to be written "zur Zeit". But "derzeit" was
>always one word. And "zugrunde (gehen)" can now be spelt "zu Grunde".
>"Um so" is now spelled as one word "umso" (which I confess I would have
>done previous as well). "Irgend jemand" (pronoun) is now "irgendjemand".
>It was "radfahren" but "Auto fahren" -- and "Fahrrad fahren" (now: "Rad
>fahren"). One wrote "maschineschreiben" but "er schreibt Maschine"
>(capital).
>One differentiated between "stehen bleiben" (to remain standing) and
>"stehenbleiben" (to stop). The verb "kennenlernen" is now "kennen
>lernen". The adjective/participle "schwindelerregend" is now "Schwindel
>erregend".
Urk. Mir ist schwindelig.
>This is the sort of thing I was talking about.
Brian