Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> Richard Cook surmised:
>
> > BTW, in a very close transcription, if one is using superscription
> > (position above baseline) and relative size reduction to indicate
> > aspiration, I suppose that degree of superscription or the size or both
> > could be modulated to indicate degree of aspiration?
>
> Nah, if you tried to go down that path, you'd just end up with
> unrepresentable transcriptions and unreliable reproduction. I doubt
> that there are many transcribers who could reliably record more than
> three degrees of aspiration, anyway (roughly: slight aspiration,
> "normal" aspiration, and superaspiration).
Ken, I was only kidding ... mostly, should have put a smiley in there
:-) But I was also thinking of the superscription question, which I
think Peter C. might like to discuss.
>
> Once you go past that level, which could be reliably indicated with
> appropriate use of diacritics, you are really into the realm of
> instrumental phonetics. I'd just hook up the machine and let it
> give you precise timings of voice delays post consonatal release
> in milliseconds.
>
> >
> > Or perhaps just mark-up the unsuperscripted aspiration indicator, to
> > note degree of aspiration ... however you would like to measure that.
>
> No need to "mark it up". Just add another diacritic. That's how
> most transcribers would work, in practice.
>
Well, I was thinking of linking the transcription to the machine data
... so that the relation would be set on a compound key (aspiration
diacritic & measurement reference) ...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:17 EDT