From: Marion Gunn (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 09 2011 - 08:33:01 CDT
Scríobh 09/06/2011 07:11, André Szabolcs Szelp:
> While calling (and defining) IPA as a language is clearly a dead end
> (and cannot be argued in any way), one might want to consider IPA as a
> separate _writing_system_...
It matters little what it is called. All that matters is that, after
discussions of perhaps a decade or more about "defining" IPA, this
matter remains unresolved.
> * I understand that this is the exact matter why the committees are
> hesitant to touch this hot potatoe. It is something which would need a
> lot of thorough consideration, could have relatively broad scope, and
> which can be easily smashed down (without further detailed resoning)
> with "encoding stability issues".
I don't understand the complications hinted at in the preceding
paragraph, but would simply endorse the following.
Scríobh 09/06/2011 14:01, ejp10:
> I'm glad there is a discussion of the IPA and other phonetic transcription systems. The key problem ... is that there is no good standard for distinguishing IPA text from non-IPA text, especially in terms of pronunciation engines....
-- Marion Gunn * eGteo (Estab.1991) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an Bhóthair, An Charraig Dhubh, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire/Ireland. * firstname.lastname@example.org * email@example.com *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 09 2011 - 08:34:47 CDT