On 27/01/2004 14:13, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Peter asked:
What is the difference between U+02C1 and U+02E4? The first is supposed
to be a miscellaneous phonetic modifier and apparently the pair of
U+02C0 which marks "ejective or glottalized" (not 1996 IPA). Which
should be used to mark pharyngealisation (as in 1996 IPA)?
U+02E4, which as the text says, was an addition "based on 1989 IPA".
... which is rather confusing as I am interested in 1996 IPA. Were these
additions to support an obsolete version of IPA after the current 1996
version had been specified in "Miscellaneous phonetic modifiers"? If
not, how am I to know? (Well, I could check up as I have just dug out an
old 1989 IPA chart.) And how are Unicode users to know in 1000 years
time (if Unicode really lasts that long!)?
This needs to
be specified somewhere.
It is: Handbook of the IPA, p. 182.
Well, I was thinking that it should be specified in the Unicode standard
or character charts cf. the notes in the IPA extensions block and on
0346-034E. Maybe it is IPA's responsibility, but the link "IPA and
Unicode" at their page http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/ipa.html is broken.
Meanwhile I found an unofficial list of mappings at
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/ipa-unicode.htm, which specifies 02E4.
These two characters are not even linked
together in the charts.
Xref's are generally dispensed with when similar characters
appear together in the same chart.
--Ken
Well, they are hardly "together" as there are 34 code points between
them; they are graphically almost identical (02E4 is supposed to be the
small version but has a larger reference glyph); and 02C1 is listed as a
"phonetic modifier" and so would be the obvious choice when someone
comes across it first. So I think this is a case where a "this is
not..." note would be appropriate, cf. 030D where the note refers to
another mark in the same block. Also the note at 02E0 incorrectly
suggests that 02E0, 02E1 and 02E4 are used in IPA for transcription of
affricates when their use is in fact for something quite different,
whereas 02DF (there is a combining mark, which is 033D), 02E2 and 02E3
are not in the 1989 or 1996 IPA at all.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
