Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>>And is [R+] impossible or a palatal trill?
>
> Impossible, unambiguously. Having productive rules doesn't mean all outcomes
> are useable. It just means that all possible outcomes can be rendered in a way
> or another. Again, it's a system of rules to *transliterate* the IPA into
> ASCII. And as such, you're supposed to go from the IPA form and *transliterate*
> it. C-IPA has no purpose in replacing the IPA itself.

Fair enough. You seem to have misunderstood that as an attack on your
system. It was an honest question.

>  Since -
>  for vowel jumps back one rank in frontness/backness (from front to central and
> from central to back), [&-] is correct and unambiguous.

Can I suggest a better definition: { and } move a previous vowel up/down
a third the space in the vowel chart. + and - move a previous vowel
forward/backwards half the space. Though it means seperate definitions
for the vowel and consonant uses of the symbols, it does mean that there
should be less confusion with what [&{] would mean, should a front mid
vowel ever be created (that distinguishes from both [e] and [E]). The
'rank' thing seems almost meaningless (at least as applied to vowels).

>>Okay, that's fully open to interpretation (I can understand that [i}]
>>could unambiguously be [e] because [I] moves more towards the centre
>>than [e], so it would be [i}-] (I think)
>
> Nope, because [I] isn't central (and in C-IPA it's [I] anyway. Remember the
> rule that IPA small capitals become C-IPA capitals, or did you overlook it
> too?)

Pardon me! I don't need to groundlessly attacked. I was merely using the
same meaning that you were when you defined [e] in terms of [i]!

> > but saying that [a{] should be [E] is just asking for confusion,
>
> Why? There's no dot on the line in this case, so [&] really isn't exactly
> between [a] and [E].

I personally don't see what the dot has to mean. I've always assumed
that a dot is used when two IPA characters co-exist at the same place;
otherwise, the centre of the character is the point. Thus, [&] *is* in
between [a] and [E] (notice: the line disappears). (With my definition,
it becomes clearer, and I would have no objection to [a{]==[E].)

> Now, if you have no better critics than that, I suggest you don't bother

Criticism, actually. (Just a reminder.)

> replying.

I hope you prefer my suggestion.

Tristan.