Quoting Paul Bennett <[log in to unmask]>:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:45:43 +0200, Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
> > Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>:
> >> (*)I think CXS needs a shorter way of representing non-syllabicity,
> >> preferably one that doesn't tie up ^ and keep it unavailable for
> >> indicating superscripts. Perhaps a following ( ? Since ) represents
> >> the
> >> tie, its opposite number is available for other uses, and the ( is
> >> visually suggestive of the IPA diacritic . . .
> > I have suggested using '=', on the logic that there are no sound for
> > which we
> > need indicate both syllabicity and non-syllabicity.
> I'm not entirely sure I approve. What about languages where the
> syllabicity of a vowel is in question?
I fail to see how that's a problem? A syllabic vowel would be [a], a
non-syllabic one [a=], and one of indeterminate syllabicity [a(=)]. Or do I
misunderstand the question?