Quoting Christophe Grandsire <[log in to unmask]>:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>:
> >
> > You were, but certainly its a drawback for a transliteration scheme
> not
> > to keep
> > the value of a grapheme when it occurs in both the source and target
> > character
> > set?
> Well, in this case I was influenced by KPA, which does the same, and
> nobody
> finds it a drawback :)) .

I've not studied the KPA close enough to remember whether it aims at being a
ASCII transliteration of the IPA (rather than, say, an universal phonetic
alphabet that is ASCII-safe). If it does want to be an IPA-transliteration, I
find it to be a drawback (altho' probably made up for by giving pretty easy-to-
remember click symbols, something I can't accuse the IPA of).

Were I to create yet another ASCIIIPA scheme, I'd certainly include "!" as a
clickizer, but I wouldn't be thinking of my scheme as a ASCIIfication of the
IPA, but as an ASCII-safe phonetic alphabet (should I perhaps tm "APASCII",
for "Andreas' Phonetic ASCII", just in case?), where any co-mnemonics with the
IPA'd be a bonus. (I'm, obviously, not suggesting you should remake the C-IPA
along such lines!)

>  (In this case, the benefits of turning "!" into a diacritic is
> > probably
> > greater than the drawback, but that's a question of weighing the
> pros
> > and cons
> > in a specific case, not something of principle.)
> >
> But C-IPA is all about principles ;))) .
> That's what's making it
> different from
> other transliteration schemes. If you simply want to weigh the pros and
> cons, X-
> SAMPA is just good enough ;)) .

The cons are, IMHO, having the upper hand when the X-SAMPA decrees [|\|\] for
an alveolar lateral click. And I just detest [}].


PS [dons evil grin] Since C-IPA is supposed to transliterate the IPA, how do
you transliterate the hooktop heng? (X-SAMPA [x\], simultaneous alveolar and
velar voiceless fricative)