Print

Print


On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:38:17 -0500, John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:09:50 +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
>>2008/2/1, John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>:
>>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:20:24 +0100, Benct Philip
>>> Jonsson wrote:
>>>
[...]
>>>  Like me with my preference to use ) not _ for an actual
>>>  tie bar; tS_w_h would become thSw))) or maybe even
>>>  tWS)) ;)
>>
>>Actually I think [tS_h_w], since labialization would persist
>>through the aspiration phase! ;-)
>
>>/ BP
>
>Phonation before 2ndary articulation does make sense, but is there any
>actual IPA/SAMPA standard on the order of diacritics?


I don't have my copy of the IPA here, but impressionistically I'd say that
the most frequent order I've seen is phonation-2ndary articulation, although
a few writers merge the two, using eg, a superscript <w> with an under-ring
for aspirated + labialized, though this does not appear to be common practice.

But I do believe I've seen the reverse order (secondary articulation -
phonation) as well - the order seems to be more fluid for ejectives as I'm
positive I have seen both <kw'> and <k'w> in use (where <w> is superscript).

Pfal