On 2/12/19 3:53 PM, And Rosta wrote: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, 22:41 David McCann <[log in to unmask] wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:12:30 -0500 >> Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Maybe I'm being to perfectionist. Hmm. >> Yes, you are! My old IPA Principles says "… it is desirable to >> substitute more familiar consonant symbols for less familiar ones when >> such a substitution can be made without causing ambiguity." They give >> as examples using /r/ for any rhotic when there's only one, or >> using /x/ in preference to /χ/. >> > > This would hold if, say, Tony were seeking symbols for a very surfacey > phonemic or very broad phonetic systematic transcription system, but not if > he is seeking symbols to represent the canonical phonetic realization. I > had supposed he was seeking the latter, but perhaps he is rather seeking > the former. /r/ is an eminently suitable symbolization for a phoneme > realized as a trill, but [r] would in almost all circumstances be a lousy > representation of the usual approximant realization of English /r/ (outside > Scotland and not after dentals). > You are absolutely right, And, I was seeking symbols to represent the canonical phonetic realization of Alurhsa. I think in documenting the language, it is more desirable to try to get the closest possible representation of the sounds rather than just looking for a broad transcription. I can do the latter with the romanization system I'm already using, but that doesn't really help someone trying to really understand how to reproduce the sounds of the language (at least not without a good phonetic explanation).