LD wrote:"eugh? The way you use it, it sounds bad, but I don't see what's wrong with SAMPA. I don't see why we have the need for a "readable" system in the first place. If you mean "readable" as in "looks similar to English spelling", you're out of luck. Even the most complex system cannot match the utter irrationality of English spelling."
Well, this is nice -- but you seem to have picked up my bad habit of talking out of both sides of my mouth... On the one hand your all for Sampa, on the other hand, you dont care if its actually *readable or not. Hmm. :)
Still, where phonetic descriptions are used, some direction toward an international standard is a good idea. -S-
LD: "Exactly. And the other systems have been developed over several years by phonetics professors. We could never do better than them. Oh, yeah, we do have professors here. But it would still be hard to do well at making a complex system like this."
Professors certainly are smart -- what with all that schoolin' and fundin' and stuff. Golly jee whiz, Ah wood'na daresay 'et we kin jus a'go changing da po'fessa's lang'age. Geez. Dat wood bee sum kinda fool 'be tawkin like dat dere. Go a'changin lang-widge! Haw, Haw. How d'zat happ'n?
-S-
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software