From: Mark Davis (mark@macchiato.com)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2009 - 11:15:49 CST
Thanks for your message. You make some good points about IPA. For UTR#39,
the IPA characters (that are not used in modern languages) were marked as
'technical' also. For the character picker, we're looking at having IPA
characters just as a separate category. Because the categorization there is
not a partition, we can repeat characters that are otherwise Latin, Greek,
etc.
Thinking about the IPA characters in particular, probably the best way to
characterize the [ɩɷɼɿʅ-ʇʓʖʗʚʞʠʣʥʦʨ-ʯ] characters would be not as 'archaic'
- since they are in use in other traditions - but as 'unofficial', or some
other term that indicates that they are not part of the current IPA, but are
in common technical use.
> (Finally, I do realize this whole issue is probably a tempest in a tea pot
and has
> gotten much more complex than you wanted/expected.)
Not a problem - I realize that in this case -- unlike the calm, temperate
responses on emoji -- that emotions are likely to run high, but I'm getting
good feedback.
Floating a strawman proposal with a specific categorization always gets more
of a response than just simply asking for input. And the responses help to
make it clear where the question itself was not clear.
Mark
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 05:48, Arle Lommel <arle@lisa.org> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Your explanation raises an interesting issue for some of the scripts. By
> the definition given below, *all* of the IPA characters not otherwise
> found in Unicode ranges would be "obsolete" or "archaic" since IPA is *
> never* "customarily used in modern languages in typical publications" (it
> appears only in specialist publications). I don't mention this to pick on
> your definition, but to point out the inherent difficulty in this sort of
> judgment and in finding a single definition suitable for such a
> determination in all contexts.
>
> A separate issue is whether the denomination of these items as obsolete or
> archaic is expected to be descriptive or normative (and thus prescriptive,
> or at least representative of the judgment of standards groups) in nature. I
> see two potential motivations at work in calling things obsolete or archaic.
> In most cases they probably won't contradict each other, but in the IPA case
> they do. One is to describe what *is* used, regardless of whether or not
> one *should* use it. The other is to state what is official or "right",
> even if actual use runs contrary to it. In that sense, to call the set of
> characters "obsolete" would be to confirm the International Phonetic
> Association's official pronouncements at the expense of current "vernacular"
> usage.
>
> To make the statement that such and such characters are obsolete or archaic
> thus requires us to know which of the goals is at work. It also explains why
> John Wells would provide an answer so different from mine. Neither response
> is wrong per se, but each depends on assumptions about the basis for the
> question itself, and even with your clarification (which would help in most
> cases), the answer for IPA isn't clear.
>
> If the goal is to set forth what is currently standard, then anything not
> found on the chart found at
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/IPA_chart_2005.png (to
> pick one location) should be called obsolete, thus arriving at John Wells'
> answer (although note that four years ago the answer would have been
> slightly different since IPA changed in 2005).
>
> If the goal is to set forth what people actually use, then I think an
> answer more like mine would be arrived at. I certainly assumed (without even
> consciously considering it) that your question was to describe actual
> practice by working linguists. I didn't even realize until this morning that
> John Wells probably assumed a rather different basis for the question and
> wasn't just being doctrinaire or a stickler.
>
> So I think the basis for the determination needs to be made clear and an
> answer made according to the purpose stated. Also, since I don't really know
> what the practical implications for excluding identifiers would be, I don't
> know how much it matters in this particular case. If there are real
> implications for end users, I would suggest that Unicode consult with SIL
> before making this determination since they are tied into the needs of
> actual users more than any other group I know of. If there are no real
> implications for end users, then by all means follow the official
> recommendation as to what is current, because then there actually is a
> didactic value in letting users know what is considered current practice.
>
> (Finally, I do realize this whole issue is probably a tempest in a tea pot
> and has gotten much more complex than you wanted/expected.)
>
> -Arle
>
> Mark Davis <mark@macchiato.com> scripsit
>
> Note that there may have been some confusion from my message. By "obsolete"
> or "archaic", we don't mean that the character itself is deprecated or that
> people shouldn't use it; what we mean is that it isn't customarily used in
> modern languages in typical publications (corner newspapers, magazines,
> etc.). For example, you wouldn't expect to see words written in Cuneiform in
> the NY Times. Of course, they may occur in technical journals, especially
> those dealing with archaic languages, or have occasional decorative use.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 16 2009 - 11:17:16 CST
