Hot answers tagged

14

IPA is machine readable now, because the IPA characters are all in Unicode, the standard character set of today. At the time when SAMPA was created, character sets were either 7 bit (ASCII) or 8 bit (Latin-1, Latin-2 and the like) or specific to East Asian Scripts. Those character sets didn't incorporate IPA, and in this sense IPA wasn't machine readable at ...


5

The 'phonemic touch' of SAMPA is not really a feature of SAMPA but of it's developmental relationship to IPA. There are two key things to know about IPA: As Colin Fine says, it is always only used approximately. To encode every last fronting of a vowel, devoicing of a consonant, etc. would be prohibitively time consuming. So a phonetician will only ...


4

I will assume that "machine readable" means that you want a computer to be able to scan/photograph the text and read it with a high degree of accuracy and furthermore the information should be able to be passed around in text form between a wide variety of computer systems with minimal risk of mangling. SAMPA limits itself to ASCII. Pretty much all computer ...


3

http://tools.lgm.cl/xsampa.html This tool allows for two-way conversion between IPA and X-SAMPA.


2

That isn't the claim behind the rhotic-hook diacritic. It means that the vowel has the characteristics of the main vowel symbol, but with some kind of r-like raising of the tongue during its production. The sequence [ɑr] means "low back vowel followed by alveolar trill". Apart from the difference in timing (simultaneous vs. sequence) there is a substantial ...


1

X-SAMPA aims to use the same symbols as IPA whenever they are available. Thus, the symbol for a syllable break is simply ., just like in IPA. I don't believe $ means anything in the actual standard, and ¤ is out of the question as it's not even part of ASCII, which X-SAMPA is restricted to. I'm going to guess it's used in that pronunciation dictionary ...


1

To preface: "similarity" depends on the listener, as well as on the sound itself. Categorical perception is a powerful force. To a native English speaker aspiration is almost imperceptible, while /s/ and /θ/ are clearly distinct; to a native Hindi speaker, the opposite would be true. The best way I know of to objectively define phonetic difference is in ...


1

I think I have a bit better handle on what you're looking for. At a linguistic level, each segment is representable as an integer where the nth bit is the + or - specification of the nth feature. The difference between any two segments is thus computable as the number of bits difference between the segments, and the "distance" is the number of different bits....


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible