[New Transcription System] Kalusky 2017

[LinguList]

following up discussion from here.

[Anaphory]

so, my final point on this, for a UnicodeCookbookStrictIpa, you basically only need to change the normalise file, which explicitly turns the strange "g" to a normal "g" as well as the tone marks. But this would be another TS, call it "sipa" or whatever.

Could it be done in an obvious way with even less data? Thus implicitly proving that the differences between UnicodeCookbookStrictIpa and BIPA are just this?

[LinguList]

I'd say: no, as the basic idea of a TS is that we have the data attached to it in our package, as given in src/ctls/transcriptiondata. And I'd also have my doubts if this is really the only difference. As the book does not cover a comprehensive list of sounds, I do not find it easy to claim that we cover a generative system written in prose. You could, for example, pick their IPA list of symbols they have in the book (some are missing) and see how far the generative procedure works.

And before we saying that one book is standard just because it provides some suggestions on usage, we should probably also add other sources, like this one

@Book{Kalusky2017,
  Title                    = {{D}ie {T}ranskription der {S}prachlaute des {I}nternationalen {P}honetischen {A}lphabets: {V}orschläge zu einer {R}evision der systematischen {D}arstellung der {IPA}-{T}abelle},
  Address                  = {München},
  Author                   = {Kalusky, Werner},
  Publisher                = {LINCOM Europa},
  Year                     = {2017},

  Timestamp                = {2017.12.18}
}

In fact, this resource is much more concrete on proposed existing sounds. And there's the plan to expand the system further to also cover this (but we lack the resources to sit down and do this work case by case).

The major standard that clts offers is also not BIPA, but the names and the generation of the symbols.