sounds

[Joel S. Berson]

I surmise that Arnold is correct, that
Kirshenbaum's alphabet was restricted to the old
7-bit ASCII.  Today, the characters that
RonButters at AOL.COM listed are in the (ISO;
"ASCII" is not I think applied to today's codes)
very standard "Latin 1" and the corresponding
plane of Unicode, and can be keyboarded.  But
many of them require extra keystrokes.

Joel

At 4/19/2008 01:32 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
>At 10:26 AM -0700 4/19/08, Arnold M. Zwicky wrote:
>>On Apr 19, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Ron Butters wrote:
>>
>>>In a message dated 4/19/08 12:59:35 PM, strangeguitars at GMAIL.COM
>>>writes:
>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirshenbaum
>>>
>>>Never saw this before. It seems at first glance that Kirshenbaum
>>>doesn't
>>>exploit the keyboard that we already have. For example, I can make
>>>[æ], [ü], [3],
>>>[ø], [é], [¦], and [].
>>
>>Kirshenbaum's system (like some others) is specifically limited to
>>ascii characters, from a time and in a context in which non-ascii
>>characters were not generally available.
>>
>>arnold
>Also, I seem to recall not everyone's browser
>will correctly transmit your characters, Ron.  I
>get them fine (assuming the third one is in fact
>the number 3), but I suspect from our earlier
>discussions that others won't.  And then there's
>always the schwa problem.
>
>LH
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org