The name FUPA

Johanna Laakso johanna.laakso at
Tue Feb 26 17:18:47 UTC 2002


Michael Everson (everson at writes:
> >The difference between IPA and FUT is that IPA mainly modifies
> >letters where FUT mainly uses diacritics. So IPA can be called an
> >alphabet but FUT is more a transcription system.
> I really don't agree with this characterization of the two. FUT has
> lots of letters in it. Yes, it uses a lot of diacritics. IPA also
> uses diacritics. *Both* are used to transcribe languages.
> >What does this mean? In my opinion the name "(F)UPA Extensions" in
> >ISO/IEC 10646 does not necessarily conflict with the name of the
> >whole system (FU transcription). The latter is and has been used by
> >linguists. The former is a table in a standard.
> >
> >(F)UPA for consistency in between the standards?
> >FUT in order to stick to the tradition?
> I don't much like "FUT". I think "Phonetic Alphabet" characterizes
> both these (and some other) systems quite nicely. My question
> remains: is Finno-Ugric Phonetic Alphabet better than Uralic Phonetic
> Alphabet? I am inclined to stick to it because it does seem that the
> bulk of material written in it belongs to that branch of Uralic. But
> what do I know? ;-)
> --
> Michael Everson *** Everson Typography ***
ura-list at - list for Uralic linguistics and related disciplines
to (un)subscribe, send majordomo at a message:
(un)subscribe ura-list my.own at email.address
Mirror archive:

More information about the Ura-list mailing list