The name FUPA

[Johanna Laakso]

Klaas Ruppel <klaas.ruppel at kotus.fi> writes:


The FU transcription was introduced 1902 under the title "Über
transskription der finnisch-ugrischen sprachen" (Setälä, FUF 1:
15-52). In this article the system is addressed the following ways:
transskriptionssystem
transskription
transskriptionsalphabet

Later on it was addressed the following ways:

Sovijärvi & Peltola 1965: Suomalais-ugrilainen tarkekirjoitus
(Publivationes Instituti Phonetici Universitatis Helsingiensis 9)

suomalais-ugrilainen tarkekirjoitus

Posti & Itkonen 1973: FU-transkription yksinkertaistaminen
(Castrenianumin toimitteita 7)

FU-transkriptio
FU-átírás
FU-Transkription
FU transcription

Iivonen & Sovijärvi & Aulanko 1990: Foneettisen kirjoituksen kehitys
ja nykytila (Mimeographed Series of the Department of Phonetics,
University of Helsinki 16)

suomals-ugrilainen tarkekirjoitus (SUT)
(compare: kansainvälinen fonettinen aakkosto (IPA))

---

The system has a traditional name in English: FU transcription. The
natural abbreviation is FUT.

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 do not intend to change the tradition of addressing the system. In
connection with encoding, however, a different view could be adapted:

According to our proposal the missing FUT stuff has been situated
where it suits best (diacritics to diacritics etc.). The rest,
letters, have its own suite, the table we called "FUPA Extensions".

IPA does not consists only of the letters encoded in the table "IPA
Extensions". FUT is much more than the table "FUPA Extensions". As a
fact the FUPA table contains only letters and the IPA table contains
only letters. The FUPA table is an alphabetical part of FUT. Letters
used in FUT can also be found all around the code tables in 10646-1
or Unicode. For historical reasons the FUPA table happens to contain
the FUT letters not encoded yet.

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 have no strong opinion on this. I am just trying to find the best
solution ...
--
|\ |\ |\  Klaas Ruppel http://www.kotus.fi/english.html
| \| \| \ Kotus        http://www.kotus.fi
| /| /| / Focis        http://www.kotus.fi/svenska
|/ |/ |/  Tel. +358 9 7315 268        Fax +358 9 7315 355


--
ura-list at helsinki.fi - list for Uralic linguistics and related disciplines
to (un)subscribe, send majordomo at helsinki.fi a message:
(un)subscribe ura-list my.own at email.address
Mirror archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/ura-list.html