Talk:Kirshenbaum

Thank
Thank GOD this page exists. KIRSHENBAUM 4 LYFE -Branddobbe 08:22, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Differences from X-SAMPA
''Like the more common SAMPA, the system uses lower-case letters to represent the directly corresponding IPA character. However, the mapping used to represent other characters often differs. For example—'' (list including several characters identical in SAMPA and Kirshenbaum)

Shouldn’t this list focus on characters that differ from SAMPA, like the sentence says? —Frungi 03:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, and am about to shrink it a little. —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 12:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the vowel chart
Or so I want to believe! Firstly, I'm not Evan Kirshenbaum. Secondly, the diacritics " and - allow one to create symbols for sounds that are not even identified by the IPA, which makes me feel somewhat uneasy. I've added symbols for those sounds that I know exist. (For example, the open central rounded vowel is a phoneme in my dialect of German, and the near-open back unrounded vowel is what I was taught to be the realization of English  as in, though other accents of English pronounce it as [V], [&"] or [@] -- Kirshenbaum's accent does the latter.)

David Marjanović david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at 2005/9/29 14:54 CET-summertime

Affricates
Can anyone confirm how (a) dental non-sibilant affricates and (b) the voiced palatal affricate are represented in Kirshenbaum? Is it OK to write tT, dD and JC or must one write t[T, d[D and JC ? 213.249.135.36

Pronunciation
How is the name Kirshenbaum pronounced? Samples in IPA and/or Kirshenbaum would be very nice. --Kjoonlee 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have e-mailed Mr Evan Kirshenbaum for help. I'll post an update when I get a reply. --Kjoonlee 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't recall getting that, but for the record, it's [KRSn-bAm], at least in my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evank (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Disputed
In Kirshenbaum, [r] doesn't represent the alveolar trill like in IPA, but the alveolar approximant. -- Dissident (Talk) 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Name?
Is the name of this system actually "Kirshenbaum"? That smacks of neologism to me. Among people who use it, I've only heard it called "ASCII-IPA". AJD 14:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave up years ago trying to stop people from calling it "Kirshenbaum notation" or, worse "Kirshenbaum". I have always called it "ASCII/IPA" or some variant, and I'd wholeheartedly endorse changing the name of the article. Evank (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh?
The system uses almost all lower-case letters to represent the directly corresponding IPA character, but unlike X-SAMPA has the notable exception of the letter 'r'.

I am completely unable to determine what this means. How is 'r' excepted, and what makes this notable? — 72.147.69.42 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why X-SAMPA and Kirshenbaum?
Could someone describe (in the article of course) why there are two systems? I'd expect that X-SAMPA could do for early-internet the same. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why did we decide to design a new system in 1991 rather than simply adopting the one that would be developed in 1995? I suspect that that question may be better addressed to the developers of X-SAMPA.  The earlier SAMPA (which is described on the X-SAMPA wikipedia page as "a hack") already existed, but the first mention of it in sci.lang wasn't until 1993, and none of us were familiar with it.


 * I've long felt that this page could use a history section, but I've kind of had the impression that I wasn't supposed to edit it. If somebody wanted to add one, they might want to take a look at, which should probably be added to the external links:
 * In August of 1992, some of the readers of the Usenet newsgroups sci.lang and alt.usage.english got fed up with common in which posters tried to describe how words were pronounced (by them or in dialects under discussion) by reference to how other words were pronounced (by the author). Since individuals pronounce different words differently, this tended to lead to (occasionally interesting, but often merely) long, fruitless threads.


 * There already was a scheme occasionally used for noting transcription, but it suffered from (among other things) the fact that it was highly skewed toward describing English. This made it less than useful for the denizens of sci.lang.


 * Since there already existed a notation (the International Phonetic Alphabet, or IPA) for precisely specifying phonemic and phonetic values, several of us decided that it couldn't be too hard to put together a reasonable transcription scheme of IPA into 7-bit ASCII characters. We naturally had to allow some of the IPA symbols to map onto multiple characters (since there are more IPA symbols than ASCII characters), but we finally settled on a scheme in which each segment is represented by a single character, potentially followed by some number of "diacritics", which can either be single characters or delimited tokens. [We also came up with a very narrow feature-based representation for use when precision is needed or when no symbol completely fits the bill.] Unlike some other such attempts, we took it as a given that this transcription had to be directly readable, so each character needed to be at least somewhat evocative of its IPA value.


 * Evank (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Evan, I say feel free to edit. You have more value to add here than 99.999% of people do; and if you did anything COI-ish, anyone is free to challenge the specifics. IMO it would be a simpleton-minded distortion of the proper spirit of COI rules to claim that they would be adding or preserving value by barring you from touching the edit button on this article. I know there's the issue of idiots not comprehending that. I say take the chance; if your edits are helpful, it is highly probable that they will live in peace—that no one will bother to find fault with them. /2¢ — ¾-10 01:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Evan. I started the Background section. And wow, both X-SAMPA and K'baum are under 20 yrs?! How did those phoneticians work in the typewriter age. -DePiep (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kirshenbaum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160419125856/http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/ascii-ipa.pdf to http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/ascii-ipa.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160419125856/http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/ascii-ipa.pdf to http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/ascii-ipa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kirshenbaum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926075623/http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/index.html to http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808105359/http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/english.html to http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/english.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000918223327/http://www.alt-usage-english.org/ipa/ascii_ipa_combined.shtml to http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/ascii_ipa_combined.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926075623/http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/index.html to http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Contentious Redirect
@: I believe this article to redirect is contentious and should be subject to consensus. The net effect feels like an attempt to circumvent the AfD/DRV Articles for deletion/Kirshenbaum and Deletion review/Log/2019 April 29. Further edits all seem designed to wipe Kirshenbaum from Wikipedia as though you have a negative-coi. The change to a redirect to Kirschenbaum seems unusual and perhaps also needs discussion. There would also appear to have been other options:  If Comparison of ASCII encodings of the International Phonetic Alphabet was ASCII encodings of the International Phonetic Alphabet  then merges would have been possible and perhaps a rename to Usenet IPA/ASCII transcription may have been possible. Pinging those involved in the previous discussions including closers. . Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to have a look at this. Unilateral decisions aren't supported on Wikipedia.    scope_creep Talk  22:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the policy which states that? I'm down for BRD but I haven't heard of such an idea. Nardog (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against the subject but the disproportionate length Wikipedia went discussing it. I've seen an abundance of literature of phonetics and linguistics and done some research on ASCII representation of the IPA (after all I created Comparison of ASCII encodings of the International Phonetic Alphabet), but never have I encountered a mention of the Usenet scheme in a source that would count as an RS on Wikipedia except the three mentioned at the previous AfD (which, I note, are works on computing, not on linguistics), while the PHONASCII system, for example, which wasn't mentioned anywhere on WP, was used in the CHILDES database by language acquisition researchers. So the Usenet scheme is clearly contained within circles of armchair linguists on the internet, which doesn't automatically make it non-notable, but we were definitely giving it too much weight. If you still disagree, please revert my redirecting and make another AfD because now that I've created the comparison article participants might consider other options that were not available in the previous one. (And yes, it definitely needs to be moved should it be kept.) Nardog (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Brought from a note on WikiProject Linguistics Redirecting the page seems compatible with my reading of the AfD and Deletion Review. No consensus is different from keep: it means there's no agreement on what to do with it, not that it must be retained. None of the sources brought up in the AFD seem to be significant coverage, searching the text on Google Books shows that none of them mention "Kirshenbaum" more than once. I think a redirect is the best course of action. The topic is not notable enough to be a standalone article, but the history may be worth retaining in the event this topic does become notable. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure out why Kirshenbaum redirects to Kirschenbaum, but Talk:Kirshenbaum doesn't redirect to Talk:Kirschenbaum. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I ( As not a linguistic expert like Nardog, nor even an armchair-linguist(Hobbyist?) but merely someone who has the but the barest inkling of what IPA and its variants and Wikipedia templates are about). I'm not concerned about retention or otherwise of a standalone article; I am perhaps concerned about retention of information in the most useful way to non-linguistics experts and those who might be trying to look up IPA-ASCII/Kirshenbaum/et. al. because they've come across it elsewhere.  To begin with I'd note:
 * Blaheta at gives an interesting note about the sides in the professional/hobbyist sides.   is similar
 * The Kirshenbaum documents were online in up to two places for about 15+ years and possibly relatively accessible to Hobbyists .. e.g. and [
 * isbn:9783961100903 The Unicode cookbook for linguists July 2018 by Moran/Cysouw pages46,47 (and some before it) outline the development timeline of ASCII forms of the IPA (possibly tad ambiguous but reasonable).
 * While Nardog's new page Comparison of ASCII encodings of the International Phonetic Alphabet is great in itself I think with the redirects we've got the following issues:
 * We've lost some of the background of the prose as to the history of the ASCII variants ... that should probably have been merged and expanded centrally using Moran/Cysouw
 * In the centralised comparison we may have lost some simplicity of the basic key differences/approaches described in prose (did we have that in the first place or am I reading it from sources?).
 * In summary:
 * I suggest we probably should be have a centralised section, whether in Comparison of ASCII encodings of the International Phonetic Alphabet or elsewhere, describing the evolution history of ASCII representations of the IPA alphabet. With merges Kirshenbaum and Worldbet from the  We should be trying to make this have elements of usability to armchair-linguists and below.
 * I am unclear if is useful to have 1-1 comparisons of differences against X-SAMPA. Have we lost things useful to non-experts?
 * The current redirect target of Kirshenbaum to the DAB with the hatnote Kirschenbaum looks awkward and with the pre-existing hatnote looks quite unwieldly ... in simple terms we would need a redirect to an anchor.
 * We need some Template:Redirect category shell rcats on these redirects including a an r with history including.
 * We need really need to ensure the armchair linguists are happy with the linguistic expert
 * Any comments? Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC). I'd also note the major article contributors probably haven't been consulted either yet.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * #1 is a good idea. How about moving the comparison article to ASCII representation of the International Phonetic Alphabet or something to that effect and discussing each scheme in more detail? Nardog (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * revert and strongly warn.  Contentious unilateral redirections are a problem (see SKALA), but when they're done after an AfD, by the same nominator, which certainly didn't support them, then that's a behavioural problem too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted. A redirect to a disamg. page is basically a back-door deletion (so I'm disagreeing with Roy here) and shouldn't be done without discussion.  I do think the sources are too light for a full article.  A paragraph or two elsewhere would probably be ideal.  But given the choice between a well-written technical article and a single line of a hat note at a redirect page with no sources, I'll take the article.  Hobit (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the article is being weighed against the hatnote, not the discussion of the subject at Comparison of ASCII encodings of the International Phonetic Alphabet (which was created after the previous AfD). If Binnie Kirshenbaum, Richard Kirshenbaum, Sheril Kirshenbaum, and Susan Kirshenbaum didn't exist and "Kirshenbaum" was the sole/common name of the scheme (see above), I would have redirected Kirshenbaum directly to the comparison article. The revert is reasonable, but you didn't also create a kind of forum that explicitly determines an outcome. I suggest we do an XfD or RfC. Nardog (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You took an article with correct and potentially useful information and turned it into a sentence in a redirect. I know WP:USEFUL applies, but it seems very wasteful to toss out all of this.  The article isn't a spam magnet, it doesn't pose a BLP problem, and it is useful.  I just don't see the point in removing so much.  How does it help the encyclopedia?  I agree having the article stretches WP:N--the sources just aren't independent.  So you are right on guidelines.  But IAR seems appropriate here to me.  Worst case, we could cover a lot more detail in a comparison article. I like the proposal above from Bjm-leighpar that you seem happy with.  I think we could keep large parts of this article there... Hobit (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * revert for posterity. Just found my way back after several days. As a system in production it is notable and decent as a seed article. New content and sources will surface in due course.  Really disappointed. I've no time for editors that go against consensus and you may complain about semantics but if every Afd that had a no-consensus result and was converted into a redirect there would be absolute chaos. The place would be in an uproar. Why did you not even inform the people involved in the Afd? A simple courtesy ping would have been sufficient.   scope_creep Talk  15:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)