Re: [tied] Slavic palatalistions: why /c^/, /c/?

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> I have nothing against IPA <c> per se (unlike the silly IPA
> curly-c, for what should be curly-s), but I can't use it,
> because <c> is the dental/alveolar affricate.
>
> The advantage is that I can use <k^> and <t^> for different
> varieties of front-velar/palatal/post-alveolar stops, a
> subtle distinction that cannot be made with IPA.

By the way, I once worked out a system of sufficiently narrow
transcription for my "lectures" on the history of Albanian. I don't
insist that it should be our official usage, but I'll try to use it
consistently when discussing phonetic developments. Here's the reference:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29840

Piotr