eGroup Archive

From: teraiten@...
Date: 2001-06-12 14:13:25 #
Subject: [shavian] The difference between OO and OO and Esperanto

Toggle Shavian

Hi,

I'm Dutch and I find it difficult to define the difference between the
OO in OOze and the OO in wOOl.

Can somebody help me?

I also have another question: Is there a Shavian (or Quikscript)
version that has been developed for Esperanto? Just wondering.

Yours,

Ewout Stam

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: Philip Newton
Date: 2001-06-12 15:18:38 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] The difference between OO and OO and Esperanto

Toggle Shavian

teraiten@... wrote:
> I'm Dutch and I find it difficult to define the difference
> between the OO in OOze and the OO in wOOl.
>
> Can somebody help me?

Well, the OO in OOze is AFAIK more or less like the sound written 'oe' in
Dutch, or like long u in German (e.g. 'gut').

I don't know whether the sound of OO in wOOl (or pUt or bOOk) occurs in
Dutch, but it's similar to short u in German (e.g. 'Dutt', 'spucken').

> I also have another question: Is there a Shavian (or Quikscript)
> version that has been developed for Esperanto? Just wondering.

Yes.

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: Hugh Birkenhead
Date: 2001-06-12 18:30:56 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] The difference between OO and OO and Esperanto

Toggle Shavian

Hi

I'd consult an English dictionary to find a good explanation of the
difference. One short way to put it: open the lips slightly for saying
'wOOl', and close them a bit for saying 'OOze'.

Someone else might be able to offer a better description!

Hugh

----- Original Message -----
From: <teraiten@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 2:13 PM
Subject: [shavian] The difference between OO and OO and Esperanto

> Hi,
>
> I'm Dutch and I find it difficult to define the difference between the
> OO in OOze and the OO in wOOl.
>
> Can somebody help me?
>
> I also have another question: Is there a Shavian (or Quikscript)
> version that has been developed for Esperanto? Just wondering.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ewout Stam
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: Hugh Birkenhead
Date: 2001-06-12 18:31:06 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] The difference between OO and OO and Esperanto

Toggle Shavian

From: Robert McBroom
Date: 2001-06-13 06:21:45 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] The difference between OO and OO and Esperanto

Toggle Shavian

Here in the Eastern end of the USA, wOOl almost rhymes with bUll.
This tends to make the distinction between cOOl and wOOl seem very
large.

I can see why it wouldnt be apparent to someone who spoke Dutch with
their elogated OO's.

>Hi,
>
>I'm Dutch and I find it difficult to define the difference between the
>OO in OOze and the OO in wOOl.
>
>Can somebody help me?
>
>I also have another question: Is there a Shavian (or Quikscript)
>version that has been developed for Esperanto? Just wondering.
>
>Yours,
>
>Ewout Stam
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
- /bob /mk/brMm
/wUdstak /nV /jDk

"wun simpol iz az gUd Az anuHD prOvFdid
evriwun atAcez H sEm mIniN tM it."
- /gPJ /bxnRd /SY

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: Philip Newton
Date: 2001-06-13 06:32:59 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] The difference between OO and OO and Esperanto

Toggle Shavian

On 13 Jun 01, at 0:58, Robert McBroom wrote:

> Here in the Eastern end of the USA, wOOl almost rhymes with bUll.

For me, they rhyme completely. I consider the sounds of wOOl, bUll,
pUt, and lOOk to be the same.

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: teraiten@...
Date: 2001-06-13 20:25:53 #
Subject: [shavian] Re: The difference between OO and OO and Esperanto

Toggle Shavian

--- In shavian@y..., Robert McBroom <info@o...> wrote:
> Here in the Eastern end of the USA, wOOl almost rhymes with bUll.
> This tends to make the distinction between cOOl and wOOl seem very
> large.
>
> I can see why it wouldnt be apparent to someone who spoke Dutch
with
> their elogated OO's.
>
Perhaps I must tell you about another sound that the Dutch language
has, the 'uu'. The sound
doesn't completely exist in English though, but only partially. It's
kinda like 'trUth', but without any traces of an 'oo' in it. Is that
the difference I'm looking for? An 'oo'-sound with a little 'uu' in
it? It's still not easy, but provides something of a definition.

Ewout

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: Philip Newton
Date: 2001-06-14 07:14:48 #
Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: The difference between OO and OO and Esperanto

Toggle Shavian

teraiten@... wrote:
> 'uu'

I think that's pronounced similar to the German 'ü', isn't it? If so, it's
not particularly close to the English sound in "bOOk". Sorry.

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: Scott Harrison
Date: 2001-06-14 07:42:52 #
Subject: [shavian] Why on earth use Shavian for Esperanto?

Toggle Shavian

Hi,

Why on earth are people using Shavian for Esperanto?

As is evident from my translation* of The Swineherd, I believe
texts that contain languages that use Roman** characters that are not
English should not use Shavian characters. Shavian is not designed to
be used with languages other than English. It even falls short with
certain sounds that have been brought into English from other languages
(like ch from loch). Therefore, I find it inappropriate to attempt to
render French or German in Shavian for example.

Now with respect to Esperanto, there is no need to use Shavian. It
already has a one-to-one correspondence of letters to sound except for
the diphthongs formed with j. Since aj, ej, and oj are represented by
one character in Shavian, you would save space by using Shavian.
However, Shavian takes two characters to represent c, and cannot
represent ^h. Therefore, it is really appropriate to use Shavian for
Esperanto?

--
Scott Harrison

* I do consider my work translation instead of transcription and I do
know the difference. Others may disagree.

** Yes, this means Latin characters. However, using this term
distinguishes between the characters and language.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: Scott Harrison
Date: 2001-06-14 07:45:57 #
Subject: [shavian] Outlook Express can do Unicode Shavian mail

Toggle Shavian

Hi,

I have tested Outlook Express on Windows NT with the keyboard
driver I made that outputs Shavian at its "proper" Unicode points. I
can both send and receive Shavian mail in Unicode with it. This means
one can freely mix Shavian and Roman characters in the same text without
silly font changes.

What mailers are people using?

--
Scott Harrison

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Shavian eGroup Archive Browser