Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

But if you only learn awe, and then come across an ah
sound, then what to do? A subset would be exlusionary and
would make it harder to read something outside your
sub-set. An example of this would be if someone with a deep
Irish accent were writing to someone with an Australian or
New Zealand dialect. These two would have VERY different
sub-sets, and thus would be difficult to create an
understanding if the two do not use the same set of
letters. This is where TO does have it's high points.

The other side of this is that over time, people who use
Shavian will learn but disregard the letters that they
rarely or do not use. If one does not hear a difference
between rot and wrought, then they will choose the letter
that best fits their speech. This may mean that I may read
roar-on--tot and thing rot when they mean wrought, but I
think the point some of us are trying to make is that in
context, "The god wrought destruction upon the world and
made all that was flesh to rot." Or, even, "The bull-dozer
razed the house I was raised in." Spoken, for me wrought
and rot sound different when I say them, but raised and
razed sound the same--homophones. If I meet someone,
though, and they do not have a difference between rot and
wrought, I will be able to read it in context and know. The
same for raised/razed. How do you know the difference
between an antelope grazing and a bullet grazing?

--Star

P.S. Most ppl wouldn't think a bunch of linguists could be
so lively :)

--- Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...>
wrote:
> Hi Star Raven
> I agree you should recognize different accent groups when
> reading, but
> obviously you should only use the sub-set of letters
> matching the sounds
> you would actually use when writing.
> INTERNAL CONSISTENCY IS EVERYTHING.
> For complex words that you don't use in spoken fashion
> (i.e. Literary
> English) maybe use a standard spelling
>
> At 07:16 AM 7/15/02 -0700, you wrote:
> >I suggested that you should learn the letters even if
> you
> >don't hear a difference. Thus writing will only slightly
> be
> >affected by dialect and reading will not be guess work.
> If
> >one's dialect has no difference between ah and awe,
> learn
> >both letters as sounding the same. This would take the
> >guesswork out of reading.
> >
> >--Star


=====
"One ship goes east, another west,
By the self same gale that blows.
'Tis not the gale, but set of sail
That determines which way it goes."

--Unknown

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>
Click here to find your contact lenses!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

--- In shavian@y..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:

> But if you only learn awe, and then come across an ah
> sound, then what to do? A subset would be exlusionary and
> would make it harder to read something outside your
> sub-set.

You have, of course, noticed that typed lower-case <g>and <a>
both have two very different forms. To an aaaa-merging
American (I'm imagining a kid growing up with Shavian, not a
hyper-analyzing linguist), ON and AWE would just seem like two
forms of the same letter, as would AH and ASH. The only people
who would write the complicated forms (AH and AWE) would be
the people who today make their G's with two ovals and a nose.
(I only do this when printing my name.)

Naturally, when reading British literature, they would be
introduced to the fact that the different forms actually indicate
different pronunciations in other parts of the world.

Craig

P.S. Does anyone have any desire to correspond on paper?
After investing a year in learning the dvorak keyboard, there is no
way I am going to slow myself down by trying to type Shavian.
Conversion really needs to be automated.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/le/lensexpress/lensexpress_468x60b.gif>
Click here to find your contact lenses! <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153174/R=7/*http://www.lensexpress.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

In my humble opinion, the purpose of an alternative alphabet such as Shavian
or Quikscript is to provide English speakers with a phonetic alphabet to
replace the roman alphabet which has never fit the English sound structure.
This implies that you need a symbol for each sound used by the speakers of
the language. In a language as wide-spread as English, it is to be expected
that there will be dialectical differences which will require a few extra
symbols to encompass the phonemic range of all the speakers of the
language. I would use the phonemes I need for my dialect, and you would use
the phonemes needed for your dialect. Necessarily, if I pronounce some
words differently than you do, I should spell them differently, and you have
the same privilege. If we attempt to maintain the current roman alphabet
concept that there should be a single, "correct" spelling as we shift to
Shavian or Quikscript, then whose dialect do we choose, and why? And if we
were to make that mistake, then we are back in the same deadend that we are
in now. A few centuries hence, English spelling will be as illogical as it
is now. The spoken language inevitably changes, and spelling cannot be
frozen either. It has to be free to change.

Thus, I believe your assumption that one of the purposes of Shavian is to
provide a single, "correct" spelling for an English word is an over-
simplification based on an erroneous assumption, that everyone should spell
words the same way.

We all grew up with the idea that there is one correct way to spell a word,
but this is not a necessary nor even an extremely old concept. In the
1600s, English writers felt free to spell words in whatever way made sense
to them and fit their dialect. Presumably, those who read what the writers
wrote understood what they were reading without undue hardship. Over time,
however, printers and dictionary editors (I assume) won out with the idea
that a word should be spelled in one way only. Many educated people lament
the alleged decline of literacy and as evidence, they point to the failure
of people to comply with the "official" spelling. I have been guilty of
this in the past, and I still have to fight against this tendency which was
fostered by years of school indoctrination. As a further example of this
attitude, look at the spelling contests that school children go through,
which is nothing other than an enormous waste of time memorizing approved
spellings because one cannot use logic to predict how an English word will
be spelled in the roman alphabet.

If Shavian or Quikscript were in common use, can you imagine children
wasting their time, memorizing how you spell words. Of course not. There
would be no point in a phonetic alphabet.

Most words will be spelled the same in Shavian or Quikscript by the majority
of people, and the words that people spell differently due to their dialect
will generally only cause a slight slowing of the reader's speed and not
appreciably impede communication. After all, if you could understand a
person's dialect if you heard them speaking, you surely should be able to
understand the same message as they would write it!

Paige

finewineau wrote:

> No offence, but did the irony in this sentence make anyone else laugh.
>
> >Even if someone is aware of and can even
> > imitate the distinction, [...] if there [sic] dialect doesn't
> >differentiate, they
> > cannot determine which homophone they are hearing without context.
>
> I've been reading with interest the recent discussion on when to
> use "awe", "on", "ah" etc and have a question to ask those people who
> have suggested not to use the letters if the accent in question does
> not differentiate between them. I was wondering what will happen
> when (not if) Shavian becomes the standard alphabet. Will there be a
> standard correct spelling? Or will people spell differently
> according to their accents, thereby negating the usefulness of a
> single alphabet, making dictionaries redundant and relegating a lot
> of reading to guesswork?
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>
Click here to find your contact lenses!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

In my humble opinion, the purpose of an alternative alphabet such as Shavian
or Quikscript is to provide English speakers with a phonetic alphabet to
replace the roman alphabet which has never fit the English sound structure.
This implies that you need a symbol for each sound used by the speakers of
the language. In a language as wide-spread as English, it is to be expected
that there will be dialectical differences which will require a few extra
symbols to encompass the phonemic range of all the speakers of the
language. I would use the phonemes I need for my dialect, and you would use
the phonemes needed for your dialect. Necessarily, if I pronounce some
words differently than you do, I should spell them differently, and you have
the same privilege. If we attempt to maintain the current roman alphabet
concept that there should be a single, "correct" spelling as we shift to
Shavian or Quikscript, then whose dialect do we choose, and why? And if we
were to make that mistake, then we are back in the same deadend that we are
in now. A few centuries hence, English spelling will be as illogical as it
is now. The spoken language inevitably changes, and spelling cannot be
frozen either. It has to be free to change.

Thus, I believe your assumption that one of the purposes of Shavian is to
provide a single, "correct" spelling for an English word is an over-
simplification based on an erroneous assumption, that everyone should spell
words the same way.

We all grew up with the idea that there is one correct way to spell a word,
but this is not a necessary nor even an extremely old concept. In the
1600s, English writers felt free to spell words in whatever way made sense
to them and fit their dialect. Presumably, those who read what the writers
wrote understood what they were reading without undue hardship. Over time,
however, printers and dictionary editors (I assume) won out with the idea
that a word should be spelled in one way only. Many educated people lament
the alleged decline of literacy and as evidence, they point to the failure
of people to comply with the "official" spelling. I have been guilty of
this in the past, and I still have to fight against this tendency which was
fostered by years of school indoctrination. As a further example of this
attitude, look at the spelling contests that school children go through,
which is nothing other than an enormous waste of time memorizing approved
spellings because one cannot use logic to predict how an English word will
be spelled in the roman alphabet.

If Shavian or Quikscript were in common use, can you imagine children
wasting their time, memorizing how you spell words. Of course not. There
would be no point in a phonetic alphabet.

Most words will be spelled the same in Shavian or Quikscript by the majority
of people, and the words that people spell differently due to their dialect
will generally only cause a slight slowing of the reader's speed and not
appreciably impede communication. After all, if you could understand a
person's dialect if you heard them speaking, you surely should be able to
understand the same message as they would write it!

Paige

finewineau wrote:

> No offence, but did the irony in this sentence make anyone else laugh.
>
> >Even if someone is aware of and can even
> > imitate the distinction, [...] if there [sic] dialect doesn't
> >differentiate, they
> > cannot determine which homophone they are hearing without context.
>
> I've been reading with interest the recent discussion on when to
> use "awe", "on", "ah" etc and have a question to ask those people who
> have suggested not to use the letters if the accent in question does
> not differentiate between them. I was wondering what will happen
> when (not if) Shavian becomes the standard alphabet. Will there be a
> standard correct spelling? Or will people spell differently
> according to their accents, thereby negating the usefulness of a
> single alphabet, making dictionaries redundant and relegating a lot
> of reading to guesswork?
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>
Click here to find your contact lenses!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Hi Paige
Is Paige appropriate or would C. Paige be better?
While I accept your point of view for casual writing or correspondence
within your dialect group, I believe it is necessary to develop a literary
or international standard spelling.

Let me start my rebuttal.
The benefits of having a standardized spelling are so great that we impose
an extraordinary effort on all literate English writers to maintain and
propagate that standard. This is not done lightly. The huge number of
English words would make it almost impossible for us to have printed
dictionaries with all the valid alternate spelling. The information
technology that keeps our world humming is dependant on this level of
Spelling standardization. Imagine how much more complicated library
indexes, computer search engines, automatic language translation and
computer programming would be if they could not depend on standard
spelling. Data processing would require much additional time consuming
error checking. Non-standard spelling would create words with overlapping
meaning. The same sounds could represent 2 or more words.
We need a instrument to reduce communication chaos or static, not generate
more random errors.
I believe that the Shaw alphabet can create that happy medium, a logical
consistent alphabet that comes close enough to being phonetic that we can
write clearly and exactly to all our fellow English Speakers around the
world, even if we would have to painfully puzzle out their accent in spoken
conversation.
That is the ideal that I am striving for.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. While I accept that pronunciation of words do evolve in time to
different forms require a different spelling, I would like to slow that
process down and only iteratively change the standard spelling. I don't
want it to be free to change erratically.
Say for example, every 10 years or so, provide a revised dictionary and
spellchecker, with the new spellings.

P.P.S Again as a large portion of the accent differences is in the vowel
pronunciation, I would prefer to minimize the number of vowel letters in
each accent dialect. Obviously, I am trying to create a consensus on what
that minimum set of vowel letter for the British R.P. and the American
Standard would be, and then identify vowel letters that are common to both
standards, and then mark the left-overs as being specific to one or the
other accent dialects. I have no idea of the scope of the difficulties
until we do that preliminary assessment.

___________________attached_____________________

At 11:46 PM 7/15/02 -0400, you wrote:
>In my humble opinion, the purpose of an alternative alphabet such as Shavian
>or Quikscript is to provide English speakers with a phonetic alphabet to
>replace the roman alphabet which has never fit the English sound structure.
>This implies that you need a symbol for each sound used by the speakers of
>the language. In a language as wide-spread as English, it is to be expected
>that there will be dialectical differences which will require a few extra
>symbols to encompass the phonemic range of all the speakers of the
>language. I would use the phonemes I need for my dialect, and you would use
>the phonemes needed for your dialect. Necessarily, if I pronounce some
>words differently than you do, I should spell them differently, and you have
>the same privilege. If we attempt to maintain the current roman alphabet
>concept that there should be a single, "correct" spelling as we shift to
>Shavian or Quikscript, then whose dialect do we choose, and why? And if we
>were to make that mistake, then we are back in the same deadend that we are
>in now. A few centuries hence, English spelling will be as illogical as it
>is now. The spoken language inevitably changes, and spelling cannot be
>frozen either. It has to be free to change.
>
>Thus, I believe your assumption that one of the purposes of Shavian is to
>provide a single, "correct" spelling for an English word is an over-
>simplification based on an erroneous assumption, that everyone should spell
>words the same way.
>
>We all grew up with the idea that there is one correct way to spell a word,
>but this is not a necessary nor even an extremely old concept. In the
>1600s, English writers felt free to spell words in whatever way made sense
>to them and fit their dialect. Presumably, those who read what the writers
>wrote understood what they were reading without undue hardship. Over time,
>however, printers and dictionary editors (I assume) won out with the idea
>that a word should be spelled in one way only. Many educated people lament
>the alleged decline of literacy and as evidence, they point to the failure
>of people to comply with the "official" spelling. I have been guilty of
>this in the past, and I still have to fight against this tendency which was
>fostered by years of school indoctrination. As a further example of this
>attitude, look at the spelling contests that school children go through,
>which is nothing other than an enormous waste of time memorizing approved
>spellings because one cannot use logic to predict how an English word will
>be spelled in the roman alphabet.
>
>If Shavian or Quikscript were in common use, can you imagine children
>wasting their time, memorizing how you spell words. Of course not. There
>would be no point in a phonetic alphabet.
>
>Most words will be spelled the same in Shavian or Quikscript by the majority
>of people, and the words that people spell differently due to their dialect
>will generally only cause a slight slowing of the reader's speed and not
>appreciably impede communication. After all, if you could understand a
>person's dialect if you heard them speaking, you surely should be able to
>understand the same message as they would write it!
>
>Paige
>
>finewineau wrote:
>
> > No offence, but did the irony in this sentence make anyone else laugh.
> >
> > >Even if someone is aware of and can even
> > > imitate the distinction, [...] if there [sic] dialect doesn't
> > >differentiate, they
> > > cannot determine which homophone they are hearing without context.
> >
> > I've been reading with interest the recent discussion on when to
> > use "awe", "on", "ah" etc and have a question to ask those people who
> > have suggested not to use the letters if the accent in question does
> > not differentiate between them. I was wondering what will happen
> > when (not if) Shavian becomes the standard alphabet. Will there be a
> > standard correct spelling? Or will people spell differently
> > according to their accents, thereby negating the usefulness of a
> > single alphabet, making dictionaries redundant and relegating a lot
> > of reading to guesswork?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>
Click here to find your contact lenses!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Hi Hugh
Righto. I will try and do more writing in your Shaw bulletin board at
www.shavian.org.
Very nicely designed.

Regards, Paul Vandenbrink

At 10:11 PM 7/15/02 +0100, you wrote:
>We all do. By typing in Shavian and letting a standard set itself.
>
>This is one thing we haven't had a chance to try yet, because no one seems
>to want to write in Shavian any more...
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:celestraof12worlds@...>Star Raven
>To: <mailto:shavian@...>shavian@...
>Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 6:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Is there an Ideal way to type Shaw?
>
>Several good points, Hugh, and I can understand that kind
>of set spelling. However, who determines that one
>pronunciation is correct? Do we go through and find the
>dialect which differentiates between ah and awe and use
>that where appropriate?
>
>Just a thought,
>Star
>
>--- Hugh Birkenhead
><<mailto:h.birkenhead@...>h.birkenhead@...> wrote:
> > I should point out that in most British dialects, we do
> > not pronounce 'r's after vowels (unless followed by
> > another vowel). However, in Shavian, we write the 'r's
> > anyway. It's counter-intuitive, but we manage to do it!
> > It would be silly to leave them out, as readers over the
> > Atlantic would find it difficult to understand us, and
> > that would work against effective communication, which is
> > what a written language is supposed to facilitate!
> >
> > The point of this all is, Shavian wasn't created as a way
> > of writing only your own speech down - for the written
> > system to be effective at all, you need to form some
> > general consensus (by experience, i.e. by communicating
> > more and more with others); write things down so they can
> > be read well by anyone, with less emphasis on your own
> > personal speech. If every word were written down
> > differently by each person, legal documents,
> > dictionaries, terms and conditions, search engines, etc.
> > would count for nothing. Purposely creating transatlantic
> > (and indeed regional) spelling differences would
> > completely rubbish the whole concept of Shavian.
> >
> > I know that the fear people have of Shavian becoming as
> > set in its spellings as the current alphabet. However, as
> > long as there are no major phonemic developments in the
> > English language in the foreseeable future, I see no
> > reason why people won't be able to re-adapt their
> > spellings appropriately if and when any changes in . The
> > way things are going, English dialects around the world
> > are becoming CLOSER together, rather than further apart,
> > so this won't pose any problems. HOWEVER - if and when
> > spoken English becomes so different that Shavian no
> > longer serves it well, it's obvious the alphabet will
> > have to be revised. Shavian's lifespan isn't infinite.
> >
> > Hugh
>
>
>
>=====
>"One ship goes east, another west,
>By the self same gale that blows.
>'Tis not the gale, but set of sail
>That determines which way it goes."
>
>--Unknown
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
><http://autos.yahoo.com>http://autos.yahoo.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>6a0814.jpg
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>Click
>here to find your contact lenses!
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>
Click here to find your contact lenses!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Great points from both Craig and Paige. I agree whole
heartedly. Paige noted that a child learning shavian may
learn that, in their dialect, on and ah make the same
sound, but they will learn distinctions when reading work
in other dialects.

As for the concern with dictionaries or encyclopedias, most
dictionaries have a pronunciation guide. Alphabetising
would have to be revised and redone, but there is some
order to the way that the phonetic alphabet is set up, and
perhaps a sort of alphabet can be devised. This comes
later. Otherwise, if you don't know the meaning of a word
that you hear, won't you look it up by the way you hear it?

Let's say, for instance that I hear the word g-long i-d,
and let's say that I do not know what this means. In TO I
would start by looking it up the way I hear it, but there
is no gide in the dictionary. This is the problem with TO.
In shavian, I would find that g-long i-d means one who
directs another's course: in TO it is spelled "guide."

On the other side of the coin, how do we handle common mis
pronunciations? Deleterious, meaning harmful or noxious is
pronounced 'deh-luh-"tir-ee-us but I have heard it
incorrectly pronounced duh-"lee-tree-us. Or for the longest
time I thought brazier (a device for holding burning coals)
was pronounced the same as brassier (a woman's
undergatment). I learned differently when I looked it up to
double check my spelling. Having only read the word, the
too look like they would be pronounced the same, but one
uses a "zh" sound (measure) while the other uses a simple
"z" sound.

And the third case. Two words that have a different
spelling in TO, but a similar pronunciation when one is
said incorrectly. In TO, "faker" (one who plays false;
pron. 'fay-ker) and "fakir" (a Muslim mendicant; pron.
fuh-'keer). Now, you could easily see a difference when
reading or hear a difference if the following example was
correctly pronounced: "I saw the big fakir in the
marketplace." If this is pronounced incorrectly, one would
hear: "I saw the big faker in the marketplace." Only in
context would someone who knows what fakir is understand
what the second example is trying for. "I saw the big fakir
in the marketplace, and I am honoured that he blessed me."
Why would one be honoured to have the blessing of someone
who plays false? No, the speaker was honoured by the Muslim
friar.

That's all for now,
Love and luck,
--Star

P.S. I think that it would be nice to actually write to
someone in shavian. That way we could stay in practice with
our handwriting as we continue to discuss typing. :)

=====
"One ship goes east, another west,
By the self same gale that blows.
'Tis not the gale, but set of sail
That determines which way it goes."

--Unknown

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1155070/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Paul Gershon Vandenbrink wrote:

> Hi Paige
> Is Paige appropriate or would C. Paige be better?

Paige is fine. The latter seems like a cross reference.

> Let me start my rebuttal.
> The benefits of having a standardized spelling are so great that we impose
> an extraordinary effort on all literate English writers to maintain and
> propagate that standard. This is not done lightly. The huge number of
> English words would make it almost impossible for us to have printed
> dictionaries with all the valid alternate spelling.

I am not convinced the advantages of a "correct" spelling were that great when
this practice developed. It is not done lightly now, but I suspect it was a
pattern we fell into originally, not because it was a necessity, but because
printed material validated a particular spelling. By the way, I understand that
dictionaries exist for the Chinese language. Since Chinese does not use an
alphabet, and manages to find another way to organize their dictionaries, a
blanket statement, with no evidence to support it, that alternate spellings
would make a printed dictionary almost impossible is not very convincing to me.
I would agree it would make it more challenging, but not impossible or
unworkable.

> The information
> technology that keeps our world humming is dependant on this level of
> Spelling standardization. Imagine how much more complicated library
> indexes, computer search engines, automatic language translation and
> computer programming would be if they could not depend on standard
> spelling. Data processing would require much additional time consuming
> error checking. Non-standard spelling would create words with overlapping
> meaning. The same sounds could represent 2 or more words.
> We need a instrument to reduce communication chaos or static, not generate
> more random errors.

The foregoing seems to make some good points. But the actual variation between
English dialects around the world and how that would affect spelling if people
were free to spell words as they pronounce them has not been tested. No doubt
alternate spellings would require additional programming, but how large a
problem this might be is not clear to me as I am not a programmer.

> [snip]
>
> P.S. While I accept that pronunciation of words do evolve in time to
> different forms require a different spelling, I would like to slow that
> process down and only iteratively change the standard spelling. I don't
> want it to be free to change erratically.
> Say for example, every 10 years or so, provide a revised dictionary and
> spellchecker, with the new spellings.

What organization would impose these spelling changes on English speakers around
the world? It seems to me that European-style language academies would be
unacceptable to most English speakers as I suspect they do not want their use
of language to be controlled by some "authority."

> P.P.S Again as a large portion of the accent differences is in the vowel
> pronunciation, I would prefer to minimize the number of vowel letters in
> each accent dialect. Obviously, I am trying to create a consensus on what
> that minimum set of vowel letter for the British R.P. and the American
> Standard would be, and then identify vowel letters that are common to both
> standards, and then mark the left-overs as being specific to one or the
> other accent dialects. I have no idea of the scope of the difficulties
> until we do that preliminary assessment.

>From what I have seen in the posts, one of the primary differences that people
have been writing about is that in some speech communities the "ah", "on" and
"awe" sounds have collapsed into "on" and those speakers do not understand the
usage of the two former symbols as those sounds do not exist in their accent
dialect anymore. My response is to let them spell with "on" alone. There is a
commercial on TV now for the "Nautilus" sleep system. The announcer calls it
"Notilus," which sounds peculiar to me, but I did not have any trouble
understanding him, and if he had written me a letter in Shavian, I am confident
I would have figured out what he meant if he had spelled it with an "on" rather
than "awe."

I am not sure there are mutually exclusive vowels in different accents
(left-overs as you phrase them). I do not remember a post stating that
Canadian speakers use other phonemes that Americans or British speakers do not
use. Therefore, rather than attempting to restrict the number of vowel letters
in each accent dialect as you suggested, I believe we should explain to new
users of the alphabet that some accent dialects do not need all the symbols to
represent their speech that others require.

Your reference to British R.P. and American Standard seems to leave out
Australian and New Zealand speech (I assume the American standard inclues
Canadian?).

Paige



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1155068/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Paul Gershon Vandenbrink wrote:

> Hi Paige
> Is Paige appropriate or would C. Paige be better?

Paige is fine. The latter seems like a cross reference.

> Let me start my rebuttal.
> The benefits of having a standardized spelling are so great that we impose
> an extraordinary effort on all literate English writers to maintain and
> propagate that standard. This is not done lightly. The huge number of
> English words would make it almost impossible for us to have printed
> dictionaries with all the valid alternate spelling.

I am not convinced the advantages of a "correct" spelling were that great when
this practice developed. It is not done lightly now, but I suspect it was a
pattern we fell into originally, not because it was a necessity, but because
printed material validated a particular spelling. By the way, I understand that
dictionaries exist for the Chinese language. Since Chinese does not use an
alphabet, and manages to find another way to organize their dictionaries, a
blanket statement, with no evidence to support it, that alternate spellings
would make a printed dictionary almost impossible is not very convincing to me.
I would agree it would make it more challenging, but not impossible or
unworkable.

> The information
> technology that keeps our world humming is dependant on this level of
> Spelling standardization. Imagine how much more complicated library
> indexes, computer search engines, automatic language translation and
> computer programming would be if they could not depend on standard
> spelling. Data processing would require much additional time consuming
> error checking. Non-standard spelling would create words with overlapping
> meaning. The same sounds could represent 2 or more words.
> We need a instrument to reduce communication chaos or static, not generate
> more random errors.

The foregoing seems to make some good points. But the actual variation between
English dialects around the world and how that would affect spelling if people
were free to spell words as they pronounce them has not been tested. No doubt
alternate spellings would require additional programming, but how large a
problem this might be is not clear to me as I am not a programmer.

> [snip]
>
> P.S. While I accept that pronunciation of words do evolve in time to
> different forms require a different spelling, I would like to slow that
> process down and only iteratively change the standard spelling. I don't
> want it to be free to change erratically.
> Say for example, every 10 years or so, provide a revised dictionary and
> spellchecker, with the new spellings.

What organization would impose these spelling changes on English speakers around
the world? It seems to me that European-style language academies would be
unacceptable to most English speakers as I suspect they do not want their use
of language to be controlled by some "authority."

> P.P.S Again as a large portion of the accent differences is in the vowel
> pronunciation, I would prefer to minimize the number of vowel letters in
> each accent dialect. Obviously, I am trying to create a consensus on what
> that minimum set of vowel letter for the British R.P. and the American
> Standard would be, and then identify vowel letters that are common to both
> standards, and then mark the left-overs as being specific to one or the
> other accent dialects. I have no idea of the scope of the difficulties
> until we do that preliminary assessment.

>From what I have seen in the posts, one of the primary differences that people
have been writing about is that in some speech communities the "ah", "on" and
"awe" sounds have collapsed into "on" and those speakers do not understand the
usage of the two former symbols as those sounds do not exist in their accent
dialect anymore. My response is to let them spell with "on" alone. There is a
commercial on TV now for the "Nautilus" sleep system. The announcer calls it
"Notilus," which sounds peculiar to me, but I did not have any trouble
understanding him, and if he had written me a letter in Shavian, I am confident
I would have figured out what he meant if he had spelled it with an "on" rather
than "awe."

I am not sure there are mutually exclusive vowels in different accents
(left-overs as you phrase them). I do not remember a post stating that
Canadian speakers use other phonemes that Americans or British speakers do not
use. Therefore, rather than attempting to restrict the number of vowel letters
in each accent dialect as you suggested, I believe we should explain to new
users of the alphabet that some accent dialects do not need all the symbols to
represent their speech that others require.

Your reference to British R.P. and American Standard seems to leave out
Australian and New Zealand speech (I assume the American standard inclues
Canadian?).

Paige



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1155068/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

All this talk about standardization and academies... The way I
stumbled into Shavian was doing a big research project this
spring on the standardization of English spelling without an
academy, and the role of technology in inhibiting reform. My final
copy was corrupted by a hard drive crash, but I will work on
converting it to HTML in case anybody is interested.

I would like to note that when I misspell seach terms in Google,
it suggests "Did you mean...?" If the spelling system is phonetic
and easy to use, there won't be many alternatives, at most only
as many as there are alternate pronunciations. And most dialect
variation doesn't change the spelling. Long I is pronounced very
different in different areas. (This is THE distinguishing feature of
Southern American--broad and monothongized.) The genius of
Shavian (over say the IPA) is that such regular shifts don't
change spelling, because the letters refer to the sound in words.
Long I is ICE no matter how you pronounce it. We could go
through another Great Vowel Shift and it wouldn't affect the
readability of Shavian, because it is phonemic rather than
phonetic. This scheme only breaks down when sounds merge,
as has happened in much of North America. In a language that
tries to cram some 16 vowels into one mouth, there is a strong
tendency for phonemes to merge; the distinctions are hard to
maintain.

Craig



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1155065/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .