Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

I've just uploaded an update for my new font layout to the files
areas. This update includes a new character, a name change for
another, and instructions for fixing the disappearing " and ' problem
with MicroSoft Word. Enjoy! :-) L8r.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1182731/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-336>

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

Chuck and other Soundspellers,

Any pronunciation guide [PG] spelling from a
dictionary can be easily converted into IPA,
QuickScript, Shavian, or some other phonemic writing
system but that was not the issue.

If people spell as they speak and they use a regional
dialect, their transcriptions are not going to match
those with other accents.

One almost needs a pronunciation dictionary for every
major dialect of English. www.fonetik.com has started
moving in this direction.

Publishers have always wanted standardized spelling
because this allows speed reading.

We could easily sound spell NBC English and make this
the standard. However, there will be objections from
those who do not want to learn another dialect in
order to spell correctly.

The traditional system insists on a standardized
spelling at the word level. There is, however, no
restriction and no guide as to how words are
pronounced. A standardized phonemic system would also
standardize pronunciation or at least require that
some words be repronounced in order to be spelled
correctly.

Regards,

Steve

--- In Read_Alphabet@y..., Chuck wrote:

> I don't see the problem with all the
> question of accents. I've always fallen back on the
> Webster's Dictiorary for the propper way to say
> something. It or any other major dictionary gives
you
> the phonics of the word. Just like in a normal
english
> writing system, if you have a question of how it is
> spelled, check the dictionary. At least in
> Quickscript, it's phonic nature alls for even miss
> spelled words to be pronounced.

> > D.M. Falk wrote: Most spelling
> > reform schemes- particularly Shavian and
Quikscript-
> > really only work effectively with a particular
> > accent, as they're not flexible enough to deal
with
> > unifying dialectual/accentual permutations (which
> > are _usually_ consistant)- That is, under current
> > Shavian and Quikscript schemes, no two accents
will
> > spell the same. (Not to mention that neither seem
to
> > accomodate borrowed phonetics used in English!)


=====

To join SAUNDSPEL - The Phonology Forum
send a blank email to saundspel-subscribe@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1182694/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-336>

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

Hi Steve

Most people when they are spelling out a word, actually are pronouncing it to themselves

in an highly stressed older English accent, quite different from normal speach. It is also used when you need to repeat a word again to the hard of hearing.

I said IN-TELL-I-GANT.

It would be nice if this explicit enunciation based on written English was closer to some standard spoken English.



Regards, Paul V.

__________attached_____________________



>From: Steve Bett
>Reply-To: shavian@...
>To: saundspel@..., shavian@...
>Subject: [shavian] Is there an accent problem with phonemic spelling?
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 23:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Chuck and other Soundspellers,
>
>Any pronunciation guide [PG] spelling from a
>dictionary can be easily converted into IPA,
>QuickScript, Shavian, or some other phonemic writing
>system but that was not the issue.
>
>If people spell as they speak and they use a regional
>dialect, their transcriptions are not going to match
>those with other accents.
>
>One almost needs a pronunciation dictionary for every
>major dialect of English. www.fonetik.com has started
>moving in this direction.
>
>Publishers have always wanted standardized spelling
>because this allows speed reading.
>
>We could easily sound spell NBC English and make this
>the standard. However, there will be objections from
>those who do not want to learn another dialect in
>order to spell correctly.
>
>The traditional system insists on a standardized
>spelling at the word level. There is, however, no
>restriction and no guide as to how words are
>pronounced. A standardized phonemic system would also
>standardize pronunciation or at least require that
>some words be repronounced in order to be spelled
>correctly.
>
>Regards,
>
>Steve
>
>--- In Read_Alphabet@y..., Chuck wrote:
>
> > I don't see the problem with all the
> > question of accents. I've always fallen back on the
> > Webster's Dictiorary for the propper way to say
> > something. It or any other major dictionary gives
>you
> > the phonics of the word. Just like in a normal
>english
> > writing system, if you have a question of how it is
> > spelled, check the dictionary. At least in
> > Quickscript, it's phonic nature alls for even miss
> > spelled words to be pronounced.
>
> > > D.M. Falk wrote: Most spelling
> > > reform schemes- particularly Shavian and
>Quikscript-
> > > really only work effectively with a particular
> > > accent, as they're not flexible enough to deal
>with
> > > unifying dialectual/accentual permutations (which
> > > are _usually_ consistant)- That is, under current
> > > Shavian and Quikscript schemes, no two accents
>will
> > > spell the same. (Not to mention that neither seem
>to
> > > accomodate borrowed phonetics used in English!)
>
>
>=====
>
>To join SAUNDSPEL - The Phonology Forum
>send a blank email to saundspel-subscribe@...
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
>http://finance.yahoo.com
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/mx3olB/TM
>---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here <http://g.msn.com/1HM1ENCA/c156??PI=44318>

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

Hi Rubik

In my FAQ (Questions) page, where I answer the question

Who created the Shaw alphabet?

A contest was announced specifying the linguistic requirements, in 1958. Four contestants submitted alphabet schemes that met or surpassed the requirements. The Shaw Alphabet was created from an amalgam of these 4 proposals. Kingsley Read, an architect and designer, provided the majority of the design. He also created a script or cursive version of the Shaw alphabet called Quickscript.
Further revisions to remove some confusing spiral letters and to streamline an overly complex vowel design were successful and incorporated in this book by the Author.

I refer to the revisions incorporated in the Shaw Alphabet. This web-site is only designed to give people an overview of the Shaw Alphabet and my revisions. If they wish for a detailed manual on how to use both the Original Shaw Alphabet or my revised version, they should order my manual "Teach Yourself to Read Shaw" for $18, diskette inclusive.

These questions in WWW.SHAWALPHABET.COM <http://www.SHAWALPHABET.COM> are excerpts from my book.

When I refer to "this book" in the Question above, I am referring to the book, "Teach Yourself to Read Shaw", and when I refer to the "author", I am refering to myself.

A straight forward manual on how to Learn the Shaw Alphabet was sorely needed and I wrote one.

Are you aware of anyone else who has attempted the provide a clear teaching guide?

As for your second question, Vowel letters are used whenever the vowel sound is especially important to the pronunciation of the word. As you suggest that includes whenever there is a glottal stop to accentuate the vowel sound. But a vowel letter is also written whenever a vowel sound starts a word or syllable.

Vowel markers are only used when a vowel sound is embedded within or ends a syllable. The two different types of markers (horizontal/vertical) (loose curl/tight curl) represent whether the vowel sound is embedded within or ends a syllable.

You are correct that Vowel markers do indicate only the kind of vowel. But there are only a few members of the set to distinguish. There is the Schwa (1), short vowels(6), long vowels(5) and Dipthongs(5).

Where it is significant to specify which one of a particular kind of a vowel is being used, you can annotate each vowel marker with diacratic marks. These marks indicate the exact vowel sound. This system of diacratic marks is called the Mazor signs.

Regards, Paul Vandenbrink

P.S. Rubik, If you wish to review the actual manual, I will send you a free copy.

Or you can wait for the updates to the Web-Site.

__________________attached_________________________________



>From: "rubik67"
>Reply-To: shavian@...
>To: shavian@...
>Subject: [shavian] Re: Shaw Alphabet updates
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:35:54 -0000
>
>--- In shavian@y..., "Paul Vandenbrink" wrote:
> > Hi Rubik
> >
> > Sorry that the name of my website www.shawalphabet.com appears
>deceptive.
>
>Not just the name, but the content, too. I took a look at every page
>I could find and it appears that you're claiming that Kingsley Read
>created the font on your site. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> > I developed this Revision of the Shaw Alphabet, to further solve
>the problem
> > where the different accents of English can result in different
>spellings of
> > the same word. The majority of English accent variations seem to
>reside
> > mostly in the vowel sounds.
>
>I'm curious. If I'm understanding your page correctly, the only time
>an actual vowel character is used is when it's proceeded by a glottal
>stop, eg. uh-oh, Da'an, Zo'or, or buy EFC merchandise at "the
>Sto'or!", while in every other case only the KIND of vowel is shown.
>It also apprears that a, e, and i are classed as the same kind of
>vowel, so how would one differentiate between the words bag, beg, and
>big? How about bog and bug, which are also the same kind of vowel?
>What's the difference between horizontal and vertical vowel types?
>How about the tight curl and the loose curl?
>
> > But in any case I call this alphabet, the Revised Shaw Alphabet as
>opposed
> > to the original Shavian.
>
>Interesting. I really had to dig to find mention of it being a
>revised version. 6 of the 7 main pages make no mention of it.
>
> > P.S. I expect to make changes in the site to show exactly how the
>new
> > letters are derived from the original Shavian Alphabet. But that
>will take
> > some time.
>
>Cool. I'll be interested in seeing it when it's done. L8r.
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/mx3olB/TM
>---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here <http://g.msn.com/1HM1ENCA/c156??PI=44318>

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

Richard, [REF: www.freespeling.com]

If you find a transcript of the broadcast, please post
it.

On a related broadcast, someone said that there was a
comment from a linguist who brought up the problem of
representing all the accents of English with one
spelling.

I think that this is a pseudo problem in the sense
that it is much easier to spell a known dialect such
as NBC English than it is to spell an unknown one such
as 13th Century English speech -- the model for many
of our spellings.

My latest notation based on NBC English is readable,
compact, and phonemic. You do have to get used to
about ten new sound-symbol correspondences such as
d=dh, D=d, w=uu, v=U, V=v, q=ax, ar=@r, a=schwa or
turned e, 3r=ur as in urjant.

I thiNk dqt dis is a swdo problm in d sens dqt it iz
much EzEar tw spel a nOn dIalekt such qz NBC ENgliS
thqn it iz tw spel qn un-nOn wun.

dis ASCII nOtASn wd bE intrOdwst qz a pqralel skript
qnd a pranunsiASn gId speliN sistm.

In kamarSal printiN it wd bE kanvartad tw a form wid
dIakritiks wiC wd mAk it EzE-r tw rEd. a would become
a turned e, q would become a script a, N would become
a hooked n, o would become a turned c, etc. In other
words, the standardized version would look similar to
a refined or calligraphic IPA notation.

Steve

--- Richard Wade <Richardwade.oxon@...>
wrote:

> I dont know if anyone would have had a chance to
> hear BBC Radio 4 You and
> Yours programme at 1200 to 1300 on Monday 2
> September but (tho there was
> little about freespeling as such) it did prove
> particularily interesting to
> me because there was the albeit tacit assumption
> that change/development/modernisation is possible.
>
> China Central TV is shooting here Wednesday and
> Beijing just rang to ask for
> a copy of the radio interview...

=====

To join SAUNDSPEL - The Phonology Forum
send a blank email to saundspel-subscribe@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233870.2307058.3723292.1793556/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1202749/R=1/*http://personals.yahoo.com>
I'm a Woman Man seeking a Man Woman
Enter city or ZIP
Age: to
Show only ads with photos


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

On 9/2/2002 at 10:35 AM Steve Bett wrote:

[...]

>On a related broadcast, someone said that there was a
>comment from a linguist who brought up the problem of
>representing all the accents of English with one
>spelling.

It isn't so much a problem, but as far as I see it, an issue of absolutism- Namely, most accents' variations in pronunciation is often quite relative and consistant. Most who try to transcribe these accents phonetically use an absolute phonetic system- Usually based on the International Phonetic Alphabet (which is really more academic than useful). The issue of Shavian/Quikscripr transcription often follows this same problem, since the rule of thumb applied is phonetics based on RP, or the King's English (or, as in today's case, the Queen's English).

This is why I've long advocated spelling words in Shavian as _you_ would pronounce the sounds, not based on a specific pronunciation. Reading comprehension in Shavian across accents would increase.

It's also why it will be _impossible_ to truly implement orthographic reform in English, since no-one can agree on a suitable method of spelling that crosses accents and dialects with a minimum of confusion- As bad as it is, this is why the Oxford orthography is used in all English-speaking countries (except America, which uses the Webster orthography)- It's the most easily-understood English orthography across diverse accents.

>I think that this is a pseudo problem in the sense
>that it is much easier to spell a known dialect such
>as NBC English than it is to spell an unknown one such
>as 13th Century English speech -- the model for many
>of our spellings.

I'm guessing you're American... (Don't worry, so am I.) Actually, to most of the English-speaking world, the so-called "NBC" English (standardised, actually, on the accents of Indiana and Ohio) is considered quite odd-sounding-- Much as we Americans hear Cockney.

Actually, the standard spellings used in English worldwide are based on the Oxford orthography of the late 17th Century, at about the time the Royal Court, then in Oxford, established Britain's first state-run newspaper (which is still published to this day, after over 300 years). Until that time, there were _no_ standardised forms of English- Most spelled according to their tastes, which made reading English to that point an interesting endeavour.

(It was also about that time that the ever-ubiquitous "y" for "th", as in "ye", was dropped, and is now used only for a semivowel.)

The only British colony (well, colonies) to choose a different official orthography was America, who adopted the spelling reforms of Noah Webster (which abolished the long S so characterising Colonial-era writings); the rest stayed with a (revised) Oxford orthography, as dictated by the Crown, and largely inherited as tradition in now-former British colonies.

(Just FYI, but the most _different_ vocabulary of any English-speaking country is that of India.... Still intelligeable, except especially the numerics and measurements, amongst a few other differences- Especially noticable in various Indian-English newspapers... Even beats out Australian English....)

D.M.Falk





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233870.2307058.3723292.1793556/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1100554/R=1/*http://personals.yahoo.com/> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233870.2307058.3723292.1793556/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1100554/R=2/*http://personals.yahoo.com/>
I'm a
ManWoman
seeking a
WomanMan
Enter city or ZIP



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

This I feel is what I have been trying to say about
standardization of spelling. If you can read the sounds,
which is to say, if you can decipher and decode the
characters to form sounds and from those sounds form words,
and then decode those words into meanings. This is what we
english speakers world wide must do with TO when we
encounter a new word that we have never seen before. We
must guess how to pronounce it, unlike shavian inwhich we
would learn how to pronounce it.

On the other side of this coin, one must understand that we
are becoming a text based society. Reading comprehension is
not taught in today's american schools--most children, at
least here in Tennessee (50th of the states in funding
education, so bear with me) learn by "phonics" and not by
etimology (sp) as I did. I would learn the shape of words
and what they meant at the same time, as opposed to the
sound that letters make in certain positions (a problem I
will add that Shavian does not have). We need to truly
spend less time on the position and spelling of words-a
fault in TO--and more time on teaching vocabulary and
etimology. Reading comprehension will follow.

--Star

--- Dennis Falk <quozl1@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/2/2002 at 10:35 AM Steve Bett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >On a related broadcast, someone said that there was a
> >comment from a linguist who brought up the problem of
> >representing all the accents of English with one
> >spelling.
>
> It isn't so much a problem, but as far as I see it, an
> issue of absolutism- Namely, most accents' variations in
> pronunciation is often quite relative and consistant.
> Most who try to transcribe these accents phonetically use
> an absolute phonetic system- Usually based on the
> International Phonetic Alphabet (which is really more
> academic than useful). The issue of Shavian/Quikscripr
> transcription often follows this same problem, since the
> rule of thumb applied is phonetics based on RP, or the
> King's English (or, as in today's case, the Queen's
> English).
>
> This is why I've long advocated spelling words in Shavian
> as _you_ would pronounce the sounds, not based on a
> specific pronunciation. Reading comprehension in Shavian
> across accents would increase.
>
> It's also why it will be _impossible_ to truly implement
> orthographic reform in English, since no-one can agree on
> a suitable method of spelling that crosses accents and
> dialects with a minimum of confusion- As bad as it is,
> this is why the Oxford orthography is used in all
> English-speaking countries (except America, which uses
> the Webster orthography)- It's the most easily-understood
> English orthography across diverse accents.
>
> >I think that this is a pseudo problem in the sense
> >that it is much easier to spell a known dialect such
> >as NBC English than it is to spell an unknown one such
> >as 13th Century English speech -- the model for many
> >of our spellings.
>
> I'm guessing you're American... (Don't worry, so am I.)
> Actually, to most of the English-speaking world, the
> so-called "NBC" English (standardised, actually, on the
> accents of Indiana and Ohio) is considered quite
> odd-sounding-- Much as we Americans hear Cockney.
>
> Actually, the standard spellings used in English
> worldwide are based on the Oxford orthography of the late
> 17th Century, at about the time the Royal Court, then in
> Oxford, established Britain's first state-run newspaper
> (which is still published to this day, after over 300
> years). Until that time, there were _no_ standardised
> forms of English- Most spelled according to their tastes,
> which made reading English to that point an interesting
> endeavour.
>
> (It was also about that time that the ever-ubiquitous "y"
> for "th", as in "ye", was dropped, and is now used only
> for a semivowel.)
>
> The only British colony (well, colonies) to choose a
> different official orthography was America, who adopted
> the spelling reforms of Noah Webster (which abolished the
> long S so characterising Colonial-era writings); the rest
> stayed with a (revised) Oxford orthography, as dictated
> by the Crown, and largely inherited as tradition in
> now-former British colonies.
>
> (Just FYI, but the most _different_ vocabulary of any
> English-speaking country is that of India.... Still
> intelligeable, except especially the numerics and
> measurements, amongst a few other differences- Especially
> noticable in various Indian-English newspapers... Even
> beats out Australian English....)
>
> D.M.Falk
>
>
>
>


=====
"You know what they say, 'Human see, Human do.' "
--Julius, Planet of the Apes

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233870.2307058.3723292.1793556/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1202750/R=1/*http://personals.yahoo.com>
I'm a Woman Man seeking a Man Woman
Enter city or ZIP
Age: to
Show only ads with photos


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

Hi Star Raven
It is beneficial to have a phonetic alphabet, such as Shaw, even without
Spelling standardization. I agree wholeheartedly with that point.
I would like to make two further points to clarify my objective.
1. The ideal English alphabet as well as providing letters for all the
sounds found in English words worldwide, should NOT provide duplicate
letters, or two or more letters that represent the same sound. There should
be a one to one relationship.
For every distinctive sound, there should be one and only one letter.
Differences in spelling would then always reflect differences in Pronunciation.
2. When we write something down, our main concern should be to communicate
our words clearly to reader. In the same way that we tailor the speed and
loudness of our vocal communication to our listeners hearing ability, our
written words should also reflect the understanding of our reader.
Ideally, we should write in the accent of our reader,
and only if that is not practical only then would we use our own personal
accent.
I believe there is room for compromise in these different objectives, to
provide a tool for clear communication between English speakers around the
world, whatever their accent.
I suspect it will be slightly less than ideal, but it will be miles
ahead of the hodgepodge, that spelling in the Roman Alphabet has become.

Regards, Paul V.


P.S. I think etymology is useful in the sense that the meaning of a word
can be better understood, by considering where and under what circumstance
it was coined.

****************attached************************************

At 05:49 PM 9/2/02 -0700, you wrote:
>This I feel is what I have been trying to say about
>standardization of spelling. If you can read the sounds,
>which is to say, if you can decipher and decode the
>characters to form sounds and from those sounds form words,
>and then decode those words into meanings. This is what we
>english speakers world wide must do with TO when we
>encounter a new word that we have never seen before. We
>must guess how to pronounce it, unlike shavian inwhich we
>would learn how to pronounce it.
>
>On the other side of this coin, one must understand that we
>are becoming a text based society. Reading comprehension is
>not taught in today's american schools--most children, at
>least here in Tennessee (50th of the states in funding
>education, so bear with me) learn by "phonics" and not by
>etimology (sp) as I did. I would learn the shape of words
>and what they meant at the same time, as opposed to the
>sound that letters make in certain positions (a problem I
>will add that Shavian does not have). We need to truly
>spend less time on the position and spelling of words-a
>fault in TO--and more time on teaching vocabulary and
>etimology. Reading comprehension will follow.
>
>--Star
>
>--- Dennis Falk <quozl1@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/2/2002 at 10:35 AM Steve Bett wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >On a related broadcast, someone said that there was a
> > >comment from a linguist who brought up the problem of
> > >representing all the accents of English with one
> > >spelling.
> >
> > It isn't so much a problem, but as far as I see it, an
> > issue of absolutism- Namely, most accents' variations in
> > pronunciation is often quite relative and consistant.
> > Most who try to transcribe these accents phonetically use
> > an absolute phonetic system- Usually based on the
> > International Phonetic Alphabet (which is really more
> > academic than useful). The issue of Shavian/Quikscripr
> > transcription often follows this same problem, since the
> > rule of thumb applied is phonetics based on RP, or the
> > King's English (or, as in today's case, the Queen's
> > English).
> >
> > This is why I've long advocated spelling words in Shavian
> > as _you_ would pronounce the sounds, not based on a
> > specific pronunciation. Reading comprehension in Shavian
> > across accents would increase.
> >
> > It's also why it will be _impossible_ to truly implement
> > orthographic reform in English, since no-one can agree on
> > a suitable method of spelling that crosses accents and
> > dialects with a minimum of confusion- As bad as it is,
> > this is why the Oxford orthography is used in all
> > English-speaking countries (except America, which uses
> > the Webster orthography)- It's the most easily-understood
> > English orthography across diverse accents.
> >
> > >I think that this is a pseudo problem in the sense
> > >that it is much easier to spell a known dialect such
> > >as NBC English than it is to spell an unknown one such
> > >as 13th Century English speech -- the model for many
> > >of our spellings.
> >
> > I'm guessing you're American... (Don't worry, so am I.)
> > Actually, to most of the English-speaking world, the
> > so-called "NBC" English (standardised, actually, on the
> > accents of Indiana and Ohio) is considered quite
> > odd-sounding-- Much as we Americans hear Cockney.
> >
> > Actually, the standard spellings used in English
> > worldwide are based on the Oxford orthography of the late
> > 17th Century, at about the time the Royal Court, then in
> > Oxford, established Britain's first state-run newspaper
> > (which is still published to this day, after over 300
> > years). Until that time, there were _no_ standardised
> > forms of English- Most spelled according to their tastes,
> > which made reading English to that point an interesting
> > endeavour.
> >
> > (It was also about that time that the ever-ubiquitous "y"
> > for "th", as in "ye", was dropped, and is now used only
> > for a semivowel.)
> >
> > The only British colony (well, colonies) to choose a
> > different official orthography was America, who adopted
> > the spelling reforms of Noah Webster (which abolished the
> > long S so characterising Colonial-era writings); the rest
> > stayed with a (revised) Oxford orthography, as dictated
> > by the Crown, and largely inherited as tradition in
> > now-former British colonies.
> >
> > (Just FYI, but the most _different_ vocabulary of any
> > English-speaking country is that of India.... Still
> > intelligeable, except especially the numerics and
> > measurements, amongst a few other differences- Especially
> > noticable in various Indian-English newspapers... Even
> > beats out Australian English....)
> >
> > D.M.Falk
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>=====
>"You know what they say, 'Human see, Human do.' "
>--Julius, Planet of the Apes
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
>http://finance.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229441.2311215.3726473.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1189558/R=0/*http://www.bmgmusic.com/acq/ee/q6/enroll/mhn/9/>

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

Hi Dennis
I have to disagree with you about your point, that none of the other
British colonies has taken on the American (Webster) orthography. In the
last few years, I have noticed that the Canadian accent, in even in the
spelling standards have taken on a distinctly American flavor.
And as far as saying that British (Oxford) RP has the most
easily-understood English orthography across diverse accents,
I think it is premature and probably wrong to make such a judgement on such
a complicated evolving situation.
As a Canadian, I have been exposed to a wide variety of British and
American accents, and find most of them intelligible.
Cockney is quite difficult for me to understand.
In my experience, modern British accents are more diverse and harder to
pick-up on.The older accents, Australian, South African and even Scottish
inflected English are easier to understand.
Some words pronounced in one or more of the 3 New York accents are quite
difficult for me to understand, but overall in my experiance, I would rate
American English to be more understandable. Can't beat a Texas Drawl for
clarity.
Don't have too much experience with East Indian accent English. Seems more
a question of tempo and pitch.
Could it be derived from a Welsh English Accent?

Regards, Paul V.

***********************attached********************************
At 03:40 PM 9/2/02 -0700, you wrote:


>On 9/2/2002 at 10:35 AM Steve Bett wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> >On a related broadcast, someone said that there was a
> >comment from a linguist who brought up the problem of
> >representing all the accents of English with one
> >spelling.
>
>It isn't so much a problem, but as far as I see it, an issue of
>absolutism- Namely, most accents' variations in pronunciation is often
>quite relative and consistant. Most who try to transcribe these accents
>phonetically use an absolute phonetic system- Usually based on the
>International Phonetic Alphabet (which is really more academic than
>useful). The issue of Shavian/Quikscripr transcription often follows this
>same problem, since the rule of thumb applied is phonetics based on RP, or
>the King's English (or, as in today's case, the Queen's English).
>
>This is why I've long advocated spelling words in Shavian as _you_ would
>pronounce the sounds, not based on a specific pronunciation. Reading
>comprehension in Shavian across accents would increase.
>
>It's also why it will be _impossible_ to truly implement orthographic
>reform in English, since no-one can agree on a suitable method of spelling
>that crosses accents and dialects with a minimum of confusion- As bad as
>it is, this is why the Oxford orthography is used in all English-speaking
>countries (except America, which uses the Webster orthography)- It's the
>most easily-understood English orthography across diverse accents.
>
> >I think that this is a pseudo problem in the sense
> >that it is much easier to spell a known dialect such
> >as NBC English than it is to spell an unknown one such
> >as 13th Century English speech -- the model for many
> >of our spellings.
>
>I'm guessing you're American... (Don't worry, so am I.) Actually, to most
>of the English-speaking world, the so-called "NBC" English (standardised,
>actually, on the accents of Indiana and Ohio) is considered quite
>odd-sounding-- Much as we Americans hear Cockney.
>
>Actually, the standard spellings used in English worldwide are based on
>the Oxford orthography of the late 17th Century, at about the time the
>Royal Court, then in Oxford, established Britain's first state-run
>newspaper (which is still published to this day, after over 300 years).
>Until that time, there were _no_ standardised forms of English- Most
>spelled according to their tastes, which made reading English to that
>point an interesting endeavour.
>
>(It was also about that time that the ever-ubiquitous "y" for "th", as in
>"ye", was dropped, and is now used only for a semivowel.)
>
>The only British colony (well, colonies) to choose a different official
>orthography was America, who adopted the spelling reforms of Noah Webster
>(which abolished the long S so characterising Colonial-era writings); the
>rest stayed with a (revised) Oxford orthography, as dictated by the Crown,
>and largely inherited as tradition in now-former British colonies.
>
>(Just FYI, but the most _different_ vocabulary of any English-speaking
>country is that of India.... Still intelligeable, except especially the
>numerics and measurements, amongst a few other differences- Especially
>noticable in various Indian-English newspapers... Even beats out
>Australian English....)
>
>D.M.Falk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233870.2307058.3723292.1793556/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1202787/R=1/*http://personals.yahoo.com>
I'm a Woman Man seeking a Man Woman
Enter city or ZIP
Age: to
Show only ads with photos


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

Alternative Spelling Bee:

Does using a regularized English orthography permit
most people to spell words they could not normally
spell?

In general, the answer would have to be yes. It works
on a 3rd grade word list.

But,it may not apply to some of the obscure words used
in the National spelling bee competition. That is the
purpose of this exercise.

If we can find a writing system that simplifies
spelling, it can be tested in an alternative spelling
bee next May when there will be another National
Spelling Bee.

Logical spelling is supposed to take the competition
out of spelling because it is simple enough for anyone
to master. This has often been claimed but I am not
sure that it has ever been proven beyond a 4th grade
spelling list.

You might try to spell these words in RITE.
Shavian or any reform notation may be used.
They are spelled below in Truespel and Spanglish.

As Tom notes, the words are often very obscure and the
ability to sound spell them depends on how well they
are pronounced.

I think that the Webmaster at the Times who made the
original file of the last ten words in this year's
spelling bee may have gotten a couple of them wrong.
There was one pronunciation that I simply could not
hear.

Tom indicated that he could not get the sound file to
work. It works but you have to get every piece of the
URL into your address line. Better to go to the jump
page where you can click on the URL.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saundspel/files/news/
spellbound-grierson.html

Listen to the pronunciation of the ten words and try
to spell them using RITE or any other consistent
notation:

It is interesting that many of these words are so rare
they are not in the on-line dictionary which must have
at least 100,000 words. Did you try the unabridged
edition at www.m-w.com?

--- Tom wrote:
A lot depends on how the speaker pronounces the word.

The two notations below indicate stress with double
letters. Truespel doubles consonants before the
stressed vowel unless stress is on the first syllable.
Spanglish doubles after stressed short [lax] vowels.

Lexical Spelling Truespel Spanglish a=schwa
------------ ------------ ------------
> Crepuscular, kruppuskyueler crapussciuler
> Penumbra, pennumbru penummbra
> scotopia, not in m-w scatoapia?
> fluorescent, floorresint flvressant
> quintessence, kwinttesints quintessans
> Clepsydra, clepsydre, klepsidru cleppsidra
> Gaullist, not in m-w gawlist
> ducal, duekool duucal
> oxylophyte, not in m-w okksylofait?
> bidet, biddae bidei
> aition, not in m-w aishan?
> campanile, kampunneelee or kampunneel caampanil?
> kittel, kittle kitool kittal, kittl
> giaour, jour jaur
> beignet, baenyae beinyei
> verticil, vertisil vurticil
> badigeon, not in m-w badijjian?
> bugaboo, buguboo buggabu
> porraceous, not in m-w porreishas?

--------From: "stbett" <stbett@y...>

> >In an alternative spelling bee, you can spell the
words in a pronunciation guide spelling system.

> >Here is my easy spelling quiz with clickable
answers:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saundspel/message/11010


=====

To join SAUNDSPEL - The Phonology Forum
send a blank email to saundspel-subscribe@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2303158.3720906.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=810327/R=0/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2303158.3720906.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=810327/R=1/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs>

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