Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

Jean, Cornell, John, and others,

Here is the humor page with contributions from Jean
and Cornell. This is a kind of pre-print of articles
that will probably appear in the next Journal of the
Simplified Spelling Society. [No. 31, Dec, 2002]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saundspel/files/
humor/humor31.html

[be sure you copy the entire URL into your browser
window - it is probably not clickable]

Be sure to take the honors exam:

ALLIED CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES.
MAY, 1925 EXAMINATIONS
HONORS IN PEDAGOGY & HISTORICAL ENGLISH.

1. (a) “Prior to the World War of ’14-’18 an
English-speaking child had to lern many ways of
spelling each of the common vowel sounds.”
Giv examples of at least ten ways in which the child
had to lern to spell o as in “so.”

(b) “. . . the number of reasonable spellings that the
child had to lern to avoid was an even heavier
burden.” By the method of permutations, using “society
” as example, calculate how many spellings by analogy,
exclusiv of “sosiety” and “pseausigheathe,” the
speller had to lern to avoid.

Also on this 100 Kb Web page:

1. Space Age Spelling can save the lives of Visiting
Aliens - Observations on the dubbed versions of "The
Fifth Element" (Columbia Pictures)

2. The spoof on a stages reform and a search for the
author.

3. Meihem In Ce Klasrum by Dolton Edwards

Our own National Easy Language Week plan would achieve
the same end as the legislation proposed by Mr. Shaw,
but in a less shocking manner, as it consists merely
of an acceleration of the normal processes by which
the language is continually modernized.

4. A critique of the comic respellings







=====

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 ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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

Jean, Cornell, John, and others,

Here is the humor page with contributions from Jean
and Cornell. This is a kind of pre-print of articles
that will probably appear in the next Journal of the
Simplified Spelling Society. [No. 31, Dec, 2002]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saundspel/files/
humor/humor31.html

[be sure you copy the entire URL into your browser
window - it is probably not clickable]

Be sure to take the honors exam:

ALLIED CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES.
MAY, 1925 EXAMINATIONS
HONORS IN PEDAGOGY & HISTORICAL ENGLISH.

1. (a) Prior to the World War of 14-18 an
English-speaking child had to lern many ways of
spelling each of the common vowel sounds.
Giv examples of at least ten ways in which the child
had to lern to spell o as in so.

(b) . . . the number of reasonable spellings that the
child had to lern to avoid was an even heavier
burden. By the method of permutations, using society
 as example, calculate how many spellings by analogy,
exclusiv of sosiety and pseausigheathe, the
speller had to lern to avoid.

Also on this 100 Kb Web page:

1. Space Age Spelling can save the lives of Visiting
Aliens - Observations on the dubbed versions of "The
Fifth Element" (Columbia Pictures)

2. The spoof on a stages reform and a search for the
author.

3. Meihem In Ce Klasrum by Dolton Edwards

Our own National Easy Language Week plan would achieve
the same end as the legislation proposed by Mr. Shaw,
but in a less shocking manner, as it consists merely
of an acceleration of the normal processes by which
the language is continually modernized.

4. A critique of the comic respellings







=====

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 ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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

Hi Steve
While I think it is a laudable goal to standardize the orthography of
the English language and create a dictionary of the ideal spellings of
the common English words, in the Shaw alphabet, we must recognize
some limitations.
1. Proper names fall outside this goal, and it is useful that they are
marked with namer dots.
2. Languages evolve and new words and new pronunciations arrive on the
scene regularly. There is currently no mechanism, to manage the
introduction of these changes back into the dictionary.
3. We have 2 different standards each with high recognition and
prestige. These accents have wide acceptence across the Global English
speech community.
The Shaw Alphabet must adequately describe the English in such a
manner so that all of the people understanding one of these 2
pronunciation standards for English
will find the Shaw Alphabet spelling recognizable and its
associated pronunciation intelligable.
Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I consider these requirements to be possible, only if we simplify
the English spelling of vowels, as much as practical.
But I don't want to go back to just 5!
I think a lot of the accent variations are in the vowel sounds.
________________________attached________________
--- In shavian@y..., "Steve Bett" <stbett@y...> wrote:
> OXFORD ORTHOGRAPHY
>
> Dennis wrote, --------------------
>
> 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.
>
>
> SB: There are some interesting examples where the OXFORD orthography
> follows Webster, e.g., -ize endings, and yet is ignored in all
> former commonwealth countries.
>
> DF: most accents' variations in pronunciation is often quite
> relative and consistant.
>
> SB: Some have tried to work with this fact. Initially they argued
> that their notations were broad and phonemic and therefore somewhat
> accent neutral. When this failed to survive scrutiny, they argued
> that they were not providing a pronunciation guide but rather a
> reading orthography. Different countries and speech communities
> would assign their own sounds to the letters or symbols which
> identified key contrasts.
>
> I don't think that argument works either but if you want to restate
> it, please do.
>
> I think that you can do no more than what the pronunciation guides
> have done and so far no one has a pronunciation guide that
> completely works with several accents or dialects.
>
> The Oxford American approach which tries to harmonize BBC-English
> and NBC-English comes close.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233214.2377745.3805144.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1227861/R=0/*http://ads.track-star.com/linker.ts?ts=1;2;312;3_2_11>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=233214.2377745.3805144.2225242/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1227861/rand=262164913>

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

> 2. Languages evolve and new words and new pronunciations
> arrive on the
> scene regularly. There is currently no mechanism, to
> manage the
> introduction of these changes back into the dictionary.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "managing" these
changes. Do you mean to stop them or include them? If you
want to halt the changes, this would also halt the
evolution of english, something that has already begun to
happen. We may have new words, but we must allow for the
different pronunciations. We here in the south may not
agree with the conneticut or L.A. pronunciation, while
someone in australia or New Zealand may yet have their own
pronunciation. Perhaps we shoud think of ways to promote
Shavian before we start squabbling over whose pronunciation
is the one to use to create a dicionary.

--Star

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2377872.3808768.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1225251/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4547219;7007303;d?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2377872.3808768.2225242/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1225251/rand=985294900>

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

Hi Star
What did you say! I am not talking about managing the evolution of
the English language. I am just talking about the need to record any
changes and keep an up to date record of those changes in a Shavian
dictionary.
I want to include changes and update the dictionary regularly and
systematically. Old or alternate pronunciations would be documented
in the entry for each word, but the words would be ordered by either
or both of the 2 high status pronunciations. (British R.P. or General
American) (BBC vs. NBC). Thank goodness with computers it is possible
to maintain word lists with multiple indexes (indices).
I think for the less phonetically inclined we do need to create
dictionaries of the English language in the Shaw Alphabet.
It would be nice if we recognized from the start that there are 2
major prestigous accents in English, that are recognised as standard
by large parts of the English speaking community, and include both
pronunciations as a minimum requirement for each word. Other commonly
used pronunciations would also be included, of course.
Now a days, a dictionary, does not have to limit itself to just
one pronunciation.

Regards, Paul Vandenbrink

P.S. As well as having some books transliterated into Shaw, we need a
teaching manual and dictionary to promote the Shaw alphabet. Not
everyone is familar enough with English phonetics, to get started on
learning the Shaw Alphabet that way.
My brother, an engineer, throws up his hands when I try and explain.
He thinks visually, in pictures.
Although learning Shaw,in itself, is a good practical introduction to
basic English phonetics, that way is not for everyone.
P.P.S. Note the popularity of the look-say method of teaching
children to read now a days.
_________________________attached_____________________

--- In shavian@y..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
>
> > 2. Languages evolve and new words and new pronunciations
> > arrive on the
> > scene regularly. There is currently no mechanism, to
> > manage the
> > introduction of these changes back into the dictionary.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "managing" these
> changes. Do you mean to stop them or include them? If you
> want to halt the changes, this would also halt the
> evolution of english, something that has already begun to
> happen. We may have new words, but we must allow for the
> different pronunciations. We here in the south may not
> agree with the conneticut or L.A. pronunciation, while
> someone in australia or New Zealand may yet have their own
> pronunciation. Perhaps we shoud think of ways to promote
> Shavian before we start squabbling over whose pronunciation
> is the one to use to create a dicionary.
>
> --Star
>
> =====
> "You know what they say, 'Human see, Human do.' "
> --Julius, Planet of the Apes
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233214.2377745.3805144.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1227861/R=0/*http://ads.track-star.com/linker.ts?ts=1;2;312;3_2_11>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=233214.2377745.3805144.2225242/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1227861/rand=624830456>

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

I must apologise, I wrote that at 1am, and when I read it
back this morning, it made little sense in connection with
what you said in your previous mail.

Sorry, about that :)

--Star

--- paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
> Hi Star
> What did you say! I am not talking about managing the
> evolution of
> the English language. I am just talking about the need to
> record any
> changes and keep an up to date record of those changes in
> a Shavian
> dictionary.
> I want to include changes and update the dictionary
> regularly and
> systematically. Old or alternate pronunciations would be
> documented
> in the entry for each word, but the words would be
> ordered by either
> or both of the 2 high status pronunciations. (British
> R.P. or General
> American) (BBC vs. NBC). Thank goodness with computers it
> is possible
> to maintain word lists with multiple indexes (indices).
> I think for the less phonetically inclined we do need
> to create
> dictionaries of the English language in the Shaw
> Alphabet.
> It would be nice if we recognized from the start that
> there are 2
> major prestigous accents in English, that are recognised
> as standard
> by large parts of the English speaking community, and
> include both
> pronunciations as a minimum requirement for each word.
> Other commonly
> used pronunciations would also be included, of course.
> Now a days, a dictionary, does not have to limit
> itself to just
> one pronunciation.
>
> Regards, Paul Vandenbrink
>
> P.S. As well as having some books transliterated into
> Shaw, we need a
> teaching manual and dictionary to promote the Shaw
> alphabet. Not
> everyone is familar enough with English phonetics, to get
> started on
> learning the Shaw Alphabet that way.
> My brother, an engineer, throws up his hands when I try
> and explain.
> He thinks visually, in pictures.
> Although learning Shaw,in itself, is a good practical
> introduction to
> basic English phonetics, that way is not for everyone.
> P.P.S. Note the popularity of the look-say method of
> teaching
> children to read now a days.
> _________________________attached_____________________
>
> --- In shavian@y..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 2. Languages evolve and new words and new
> pronunciations
> > > arrive on the
> > > scene regularly. There is currently no mechanism, to
> > > manage the
> > > introduction of these changes back into the
> dictionary.
> >
> > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "managing" these
> > changes. Do you mean to stop them or include them? If
> you
> > want to halt the changes, this would also halt the
> > evolution of english, something that has already begun
> to
> > happen. We may have new words, but we must allow for
> the
> > different pronunciations. We here in the south may not
> > agree with the conneticut or L.A. pronunciation, while
> > someone in australia or New Zealand may yet have their
> own
> > pronunciation. Perhaps we shoud think of ways to
> promote
> > Shavian before we start squabbling over whose
> pronunciation
> > is the one to use to create a dicionary.
> >
> > --Star
> >
> > =====
> > "You know what they say, 'Human see, Human do.' "
> > --Julius, Planet of the Apes
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>


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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233214.2377745.3805144.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1227861/R=0/*http://ads.track-star.com/linker.ts?ts=1;2;312;3_2_11>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=233214.2377745.3805144.2225242/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1227861/rand=928892450>

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

Paul,

I don't think that we would be inventing the wheel here.
Proper names are usually not in the dictionary which is unfortunate
in one respect since they are often the hardest words to pronounce.

A very good use of phonemic spelling would be as a meta language to
explain pronunciations. smyth = smiTh or smYTh or... [ENgliS]
- smiT or smFT or smaiT
Shavian = ShoVian or ShAvian or ...
- Syvian or SEvian or ...

ENgliS is very much like the notation used at www.m-w.com
The difference is that ENgliS is, like Shavian, unigraphic.
The *h in *This is silent and redundant. m-w uses the digraph <th>.

The pronunciation dictionaries for NBC and BBC English already exist.
They will change over time as new words and new pronunciations come
into general use. This is not our problem.

This is not something the orthographer or transcriber has to concern
himself or herself with. It is just a matter of updating the
Shavian transcriptions from time to time.

Research Question: How long does it take someone to match their TS
reading speed in Shavian?

We probably should ask, if there were a shavian dictionary, how
would it be arranged? Shavian has many more distinct vowels than
the ordered character set that we refer to as our alphabet.

I presume that all of the A sounds are together but what about the o
which is on the border between being classified as an A-sound and an
O-sound? Can you think of a word that would be classified as /A/ in
NBC-English and /O or Q/ in BBC-English?

Steve

--- Paul wrote: ----------------------------------------------
we must recognize some limitations.

1. Proper names fall outside this goal
2. Languages evolve and new words and new pronunciations arrive
3. We have 2 different standards [of pronunciation]

The Shaw Alphabet must adequately describe the English in such a
> manner so that all of the people understanding one of these 2
> pronunciation standards for English
> will find the Shaw Alphabet spelling recognizable and its
> associated pronunciation intelligable.

> P.S. I consider these requirements to be possible, only if we
> simplify the English spelling of vowels, as much as practical.
> But I don't want to go back to just 5!
> I think a lot of the accent variations are in the vowel sounds.

Even if we went back to 5, how are you going to classify some o
spellings? ought, autism, order, ardor, ox, otter, aussie, audi,
awful, all,



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229441.2336363.3766536.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1189558/R=0/*http://www.bmgmusic.com/acq/ee/q6/enroll/mhn/9/>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=229441.2336363.3766536.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1189558/rand=984930931>

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

Philip, Paul, W.J., Star, and others

It used to be that anyone who joined the spelling society received a
new hardcover copy of Androcles and the Lion along with two other
books. REF: http://www.spellingsociety.org

I will have to check if they still have a supply of copies.

As far as ways to record English. There are any number of phonemic
spelling schemes that are basically isomorphic. They all do an
equally good job of recording spoken English.

There are several schemes that try to use similar shapes for similar
sounds. Why have 16 consonants when there are just voiced and
unvoiced articulatin of 8? Pitman's shorthand, for instance, just
made the voiced mark darker than the unvoiced one. Shavian usually
rotates the character. PMF usually inverts the character.

I have been more concerned with the design of the keyboard version
needed to support the Shavian fonts. If you are going to simplify,
this seems to be the place to start.

It would be simpler to drop the ligatures that are used with
diphthongs and combinations. e.g., use *laik instead of *lFk. A
converter could be used for typesetting so the ligatures could be
used in printed materials.

I prefer to write out ai, oi and au and the r-combinations to having
to memorize some arbitrary character assignment. For handwriting,
the shape of the Shavian ligature should be obvious except in the
case where air and eir were accidently transposed.

ENgliS is my nomination for a new simplified and more intuitive
keyboard Shavian. AEYOU are the keys for ei, i:, ai, ou, iu rather
than E I F O V. Why make it difficult for beginners?

ENgliS uses v for the Shavian v-shape /U/. and w for the
Shavian /u:/.

"Cqtanwga Cw Cw" rather than "CAtanMga CM CM."

The w dbl-v or dbl-u, is the obvious choice and eliminates the need
for a separate consonant W unless you specifically want to denote
the hw sound. y is used for the unstressed E /i:/ and this
eliminates the need for a consonant y. year = yir or yia.
The consonant y is rarely used in English anyway.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saundspel/files/notations/englis.html

Regards, Steve

--- "pvandenbrink11" wrote:

>it's hard to imagine a better way to record English.

> Sadly, for new learners it is hard to find copies of it any more,
> even in the Library.

> My latest interest is to spell out a slightly cut down version of
> Shaw Alphabet, so the American's can get in on the fun.

KEEP YOUR DIARY CONFIDENTIAL
Use the Shavian phonemic script.
Only 400 people in the world will be able to decipher it.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2377872.3808768.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1225247/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4547223;7007303;y?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2377872.3808768.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1225247/rand=254901560>

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

Hi Steve
I've got to rush off shortly, but can I suggest one thing.
I noticed that in the Shaw letter lists, all the consonants are listed
before all the vowels. All the simple short and long vowels and dipthongs
are listed before the complex vowels (r-sounds) and compound sounds like
Ian and Yew.
Perhaps, we can keep the English Roman Letter order, but move all the vowel
letters to end of the alphabet. And then order the vowel letters according
to the Shaw Alphabet letter lists.
It would tend to keep similarly sounding words close together. And
especially it would keep a word with the different pronunciations provided
by different accents in closer proximity in the dictionary lists.

Regards, Paul V.

__________________attached______________________

At 08:20 PM 9/20/02 +0000, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>I don't think that we would be inventing the wheel here.
>Proper names are usually not in the dictionary which is unfortunate
>in one respect since they are often the hardest words to pronounce.
>
>A very good use of phonemic spelling would be as a meta language to
>explain pronunciations. smyth = smiTh or smYTh or... [ENgliS]
> - smiT or smFT or smaiT
> Shavian = ShoVian or ShAvian or ...
> - Syvian or SEvian or ...
>
>ENgliS is very much like the notation used at www.m-w.com
>The difference is that ENgliS is, like Shavian, unigraphic.
>The *h in *This is silent and redundant. m-w uses the digraph <th>.
>
>The pronunciation dictionaries for NBC and BBC English already exist.
>They will change over time as new words and new pronunciations come
>into general use. This is not our problem.
>
>This is not something the orthographer or transcriber has to concern
>himself or herself with. It is just a matter of updating the
>Shavian transcriptions from time to time.
>
>Research Question: How long does it take someone to match their TS
>reading speed in Shavian?
>
>We probably should ask, if there were a shavian dictionary, how
>would it be arranged? Shavian has many more distinct vowels than
>the ordered character set that we refer to as our alphabet.
>
>I presume that all of the A sounds are together but what about the o
>which is on the border between being classified as an A-sound and an
>O-sound? Can you think of a word that would be classified as /A/ in
>NBC-English and /O or Q/ in BBC-English?
>
>Steve
>
>--- Paul wrote: ----------------------------------------------
>we must recognize some limitations.
>
>1. Proper names fall outside this goal
>2. Languages evolve and new words and new pronunciations arrive
>3. We have 2 different standards [of pronunciation]
>
> The Shaw Alphabet must adequately describe the English in such a
> > manner so that all of the people understanding one of these 2
> > pronunciation standards for English
> > will find the Shaw Alphabet spelling recognizable and its
> > associated pronunciation intelligable.
>
> > P.S. I consider these requirements to be possible, only if we
> > simplify the English spelling of vowels, as much as practical.
> > But I don't want to go back to just 5!
> > I think a lot of the accent variations are in the vowel sounds.
>
>Even if we went back to 5, how are you going to classify some o
>spellings? ought, autism, order, ardor, ox, otter, aussie, audi,
>awful, all,
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233214.2377745.3805144.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1227861/R=0/*http://ads.track-star.com/linker.ts?ts=1;2;312;3_2_11>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=233214.2377745.3805144.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1227861/rand=760011846>

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

Paul,

You make a good point.

We could add symbols that are somewhat ambiguous if we wanted to
cover two or more dialects.

()D for odd for instance where ( = ah and ) = awe

I suppose the a=ring diacritic could also be used in this way.

()N = on GA aa /A/, others au /O/.

In Shavian it might be yYn or the o could be defined as ambiguous.

To make the system better than the traditional one, the ambiguity
would be confined to a few vowels. It would not apply to all of
them as in TS.

The letter a might have three or four possible values.
a - ago, ox, aesh, all, out, ...? but not ei

Steve

--- In shavian@y..., Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
wrote:
> Hi Steve
>
> The point that I wished to make to Star, was that even without
standardized
> spelling, the Shaw Alphabet is an extremely efficient way to write
English.
> As far as someone from another accent group reading something
written in
> Shaw, there would be minor difficulties, but I believe that those
reading
> difficulties, essentially a few multiple spellings for the same
word, are
> almost insignificant, compared the variability of English Spelling
using
> the Roman Alphabet.
>
> Also the English phonetic variations are quite regular, and apply
generally
> to the less significant vowel sounds, in the word.
> Personally, I think there are a number of solutions to create
standardized
> spelling after the fact.
> For instance, you could have a Standardized Shaw Spelling, where
similar
> vowel sounds are grouped together under one character. If a vowel
sound has
> multiple pronunciations in different accents, you could just put
in a vowel
> placeholder, leaving the exact pronunciation open.
> For example, in the example given of "day" being pronounced as
spelt in an
> Austrailian accent and as "dey" in General American English. The
sound in
> both cases is a Dipthong ending in an "ee" sound. We could have
one letter
> covering the both dipthongs. I think we need to minimize the vowel
> variations that we consider in English. Anyway, A lot of
unstressed vowels
> in English words are now pronounced with the ubiquitous Schwa
sound.
>
> Is English Spelling Standardization under Shaw really an issue at
this point?
> Couldn't we leave it for later?
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> P.S. A number of Alphabets get by without vowel letters altogether.
> __________________attached_______________________
> At 06:43 AM 9/14/02 +0000, you wrote:
> >Star and Paul,
> >
> >I think the printing industry would demand a standardized
spelling.
> >
> >As long as Shavian remains a parallel script for pronunciation
guide
> >spelling, there is no problem. As soon as it becomes mainstream,
it
> >would have to face the standardized spelling issue.
> >
> >When you start spelling one dialect, some single shapes start to
> >become associated with more than one sound. It is very difficult
to
> >prevent this.
> >
> >What generally happens is that the phonemic script becomes
> >reinterpreted in every locale. DAY is pronounced as spelled in
> >Australia but pronounced /dey/ in the U.S. I am not sure what
would
> >happen if NBC-English became the base pronunciation. Day would be
> >spelled dey in the U.S. Even if it were standardized, Aussie
> >pronunciation would not change.
> >
> >When Pitman went international with the i.t.a., he insisted that
it
> >was a reading guide not a pronunciation guide spelling.
> >Pronunciation was to be adjusted to every locale. All he wanted
to
> >retain were the contrasts.
> >
> >So he had standardized spelling and variable pronunciation.
> >
> >Etymology is often important for understanding word meanings.
There
> >is no real need, however, to provide etymological cues in the
> >spelling.
> >
> >
> >Steve.
> >
> >
> >--- In shavian@y..., Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
> >wrote:
> > > Hi Star Raven
> > > It is beneficial to have a phonetic alphabet, such as Shaw,
even
> >without Spelling standardization.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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