Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

I think for the phonetically impaired, 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 have to be included.

Unfortunately, before we can create even a Glossary, we have to agree
on which letters are significant, and the order of letters.
Obviously, Yew and Ian generate problems in the ordering unless we
consider them equivalent to Yea+Ooze and Eat+Ado.
Also should English speakers have to different based on stress or
just sound? (i.e. Array vs. Urge)
I was thinking of posting a proposed ordering.
Any suggestions?

This seems the next logical step.

Regards, Paul V.


--- In shavian@y..., Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
wrote:
> Hi Steve
> I can agree that /@'r/ (Array) and /3'r/ (Urge) could be
practically be
> represented by the same phoneme, but I consider the merging of some
of the
> other sounds into a single phoneme is somewhat a lack. In
particular, the
> lack of a phoneme for <ng>.
> Rhetorically, how would you differentiate the words "thin"
and "thing"?
>
> <er> can be justified on the basis that /3/ is indeed a pure vowel.
> In Truespel, er is used for both /3`/ and /@`/.
> ________________attached__________________________
> At 01:25 AM 10/15/02 +0000, you wrote:
> ><er> can be justified on the basis that /3/ is indeed a pure vowel.
> >In Truespel, er is used for both /3`/ and /@`/.


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

paul vandenbrink wrote:
> Also should English speakers have to different based on stress or
> just sound? (i.e. Array vs. Urge)

I think both should be kept, as should both "ado" and "up".

> I was thinking of posting a proposed ordering.

Shavian already has an alphabetical ordering.

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

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

Paul and Craig,

I guess Androcles has to be model of the conventions in Shavian.

However, apostrophe's of any variety are not phonemic.

I would normally recommend eliminating all of them in a phonemic
script.

Steve



--- In shavian@y..., Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
wrote:
> Hi Craig & 1000 Ships
>
> I would prefer to skip apostrophes for possession, and
contractions when
> writing English in the Shaw Alphabet until we work out a clearly
defined
> and consistent description of precisely what the apostrophe
represents. We
> should not preserve these vestiges of the Roman Alphabet Spelling
just to
> retain familiarity for readers familiar with the Roman Alphabet.
> Regards, Paul Vandenbrink
>
> At 12:05 PM 10/13/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >In a previous episode, shavian@y... said:
> >
> > >> What is the Shaw doctrine regarding the use of the
apostrophe? I've
> > >> seen it used in some transliterations. Others dont use it.
> > >
> > > I don't know that there's any fixed rules. However,
_Androcles_ uses
> > > it, which makes it canonical, I suppose. One might quibble
about things
> > > such as whether "we're" is transcribed woe-eat-apostrophe-
array (as in
> > > Androcles) or woe-ear (which is how I pronounce it).
> >
> >In Androcles, the "not" contractions are spelled without
apostrophes (i.e.
> >wont), and I seem to recall a note in the introductions about it
being
> >preferable to save apostrophes for possession, but that they were
used in
> >that book so as not to make text in the new alphabet too
unfamiliar.
> >
> >Craig
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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/> .

--- 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 Mr. Wade means by "managing" these
> changes.

[SB] English has no single spelling system, it has a mix of at least
four different spelling systems. As a consequence foreign loan
words are generally not respelled although the pronunciation may be
mangled.


> 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

A phonemic writing system must have a base pronunciation.
Shavian is probably based on a northern English pronunciation.

A standardized phonemic writing system also standardizes
pronunciation but this does not mean that you have to talk the way
you spell. It just means that you have to learn two dialects:
e.g., Northern English and your own regional dialect.

Of course, with a phonemic notation, it is easier to spell your own
dialect. This would be fine for informal communication but the
publication industry would demand standardized spelling.

Regards,

Steve



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

Steve Bett wrote:

[snip]

> Of course, with a phonemic notation, it is easier to spell your own
> dialect. This would be fine for informal communication but the
> publication industry would demand standardized spelling.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve

Isn't it likely the publication industry will be undergoing dramatic changes
with the advent of publishing books on demand, i.e. one-at-a-time, as a
consumer requests a copy? As more people can get involved in "publishing"
books, it would seem that the hegemony of the publishers may diminish
considerably in the future and their "demands" may be ignored.

Paige Gabhart



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2677558.4057087.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687;x?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2677558.4057087.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1327985/rand=779061782>

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

Steve Bett wrote:

[snip]

> Of course, with a phonemic notation, it is easier to spell your own
> dialect. This would be fine for informal communication but the
> publication industry would demand standardized spelling.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve

Isn't it likely the publication industry will be undergoing dramatic changes
with the advent of publishing books on demand, i.e. one-at-a-time, as a
consumer requests a copy? As more people can get involved in "publishing"
books, it would seem that the hegemony of the publishers may diminish
considerably in the future and their "demands" may be ignored.

Paige Gabhart



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2677558.4057087.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687;x?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2677558.4057087.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1327985/rand=779061782>

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

What's the difference between "ado" and "up"? Also, what is the
alphabetical ordering of Shavian?

--- In shavian@y..., "Newton, Philip" <philip.newton@d...> wrote:
> paul vandenbrink wrote:
> > Also should English speakers have to different based on stress
or
> > just sound? (i.e. Array vs. Urge)
>
> I think both should be kept, as should both "ado" and "up".
>
> > I was thinking of posting a proposed ordering.
>
> Shavian already has an alphabetical ordering.
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@d...>
> All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
> If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2677558.4057087.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1327986/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870027;7586687;a?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2677558.4057087.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1327986/rand=461541553>

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

On 23 Nov 02, at 18:34, antixenocide wrote:

> What's the difference between "ado" and "up"?

Essentially that between "array" and "err" -- "up" is stressed while
"ado" is not.

Personally, I consider them separate sounds since I pronounce them
differently -- but I believe they're in complementary distribution
(i.e. context determines which sound appears in a given setting, and
there are no words where the only difference is that one has the "ado"
sound and another has the "up" sound in the same place; at least the
stress has to be different). Still, I tend to transcribe them in ASCII
IPA with [@] for the schwa ("ado") and [V] for wedge ("up"), even if
they're arguably allophones of the same phoneme in English.

Um, if your eyes glazed over, it's simply my attempt to use linguist-
speak for "they're not necessarily two *separate* sounds". But Shavian
has two separate letters and they happen to correspond to the way I
feel about the sounds :). And I think both should be used.

(Just as I feel fairly strongly that all of "awe", "ah", and "on"
should be used. But then, I'm biassed since I distinguish all three in
my idiolect. As I understand, "on" is not a phoneme in General American
and sometimes even "awe" and "ah" merge.)

> Also, what is the alphabetical ordering of Shavian?

That given on the Shaw alphabet reading key that comes with _Androcles_
-- first talls, then deeps, then shorts, then compound letters. That's
also the order used in the propsed Unicode block (see
http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/shavian.html or
http://www.unicode.org/pending/shavian/shavian.html ).

There's also an image of the reading key available at
http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/shaw/shavian.gif .

The order is:

peep - tot - kick - fee - thigh - so - sure - church - yea - hung -
bib - dead - gag - vow - they - zoo - measure - judge - woe - ha-ha -
loll - mime - if - egg - ash - ado - on - wool - out - ah -
roar - nun - eat - age - ice - up - oak - ooze - oil - awe -
are - or - air - err - array - ear - Ian - yew.

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

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Newton" <philip.newton@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Phoneme breakdown in True Spell

> (Just as I feel fairly strongly that all of "awe", "ah", and "on"
> should be used. But then, I'm biassed since I distinguish all three in
> my idiolect. As I understand, "on" is not a phoneme in General American
> and sometimes even "awe" and "ah" merge.)

(snip)

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


Hi, just joined the list and de-lurking. :)

Pardon my apparent ignorance, but I like the word "idiolect" -- is that
yours, Philip, or has that one been around for a while? I live in Kentucky,
and we often miss the better neologisms.
I agree, by the way, that all three phonemes should be used; I had
those
drilled into my head in my college diction classes (I loathe my Kentucky
accent
and worked to kill it), and it's nice to see them well-regarded somewhere
else.

- Jameson
alcadema@...

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

On 24 Nov 02, at 5:20, Prester John wrote:

> Pardon my apparent ignorance, but I like the word "idiolect" -- is that
> yours, Philip, or has that one been around for a while?

It's a legitimate word, as far as I know... I picked it up on the
newsgroup sci.lang, I think. A jargon word, I suppose, more or less
restricted to the linguistic community.

And the general word "lect" probably even more so :) I haven't heard
that very often at all.

As you probably picked up, an "idiolect" is the language that one
person speaks, or the characteristics thereof. Kind of like a dialect,
only restricted to one person rather than a group. At least, that's my
understanding of the word; I have no formal linguistic training.

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

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