Thanks for bring up that point. I hadn't thought about such
readers. With them in mind, I would reccomend keeping all of the
letters for those who with to make the distinctions, but making
restrictions for those who don't. But I'm probably taking the name
too seriously again. Anyway, I fully support the General American
Shaw alphabet.
I understand that my reccomandation, as I gave it, is a bit too
much to expect. I tend to set high expectations (or wishes, rather)
and then chop them down to something reasonable. But here's
something for a more practicle goal. I think before we expect to
substitute T.O., we need to make Shavian more known. We need more
people who not only know about Shavian, but who know how to read it.
Obviously we can't expect to teach young children two different
alphabets and different spellings for each. To attempt that would be
foolish. The first step in really implementing any alternative
orthography is to make it known as a pronunciation guide. If we can
get it used in dictionaries, then we'll have a much better chance of
getting it into common use. I know several people who can at least
decypher the International Phonetic Alphabet most of the time because
they know it from dictionaries, but it will never become the
preferred alphabet for writing English because it represents sounds
too precicely in stead of representing phonemes. Shavian, on the
other hand, is catered to writing English.
Readers may pick up only a few letters, but that is significant
enough. Perhaps in time, spellings using some Shavian letters,
especially in place of digraphs like 'th,' 'sh,' or 'ch,' would
become acceptable alternatives. And from there it's only a short
distance from becoming preferred. But if that's the case, then I
have to wonder why we haven't already borrowed the Icelandic/Anglo-
Saxon letters ð (eth, if it doesn't show up right) and þ (thorn), or
maybe the Greek theta (since that's what IPA uses). But there is
still a chance. The IPA is not intended for or promoted as a
replacement for T.O., but Shavian is. That may be enough to get at
least a few letters into use and perhaps a spelling reform.
Knowing the way people fight change, I doubt I'll ever see much
more than that, but we have to think of future generations as well
(saying this is making me feel much older than I am). Spelling
reform is a huge task that has to be tackled in small steps. I think
the first step is, as I have said, to get Shavian into use as a
pronunciation guide. But maybe I'm wrong.
-AllegroX
Isn't it funny how one short little comment turns into a
paragraph, and then another, and another, and another . . . .
------------------------
--- In shavian@..., Paul Gershon Vandenbrink
<pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> Hi Allegro
>
> Thanks for your understanding and acceptence.
> The American Shaw subset focuses on American West coast or Mid-west
accent
> simply because that accent includes the largest group of educated
> Americans. The other accent groups, 3 New York Accents, Southern
Accent,
> Texas Accent, and the various Boston and other New England accents
all have
> a much smaller groups of speakers.
>
> Once we have clearly delineated the pronunciation/Shaw spelling for
this
> subset of English, I am certain we will branch out to other
varieties of
> American speech. But first things first.
> We need to provide Americans with a Phonetic alphabet whose
pronunciation
> they recognise. Even if it is an slightly unfamilar accent, Mid-
West is
> still easily recognizable to all Americans. It is much less of a
stretch
> than British R.P.
>
> As for your recommended solution to have all English writers become
> aware of the phonology of their language and to understand and
recognize
> the phonetic value of the words they speak, I think this an
unrealistically
> high expectation. Some writers will need clear cut rules. For
example a
> deaf person, a foreigner, young children or a somewhat accent blind
person.
>
> I would like to see a Shaw Teaching manual that spells everything
out.
> At least for General Mid-west American.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> At 12:39 AM 3/11/03 +0000, you wrote:
> >I like the idea behind restricted alphabed very much, though I
rather
> >not call it "restricted" (it just sounds so -- restrictive). As a
> >Mid-Western American, I don't distinguish the sounds represented
by A
> >in the words "all" and "father." I understand that the former is
> >rounded, while the latter is not. I can reproduce this if I wish,
> >but I don't -- I would sound a bit out of place if I did. Rather,
I
> >don't round either, so that is the way I would spell them (like
> >in "father").
> >However, I sometimes consider indicating the distinction to make my
> >spelling a bit easier on the eyes of those who do pronounce it. I
> >think either method is acceptable, so long as the spelling is
> >consistant within a given dialect; or document, at least. This
> >brings me back to the point I have been aiming for. If someone
> >doesn't distinguish phonemes, then he/she should use the same
letter
> >for both. Which letter depends on that person's pronunciation.
> >Also (because I feel like rambling some more) I distinguish the
> >initial vowels of "up" and "ado" only by their length. When I say
> >them, they both come out as a schwa. I just pronounce the schwa
> >in "ado" a bit longer (and only just barely in these words). I do
> >still distinguish these in spelling since they differ, however
> >slightly, in my pronunciation. Still, this may be another area to
> >cut the alphabet for some dialects.
> >But these are just my pronunciations. Ultimately, the restricted
> >alphabed is an excellent idea, but you can't make just one. Each
> >dialect (and possible each speaker) will need a different
> >spelling "mode" to consistantly and accurately represent their
> >speech. The solution I would recommend is for writers to become
> >aware of the phonology of the language speech and to understand the
> >way they really pronounce words. Only then can we have consistant
> >phonemic spelling that transcends dialects
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.3054233.4378052.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.3054233.4378052.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=792557803>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .