Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

I checked out the map you linked your message to which is interesting. I had seen it before.

Craig Butz wrote:


In a previous episode, C. Paige Gabhart said:



I have always distinguished "awe" from "on" and can't imagine
why one wouldn't.... For instance, in the sentence, "He was
in awe," what does the last word sound like: "ah"or "o"? If that is
the case, and I heard the sentence, I probably would not understand the
meaning without further explanatory remarks.



There's a bit of a contradiction here. Your first statement suggests that
you've never noticed that many people do not distinguish ON and AWE (what is
known by linguists as the caught/cot merger.) But because it is so
widespread, there is no doubt that you have listened to a great deal of
speech with this merger. If it actually was interfering with your
comprehension, certainly you would have noticed it.

I would say your assumption is in doubt. First, I doubt that anyone has said the sentence, which I suggested, to me with the merged phoneme. Secondly, there aren't any red circles in Indiana whatsoever, despite Ethan's comment that he is from Terre Haute, so the merged phoneme apparently has made no or little progress in the state. (There is one red circle situated on the eastern border of the state.) There are a few red circles in Kentucky, but they appear to be in the Lexington area, which is about 80 miles east of my home.

When I heard an announcer on television say "notical", I was quite surprised because it sounded very unusual to me. If people I come in contact with on a daily basis used this merged phoneme, you can trust I would have noticed it. The map discloses the geograpical extent of the change. It says nothing about the percentage of the United States population that uses the merged phoneme. The merged phoneme is spread through the west, but keep in mind that outside of California








In my Merriam-Webster dictionary (9th ed., 1988), the pronunciation
guide states "[s]ome U.S. speakers (a perhaps growing minority) do not
distinguish between cot -- caught, cod -- cawed, and collar -- caller,
usually because they lack lip rounding..." [which the "au" sound
requires]. Obviously, your accent falls in this group.



Yes, and it is not a "small but growing" minority, but one which covers most
of the country geographically (and almost all of Canada).

As I pointed out above, the link you cited tells absolutely nothing about the percentage of the population who use the merged phoneme.



It does not
affect the South or the Northeast Megalopolis, but aside from a chunk of the
northern Midwest around Chicago, it includes just about all of the Midland
dialect that is generally equated with "General American." See the map and
text below:

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/Map1.html

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/ICSLP4.html#Heading2

Another rhotic digraph that gives me fits is OR. Only recently have I
noticed that some people (Northeasterners) pronounce this syllable such that
it sounds just like ARE to me: "authority". When I learned the Shaw
alphabet, I just couldn't figure out what vowel was being joined with ROAR
to create that digraph, because OR to me is clearly OAK+ROAR.

There are many vowel distinction issues that would make Shavian cumbersome
for everyday users. English is overburdened with vowel-sounds, as is
evidenced by the Latin alphabet's inability to represent them all.

I am not a linguist and cannot discuss the history of a language's development of its phoneme system. However, the foregoing statment sounds peculiar to me. The fact that English has historically had a more complicated vowel scheme than Latin is irrelevant, is it not. That is like saying that Hawaiian is underburdened with consonants. How does one make such a judgment? I would be willing to bet that Hawaiian speakers think their language has just the right amount of consonants! From what I have read about language, the remarkable thing is that there is, essentially, an unlimited way in which human language can function, and any language always works for its users with the complexity and sophistication they require in their environment.


However,
there seems to be a general trend in speech towards simplification. Many
Americans do not pronounce "pin" differently from "pen." When college
students move to Athens, Ohio from further north, they always ask whether
the county to the south--Meigs--is pronounced "migs" or "megs". I finally
realized that there is no right answer because the question is meaningless.
To most people living there, it's the same phoneme.

I would also disagree with the foregoing. The dialect I learned as a child did not distinguish between 'pin' and 'pen', and I have to consciously make the distinction now. However, that does not mean I do not have both phonemes in my speech, because I do. By the way, my office is on the corner of Meigs St., and I pronounce it "megs," not "migs." I usually have to spell it when I give directions, though, because it does not sound like it should have an "i" in it.





Craig


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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








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=936307038>

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

Thanks for all your great suggestions and support. And thanks, Star,
for mentioning fabric paints. I was actually thinking about paying
somebody to airbrush it for me! *smacks myself* That's better. I
don't know much about fabric painting, though. Does anybody know if
there's a sort of fabric spray paint? And what kind of lettering
should I use? I was thinking of typing and printing it (outlined to
save ink) and then cutting it out to use as a stencil. I thought
about using Androclese because it's easier to read, and I like the
rough look, but a font like Ghoti or Lionspaw would stand out
better. I'm also making a variation on Androclese that has basically
the same look, but it's smoother. I'll upload the font when it's
finished.

-Joe
a.k.a. AllegroX, Zeshin, Kesakichi, and a whole list of other
pseudonyms I can't remember



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=152289087>

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

On 16 Mar 2003 at 5:54, Joe wrote:

> Thanks for all your great suggestions and support. And thanks, Star,
> for mentioning fabric paints. I was actually thinking about paying
> somebody to airbrush it for me!

Why not use CafeShops (ex-CafePress) for this --
http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/ ? They do T-shirts, mugs, mouse pads, ...
for you, in small series. And if other people are interested, too,
it'll be less work than doing it all by hand, and probably cheaper than
getting a local company to do it.

I think the procedure is you send them an image (GIF or whatever) and
tell them what products you want it on (potentially) and how much they
should cost (they collect a base price and then you can sell them at
what they charge you, or make a small profit if you wish).

So if you can design a suitable logo, then everyone can order Shavian t-
shirts over the Internet.

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



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=720308548>

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

Hi Ethan
Sounds like something from Long John Silver
"har me blighties"
I like the idea of having/retaining a schwerr letter in the Shaw
Alphabet. I think Schwerr is a better name than syllabic R.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I also pronounce Array as Schwa then r and E. Ray is new
syllable.

--- In shavian@..., Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > Yeah, the schwer is the "turn epsilon," which looks like a
small
> > 3. The hook represents rhoticity. So if it has a hook, then
it's a
> > rhoric schwer, like American "err." If it doesn't have a hook,
then
> > it's a non-rhotic schwer, like British "err." The unstressed
> > equivalent of schwer is schwa (the turn e). Both can have a hook
to
> > represent rhoticity. I also pronounce "array" like "a ray,"
which is
> > why I would prefer to use "err." And I would prefer to
spell "array"
> > with a schwa followed by an "r;" "arE" in Shavian.
>
> I saw a good explanation of how the American "er" is pronounced.
First,
> say a prolonged schwa, as in the "RP" or "BBC" ur in "turn" or
> "further". Then, as you maintain this sound, curl the tip of your
> tongue toward the roof of your mouth without touching it, and
slightly
> toward the back, in a retroflex position. You should glide into a
> "rhotic schwer", such as Americans use in these words.
>
> When I took linguistics training in preparation for foreign
missionary
> work, my instructor used an older phonetic alphabet system based on
> Latin characters modified mostly using diacritics, as he was not a
fan
> of the IPA. In this alphabet, American "er" was signified using
an "r"
> with a short vertical line underneath, denoting a "syllabic r".
That's
> when I first learned that "er" was not a consonant sound.
>
> --
> Ethan



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=744332247>

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

Paul wrote:
===
Hey Hugh
After going through a number of these responses, it seems that most
interested people are interested in retaining in the Shaw
International Alphabet, the vocalic vowel "r" letter from the
Original Shaw Alphabet.
But as there are 2 letters representing this sound (Array, Err),
which one makes the most sense to add back in?
Ethan seems to prefer "err", possibly because he could not make sense
of "Array". I prefer "Array" for a couple of inconsequential
reasons. Any other preferences. American accents preferred.
MAJORITY RULES.
===

About the letter 'err'. I think it important to leave it out and consolidate the subtle difference Ethan mentions in 'ado'+'roll'. The difference between a syllabic 'r' and a separated 'a'+'r' is not really worth the two letters, as i see it. It leads to more spelling differences (again, mostly between US- and Brit-Eng) that are easily avoided by using just the one combination in both the situations.

Hugh
(from mobile phone so sorry about the quality!)



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=688809467>

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

Hi Hugh

I guess the problem with your suggestion from the American point of
view, is that there is no Shaw letter for Schwa in the International
Shaw Alphabet, because we had absorbed the soft "u" sound into "Ado".
This is my one original reservation, where I suggested we might need
another letter to indicate syllabic sounds (embedded Schwa) like
the "er" and the "le" (table,girl).
Remember, I suggested using a period to indicate that embedded Schwa
sound. As the Schwerr sound, like the Schwa sound is very common in
American/Canadian accented English, I don't think it should also be
lumped in with the Shaw letter "Ado".
Obviously, retaining another letter for the Original Shaw Alphabet
would work too, but we are trying to minimized the vowel letters.

I don't believe that English has too many vowel sounds, but as they
tend to morph into each other in what I consider to be a haphazard
manner, I think they need to be dealt with in a severe and rigorous
manner. That is to say the vowel sounds need to be represented
clearly with out regard for inconsequential distinctions that have
been retained in older and archaic versions of English.

Regards, Paul V

P.S. The R sound could be classified by Ethan's rule as a vowel
because the tongue never touches the mouth in a normal English
Retroflex R.
Perhaps that is the reason we treat the R (Schwerr) differently than
the syllabic L.

______________attached__________________________

--- In shavian@..., mixsynth@b... wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> ===
> Hey Hugh
> After going through a number of these responses, it seems that most
> interested people are interested in retaining in the Shaw
> International Alphabet, the vocalic vowel "r" letter from the
> Original Shaw Alphabet.
> But as there are 2 letters representing this sound (Array, Err),
> which one makes the most sense to add back in?
> Ethan seems to prefer "err", possibly because he could not make
sense
> of "Array". I prefer "Array" for a couple of inconsequential
> reasons. Any other preferences. American accents preferred.
> MAJORITY RULES.
> ===
>
> About the letter 'err'. I think it important to leave it out and
consolidate the subtle difference Ethan mentions in 'ado'+'roll'. The
difference between a syllabic 'r' and a separated 'a'+'r' is not
really worth the two letters, as i see it. It leads to more spelling
differences (again, mostly between US- and Brit-Eng) that are easily
avoided by using just the one combination in both the situations.
>
> Hugh
> (from mobile phone so sorry about the quality!)



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=629640696>

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

Hi Craig

I don't beleive that English is overburdened with vowels sounds.
Instead it is overwhelmed with vowel diagraphs which over time have
morphed into each other in what I consider to be a haphazard
manner. I think this clutter, needs to be dealt with in a severe and
rigorous
manner. That is to say the vowel sounds need to be represented
clearly with out regard for inconsequential distinctions that have
been retained in older and archaic versions of English.

Shavian should maintain only those distinctions in writing when
they they are significant to the understanding or recognition of a
word in speech. It has been designed to replace the cumbersome
archaic system used inconsistently in TO.
We need to create a better symbolic representation (map) of English
speech.
Obviously it will not be a perfect systematic solution because
language evolves and changes, and resists being systemized. But we
can take one of the best systems and tailor it for the Mid-West
American Accent, and create a starting point accessible to American
speakers of English.
I am shocked to find out most American users of the Original Shaw
Alphabet, required a solid phonetic background, (English Teacher,
Linguistics Professor, Dialog Voice Coach) in order to learn the Shaw
Alphabet, and appreciate all of its benefits.

I want to thank everyone for participating in Hugh and my efforts to
bridge the gap to the Americans.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. On the array/err issue, if one were to eliminate the
distinction, I would also go for
the simpler to write Schwerr. The Shaw letter "Array".
We are still waiting to get a majority view on this matter.

As for your question on the syllabic L?
It makes no sense to have to put a
schwa before L in "little" (LOLL-IF-TOT-ADO-LOLL).

This a potentially useful extention to the Alphabet, but first we
want to create a usable subset of the Original Shaw Alphabet, for
American use.
Also how we eventually deal with the Schwerr sound, may also
determine how we represent other syllabic consonant sounds in the
International Shaw Alphabet. (blossom, picket, broken, girl)
I think we should leave that question for now.

____________attached___________________________________________


--- In shavian@..., Craig Butz <shavian@w...> wrote:
> In a previous episode, C. Paige Gabhart said:
>
> > I have always distinguished "awe" from "on" and can't imagine
> > why one wouldn't.... For instance, in the sentence, "He was
> > in awe," what does the last word sound like: "ah"or "o"? If
that is
> > the case, and I heard the sentence, I probably would not
understand the
> > meaning without further explanatory remarks.
>
> There's a bit of a contradiction here. Your first statement
suggests that
> you've never noticed that many people do not distinguish ON and AWE
(what is
> known by linguists as the caught/cot merger.) But because it is so
> widespread, there is no doubt that you have listened to a great
deal of
> speech with this merger. If it actually was interfering with your
> comprehension, certainly you would have noticed it.
>
> > In my Merriam-Webster dictionary (9th ed., 1988), the
pronunciation
> > guide states "[s]ome U.S. speakers (a perhaps growing minority)
do not
> > distinguish between cot -- caught, cod -- cawed, and collar --
caller,
> > usually because they lack lip rounding..." [which the "au" sound
> > requires]. Obviously, your accent falls in this group.
>
> Yes, and it is not a "small but growing" minority, but one which
covers most
> of the country geographically (and almost all of Canada). It does
not
> affect the South or the Northeast Megalopolis, but aside from a
chunk of the
> northern Midwest around Chicago, it includes just about all of the
Midland
> dialect that is generally equated with "General American." See the
map and
> text below:
>
> http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/Map1.html
>
> http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/ICSLP4.html#Heading2
>
> Another rhotic digraph that gives me fits is OR. Only recently
have I
> noticed that some people (Northeasterners) pronounce this syllable
such that
> it sounds just like ARE to me: "authority". When I learned the Shaw
> alphabet, I just couldn't figure out what vowel was being joined
with ROAR
> to create that digraph, because OR to me is clearly OAK+ROAR.
>
> There are many vowel distinction issues that would make Shavian
cumbersome
> for everyday users. English is overburdened with vowel-sounds, as
is
> evidenced by the Latin alphabet's inability to represent them all.
However,
> there seems to be a general trend in speech towards
simplification. Many
> Americans do not pronounce "pin" differently from "pen." When
college
> students move to Athens, Ohio from further north, they always ask
whether
> the county to the south--Meigs--is pronounced "migs" or "megs". I
finally
> realized that there is no right answer because the question is
meaningless.
> To most people living there, it's the same phoneme.
>
> If Shavian insists that people maintain these distinctions in
writing when
> they don't in speech, it becomes a cumbersome archaic system just
like TO.
> And there is no perfect systematic solution because language is
organic, not
> systematic.
>
> ***
>
> On the array/err issue, if one were to eliminate the distinction, I
go for
> the simpler to write one: array.
>
> Speaking of syllabic R, what about syllabic L? It makes no sense
to put a
> schwa before L in "little" (LOLL-IF-TOT-LOLL). This seems very
similar to
> the situation in "litter." So why even put a ligatured schwa there?
> Shouldn't it just be LOLL-IF-TOT-ROAR?
>
> Craig



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=456026346>

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

I want OUT of this group. I'm too rushed for time!

Gerald Baker

--- paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
> Hi Craig
>
> I don't beleive that English is overburdened with
> vowels sounds.
> Instead it is overwhelmed with vowel diagraphs which
> over time have
> morphed into each other in what I consider to be a
> haphazard
> manner. I think this clutter, needs to be dealt with
> in a severe and
> rigorous
> manner. That is to say the vowel sounds need to be
> represented
> clearly with out regard for inconsequential
> distinctions that have
> been retained in older and archaic versions of
> English.
>
> Shavian should maintain only those distinctions in
> writing when
> they they are significant to the understanding or
> recognition of a
> word in speech. It has been designed to replace the
> cumbersome
> archaic system used inconsistently in TO.
> We need to create a better symbolic representation
> (map) of English
> speech.
> Obviously it will not be a perfect systematic
> solution because
> language evolves and changes, and resists being
> systemized. But we
> can take one of the best systems and tailor it for
> the Mid-West
> American Accent, and create a starting point
> accessible to American
> speakers of English.
> I am shocked to find out most American users of the
> Original Shaw
> Alphabet, required a solid phonetic background,
> (English Teacher,
> Linguistics Professor, Dialog Voice Coach) in order
> to learn the Shaw
> Alphabet, and appreciate all of its benefits.
>
> I want to thank everyone for participating in Hugh
> and my efforts to
> bridge the gap to the Americans.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> P.S. On the array/err issue, if one were to
> eliminate the
> distinction, I would also go for
> the simpler to write Schwerr. The Shaw letter
> "Array".
> We are still waiting to get a majority view on this
> matter.
>
> As for your question on the syllabic L?
> It makes no sense to have to put a
> schwa before L in "little"
> (LOLL-IF-TOT-ADO-LOLL).
>
> This a potentially useful extention to the Alphabet,
> but first we
> want to create a usable subset of the Original Shaw
> Alphabet, for
> American use.
> Also how we eventually deal with the Schwerr sound,
> may also
> determine how we represent other syllabic consonant
> sounds in the
> International Shaw Alphabet. (blossom, picket,
> broken, girl)
> I think we should leave that question for now.
>
>
____________attached___________________________________________
>
>
> --- In shavian@..., Craig Butz
> <shavian@w...> wrote:
> > In a previous episode, C. Paige Gabhart said:
> >
> > > I have always distinguished "awe" from "on" and
> can't imagine
> > > why one wouldn't.... For instance, in the
> sentence, "He was
> > > in awe," what does the last word sound like:
> "ah"or "o"? If
> that is
> > > the case, and I heard the sentence, I probably
> would not
> understand the
> > > meaning without further explanatory remarks.
> >
> > There's a bit of a contradiction here. Your first
> statement
> suggests that
> > you've never noticed that many people do not
> distinguish ON and AWE
> (what is
> > known by linguists as the caught/cot merger.) But
> because it is so
> > widespread, there is no doubt that you have
> listened to a great
> deal of
> > speech with this merger. If it actually was
> interfering with your
> > comprehension, certainly you would have noticed
> it.
> >
> > > In my Merriam-Webster dictionary (9th ed.,
> 1988), the
> pronunciation
> > > guide states "[s]ome U.S. speakers (a perhaps
> growing minority)
> do not
> > > distinguish between cot -- caught, cod -- cawed,
> and collar --
> caller,
> > > usually because they lack lip rounding..."
> [which the "au" sound
> > > requires]. Obviously, your accent falls in
> this group.
> >
> > Yes, and it is not a "small but growing" minority,
> but one which
> covers most
> > of the country geographically (and almost all of
> Canada). It does
> not
> > affect the South or the Northeast Megalopolis, but
> aside from a
> chunk of the
> > northern Midwest around Chicago, it includes just
> about all of the
> Midland
> > dialect that is generally equated with "General
> American." See the
> map and
> > text below:
> >
> >
> http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/Map1.html
> >
> >
>
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/ICSLP4.html#Heading2
> >
> > Another rhotic digraph that gives me fits is OR.
> Only recently
> have I
> > noticed that some people (Northeasterners)
> pronounce this syllable
> such that
> > it sounds just like ARE to me: "authority". When
> I learned the Shaw
> > alphabet, I just couldn't figure out what vowel
> was being joined
> with ROAR
> > to create that digraph, because OR to me is
> clearly OAK+ROAR.
> >
> > There are many vowel distinction issues that would
> make Shavian
> cumbersome
> > for everyday users. English is overburdened with
> vowel-sounds, as
> is
> > evidenced by the Latin alphabet's inability to
> represent them all.
> However,
> > there seems to be a general trend in speech
> towards
> simplification. Many
> > Americans do not pronounce "pin" differently from
> "pen." When
> college
> > students move to Athens, Ohio from further north,
> they always ask
> whether
> > the county to the south--Meigs--is pronounced
> "migs" or "megs". I
> finally
> > realized that there is no right answer because the
> question is
> meaningless.
> > To most people living there, it's the same
> phoneme.
> >
> > If Shavian insists that people maintain these
> distinctions in
> writing when
> > they don't in speech, it becomes a cumbersome
> archaic system just
> like TO.
> > And there is no perfect systematic solution
> because language is
> organic, not
> > systematic.
> >
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com


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=730058293>

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

Craig Butz wrote:

> Another rhotic digraph that gives me fits is OR. Only recently have I
> noticed that some people (Northeasterners) pronounce this syllable such that
> it sounds just like ARE to me: "authority". When I learned the Shaw
> alphabet, I just couldn't figure out what vowel was being joined with ROAR
> to create that digraph, because OR to me is clearly OAK+ROAR.

I think the names Are and Or are good ones for those letters, since even
the people who say /aTRitI/ instead of /aTPitI/ still pronounce "are"
and "or" as /R/ and /P/.

> If Shavian insists that people maintain these distinctions in writing when
> they don't in speech, it becomes a cumbersome archaic system just like TO.
> And there is no perfect systematic solution because language is organic, not
> systematic.

That's why I wouldn't insist.

> Speaking of syllabic R, what about syllabic L? It makes no sense to put a
> schwa before L in "little" (LOLL-IF-TOT-LOLL). This seems very similar to
> the situation in "litter." So why even put a ligatured schwa there?
> Shouldn't it just be LOLL-IF-TOT-ROAR?
>
> Craig

Well, syllabic L is still a consonant, but syllabic R is a vowel. If
you were to use the letter Roar to replace Err, then you would have the
situation where you don't know whether to pronounce the letter as a
vowel or as a consonant. Not good! How about /brI/ - should it be
pronounced as "burry" or "bree"?

My own preference would be to see a separate letter for syllabic L, but
as there is none, I will use it as it is. I haven't run into any
problems so far with it. I'm not in favor of making a multitude of
changes to the alphabet, since that would tend to fragment the whole
thing and work against its being adopted or taken seriously by many
people. We have to have some stability, or else things tend to fall
apart. That's why I use the original 48 letter alphabet, and will
continue to use it in its unmodified form, as long as it works. And I
have found no insurmountable problems with it as of yet.

--
Ethan



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=375530479>

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

Star Raven wrote:
> I agree with you, Ethan. I feel that, in time, a standard of spelling
> for a specific group will emerge, but instead of one dictionary of
> pronunciation in play, there will be two, three, five, twenty, based on
> where you live and the accent group to which you belong. Australia, New
> Zealand, England, Ireland, Canada, the US, will each have their own
> dictionary to reflect how the language has adapted.
>
> --Star

These problems are ones which are unique to the situation we have today,
namely, an almost universal language, and very high literacy rates.
Never before has one language been spoken by so many people in so many
places throughout the world, with so many people being able to read and
write. Different dialects or accents exist in different places, and
when people write, they would do it using their own pronunciation if the
alphabet allowed that. That's the way it is in other languages which
have phonemic alphabets, but most of them are spoken only in small
geographical areas where accents don't vary much, or else literacy is
not that high, so not many people write. Therefore, writing in that
language can be done according to a well known standard. But with
English, it becomes necessary to have more than one standard, because of
the multitude of people using the language, and their different dialects
and accents. Remember, we already have different dictionaries in use in
the US and Great Britain. And the same dictionary may list several
alternate pronunciations for the same word. Different spellings are
just something we need to get used to if we're going to use a phonemic
alphabet.

--
Ethan



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=338205360>

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