Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

Hi Joe

Here is a list of all characters I used for the cut alphabet:

p = b
t = d
k = g
f = v
T = H
s = z
S = Z
c = J
j = w
N = h

l = r
m = n
i = I
e = E
A = F
a = O
U = M
Q = q
y = Y

And the complete list of letter names (with some elaborations):

1. peep
2. bib
3. tot
4. dead
5. kick
6. gag
7. fee
8. vow
9. thigh
10. they
11. so
12. zoo
13. sure
14. measure
15. church
16. judge
17. yea - yonder, piano, million
18. woe - suede, suite
19. hung - think, linger, thankyou
20. ha-ha
21. loll
22. roar - car, traitor, marry, fervour
23. mime
24. nun
25. if
26. eat - queasy, sillier, seemly
27. egg
28. age
29. ash
30. eye
31. ado - us, murmurous, among, girder, offal, utter
32. oak
33. wool
34. ooze - superfluous
35. out
36. oil
37. ah - on, psalm, hot, part, palmolive
38. awe - paw, wrought, core, call, hawthorn

Hugh B

----- Original Message -----
From: Joe <mailto:allegrox_2000@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:58 PM
Subject: [shavian] Re: International Shaw Alphabet Subset

As a speaker of an American dialect that aproaches General American,
I would be glad to give my opinion of the workability of your
American subset of Shavian. If you can provide a chart of the
letters and their sounds, I'm eager to see it.

-AllegroX

--- In shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...> , Paul Gershon Vandenbrink
<pvandenbrink@s <mailto:pvandenbrink@s> ...> wrote:
> Hi Star
> While I do expect that there will be additional letters added to
ISA
> eventually, to handle new sounds. At present, I wish to concentrate
on
> creating a useful subset of the original Shaw Alphabet, tailored to
the
> needs of the average American English speaker.
> I think Hugh has taken a large step in the right direction, but
obviously,
> we need some American English Speakers to determine if the subset
is workable.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> At 12:57 PM 3/18/03 -0800, you wrote:
> >Paul, I do have a question, you are looking to create a fiting ISA,
> >will you include the /hw/ or voiceless w?
> >
> >--Star
> >
> >--- Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> > > Hi Hugh
> > > As usual, I completely agree with your objectives for the
> > > International
> > > Shaw Alphabet. It must be designed to minimize
> > > unnecessarily/redundant
> > > letters, for people writing English based on a General American
> > > English
> > > pronunciation.
> > >
> > > I also agree that removing the 'on' phoneme should be the first
> > > step. And
> > > as it would not even be unadvantagous to Brit-Eng speakers; if
the
> > > 'Northern English' conventions for 'ah'/'ash' are observed (e.g.
> > > gr[æ]ss
> > > not gr[a:]ss). There will be very few, if any, comprehension
problems
> > > if
> > > the 'ah' letter also represents the 'on' sound in Brit-Eng.
> > > And as this sound no longer distinguishes minimal pairs in
American
> > > English
> > > pronunciation, it should be removed in the interest of clarity
of
> > > communication/writing.
> > >
> > > The International Shaw alphabet is being tailored for Americans
to
> > > ensure
> > > that conflicting spellings are avoided as much as possible, by
> > > removing
> > > redundant and ambiguous Shaw letters from General American use.
> > >
> > > Regards, Paul V.
> > >
> >
> >
> >=====
> >"Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the
monster
> >killing...Hello!"
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your
desktop!
> >http://platinum.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=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/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=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=305152924>

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

Hi Joe

I like the Cut alphabet, but I feel it needs to be expanded to handle
non-intuitive Schwa sounds and the Schwerr sound (er). i am not sure
of the simpliest way to handle this requirement.
I don't want to go in the direction of creating a proliferation of
variant letters, but we at the very least need a way to indicate that
a consonant is being pronounced in a syllabic fashion. Essentially,
there is a minimal or non-intuitive Schwa sound preceeding or merging
with the the consonant, to make it a stand-alone syllable.
For example, in words like girl, baker, button, blossom, fire, labor,
boxes, foxes, fishes.
I also notice a non-intuitive Schwa at the end of some uncommon
Dipthongs, for which the Original Shaw Letter Ian, is a good example.
(Mamma Mia, India, idea). But there are other less common
examples, "oa", (boa, Mona Koa), Aia, (Iacocca).
I don't know if this sound is consistently applicable to General
American or British R.P. pronunciation.
But the question of how to handle these sounds does needs to be
addressed.

Regards, Paul V.


--- In shavian@..., "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@b...>
wrote:
> Hi Joe
>
> Here is a list of all characters I used for the cut alphabet:
>
> p = b
> t = d
> k = g
> f = v
> T = H
> s = z
> S = Z
> c = J
> j = w
> N = h
>
> l = r
> m = n
> i = I
> e = E
> A = F
> a = O
> U = M
> Q = q
> y = Y
>
> And the complete list of letter names (with some elaborations):
>
> 1. peep
> 2. bib
> 3. tot
> 4. dead
> 5. kick
> 6. gag
> 7. fee
> 8. vow
> 9. thigh
> 10. they
> 11. so
> 12. zoo
> 13. sure
> 14. measure
> 15. church
> 16. judge
> 17. yea - yonder, piano, million
> 18. woe - suede, suite
> 19. hung - think, linger, thankyou
> 20. ha-ha
> 21. loll
> 22. roar - car, traitor, marry, fervour
> 23. mime
> 24. nun
> 25. if
> 26. eat - queasy, sillier, seemly
> 27. egg
> 28. age
> 29. ash
> 30. eye
> 31. ado - us, murmurous, among, girder, offal, utter
> 32. oak
> 33. wool
> 34. ooze - superfluous
> 35. out
> 36. oil
> 37. ah - on, psalm, hot, part, palmolive
> 38. awe - paw, wrought, core, call, hawthorn
>
> Hugh B
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe
> To: shavian@...
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:58 PM
> Subject: [shavian] Re: International Shaw Alphabet Subset
>
>
> As a speaker of an American dialect that aproaches General
American,
> I would be glad to give my opinion of the workability of your
> American subset of Shavian. If you can provide a chart of the
> letters and their sounds, I'm eager to see it.
>
> -AllegroX
>
> --- In shavian@..., Paul Gershon Vandenbrink
> <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> > Hi Star
> > While I do expect that there will be additional letters added
to
> ISA
> > eventually, to handle new sounds. At present, I wish to
concentrate
> on
> > creating a useful subset of the original Shaw Alphabet,
tailored to
> the
> > needs of the average American English speaker.
> > I think Hugh has taken a large step in the right direction, but
> obviously,
> > we need some American English Speakers to determine if the
subset
> is workable.
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> > At 12:57 PM 3/18/03 -0800, you wrote:
> > >Paul, I do have a question, you are looking to create a fiting
ISA,
> > >will you include the /hw/ or voiceless w?
> > >
> > >--Star
> > >
> > >--- Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> > > > Hi Hugh
> > > > As usual, I completely agree with your objectives for
the
> > > > International
> > > > Shaw Alphabet. It must be designed to minimize
> > > > unnecessarily/redundant
> > > > letters, for people writing English based on a General
American
> > > > English
> > > > pronunciation.
> > > >
> > > > I also agree that removing the 'on' phoneme should be the
first
> > > > step. And
> > > > as it would not even be unadvantagous to Brit-Eng
speakers; if
> the
> > > > 'Northern English' conventions for 'ah'/'ash' are observed
(e.g.
> > > > gr[?ss
> > > > not gr[a:]ss). There will be very few, if any,
comprehension
> problems
> > > > if
> > > > the 'ah' letter also represents the 'on' sound in Brit-Eng.
> > > > And as this sound no longer distinguishes minimal pairs in
> American
> > > > English
> > > > pronunciation, it should be removed in the interest of
clarity
> of
> > > > communication/writing.
> > > >
> > > > The International Shaw alphabet is being tailored for
Americans
> to
> > > > ensure
> > > > that conflicting spellings are avoided as much as possible,
by
> > > > removing
> > > > redundant and ambiguous Shaw letters from General American
use.
> > > >
> > > > Regards, Paul V.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >=====
> > >"Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the
> monster
> > >killing...Hello!"
> > >
> > >__________________________________________________
> > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > >Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your
> desktop!
> > >http://platinum.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/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=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=918726454>

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

----- Original Message -----
From: paul vandenbrink <mailto:pvandenbrink@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 1:19 AM
Subject: [shavian] Re: International Shaw Alphabet Subset

Hi Joe

I like the Cut alphabet, but I feel it needs to be expanded to handle
non-intuitive Schwa sounds and the Schwerr sound (er). i am not sure
of the simpliest way to handle this requirement.

Hi Paul

I looked at this and decided that the subtle differences were best consolidated in existing letters of the alphabet.

If you read on, you will see how.

I don't want to go in the direction of creating a proliferation of
variant letters, but we at the very least need a way to indicate that
a consonant is being pronounced in a syllabic fashion. Essentially,
there is a minimal or non-intuitive Schwa sound preceeding or merging
with the the consonant, to make it a stand-alone syllable.

The rule of thumb for this cut version of Shavian is basically "if there is a syllable, there must be a vowel". Where the vowel sound is indeterminate and/or merged, use 'ado' (schwa/neutral vowel) in most cases.

Take the word "verbal". Both of the two syllables could be described as being 'syllabic consonants'. In cut Shavian, you would write it as: varbal. The 'ado' letter indicates the fact that the consonants are syllabic, and is more or less accurate to the spoken sounds.

Compare the words "furry" and "free". One has two syllables, the other does not. In the cut alphabet, for "furry", write: farI. For "free", write: frI.

For example, in words like girl, baker, button, blossom, fire, labor,
boxes, foxes, fishes.

garl, bEkar, batan, blysam, fFr, lEbar, byksaz, fyksaz, fiSaz.

'Ado' will... er... do! :)

I also notice a non-intuitive Schwa at the end of some uncommon
Dipthongs, for which the Original Shaw Letter Ian, is a good example.
(Mamma Mia, India, idea).

myma mIa, /indIa, FdIa.

But there are other less common
examples, "oa", (boa, Mona Koa), Aia, (Iacocca).

bOa, /mOna /kOa, Fa (I think), /Fakyka (again, I think).

I don't know if this sound is consistently applicable to General
American or British R.P. pronunciation.

Yes, it is applicable to both, but as I've shown above, it doesn't warrant a separate method of being transcribed in the cut alphabet. 'Ado' works just fine.

But the question of how to handle these sounds does needs to be
addressed.

Ditto...

Hugh B

Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* paul vandenbrink <mailto:pvandenbrink@...>
> *To:* shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 21, 2003 1:19 AM
> *Subject:* [shavian] Re: International Shaw Alphabet Subset
>
> Hi Joe
>
> I like the Cut alphabet, but I feel it needs to be expanded to handle
> non-intuitive Schwa sounds and the Schwerr sound (er). i am not sure
> of the simpliest way to handle this requirement.
>
> Hi Paul
>
> I looked at this and decided that the subtle differences were best
> consolidated in existing letters of the alphabet.
>
> If you read on, you will see how.
>
> I don't want to go in the direction of creating a proliferation of
> variant letters, but we at the very least need a way to indicate that
> a consonant is being pronounced in a syllabic fashion. Essentially,
> there is a minimal or non-intuitive Schwa sound preceeding or merging
> with the the consonant, to make it a stand-alone syllable.
>
> The rule of thumb for this cut version of Shavian is basically "if there
> is a syllable, there must be a vowel". Where the vowel sound is
> indeterminate and/or merged, use 'ado' (schwa/neutral vowel) in most cases.
>
> Take the word "verbal". Both of the two syllables could be described as
> being 'syllabic consonants'. In cut Shavian, you would write it as:
> varbal. The 'ado' letter indicates the fact that the consonants are
> syllabic, and is more or less accurate to the spoken sounds.
>
> Compare the words "furry" and "free". One has two syllables, the other
> does not. In the cut alphabet, for "furry", write: farI. For "free",
> write: frI.
>
> For example, in words like girl, baker, button, blossom, fire, labor,
> boxes, foxes, fishes.
>
> garl, bEkar, batan, blysam, fFr, lEbar, byksaz, fyksaz, fiSaz.
>
> 'Ado' will... er... do! :)
>
> I also notice a non-intuitive Schwa at the end of some uncommon
> Dipthongs, for which the Original Shaw Letter Ian, is a good example.
> (Mamma Mia, India, idea).
>
> myma mIa, /indIa, FdIa.
>
> But there are other less common
> examples, "oa", (boa, Mona Koa), Aia, (Iacocca).
>
> bOa, /mOna /kOa, Fa (I think), /Fakyka (again, I think).
>
> I don't know if this sound is consistently applicable to General
> American or British R.P. pronunciation.
>
> Yes, it is applicable to both, but as I've shown above, it doesn't
> warrant a separate method of being transcribed in the cut alphabet.
> 'Ado' works just fine.
>
> But the question of how to handle these sounds does needs to be
> addressed.
>
> Ditto...
>
> Hugh B

I don't know... Using an ado in front of roar for what amounts to a
separate vowel sound in American English is an example of a digraph -
two letters for one sound. I believe that goes against the rules for
the construction of the alphabet, namely that there should be one letter
per sound, or more precisely, one letter per phoneme. In my speech,
"er" as found in "herder" (I don't distinguish between accented and
non-accented) is a single phoneme. It can't be split into two sounds,
even, because there's only one. I would find using ado + roar
disagreeable, because I don't say it that way. I also currently do not
use an ado in front of syllabic l, n, or m, because it looks "added".
Are we really going to use silent letters? Do we want to take the
alphabet in that direction?

--
Ethan



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/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=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=642618625>

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

>To: shavian@...
>From: Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...>
>Subject: International Shaw Alphabet Subset - Bonus Round
>
>Hi Ethan
>I tend to agree with you concerning the Schwerr sound (Array).
>It is a distinct sound. And it very common in both its stressed and
>unstressed form, so I think it should have its own Shaw letter. I am
>leaning towards the Array letter, as that letter matches well with the Ado
>letter.
>However, I do agree with Hugh that my original suggestion, to have a
>letter for non-intuitive Schwa sounds is counter-productive and just
>likely to add confusion. Most English speakers without phonetic training
>cannot differentiate between the Schwa, the soft u sound (up), and the
>minimal vowel sound preceding a syllabic l, m, n or z. (Elm/Alum)
>
>This minimal vowel sound is not silent, although it a very quiet sound.
>
>Anyway, I have been looking at the benefits of the International Shaw
>Alphabet, and it just seems to get better and better. Because it is such a
>large subset of the Original Shavian Alphabet, someone who knows the
>I.S.A. should have little difficulty in reading the Original Shaw Alphabet
>and vice versa.
>A number of the replacement Diagraphs in I.S.A, even resemble the original
>Shaw letter. i.e. (Yea + Ooze => Yew)
>Note in this case does represent 2 sounds, not 1.
>
>Regards, Paul V.
>
>P.S. I don't think that the difference between using 38 or 39 letters, is
>enough to stop people from going ahead and trying to use the new subset of
>the Shaw Alphabet. It should not be a sticking point.
>For Americans familiar with the original Shaw Alphabet, just remember the
>new equivalencies for excluded letters.
>
>1. Yew = Yea + Ooze
>2. Ian = Eat + Ado
>3. Up = Ado
>4. On = Ah
>5. Urge = Array
>6. Are = Ah + Array
>7. Air = Egg + Array
>8. Or = Oak + Array
>9. Ear = Eat + Array
>Other Diagraphs
>10. Ire = Ice + Array
>
>P.P.S. I don't have a strong recommendation for whether or not to put a
>Schwa (Ado), before a syllabic consonant. Still thinking about what would
>work best. Any Suggestions.
>__________________attached___________________________
>
>Paul & Hugh
>
>>I don't know... Using an ado in front of roar for what amounts to a
>>separate vowel sound in American English is an example of a digraph -
>>two letters for one sound. I believe that goes against the rules for
>>the construction of the alphabet, namely that there should be one letter
>>per sound, or more precisely, one letter per phoneme. In my speech,
>>"er" as found in "herder" (I don't distinguish between accented and
>>non-accented) is a single phoneme. It can't be split into two sounds,
>>even, because there's only one. I would find using ado + roar
>>disagreeable, because I don't say it that way. I also currently do not
>>use an ado in front of syllabic l, n, or m, because it looks "added".
>>Are we really going to use silent letters? Do we want to take the
>>alphabet in that direction?
>>
>>--
>>Ethan
>
>
>
>At 03:52 AM 3/22/03 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > *From:* paul vandenbrink <mailto:pvandenbrink@...>
>> > *To:* shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
>> > *Sent:* Friday, March 21, 2003 1:19 AM
>> > *Subject:* [shavian] Re: International Shaw Alphabet Subset
>> >
>> > Hi Joe
>> >
>> > I like the Cut alphabet, but I feel it needs to be expanded to handle
>> > non-intuitive Schwa sounds and the Schwerr sound (er). i am not sure
>> > of the simpliest way to handle this requirement.
>> >
>> > Hi Paul
>> >
>> > I looked at this and decided that the subtle differences were best
>> > consolidated in existing letters of the alphabet.
>> >
>> > If you read on, you will see how.
>> >
>> > I don't want to go in the direction of creating a proliferation of
>> > variant letters, but we at the very least need a way to indicate that
>> > a consonant is being pronounced in a syllabic fashion. Essentially,
>> > there is a minimal or non-intuitive Schwa sound preceeding or merging
>> > with the the consonant, to make it a stand-alone syllable.
>> >
>> > The rule of thumb for this cut version of Shavian is basically "if there
>> > is a syllable, there must be a vowel". Where the vowel sound is
>> > indeterminate and/or merged, use 'ado' (schwa/neutral vowel) in most
>> cases.
>> >
>> > Take the word "verbal". Both of the two syllables could be described as
>> > being 'syllabic consonants'. In cut Shavian, you would write it as:
>> > varbal. The 'ado' letter indicates the fact that the consonants are
>> > syllabic, and is more or less accurate to the spoken sounds.
>> >
>> > Compare the words "furry" and "free". One has two syllables, the other
>> > does not. In the cut alphabet, for "furry", write: farI. For "free",
>> > write: frI.
>> >
>> > For example, in words like girl, baker, button, blossom, fire, labor,
>> > boxes, foxes, fishes.
>> >
>> > garl, bEkar, batan, blysam, fFr, lEbar, byksaz, fyksaz, fiSaz.
>> >
>> > 'Ado' will... er... do! :)
>> >
>> > I also notice a non-intuitive Schwa at the end of some uncommon
>> > Dipthongs, for which the Original Shaw Letter Ian, is a good example.
>> > (Mamma Mia, India, idea).
>> >
>> > myma mIa, /indIa, FdIa.
>> >
>> > But there are other less common
>> > examples, "oa", (boa, Mona Koa), Aia, (Iacocca).
>> >
>> > bOa, /mOna /kOa, Fa (I think), /Fakyka (again, I think).
>> >
>> > I don't know if this sound is consistently applicable to General
>> > American or British R.P. pronunciation.
>> >
>> > Yes, it is applicable to both, but as I've shown above, it doesn't
>> > warrant a separate method of being transcribed in the cut alphabet.
>> > 'Ado' works just fine.
>> >
>> > But the question of how to handle these sounds does needs to be
>> > addressed.
>> >
>> > Ditto...
>> >
>> > Hugh B
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/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=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=766730813>

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

Hi Ethan
I tend to agree with you concerning the Schwerr sound (Array).
It is a distinct sound. And it very common in both its stressed and
unstressed form, so I think it should have its own Shaw letter. I am
leaning towards the Array letter, as that letter matches well with the Ado
letter.
However, I do agree with Hugh that my original suggestion, to have a letter
for non-intuitive Schwa sounds is counter-productive and just likely to add
confusion. Most English speakers without phonetic training cannot
differentiate between the Schwa, the soft u sound (up), and the minimal
vowel sound preceding a syllabic l, m, n or z. (Elm/Alum)

This minimal vowel sound is not silent, although it a very quiet sound.

Anyway, I have been looking at the benefits of the International Shaw
Alphabet, and it just seems to get better and better. Because it is such a
large subset of the Original Shavian Alphabet, someone who knows the I.S.A.
should have little difficulty in reading the Original Shaw Alphabet and
vice versa.
A number of the replacement Diagraphs in I.S.A, even resemble the original
Shaw letter. i.e. (Yea + Ooze => Yew)
Note in this case does represent 2 sounds, not 1.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I don't think that the difference between using 38 or 39 letters, is
enough to stop people from going ahead and trying to use the new subset of
the Shaw Alphabet. It should not be a sticking point.
For Americans familiar with the original Shaw Alphabet, just remember the
new equivalencies for excluded letters.

1. Yew = Yea + Ooze
2. Ian = Eat + Ado
3. Up = Ado
4. On = Ah
5. Urge = Array
6. Are = Ah + Array
7. Air = Egg + Array
8. Or = Oak + Array
9. Ear = Eat + Array
Other Diagraphs
10. Ire = Ice + Array

P.P.S. I don't have a strong recommendation for whether or not to put a
Schwa (Ado), before a sllabic consonant. Still thinking about what would
work best. Any Suggestions.
__________________attached___________________________

Paul & Hugh

>I don't know... Using an ado in front of roar for what amounts to a
>separate vowel sound in American English is an example of a digraph -
>two letters for one sound. I believe that goes against the rules for
>the construction of the alphabet, namely that there should be one letter
>per sound, or more precisely, one letter per phoneme. In my speech,
>"er" as found in "herder" (I don't distinguish between accented and
>non-accented) is a single phoneme. It can't be split into two sounds,
>even, because there's only one. I would find using ado + roar
>disagreeable, because I don't say it that way. I also currently do not
>use an ado in front of syllabic l, n, or m, because it looks "added".
>Are we really going to use silent letters? Do we want to take the
>alphabet in that direction?
>
>--
>Ethan



At 03:52 AM 3/22/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* paul vandenbrink <mailto:pvandenbrink@...>
> > *To:* shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 21, 2003 1:19 AM
> > *Subject:* [shavian] Re: International Shaw Alphabet Subset
> >
> > Hi Joe
> >
> > I like the Cut alphabet, but I feel it needs to be expanded to handle
> > non-intuitive Schwa sounds and the Schwerr sound (er). i am not sure
> > of the simpliest way to handle this requirement.
> >
> > Hi Paul
> >
> > I looked at this and decided that the subtle differences were best
> > consolidated in existing letters of the alphabet.
> >
> > If you read on, you will see how.
> >
> > I don't want to go in the direction of creating a proliferation of
> > variant letters, but we at the very least need a way to indicate that
> > a consonant is being pronounced in a syllabic fashion. Essentially,
> > there is a minimal or non-intuitive Schwa sound preceeding or merging
> > with the the consonant, to make it a stand-alone syllable.
> >
> > The rule of thumb for this cut version of Shavian is basically "if there
> > is a syllable, there must be a vowel". Where the vowel sound is
> > indeterminate and/or merged, use 'ado' (schwa/neutral vowel) in most cases.
> >
> > Take the word "verbal". Both of the two syllables could be described as
> > being 'syllabic consonants'. In cut Shavian, you would write it as:
> > varbal. The 'ado' letter indicates the fact that the consonants are
> > syllabic, and is more or less accurate to the spoken sounds.
> >
> > Compare the words "furry" and "free". One has two syllables, the other
> > does not. In the cut alphabet, for "furry", write: farI. For "free",
> > write: frI.
> >
> > For example, in words like girl, baker, button, blossom, fire, labor,
> > boxes, foxes, fishes.
> >
> > garl, bEkar, batan, blysam, fFr, lEbar, byksaz, fyksaz, fiSaz.
> >
> > 'Ado' will... er... do! :)
> >
> > I also notice a non-intuitive Schwa at the end of some uncommon
> > Dipthongs, for which the Original Shaw Letter Ian, is a good example.
> > (Mamma Mia, India, idea).
> >
> > myma mIa, /indIa, FdIa.
> >
> > But there are other less common
> > examples, "oa", (boa, Mona Koa), Aia, (Iacocca).
> >
> > bOa, /mOna /kOa, Fa (I think), /Fakyka (again, I think).
> >
> > I don't know if this sound is consistently applicable to General
> > American or British R.P. pronunciation.
> >
> > Yes, it is applicable to both, but as I've shown above, it doesn't
> > warrant a separate method of being transcribed in the cut alphabet.
> > 'Ado' works just fine.
> >
> > But the question of how to handle these sounds does needs to be
> > addressed.
> >
> > Ditto...
> >
> > Hugh B
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/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=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=928676716>

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <mailto:pvandenbrink@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 6:05 AM
Subject: [shavian] International Shaw Alphabet Subset - Bonus Round

Hi Ethan
I tend to agree with you concerning the Schwerr sound (Array).
It is a distinct sound. And it very common in both its stressed and
unstressed form, so I think it should have its own Shaw letter. I am
leaning towards the Array letter, as that letter matches well with the Ado letter.

Well, I'm following the Quickscript doctrine of not joining letters together. Just because 'ado' and 'roll' are separated is just to minimise spelling differences. 'Array' is exactly the same as 'ado'+'roll'. If you want to join it together in handwriting, do so. Just like you can join any letter to any letter, if it joins easily!

Hugh B

Paul Gershon Vandenbrink wrote:
> Hi Ethan
> I tend to agree with you concerning the Schwerr sound (Array).
> It is a distinct sound. And it very common in both its stressed and
> unstressed form, so I think it should have its own Shaw letter. I am
> leaning towards the Array letter, as that letter matches well with the Ado
> letter.
> However, I do agree with Hugh that my original suggestion, to have a letter
> for non-intuitive Schwa sounds is counter-productive and just likely to add
> confusion. Most English speakers without phonetic training cannot
> differentiate between the Schwa, the soft u sound (up), and the minimal
> vowel sound preceding a syllabic l, m, n or z. (Elm/Alum)
>
> This minimal vowel sound is not silent, although it a very quiet sound.

True, the ado can often be heard before syllabic consonants. But I
think you would be hard put to say it should be distinguished as a
phoneme. We need to remember not to make distinctions based on
phonetics, since there are many little sounds that appear in normal
speech which are not phonemes in themselves. For instance, I don't
believe there is a phonemic schwa before the final l in little. You
could easily spell it litl, without the silent final e, and you would
still be showing all the phonemes, l, i, t, l. So in this case, the
schwa isn't a phoneme. But in the case of the words "about" and "bout",
the schwa distinguishes the words, and you can easily see that it is a
phoneme.

>
> Anyway, I have been looking at the benefits of the International Shaw
> Alphabet, and it just seems to get better and better. Because it is such a
> large subset of the Original Shavian Alphabet, someone who knows the I.S.A.
> should have little difficulty in reading the Original Shaw Alphabet and
> vice versa.
> A number of the replacement Diagraphs in I.S.A, even resemble the original
> Shaw letter. i.e. (Yea + Ooze => Yew)
> Note in this case does represent 2 sounds, not 1.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> P.S. I don't think that the difference between using 38 or 39 letters, is
> enough to stop people from going ahead and trying to use the new subset of
> the Shaw Alphabet. It should not be a sticking point.
> For Americans familiar with the original Shaw Alphabet, just remember the
> new equivalencies for excluded letters.

Yes, I'm sure it would be easy to go back and forth, as far as reading
goes. Afterall, it is just a difference in spelling, and not a major
one at that. It may be that some people would feel comfortable using
one or another. I myself prefer to use the original alphabet, and I do
encourage that, because I worry about the effects of fragmentation -
everybody comes up with their version of Shavian, and nobody knows which
one to use. There is no doubt about the original, since it is defined
in Androcles and the Lion. Now I'll not oppose the use of this I.S.A.,
neither will I try to discourage the efforts put into its design, but I
probably will not use it myself. Still, since it is being developed, I
see no harm in helping with it, if I can add any insight to any
potential problems, and that's why I'm replying with various suggestions
and observations. The way I see it, if it is going to be done, let it
be done well!

>
> 1. Yew = Yea + Ooze
> 2. Ian = Eat + Ado
> 3. Up = Ado
> 4. On = Ah
> 5. Urge = Array
> 6. Are = Ah + Array
> 7. Air = Egg + Array
> 8. Or = Oak + Array
> 9. Ear = Eat + Array
> Other Diagraphs
> 10. Ire = Ice + Array
>
> P.P.S. I don't have a strong recommendation for whether or not to put a
> Schwa (Ado), before a sllabic consonant. Still thinking about what would
> work best. Any Suggestions.
> __________________attached___________________________
>
> Paul & Hugh

I made reference to silent letters in my last message. While the ado
before syllabic consonants is often pronounced, it seems to me most
people would not be aware of it enough to think of it as necessary to
write. Thus it would simply be an extra letter, and in my mind, extra
letters should be eliminated. The true test is to write a number of
different words without using the ado there, and see if it makes any
difference in meaning.

--
Ethan



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/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=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=954033660>

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

Hi Ethan & Hugh

Thanks for helping me to straighten out some confused
thoughts that I had about the I.S.A. Alphabet.
I needed to focus on making a subset of the Shaw Alphabet,
which is accessible to the average American Speaker
who doesn't have the access or the patience
to figure out the pronunciation from Androcles.

To that end we forfeit some of the sophistication
of the original Shaw Alphabet. But because the 2 Alphabets
are compatable, the I.S.A Alphabet does not hinder
an interested reader from becoming proficient
in the Original Shaw Alphabet.
In fact like the 40 numbered basic letters of Quikskript
the I.S.A. Alphabet is good starting point to learning
the entire Shaw Alphabet.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I will see if I can update my teaching to incorporate
this method of learning an alphabet into the Shaw Teaching Guide.

First learn the basic 39 letters and then expand
into the full original Shavian Alphabet. And indicate which
are redundant or only recognized/differentiated in certain dialect
groups.

___________________attached______________________

-- In shavian@..., Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> Paul Gershon Vandenbrink wrote:
> > Hi Ethan
> > I tend to agree with you concerning the Schwerr sound (Array).
> > It is a distinct sound. And it very common in both its stressed
and
> > unstressed form, so I think it should have its own Shaw letter. I
am
> > leaning towards the Array letter, as that letter matches well
with the Ado
> > letter.
> > However, I do agree with Hugh that my original suggestion, to
have a letter
> > for non-intuitive Schwa sounds is counter-productive and just
likely to add
> > confusion. Most English speakers without phonetic training cannot
> > differentiate between the Schwa, the soft u sound (up), and the
minimal
> > vowel sound preceding a syllabic l, m, n or z. (Elm/Alum)
> >
> > This minimal vowel sound is not silent, although it a very quiet
sound.
>
> True, the ado can often be heard before syllabic consonants. But I
> think you would be hard put to say it should be distinguished as a
> phoneme. We need to remember not to make distinctions based on
> phonetics, since there are many little sounds that appear in normal
> speech which are not phonemes in themselves. For instance, I don't
> believe there is a phonemic schwa before the final l in little.
You
> could easily spell it litl, without the silent final e, and you
would
> still be showing all the phonemes, l, i, t, l. So in this case,
the
> schwa isn't a phoneme. But in the case of the words "about"
and "bout",
> the schwa distinguishes the words, and you can easily see that it
is a
> phoneme.
>
> >
> > Anyway, I have been looking at the benefits of the International
Shaw
> > Alphabet, and it just seems to get better and better. Because it
is such a
> > large subset of the Original Shavian Alphabet, someone who knows
the I.S.A.
> > should have little difficulty in reading the Original Shaw
Alphabet and
> > vice versa.
> > A number of the replacement Diagraphs in I.S.A, even resemble the
original
> > Shaw letter. i.e. (Yea + Ooze => Yew)
> > Note in this case does represent 2 sounds, not 1.
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> >
> > P.S. I don't think that the difference between using 38 or 39
letters, is
> > enough to stop people from going ahead and trying to use the new
subset of
> > the Shaw Alphabet. It should not be a sticking point.
> > For Americans familiar with the original Shaw Alphabet, just
remember the
> > new equivalencies for excluded letters.
>
> Yes, I'm sure it would be easy to go back and forth, as far as
reading
> goes. Afterall, it is just a difference in spelling, and not a
major
> one at that. It may be that some people would feel comfortable
using
> one or another. I myself prefer to use the original alphabet, and
I do
> encourage that, because I worry about the effects of fragmentation -

> everybody comes up with their version of Shavian, and nobody knows
which
> one to use. There is no doubt about the original, since it is
defined
> in Androcles and the Lion. Now I'll not oppose the use of this
I.S.A.,
> neither will I try to discourage the efforts put into its design,
but I
> probably will not use it myself. Still, since it is being
developed, I
> see no harm in helping with it, if I can add any insight to any
> potential problems, and that's why I'm replying with various
suggestions
> and observations. The way I see it, if it is going to be done, let
it
> be done well!
>
> >
> > 1. Yew = Yea + Ooze
> > 2. Ian = Eat + Ado
> > 3. Up = Ado
> > 4. On = Ah
> > 5. Urge = Array
> > 6. Are = Ah + Array
> > 7. Air = Egg + Array
> > 8. Or = Oak + Array
> > 9. Ear = Eat + Array
> > Other Diagraphs
> > 10. Ire = Ice + Array
> >
> > P.P.S. I don't have a strong recommendation for whether or not to
put a
> > Schwa (Ado), before a sllabic consonant. Still thinking about
what would
> > work best. Any Suggestions.
> > __________________attached___________________________
> >
> > Paul & Hugh
>
> I made reference to silent letters in my last message. While the
ado
> before syllabic consonants is often pronounced, it seems to me most
> people would not be aware of it enough to think of it as necessary
to
> write. Thus it would simply be an extra letter, and in my mind,
extra
> letters should be eliminated. The true test is to write a number
of
> different words without using the ado there, and see if it makes
any
> difference in meaning.
>
> --
> Ethan



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/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=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=238695496>

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

--- In shavian@..., Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> True, the ado can often be heard before syllabic consonants. But I
> think you would be hard put to say it should be distinguished as a
> phoneme. We need to remember not to make distinctions based on
> phonetics, since there are many little sounds that appear in normal
> speech which are not phonemes in themselves. For instance, I don't
> believe there is a phonemic schwa before the final l in little.
You
> could easily spell it litl, without the silent final e, and you
would
> still be showing all the phonemes, l, i, t, l. So in this case,
the
> schwa isn't a phoneme. But in the case of the words "about"
and "bout",
> the schwa distinguishes the words, and you can easily see that it
is a
> phoneme.

In the case of "little", it is indeed possible to leave out the
schwa, but not in all it's forms. For example, compare the
word "littler" (lit-l-er), versus "Hitler" (Hit-ler). Without the
schwa in there, we wouldn't know if it should be pronounced "lit-l-
er" or "lit-ler". L8r.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.3098817.4420487.1456763/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=245327.3098817.4420487.1456763/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=414350228>

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