Hi Joe
Even though it can be determined relatively consistently from letter
position within word, the whole point of the Shaw Alphabet is to
spell words phonetically. Along as there is variation in how this
Phonome is pronounced, we need to explicitly add the Hard G or K
sound. I think anyway, that the Hard G is lost not just at the end of
words, but occassionally in the middle of some words with NG, too.
Anyway for now, I will continue to put in the hard G in the
relatively few words where it is explicitly pronounced. (i.e. finger)
Regards, Paul V.
_____________attached__________________
--- In shavian@..., "Joe" <allegrox_2000@y...> wrote:
> I still don't see any need to write the hard G. We pronounce it
that
> way naturally based on its environment. In the middle of a word,
it
> will always have a hard g. At the end of a word, it will not.
When
> two words (or morphemes) are joined, the first one ending in ng, it
> also doesn't get a hard g.
> For an explanation of this, let's look to Anglo-Saxon (Old
> English). In A-S, the NG was pronounced with a hard G in all
> positions. The N was lost at the beginning of words, so we'll just
> respell that as G. The hard G was lost at the end of words. Then
> when words were combined or inflected, it still didn't have the
hard
> G. This has produced a highly regular pronunciation for this
> phoneme. So as long as you know where the boundary is between
> morphemes, you will also know how to pronounce the NGs.
> It might be considered more formal to indicate the hard G, but
> it's really not necessary. Of course, I also use some invented
> letters of my own for common suffixes like the ED ending for the
past
> tense (or passive when it's formed that way) or for ING as it is
used
> with verbals. I would make one for the personal suffix ER, but
it's
> already one letter, anyway, and it's always the same. The purpose
of
> these letters is to reduce the most common morphemes to a single
> letter whenever possible (i.e. when their pronunciation is decided
by
> their position.) I am very pleased with what I've come up with.
>
> -AllegroX
>
> --- In shavian@..., "paul vandenbrink"
> <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> > Hi Joe
> > I believe you would have to put a hard G after finger (fiNgD)
> > but not after singer (siND).
> > Just like for banker (bFNkD), there is another phoneme,
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> > _________________attached____________________________
> > --- In shavian@..., "Joe" <allegrox_2000@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In shavian@..., Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> > > Are there any native words which contain this vowel +
> > > > tl + vowel combination where the "l" is not a syllable?
> > >
> > > The only one I can think of at the moment is butler. But the
> > > personal suffis -er does some weird things. It affects other
> > sounds,
> > > too. As far as I can tell, "ng" is always followed by a "g"
when
> > it
> > > comes before a vowel, except before this suffix. This is
> > > why "finger" has a hard "g" and "singer" doesn't. So there is
> > really
> > > no need to write the "g" after "ng," as far as I know. For
these
> > > distinctions, we may consider using abbreviations for common
> > suffixes
> > > (or even prefixes, for that matter).
> > >
> > > -AllegroX
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/M=249982.3083889.4452939.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3083889&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=249982.3083889.4452939.1728375/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1524963/rand=387903281>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .