Hi Carl
I agree that a Shavian Dictionary in General American English, would
be an invaluable guide for any student of Shavian.
And as I was saying before,
the NTC's Dictionary of American
English Pronunciation
by Bernard Silverstein
uses almost exactly the same set of phonemes as the American subset
of the Shavian Alphabet. It has 12 vowel letters and 25 consonant
letters using the I.P.A. Alphabet. It uses Diagraphs to represent the
other Shavian Letters.
It would be easy to create Shavian version of this dictionary, as the
set of phonetic IPA letters used matches up very nicely with the Shaw
Alphabet and addresses concisely the Subset of Shaw Letters required
to represent General American English.
> > It is published by NTC National Textbook Company
> > out of Lincolnwood, Illinois, USA
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. An on-line version would be invaluable.
--- In shavian@..., carl easton <shavintel16@y...> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Sorry, due to my poor writing skills I think I even misunderstand
myself. Now I will attempt to correct my mistake. In order to come
up with a Formal Pronoucation to Shavian. I was speculating that we
could find a Standard Pronucation based loosely on Traditional Roman
Spelling. That is, for example: with the three "uh"'s -- because
they get confused depending on dialect. Straighten them out by
transliterating them based on the shavian letter names. Such
as "ado" (the schwa) for an "a" (or when ever the phoneme is present)
as in Spart"a"n. And "up" for a "u" as in "u"nderstand. And "wool"
> for "oo" as in b"oo"k. However now that I think of it we should
should rely more on dictionaries for pronoucation, in Shavian.
That's all I have to say for a Standard or Formal Spelling in Shavian.
>
> Sorry for the confusion,
>
> Carl
> paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> Hi Carl
>
> Am I understanding you?
> You want to specify a standard for traditional spelling in Roman
> Alphabet and then provide a list of exceptions. English words that
> are pronounced differently from the standard?
>
> Paul V.
>
> --- In shavian@..., carl easton <shavintel16@y...>
wrote:
> > I have spend some time thinking about a standard or Formal
> pronouncation for the English Language (Shavian). I concluded that
> the first thing we should do is find the words that are either
> spelled the same (in traditional) or pronouced the same (depending
on
> dialect). These words probably should be spelled in shavian, by
> assign a particular related phoneme (i.e. ih or ee, or even the
three
> ah's and uh's). This line of thinking is directed toward the
common
> words we use daily. As far as the "big" words I recommend using
the
> shavian equivilent of the Dictionary pronoucation.
> >
> > Carl
> >
> > paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> > Hi Ethan
> >
> > While I have mixed feelings about focusing too much attanion on
> > standardization, let me recommend the NTC's Dictionary of
American
> > English Pronunciation
> > by Bernard Silverstein
> > as the most practical guide to correct General American
> Pronunciation.
> > The set of phonetic letters used matches up very nicely with the
> Shaw
> > Alphabet and address the Subset of Shaw Letters required to
> represent
> > General American English.
> > It is published by NTC National Textbook Company
> > out of Lincolnwood, Illinois, USA
> > Elliot's pronouncing Dictionary is good, too.
> > Anyone had a chance to see these Dictionaries?
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> >
> > --- In shavian@..., Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> > > 06/20/03 2:09:54 PM, Scott Stephens <swstephe@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I have to be a boor and disagree. Spelling
> > > >standardization is essential. In fact, here is a
> > > >quote from James Pitman's introduction on the Shaw
> > > >alphabet:
> > > >
> > > >"In personal and intimate writing the forty-eight
> > > >(40+8) characters of the Shaw alphabet may faithfully
> > > >portray the pronunciation of the individual; but, as
> > > >Shaw pointed out, too eccentric a dialect may hamper,
> > > >and even destroy, effective communication. He
> > > >considered that, though there was no need to
> > > >standardize writing if not intended for publication,
> > > >there was every need for conformity in print; standard
> > > >spellings being particularly desirable when that print
> > > >is intended for circulation throughout the
> > > >English-speaking world."
> > > >
> > > >(copied directly from
> > > >http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/pitmans-
> > intro.html)
> > >
> > > I think that it would be great if people who intend to
circulate
> > their writing
> > > widely would be educated in the "standard dialect" of their
> > country. In the US
> > > that would be the dialect you hear on radio and television all
> the
> > time,
> > > basically the mid-western or California dialect. And in the UK
> > that would be
> > > "BBC English". Others may possibly be used as well, but those
> are
> > the main two.
> > > This would assure that they write according to the standard
> > dialect, as radio
> > > and television personalities today learn to speak the standard
> > dialect.
> > > Speaking and writing should not be so completely separate as
they
> > are now, but
> > > rather we should seek to standardize speech, and writing as
> well.
> > I see no
> > > reason to expect a person to write differently than the way
they
> > speak. If a
> > > person is educated, then they should be educated on proper
speech
> > as well as
> > > proper writing.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I make the counter offer, if you don't want to
> > > >standardize on spelling, why not just throw out the
> > > >Shavian alphabet, (why learn more rules?), and
> > > >standardized English spelling. While talking to a 1st
> > > >grade teacher recently, (in California), she said that
> > > >her current methodology was to *not* punish children
> > > >for mispelling words, but instead, let them explore
> > > >their creativity by spelling words any way they want
> > > >to. This horrified my wife, (also a school teacher,
> > > >but from a British-based system).
> > >
> > > This would horrify me too! I can think of nothing uglier than
> the
> > attempts to
> > > write English phonetically by using an outdated, inflexible
> system
> > of 26 letters
> > > originally designed to write Latin efficiently. Every attempt
I
> > have seen to do
> > > this has resulted in some of the worst looking junk I have ever
> > seen! And when
> > > students are told to "Just spell it however you think it should
> be
> > spelled",
> > > well, the result is confusion and a major mess! That's not
> > education.
> > > Education must have structure, because if everybody does it
> however
> > they feel
> > > like it, things get out of hand very quickly. I have seen some
> of
> > this stuff
> > > recently, and it was written by a local elementary student. I
> > don't really know
> > > why we pay teachers to do stuff like that!
> > >
> > > >There may be some
> > > >advantage to writing in a local dialect, (which is
> > > >more clear in Shavian because of the wider range of
> > > >distinct sounds), but in business and non-fiction
> > > >communications, there has to be a standardized
> > > >spelling dictionary that everyone must know, even if
> > > >their local dialect doesn't make a distinction.
> > >
> > > I agree that a standard should exist. Just make it the
standard
> > pronunciation
> > > which already exists. It might need a little refining, but I
> think
> > it's pretty
> > > close already. Broadcasters already use this standard today.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >But in either case, read more of the document, it
> > > >doesn't talk about throwing out the Roman alphabet,
> > > >either, any more than we threw out Roman numerals,
> > > >although relegated to movie titles and credits.
> > >
> > > No, we don't need to throw out traditional orthography, as it
has
> > historical
> > > purposes. It should still be taught and used, although its use
> > would obviously
> > > become limited if the use of Shavian became widespread.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ethan
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/