Hi Bob and Paul,
Bob, I am sorry for incurring your wrath. However, my view of Shavian is that it is a phonetic writing system. So I like the idea of having my writing match my pronoucation. I don't believe Shavian should be standardize. For the reason people from various regions pronounce the same words differently.
Paul, I am glad you are on my side. Thanks, for see things my way.
best regards,
Carl
paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
Hi Carl & Bob
I have to side with Carl in this matter, even though Bob's logic is
impecable. The question is not who is right, linguistically speaking.
The question is how can an American English speaker make use the Shaw
Alphabet in a clean consistent fashion.
And he should be able to do it without confusing one half or the
other of the English speaking world when it is unnecessary.
So like Carl, I also suggest dropping the use of the "On" letter
for "Ah".
Personally, some time ago I had to chose which of these 2 symbols to
use for what was an essentially indistinguishable sound for me.
Even tho, the Shaw letter "On" is easier to write than "Ah",
I found 3 very practical reasons to use "ah" instead.
1. Phonetics trumps convention. In T.O. this sound is more usually
thought of as an soft "o" sound, but in my accent, I hear a close
correspondence between the traditional soft "o" sound and the "Awe"
sound. I like having these similar sounds represented by the upper
and lower case "y". Like "If" and "Eat" should be on the same key.
2. As I am slightly dyslexic, I can get confused between the Shaw
tiny letters "Ado", "Ash", "Egg" and "On". I make mistakes.
Sometimes, when a word doesn't gome out right, I even have to stop
and consider the orientation of these letters. It really slows my
reading. Removing "On" from the mix helps.
3. When I put the question to Hugh, a while back, he strongly
suggested Americans should use "Ah" over "On", if they must collapse
those 2 Shaw letters into one. I try not to argue with him over the
British pronunciation of the Shaw Letters. He's the expert. And I am
sure he has a reason.
And as for you final point.
> But
> the Shavian "on" grapheme is not tied to the British pronunciation
of
> that word.
Any British English Speaker will be confused by the Americans Shaw
Letter choice in the situation, but as it is tied to accent, it
should become clear, that it is just a minor accent difference.
We have to get away from retaining old fashion pronunciation
standards at this stage of the development of the Shaw Alphabet.
We have to make it easy for Americans to use.
Regards, Paul V.
__________________attached________________________________________
--- In shavian@..., Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...> wrote:
> carl easton incurred the wrath of Bob on Sep 9, by saying
>
> >Based on my research done off of www.omniglot.com I discover that
the
> >sound for "on" is simply a rounded "ah". Since I have an American
> >Dialect I don't use rounded vowels (Which Europeans tend to use,
i.e.
> >"o" umlaut, etc...). So as far as my shavian writing I no longer
use
> >"on" simply because I don't pronounce it. So for the "ah"
phonemes I
> >just use "ah" and "awe".
>
> I'm not sure, in the context of the concepts behind Shavian, if it
is
> correct to say "the sound for 'on' is <whatever>". The sound
for "on"
> is however you pronounce it. Shavian is meant to allow people on
both
> sides of the pond to use the same vowel glyphs more-or-less for the
> same phonemes, provided they are used consistently within that
dialect.
> So, as long as you use the same vowel in the
words "on", "off", "hot",
> "shod", "lock", etc., and you pronounce them in a way that would be
> understandable to anybody familiar with the major North American
> dialects, you are free to, and IMHO should, use the "on" character.
>
> You are correct that the way many if not most Americans
pronounce "on"
> is closer to the British "ah" sound than to the British "on"
sound. But
> the Shavian "on" grapheme is not tied to the British pronunciation
of
> that word.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Bob Schmertz
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com> - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1595055/R=0/SIG=124j83ehr/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=3707890&yhad=1595055>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1595055/rand=339148853>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .