Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

12/26/03 3:40:32 PM, "Philip Newton" <philip.newton@...> wrote:

>On 26 Dec 2003 at 15:31, Ethan wrote:
>
>> 12/26/03 1:17:09 PM, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
>>
>> >The voiced and unvoiced "th" sound is considered a single phoneme in
>> >T.O. because there are no minimal pairs where the difference between
>> >these 2 sounds makes 2 different words. But the Shaw Alphabet, does
>> >differentiate this sound. Why?
>>
>> ether-either
>>
>> thistle dew-this'll do
>
>Those two don't work for me (since I have "ITD" / "FHD" and "Tisal dV"
>/ "Hisal dM"), but thigh-thy is a minimal pair for me (TF / HF), as is
>wreath-wreathe (rIT / rIH).
>
>Cheers,
>Philip

Yes, I'm not surprised there are more. I pronounce the first two "ITD - IHD"
and "Tisl dM - Hisl dM". The latter two pairs I pronounce the same as you.

Plenty enough evidence for separate phonemes. And remember, if phonemes are
distinct in one accent group but not in another, they still should be available
in the alphabet. That's why I think there should be a "wh" letter in Shavian
(perhaps we could simply borrow the Quickscript letter?), even though I don't
normally distinguish that phonemic difference.

Are there actually any letters in Shavian which do not represent actual
phonemes, but phonetic variation?

Ethan






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shavian-unsubscribe@...

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

On 26 Dec 2003 at 16:11, Ethan wrote:

> Are there actually any letters in Shavian which do not represent
> actual phonemes, but phonetic variation?

Possibly the stressed/unstressed vowels and vowel combinations.

For example, some consider "about" and "up" to be the same phoneme,
since stress determines which vowel will occur in a given position;
similarly for "array" and "err".

On the other hand, this can be used in order to provide for stress
marking in words (e.g. to differentiate between the noun and verb uses
of "perfect").

I feel that "about" and "up" are different sounds (they're
"psychological phonemes" for me, perhaps, to coin a phrase) so I'm glad
Shavian has both.

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




Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shavian-unsubscribe@...

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

>
>
>For example, some consider "about" and "up" to be the same phoneme,
>since stress determines which vowel will occur in a given position;
>similarly for "array" and "err".
>
>On the other hand, this can be used in order to provide for stress
>marking in words (e.g. to differentiate between the noun and verb uses
>of "perfect").
>
If the foregoing seems necessary, why not use an accent over the vowel?

>I feel that "about" and "up" are different sounds (they're
>"psychological phonemes" for me, perhaps, to coin a phrase) so I'm glad
>Shavian has both.
>
In the innumerable messages I have read regarding this subject, I do not
remember anyone discussing why, in what I believe is this sole instance,
Shavian should distinguish stress by using two different symbols. The
use of the term "psychological phonemes" implies to me that they are not
"real" phonemes, i.e. different sounds requiring different positioning
of the palate, tongue, lips, etc. With no disrespect meant, are one's
"feelings" relevant? I do not hear them as different sounds despite
repeated attempts to listen very carefully to them. If "ub" were a
word, I would use the same written symbol to represent its vowel sound
as I do for "about." In my idiolect, both words require virtually the
same placement of the vocal apparatus to produce the vowel sound. And
the fact that this is described as a difference of "stress" suggests to
me that those who are in favor of the use of two separate symbols don't
hear a significant difference of sound either. The placement of vowels
in different contexts in words makes for slight alterations in vowel
length and quality. So again, I wonder, why is it that only this one
vowel needs more than one form in Shavian?

Paige




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shavian-unsubscribe@...

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

For a start 'up' and 'about' do not have the same sound, at least for
some of us. The letter is the only one needed to indicate stress as
english reduces unstressed vowels to schwa.

Also, on a technical level at least, phonemes are psychological.
The 't' in 'top' and 'stop' is pronounced differently, but heard the
same. Why? Because our brains choose not to make the distinction.

When we talk about minimal pairs in language we are talking about the
smallest distinction that an english speakers brain makes.

This being said, 'w' and 'wh' are separate phonemes for some, and
though I have said that it is unimportant, perhaps it was an
oversight for Read not to include it. I do not think it is a grave
error, but one that we should look into. It is the only case where I
can even _imagine_ changing shavian.

Thanks
Joseph

--- In shavian@..., Paige Gabhart <pgabhart@c...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >For example, some consider "about" and "up" to be the same
phoneme,
> >since stress determines which vowel will occur in a given
position;
> >similarly for "array" and "err".
> >
> >On the other hand, this can be used in order to provide for stress
> >marking in words (e.g. to differentiate between the noun and verb
uses
> >of "perfect").
> >
> If the foregoing seems necessary, why not use an accent over the
vowel?
>
> >I feel that "about" and "up" are different sounds (they're
> >"psychological phonemes" for me, perhaps, to coin a phrase) so I'm
glad
> >Shavian has both.
> >
> In the innumerable messages I have read regarding this subject, I
do not
> remember anyone discussing why, in what I believe is this sole
instance,
> Shavian should distinguish stress by using two different symbols.
The
> use of the term "psychological phonemes" implies to me that they
are not
> "real" phonemes, i.e. different sounds requiring different
positioning
> of the palate, tongue, lips, etc. With no disrespect meant, are
one's
> "feelings" relevant? I do not hear them as different sounds
despite
> repeated attempts to listen very carefully to them. If "ub" were a
> word, I would use the same written symbol to represent its vowel
sound
> as I do for "about." In my idiolect, both words require virtually
the
> same placement of the vocal apparatus to produce the vowel sound.
And
> the fact that this is described as a difference of "stress"
suggests to
> me that those who are in favor of the use of two separate symbols
don't
> hear a significant difference of sound either. The placement of
vowels
> in different contexts in words makes for slight alterations in
vowel
> length and quality. So again, I wonder, why is it that only this
one
> vowel needs more than one form in Shavian?
>
> Paige




Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shavian-unsubscribe@...

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

Ethan incurred the wrath of Bob on Dec 26, by saying

>12/26/03 3:40:32 PM, "Philip Newton" <philip.newton@...> wrote:
>
>>On 26 Dec 2003 at 15:31, Ethan wrote:
>>
>>> 12/26/03 1:17:09 PM, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> >[a certain pair of sounds are] considered a single phoneme in
>>> >T.O. because

I hesitate to accept a statement that looks like the above. Put
bluntly, T.O. isn't bright enought to have studied linguistics and know
what phonemes are :-). More technically, any writing system should not
be relied upon to tell what the phonemes are; only actual use and
analysis through such tools as minimal pairs can tell you, though
sometimes orthography can give you a hint.

there are no minimal pairs where the difference between

>
>Plenty enough evidence for separate phonemes. And remember, if phonemes are
>distinct in one accent group but not in another, they still should be available
>in the alphabet. That's why I think there should be a "wh" letter in Shavian
>(perhaps we could simply borrow the Quickscript letter?), even though I don't
>normally distinguish that phonemic difference.
>
>Are there actually any letters in Shavian which do not represent actual
>phonemes, but phonetic variation?

IMO "ado" and "array" do not represent phonemes, but allophones of
different things. To seemingly contradict what I was saying earlier,
T.O. generally indicates the phonemic value of vowels in English (take
the "e" in "happen"; it would be awkward but not incorrect-sounding to
pronounce "happen" as hApen instead of hApan), but the use of ado
indicates something... er... "extraphonemic".

This is an objection of mine with Shavian. I think it's been said here
before, but the use of ado masks the original value in such a way that
it can't be recovered. I feel it causes as much information loss as
information gain, if not more.

--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz





Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shavian-unsubscribe@...

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paige Gabhart" <pgabhart@...>


> >For example, some consider "about" and "up" to be the same phoneme,
> >since stress determines which vowel will occur in a given position;
> >similarly for "array" and "err".
> >
> >On the other hand, this can be used in order to provide for stress
> >marking in words (e.g. to differentiate between the noun and verb uses
> >of "perfect").
> >
> If the foregoing seems necessary, why not use an accent over the vowel?

Officially, because Shaw stipulated in his will that there were to be no
accents or diacritical marks used in his new alphabet.

Aesthetically, because having an accent in every single word of more than
one syllable just looks plain ugly.

Phonetically, because there is no NEED to have an accent over every stressed
vowel because most English vowels always take stress. 'On', 'ash', 'out',
'eye' - they are all stressed in a primary or secondary way. Only 'eat',
'if', and the neutral sound represented by both 'up' and 'ado' ever lose
stress noticeably. However, 'ado' is by far the most common stressless vowel
(its stressed form is much less common), so it has two letters to allow
distinction. Some people, particularly in the UK, even consider the two
phonetically different.

In English, you only need to know where the stress is NOT because more vowel
sounds always have stress than do not - and you only need 'eat', 'if' 'up',
'ado', 'err' and 'array' to indicate this. Most of the time you only need
'ado'/'array' ([tenSanD], kanfedDESan], etc.). So it's a perfectly good way
to preserve the natural rhythm of the language in writing, without too much
difficulty to the writer.

> >I feel that "about" and "up" are different sounds (they're
> >"psychological phonemes" for me, perhaps, to coin a phrase) so I'm glad
> >Shavian has both.
> >
> In the innumerable messages I have read regarding this subject, I do not
> remember anyone discussing why, in what I believe is this sole instance,
> Shavian should distinguish stress by using two different symbols.

I'm sure I have, erm, a fair few times... :)

> The use of the term "psychological phonemes" implies to me that they are
not
> "real" phonemes, i.e. different sounds requiring different positioning
> of the palate, tongue, lips, etc.

If you're going to insist that Shavian only represent pure English phonemes,
we should get rid of all the compound letters, plus 'out' and 'oil'
(diphthongs). Shavian is not a 'pure' anything - it's a compromise. English
is a complicated language.

> With no disrespect meant, are one's
> "feelings" relevant? I do not hear them as different sounds despite
> repeated attempts to listen very carefully to them. If "ub" were a
> word, I would use the same written symbol to represent its vowel sound
> as I do for "about."

But you know very well that "ub" is stressed whereas the 'ado' in "about" is
unstressed (the 'out' takes it). So it isn't difficult for you to use the
appropriate symbol.

> In my idiolect, both words require virtually the
> same placement of the vocal apparatus to produce the vowel sound.

Yes, maybe so, but as explained above, it's not about a difference in vocal
apparatus placement.

> And the fact that this is described as a difference of "stress" suggests
to
> me that those who are in favor of the use of two separate symbols don't
> hear a significant difference of sound either.

See above.

> The placement of vowels in different contexts in words makes for slight
> alterations in vowel length and quality. So again, I wonder, why is it
that only this one
> vowel needs more than one form in Shavian?

To summarise: because it allows a more faithful recording of the rhythm of
the language. You might argue that it isn't needed; indeed I agree that
Shavian basically works without it, that's half of why I came up with 'Cut
Shavian' to show that it could still work adequately. But 'proper' Shavian
DOES include it and I believe it's more refined because of it. You always
have Quikscript to turn to if you really feel it's unacceptable. But I feel
that Shavian has the potential to be a "higher resolution" record of the
spoken language - but not so high as to allow dialectual differences make
legibility suffer.

> Paige

Hugh B

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paige Gabhart" <pgabhart@...>


> >For example, some consider "about" and "up" to be the same phoneme,
> >since stress determines which vowel will occur in a given position;
> >similarly for "array" and "err".
> >
> >On the other hand, this can be used in order to provide for stress
> >marking in words (e.g. to differentiate between the noun and verb uses
> >of "perfect").
> >
> If the foregoing seems necessary, why not use an accent over the vowel?

Officially, because Shaw stipulated in his will that there were to be no
accents or diacritical marks used in his new alphabet.

Aesthetically, because having an accent in every single word of more than
one syllable just looks plain ugly.

Phonetically, because there is no NEED to have an accent over every stressed
vowel because most English vowels always take stress. 'On', 'ash', 'out',
'eye' - they are all stressed in a primary or secondary way. Only 'eat',
'if', and the neutral sound represented by both 'up' and 'ado' ever lose
stress noticeably. However, 'ado' is by far the most common stressless vowel
(its stressed form is much less common), so it has two letters to allow
distinction. Some people, particularly in the UK, even consider the two
phonetically different.

In English, you only need to know where the stress is NOT because more vowel
sounds always have stress than do not - and you only need 'eat', 'if' 'up',
'ado', 'err' and 'array' to indicate this. Most of the time you only need
'ado'/'array' ([tenSanD], kanfedDESan], etc.). So it's a perfectly good way
to preserve the natural rhythm of the language in writing, without too much
difficulty to the writer.

> >I feel that "about" and "up" are different sounds (they're
> >"psychological phonemes" for me, perhaps, to coin a phrase) so I'm glad
> >Shavian has both.
> >
> In the innumerable messages I have read regarding this subject, I do not
> remember anyone discussing why, in what I believe is this sole instance,
> Shavian should distinguish stress by using two different symbols.

I'm sure I have, erm, a fair few times... :)

> The use of the term "psychological phonemes" implies to me that they are
not
> "real" phonemes, i.e. different sounds requiring different positioning
> of the palate, tongue, lips, etc.

If you're going to insist that Shavian only represent pure English phonemes,
we should get rid of all the compound letters, plus 'out' and 'oil'
(diphthongs). Shavian is not a 'pure' anything - it's a compromise. English
is a complicated language.

> With no disrespect meant, are one's
> "feelings" relevant? I do not hear them as different sounds despite
> repeated attempts to listen very carefully to them. If "ub" were a
> word, I would use the same written symbol to represent its vowel sound
> as I do for "about."

But you know very well that "ub" is stressed whereas the 'ado' in "about" is
unstressed (the 'out' takes it). So it isn't difficult for you to use the
appropriate symbol.

> In my idiolect, both words require virtually the
> same placement of the vocal apparatus to produce the vowel sound.

Yes, maybe so, but as explained above, it's not about a difference in vocal
apparatus placement.

> And the fact that this is described as a difference of "stress" suggests
to
> me that those who are in favor of the use of two separate symbols don't
> hear a significant difference of sound either.

See above.

> The placement of vowels in different contexts in words makes for slight
> alterations in vowel length and quality. So again, I wonder, why is it
that only this one
> vowel needs more than one form in Shavian?

To summarise: because it allows a more faithful recording of the rhythm of
the language. You might argue that it isn't needed; indeed I agree that
Shavian basically works without it, that's half of why I came up with 'Cut
Shavian' to show that it could still work adequately. But 'proper' Shavian
DOES include it and I believe it's more refined because of it. You always
have Quikscript to turn to if you really feel it's unacceptable. But I feel
that Shavian has the potential to be a "higher resolution" record of the
spoken language - but not so high as to allow dialectual differences make
legibility suffer.

> Paige

Hugh B




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shavian-unsubscribe@...

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Schmertz" <rschmertz@...>

[snip]
> This is an objection of mine with Shavian. I think it's been said here
> before, but the use of ado masks the original value in such a way that
> it can't be recovered. I feel it causes as much information loss as
> information gain, if not more.

But nobody says [hApen]! The only reason anybody would is if they were
trying to indicate to somebody that it is spelt with an 'e' at the end. Just
like I sometimes pronounce my name as [hug] to indicate to people that it
finishes with a 'gh' and not a 'w'.

There is no reason to perpetuate universally redundant pronunciations in a
modern alphabet. That's what Shavian was all about in the first place.

> Cheers,
> Bob Schmertz

Hugh B




Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shavian-unsubscribe@...

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Schmertz" <rschmertz@...>

[snip]
> This is an objection of mine with Shavian. I think it's been said here
> before, but the use of ado masks the original value in such a way that
> it can't be recovered. I feel it causes as much information loss as
> information gain, if not more.

But nobody says [hApen]! The only reason anybody would is if they were
trying to indicate to somebody that it is spelt with an 'e' at the end. Just
like I sometimes pronounce my name as [hug] to indicate to people that it
finishes with a 'gh' and not a 'w'.

There is no reason to perpetuate universally redundant pronunciations in a
modern alphabet. That's what Shavian was all about in the first place.

> Cheers,
> Bob Schmertz

Hugh B

On 26 Dec 2003 at 17:29, Paige Gabhart wrote:

> The use of the term "psychological phonemes" implies to me that they
> are not "real" phonemes, i.e. different sounds requiring different
> positioning of the palate, tongue, lips, etc.

Careful: different sounds are different phones. They may or may not be
different phonemes.

Or, to put it differently, the same phoneme can be "realised" in
different ways which sound slightly different, yet are accepted as the
same underlying sound. (Technically: a phoneme can have several
allophones, depending, for example, on position within a syllable or
word or things such as accent/dialect.)

For example, words ending in voiced consonants tend to lengthen their
vowel. Try saying "bat" and "bad"; for me, one difference is that the
vowel sound is lengthened (for others, the quality of the vowel may
change as well). Yet those two sounds are considered one phoneme since
they're perceived as being "the same vowel" (spelled "ash" in Shavian);
we don't need separate symbols for "long ash" and "short ash".

Hence, sounds being different is not always a good guide as to whether
they are separate phonemes or not. (And sometimes it's not easy for the
layman to determine which phoneme a given sound is an allophone of;
see, for example, the discussion about final -y and whether it's better
represented by "if" or "eat".)

> I do not hear them as different sounds despite repeated attempts to
> listen very carefully to them. If "ub" were a word, I would use the
> same written symbol to represent its vowel sound as I do for
> "about." In my idiolect, both words require virtually the same
> placement of the vocal apparatus to produce the vowel sound.

*nods* that's possible. Different idiolects distinguish various numbers
of vowel sounds.

> And the fact that this is described as a difference of "stress"
> suggests to me that those who are in favor of the use of two
> separate symbols don't hear a significant difference of sound
> either.

I hear a difference (which is why I used to believe they're two
separate phonemes; now I'm not so sure any more).

In IPA, I'd represent "up" with wedge (like an upside-down letter v)
and "ado" with schwa; I believe this means that my "up" is slightly
more open and slightly more back than the neutral schwa.

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




Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shavian-unsubscribe@...

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