Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

dshep,

I presume that you are talking about ENgliS notation:

Using @ for the schwa was in lieu of not thinking of anything better; q and
Q look like a pretty good choice for ash and alms. But if you use 'v' for
the vowel of 'book' and V for the vowel of 'boot', what do you use for v
itself? Are you aware that some dictionaries have skipped the schwa
altogether and simply use the 'u' for both functions?

q for ash,
Q for the SAMPA Q sound or short o sound in English speech.
The general American pronunciation /ä/ would be assigned to c
in a unigraphic ASCII system.

There is little reason not to use ä since it is on the international keyboard and much less disruptive than c.



SAMPA is not made to be looked at all, I don't think, not when it uses
brackets and suchlike to indicate letters ‹ but then I don't think it was
intended to be visual.

SAMPA was a way to represent the IPA in ASCII.
I am not sure why { was chosen for æ, the ash sound.


How do you pronounce "cost?". I'm afraid I use an older pronunciation, once
standard I believe, or at least widely heard, in fact still heard today,
that has cost as "cawst", the 'dawg' vowel that modern dictionary notations
prefer to ignore. But that isn't what you meant, I don't think.
Rather, the short o-sound of box, I suspect. Well, no you don't on second
look, box/ox is 'ah' for you. Then you must mean 'o' as any low-back vowel.

I pronounce cost as kOst. kawst
In Spanglish the o is said to be ambiguous so anything between caast and caust will be accepted.



I too would prefer to keep owl and oil as unobscure.

There is a reason why people in general do not take kindly to these
alternative spelling systems; they all look like some new national alphabet
of a central Asian country that has just abandoned Arabic or Cyrillic for
Roman.

This is the first time I have heard this explanation.
I think the reaction to new spelling is that it is just uneducated spelling.
Uneducated spelling is phonemic in the sense that sounds are spelled by analogy to similar spellings in rhyming words.



I personally liked Pitman's Augmented Roman very much. Given the choice
between strange letter-choices, diacritics, or digraphs, I think the latter
to be preferable for English. The Danes manage perfectly well with æ and ø.
I've always wondered if, in his heart of hearts, he had hoped that his
alphabet would be more than just an Initial Training Alphabet.

Oh by the way, I believe I have been banished from ever again trying the
patience of the tender souls at shavian.org. I tried twice this evening to
post a message without success. Oh well.

Did you use Web mail?
You can always post on the old Shavian site.



regards,
dshep





Fun is a better motivator than idealism.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129291utm/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=1705213030:HM/EXP=1103984712/A=2455397/R=0/SIG=119u9qmi7/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2455397/rand=919445077>

________________________________

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@... <mailto:shavian-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004

Hi Steve
The History of Spanish Speliing gives us some hope, I guess.
I suspect that at the rate that people are accepting changes, it may
be a while before English spelling can justifiably be called fully
simplified.
Of the 13 proposed changes made back in 1916, I would say only about
6 or 1/2 of them have been accepted.
They are all quite logical and obvious too.
That is Glacial change at best.
I still have to vote for Shavian.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. I will implement the 13 suggestons in my own spelling.
Thanks for the info.
__________________attached___________________________________


--- In shavian@..., stbetta@a... wrote:
> Origin of the Spelling Reform Movement
> How far back does the interest in spelling reform go?
> www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/rules_for_simpler_spelling.htm
>
> Efforts to simplify and standardize European orthographies began
shortly
> after Gutenberg found an efficient way to print books in 1450.
Greek and Latin
> had been standardized but few of the regional languages had.
> Around 1490, Nabrija, a Spanish University professor, came up with
a way to
> represent the dialect of the Spanish court [similar to the dialect
spoken
> around Toledo]. This dialect and associated writing system was
called Castilian.
> Unlike his counterparts in England, Nabrija selected a dialect and
invented
> the simplest way he could think of to represent it. This involved
reducing the
> number of vowels from ten to five. Nabrija published not an essay
but both a
> Dictionary and Grammar for Castilian.
> Nabrija's orthography was not standardized or government
sanctioned for
> another 200 years but because it was generally available, writers
and printers who
> wanted to write in the vernacular and reach an audience in Spain
used it. An
> English writer had no such resource. Had something similar been
available in
> England, much of the chaos we see today would have been avoided.

> The National Education Association approved the movement in 1898
and adopted
> 12 simpler spellings for immediate sue: tho, altho, thru, thruout,
thoro,
> thorofare, catalog, decalog, demagog, pedagog, program, prolog.
In 1916, it voted
> to use t in the past tenses of verbs ending in -ed and pronounced
t, e.g.
> dropt.






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/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/




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 26/12/2004

I noticed two things tonight: 1) the officially abandoned "shavian"
Yahoo group is still getting some use, and 2) that the shavian group has
lots of files, while the new, shiny, whiz-bang shawalphabet group has
exactly two files.

The idea is to abandon the "shavian" group, whose moderator is MIA, and
keep the community going at the new place, something which is generally
happening. Eventually, we will presumably get to the point where no one
has posted to shavian for months; what will happen at that point is that
Yahoo will delete all traces of the old group. Obviously, we need to
save many (though probably not all) of the files from the old group.

It would be nice if the original creators of the files could track down
the files they uploaded to "shavian", and copy them to "shawalphabet".
This would, to the greatest extent possible, preserve the proper
attributions. Those who do this might even delete their old files from
from "shavian".

Going on in this vein, I'd recommend setting a 30-day deadline for
original file uploaders to re-post their files, after which other
members of the community who are willing to take responsibility for any
files will finish the process of uploading files that they may deem
valuable to the community and to newcomers.

--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/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/




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 26/12/2004

Ze and Tim,

Thanks for your discussions. I think they explain your interest in RITE.
Words that have two or more high frequency pronunciations are indeed a problem.

Your solution is a reasonable one, if over 30% of the population of English speakers pronounces the word as spelled, it should not be respelled.

REP takes the view one step further. If the word can be understood when pronounced as spelled, it should not be changed. (M.Huckvale@... <mailto:M.Huckvale@...> ) author

Huckvale wrote: The Chaos is hard to read because it is full of words which share spelling patterns but do not share pronunciation patterns. Compare "creature/creation", "corpse/corps", "horse/worse", "head/heat". Such arbitrariness in spelling means that learners have to remember such a large number of rules and special cases that reading and spelling become a real challenge and source of difficulty for many.

Regular English Pronunciation <http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/regeng/>
Regular English Pronunciation. Regular English Pronunciation ... What is Regular English Pronunciation? Regular English Pronunciation ...
www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/regeng/ - 25k - Cached <http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:h_BWywmBQLwJ:www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/regeng/+regular+english+pronunciation&hl=en&ie=UTF-8> - Similar pages <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=related:www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/regeng/>

Regular English Pronunciation <http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/regeng/examples.html>
Regular English Pronunciation Project. Examples of Regular English Pronunciation version 1.00 - October 2002. In these examples, words ...
www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/mark/regeng/examples.html - 7k


SB: I think you want to try a little of both: Regularize English, Regularize pronunciation.

ZE: exactli.

Only Americans would agree to basing phonemic spelling on broadcast American English. The fact is that thair is only one sort of peeple who defend the idea of uzing broadcast GA: sum americans. But remember that no non-american agrees with it

SB: Broadcast English is not necessarily NBC English.
Broadcast English can be either NBC or BBC or some combination.
BBC English used to be RP but now is a little more general.
NBC English has always been about the same as General American.

The problem we have is one that has been ignored by dictionary publishers.
Rather than dealing with the issue, they simply print different dictionaries for
different regions. The dictionaries do deal with alternate pronunciations of words within a region. Thus AUNT = aent, änt, ônt See www.m-w.com <http://www.m-w.com> and other on-line dictionaries. www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/q-ref.htm <http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/q-ref.htm>

--Steve

SB: The devil is in the details and you haven't provided much.
A pronunciation guide spelling as found in a dicitonary has to settle on one broad dialect. Each dialect will have its unique inventory of phonemes.

ZE: ... we invent a broad dialect. It takes the existing english pronunsiation that goes the neerest to the TS-form. Sinse sum peeple in New England say "aunt" to "aunt", we don't change it to "ant" az is the genneral american pronunsiation or to "aant" az is the british one.

The fact is that thair is only one sort of peeple who defend the idea of uzing broadcast GA: sum americans. But remember that no non-american agrees with it, especialy in the Commonwelth, and quite menny americans don't agree with it either.

... in Brazil u lern the rotic american english, stil u don't lern that father and bother rime. Wy should we hav this non-sense if british dusnt hav it? And of corse they rime few and new. They look alike and they sound alike in british? Wel, lets take that then. Sumhow the teechers of the world agreed on a sort of world english. And it is the group of sounds that hav sum similarity with the forms.

You seem to advocate a rhotic british dialect


We could rite a mannual for non-anglos wat to speek: international english. Wich is a mix of british and american english, becauz so menny peeple don't no wich one to uze and so make a mix of it, sutable to themselvs.

We could say wat is mor or less standard. I tend to speek a british english, becauz my frends in Germany ar all english, but it has menny americanizms, becauz az i sed in prinsiple we lern american english - exept the rubbish. It would be a kind of oficializing an international english. How dus the world say it?

Would be worth a thought, maybe: if u dont want to speek american or british english, u can lern a new language: international english. It takes the most logic it can from the 2 standard acsents. And it can do it only with a new spelling... just say u speek international english.

Instead of regularizing the spelling of English, you regularize the pronunciation.

I don't know who you'r talking abaut [see reference above],

A third alternative is to identify the sound-signs that represent the greatest difference between two dialects and allow them to fluctuate. They can be pronounced either way and still be understood. Instead of rewriting path as paath or päth, we just allow that interpretation.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129t63u8p/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=1705213030:HM/EXP=1104298813/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.yahoo.com>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2128215/rand=963017538>

________________________________

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@... <mailto:shavian-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 26/12/2004

Origin of the Spelling Reform Movement
How far back does the interest in spelling reform go?
www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/rules_for_simpler_spelling.htm <http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/rules_for_simpler_spelling.htm>

Efforts to simplify and standardize European orthographies began shortly after Gutenberg found an efficient way to print books in 1450. Greek and Latin had been standardized but few of the regional languages had.

Around 1490, Nabrija, a Spanish University professor, came up with a way to represent the dialect of the Spanish court [similar to the dialect spoken around Toledo]. This dialect and associated writing system was called Castilian.

Unlike his counterparts in England, Nabrija selected a dialect and invented the simplest way he could think of to represent it. This involved reducing the number of vowels from ten to five. Nabrija published not an essay but both a Dictionary and Grammar for Castilian.

Nabrija's orthography was not standardized or government sanctioned for another 200 years but because it was generally available, writers and printers who wanted to write in the vernacular and reach an audience in Spain used it. An English writer had no such resource. Had something similar been available in England, much of the chaos we see today would have been avoided.

Deliberate efforts to simplify English spelling began as early as 1554. Every changed spelling now in general use - whether for better, as FISH from fysshe, DOG from dogge, , or for worse, as RHYME from rime, DELIGHT from delite -- was once the overt act of a single writer, who was imitated at first by a small minority.

Spelling reform is not new; it is in accord with the historical development of the language.

Organized by Filolgists 1876

The American Philological Association in 1875 started the present movement to improve our spelling resulting in the formation of the Spelling Reform Association [SRA] in 1876. and joind with the Philological Society (London) in making specific recommendations in 1883.

Among those taking prominent part in the movement were F.J. Child, Charles Darwin, A.J. Ellis, F.J. Furnivall, James Hadley, T.R. Lounsbury, John Lubbock, F.A. March, J.A.H. Murray, Isaac Pitman, W.W. Skeat, Henry Sweet, Alfred Tennyson, J.H. Trumbull, and W.D. Whitney. All of these luminaries can be found in Who's Who or the Encyclopedia.

SSB 1906

The U.S. Simplified Spelling Board (SSB) was founded in 1906 and the U.K. Simplified Spelling Society in 1908 by representative members of these and other leading educational organizations including the editors of the Century, Standard, Webster's and Oxford English dictionaries, eminent educators, authors, scientists men of affairs, and such filologie experts as Henry Bradley, F.J. Furnivall, C.H. Grandgent, George Hempl, T.R. Lounsbury, F.A. March, Murray, Scott, Skeat, and Calvin Thomas.

SB: Bradley, an editor of the OED after the death of Murray, attended meetings but disagreed with the proposals. He went on to write the best critique of spelling reform.

General Aim

The purpose of the movement is to hasen the process of rational orthographic change and gide it in the direction of simplicity and economy, and gradually to substitute for our present caotic spelling, which is neither consistent nor etimologic, a simpler and more regular spelling based on existing rules and analogies.

Early Progress

The National Education Association approved the movement in 1898 and adopted 12 simpler spellings for immediate sue: tho, altho, thru, thruout, thoro, thorofare, catalog, decalog, demagog, pedagog, program, prolog. In 1916, it voted to use t in the past tenses of verbs ending in -ed and pronounced t, e.g. dropt.

for more go to www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/rules_for_simpler_spelling.htm <http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/rules_for_simpler_spelling.htm>

comments welcomed


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129u71d3e/M=324658.5816620.6854924.3001176/D=groups/S=1705213030:HM/EXP=1104127869/A=2343726/R=0/SIG=12ivfnrjs/*http://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1104041469260623> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129u71d3e/M=324658.5816620.6854924.3001176/D=groups/S=1705213030:HM/EXP=1104127869/A=2343726/R=1/SIG=12ivfnrjs/*http://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1104041469260623>

Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada

<http://view.atdmt.com/VON/view/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1104041469260623>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=324658.5816620.6854924.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2343726/rand=361640732>

________________________________

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@... <mailto:shavian-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 26/12/2004

Kate and Ze,

This is an interesting thread.
The conventional wisdom is that radical reforms are too hard to sell.

Kate argues that it is easier to regularize everything.
Shavians probably agree that it is easier to start anew than to revise what we have.

I think that the threshold of a sellable reform is that one that is over 85% phonemic.
This would make English as easy to learn and use as Spanish.

--Steve

> KATE: I'd certainly consider either of these possible for an "international
> English," and would consider working for a group that wanted to
> establish one of these possibilities as a new standard. However, I
> think that the public would not regard either /2/ or /3/ as sufficient
> change in speech to justify a change in spelling that would signal and
> "go with" the new variety.

ZDR: Wich public do you mén? The anglo public or the non-anglo? Enyway 2 and 3 is
much mor chánge than wat the general anglo public would accept. The non-anglo public would accept nérly ENY simplificátion (regularization), in pronunciátion or spelling.

ZDR: The problem is that it is very dificult to mák them USE
it or be prepaird to use it befor a substantial part of lerners do it (as
very few americans would be prepaird to lern a spanish with simplifìd
grammer). And wair do you get that substantial number of pépel who is
prepaird to lern and use something without a substantial number of pépel
béing prepaird to lern and use it befor?

> KATE: I think that we can more easily sell "Let's regularize everything - at
> least for international business/basic communications use"

________________________________

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@... <mailto:shavian-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 30/12/2004

Hi Steve
The 3d Alternative might actually be practical.
It is certainly understandable. Most of the accent variation in
English only affects the Vowel sounds.
You just need to add about 9 Variable Letters (Generic Sound
Markers) to the Alphabet and plug them in when the sound being
pronounced is indeterminate.
1 for any Voiced Consonant, 1 for Unvoiced consonant, one for a
Nasal or Liquid Consonant. 6 more for different types of vowels.
(i.e. Short, Long, Dipthong) and whether they are part of a closed
or open syllable.
I came up with a scheme to do this for Shavian. It was quite nice.
Regards, Paul V.
___________________________________________attached____________

--- In shavian@..., stbetta@a... wrote:

> A third alternative is to identify the sound-signs that represent
the
> greatest difference between two dialects and allow them to
fluctuate. They can be
> pronounced either way and still be understood. Instead of
rewriting path as
> paath or p?h, we just allow that interpretation.





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/S.QlOD/3MnJAA/Zx0JAA/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/

You might want to set up another group to discuss International
English?
Although I guess this forum, is available for selective use.
As long as you don't go overboard.
However, Anything to do with Shavian, could you please move it over
to the new ShawAlphabet Yahoo forum?

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I also agree that it is easier to start anew rather than to
revise the T.O. It is hard to get a handle on T.O. You don't even
know what sound you are talking about without recourse to examples
or I.P.A.

--- In shavian@..., stbetta@a... wrote:
> Kate and Ze,
>
> This is an interesting thread.
> The conventional wisdom is that radical reforms are too hard to
sell.
>
> Kate argues that it is easier to regularize everything.
> Shavians probably agree that it is easier to start anew than to
revise what
> we have.
>
> I think that the threshold of a sellable reform is that one that
is over 85%
> phonemic.
> This would make English as easy to learn and use as Spanish.
>
> --Steve
>
> > KATE: I'd certainly consider either of these possible for
an "international
> > English," and would consider working for a group that wanted to
> > establish one of these possibilities as a new standard. However,
I
> > think that the public would not regard either /2/ or /3/ as
sufficient
> > change in speech to justify a change in spelling that would
signal and
> > "go with" the new variety.
>
> ZDR: Wich public do you m?? The anglo public or the non-anglo?
Enyway 2 and
> 3 is
> much mor ch?ge than wat the general anglo public would accept. The
non-anglo
> public would accept n?ly ENY simplific?ion (regularization), in
> pronunci?ion or spelling.
>
> ZDR: The problem is that it is very dificult to m? them USE
> it or be prepaird to use it befor a substantial part of lerners do
it (as
> very few americans would be prepaird to lern a spanish with
simplif?
> grammer). And wair do you get that substantial number of p?el who
is
> prepaird to lern and use something without a substantial number of
p?el
> b?ng prepaird to lern and use it befor?
>
> > KATE: I think that we can more easily sell "Let's regularize
everything - at
> > least for international business/basic communications use"





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/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/

Accent variation limited to vowels?

Do you consider the rhotic-non-rhotic dialect difference a vowel difference?

Is the wen/ hwen dialect difference a a vowel difference?

I am not sure if there are any dialects of English that retain the pronounced k in knife.

--Steve


Hi Steve
The 3d Alternative might actually be practical.
It is certainly understandable. Most of the accent variation in
English only affects the Vowel sounds.
You just need to add about 9 Variable Letters (Generic Sound
Markers) to the Alphabet and plug them in when the sound being
pronounced is indeterminate.

1 for any Voiced Consonant, 1 for Unvoiced consonant, one for a
Nasal or Liquid Consonant. 6 more for different types of vowels.
(i.e. Short, Long, Dipthong) and whether they are part of a closed
or open syllable.

I came up with a scheme to do this for Shavian. It was quite nice.

{please provide the reference or URL}


Regards, Paul V.


-----------------------


--- In shavian@..., stbetta@a... wrote:

> A third alternative is to identify the sound-signs that represent
the greatest difference between two dialects and allow them to
fluctuate. They can be pronounced either way and still be understood. Instead of
rewriting path as paath or p?h, we just allow that interpretation.

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saundspel>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129cdh1sq/M=326288.5755989.6856869.2844745/D=groups/S=1705213030:HM/EXP=1105140802/A=2506525/R=0/SIG=11jmfugma/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;12872816;10674521;e>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=326288.5755989.6856869.2844745/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2506525/rand=688955587>

________________________________

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@... <mailto:shavian-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

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

Hi Steve
I am very pragmatic in my choice of Pitman's I.T.A.
It maps nicely onto both the Roman Alphabet and the Shavian
Alphabet, yet makes a clear distinction between a letter from Roman
and one of its extended set of letters. It is easy to teach. The
lack of
one letter, albeit a very useful letter, does not change my opinion
that it is close to what I want.

When I was a programmer, i had to program in whatever language had
the facilities and interfaces I needed. But when it came to writing
out the algorithim, I always used Pascal.
When it comes to encoding a spoken utterance into letters, I use a
the American subset of Shavian.

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shavian@..., stbetta@a... wrote:

> PV: It all depends on you point of view.
>
> If you want a phonetic Alphabet based on the Roman Alphabet
> you should used Pitman's I.T.A.
> If you want a replacement Phonetic Alphabet for English, that is
> completely divorced from the Traditional Orthography
> then you use the Shavian Alphabet.
>
> Which one do you want.
> There are more options than that and it does depend on what you
want.
> If you want something that can be rapidly written, then Shavian is
a good
> choice.
> If you want something that can be rapidly typed or email
compatible, then you
> probably want something else.

> As you mentioned earlier, the i/t/a lacks a unique schwa symbol.
> There are other similar schemes that do so why wouldn't you
consider
> these instead of the i/t/a?
>
> --Steve






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/S.QlOD/3MnJAA/Zx0JAA/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/