Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Get rates as low as 2.99% Intro APR with NO annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9335/11/_/54531/_/969597759/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


In a message dated 9/21/00 5:05:56 PM, twojbrat@... writes:

<< Dear Phillip,
I would like to have a copy of the booklet on using Shavian to write
Esperanto, if you still have any copies. I'm sorry I'm so late in responding
to this. I was on vacation and lecturing in the Chicago area for the past 6
weeks. Thanks!
Dr. Daniel Szczurek >>

Would you mind adding me to the list?

Bill Brawner
Box 1745
Agoura Hills, CA 91376

Thanks.

Bill

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Get rates as low as 2.99% Intro APR with NO annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9335/11/_/54531/_/969624163/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

At 11:41 PM 9/11/00 -0400, you wrote:
[snip-a-bit]

>
> The adaptation of Shaw to Esperanto was done by Gan Starling in
> Kalamazoo, Michigan. (Formerly known as John Wesley Starling, he
> had the spelling legally changed to Gan Uesli Starling to match Esperanto
> orthography!)


There isn't a /ng/ in Esperanto. Shouldn't that be Starlin? But, having
written
that, I now see why he may have avoided it. :-0

>
> We were at an Esperanto meeting several years ago, when the subject
> of other writing systems came up. I mentioned Shaw, which no one else
> there had ever heard of. Later Gan asked for more info on Shaw, so I
> send him photocopies out of Androcles.
>
> He took it upon himself to develop an entire system for Esperanto and
> publish a booklet explaining how it works.
>
> I have a few copies of the booklet, and I'll gladly send one to anyone
> who is interested (it's all in Esperanto). Note that the sound values of
> several letters are completely different than the English version of Shaw
> (for good reasons).



Er, forgive me for appearing ignorant but, since Esperanto has a completely
logical spelling anyway, what was the point of that whole exercise?


- .+'^'+. -- A.M.Callaway --------------------
- A N D Y ------------------------------------
- `+.,.+' -- www.ozemail.com.au/~acal --------

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get a NextCard Visa with rates as low as 2.99% Intro APR!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Get approval decisions in 30 seconds!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9334/11/_/54531/_/969624162/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

At 09:54 PM 9/18/00 +0000, you wrote:


>
> FWIW, my dialect is fairly neutral midwestern US, with traces of
> Southern (like a midly Southernized Dan Rather).


FWIW, my dialect (accent) is one of British + Australian. I lived in
Leicester,
(Pr. Lester...) England till I was nine, then moved to Melbourne, (Pr. Melbun)
Australia. So it's more Aussie than English.

>
> The three sounds are:
>
> 1) ah -- Mouth and throat are totally open, tongue is flat. Sound a
> doctor wants you to make so he can examine your throat. In my dialect:
> father, hot, bah-humbug, ha-ha.


That's about how I'd describe mine.

>
> 2) aw -- Throat still open, lips rounded a little, tongue raised a
> little. In my dialect: Paw, raw, awwww, dawn, pawn, haughty, bought,
> hee-haw.


Yep.

>
> 3) o[r] -- Though I am rhotic, I don't consider the terminating "r"
> relevant here. I have heard this sound with and without the r.
> Throat a little more tight, lips even more closed in an O, tongue
> somewhat arched. In my dialect: or, bore, dorm, torn, porn, etc.


No. With me, this sound is identical to the one above. I say raw and roar
identically. (No following r whatsoever)

>
> Comments:
>


[snip]


>
> 3. I have heard people say "rahther" -- in most circles it is
> considered affected. I have never heard anyone say "rawther." In
> my dialect, it is usually pronounced as Dan Rather pronounces his
> last name.


I don't know Dan Rather, so I don't know how he pronounces his name.

>
> What say all of you? Does your dialect have three sounds here or
> only two?


Two for me.
- .+'^'+. -- A.M.Callaway --------------------
- A N D Y ------------------------------------
- `+.,.+' -- www.ozemail.com.au/~acal --------

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get a NextCard Visa with rates as low as 2.99% Intro APR!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Get approval decisions in 30 seconds!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9336/11/_/54531/_/969624167/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Evenin' all (or Mornin')

I've seen a lot of stuff going back and forth in here about different
pronunciations, and how to represent them. I just thought I'd make an
observation (which I'm sure has already been observed but not mentioned)...

The differing pronunciation problem seems to me to be almost exclusively
about vowels. The consonants seem to be universally pronounced the same.
(except in the case of the silent/non-silent r)

I just thought that might help clarify the issue.

- .+'^'+. -- A.M.Callaway --------------------
- A N D Y ------------------------------------
- `+.,.+' -- www.ozemail.com.au/~acal --------

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9332/11/_/54531/_/969626133/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

At 04:01 PM 9/19/00 -0800, you wrote:

>
> <http://www.egroups.com/mygroups>My Groups |
> <http://www.egroups.com/group/shavian>shavian Main Page |
> <http://click.egroups.com/1/8150/11/_/54531/_/969408429/>Start a new group!
>
> Please remove my E-Mail from you Mass mailings. The party that was
> interested in Shaw is not at this Address.
> ----------

I think you have to put REMOVE in the subject to make this work.

- .+'^'+. -- A.M.Callaway --------------------
- A N D Y ------------------------------------
- `+.,.+' -- www.ozemail.com.au/~acal --------

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Get rates as low as 2.99% Intro APR with NO annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9335/11/_/54531/_/969627569/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Andy Callaway notes:

>>The differing pronunciation problem seems to me to be almost exclusively
about vowels. The consonants seem to be universally pronounced the same.
(except in the case of the silent/non-silent r)<<

Don't forget those of us who retain a phonemic distinction between /w/ and
/hw/. I think this distinction is universal in Scotland, and it is common
among older Americans of Scots ancestry (like myself). Does it survive in
Australia?

The distinction is no particular problem in the Shaw alphabet, since (unlike
the vowels) traditional spelling marks the difference accurately. I write it
hw in the Shaw Alphabet, though there is no great reason to reverse the order
of the symbols.

Bob Richmond
Knoxville, Tennessee USA

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9332/11/_/54531/_/969631300/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

At 08:59 AM 9/22/00 -0400, you wrote:

>
> <http://www.egroups.com/mygroups>My Groups |
> <http://www.egroups.com/group/shavian>shavian Main Page |
> <http://click.egroups.com/1/8150/11/_/54531/_/969627576/>Start a new group!
>
> Andy Callaway notes:
>
> >>The differing pronunciation problem seems to me to be almost exclusively
> about vowels. The consonants seem to be universally pronounced the same.
> (except in the case of the silent/non-silent r)<<
>
> Don't forget those of us who retain a phonemic distinction between /w/ and
> /hw/. I think this distinction is universal in Scotland, and it is common
> among older Americans of Scots ancestry (like myself). Does it survive in
> Australia?


No. Its just /w/ here. Do you have both /wh/ and /w/? If not, I'm sure there
would be a dialect somewhere with both.


- .+'^'+. -- A.M.Callaway --------------------
- A N D Y ------------------------------------
- `+.,.+' -- www.ozemail.com.au/~acal --------

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Get rates as low as 2.99% Intro APR with NO annual fee!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9335/11/_/54531/_/969635390/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Andy Callaway notes about /w/ and /hw/

>>Its just /w/ here [in Australia]. Do you have both /wh/ and /w/? If not,
I'm sure there would be a dialect somewhere with both.<<

My western American pronunciation - possibly because my mother was of Nova
Scotian Scots ancestry - has both /w/ and /hw/ as full phonemes (analyzing
/hw/ as a single phoneme rather than a cluster, since English has no other
clusters with /h/).

Good minimal pairs are not frequent. I would contrast 'he wets the knife' and
'he whets the knife' - where and wear. I am not sure that I contrast them in
rapid speech.

Interesting that New Zealanders hear the Ma:ori voiceless bilabial spirant as
a "wh". Thus whakama:oli, "talk Ma:ori, talk mama-loshen" - other Polynesian
languages write the sound with an f, as Ma:ori sometimes has. Hawaiian
ho'oma:oli.

Bob Richmond
Knoxville, Tennessee

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9332/11/_/54531/_/969641838/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

My Midwestern dialect has no phonemic difference between these /w/ and /wh/
sounds. The use of /wh/ is considered an affectation among most of the
people I know. But if your dialect has it, it has it. See the Atlas of
American English Dialects for further information on the distribution of
this phoneme in the US. Its distribution is covered in this reference work.
Dr. Daniel Szczurek

----------
>From: RSRICHMOND@aol.com
>To: shavian@...
>Subject: [shavian] On the subject of different pronunciations.
>Date: FriThurSepJun 2229, 2000200029,08:09
>

>
> Andy Callaway notes about /w/ and /hw/
>
>>>Its just /w/ here [in Australia]. Do you have both /wh/ and /w/? If not,
> I'm sure there would be a dialect somewhere with both.<<
>
> My western American pronunciation - possibly because my mother was of Nova
> Scotian Scots ancestry - has both /w/ and /hw/ as full phonemes (analyzing
> /hw/ as a single phoneme rather than a cluster, since English has no other
> clusters with /h/).
>
> Good minimal pairs are not frequent. I would contrast 'he wets the knife' and
> 'he whets the knife' - where and wear. I am not sure that I contrast them in
> rapid speech.
>
> Interesting that New Zealanders hear the Ma:ori voiceless bilabial spirant as
> a "wh". Thus whakama:oli, "talk Ma:ori, talk mama-loshen" - other Polynesian
> languages write the sound with an f, as Ma:ori sometimes has. Hawaiian
> ho'oma:oli.
>
> Bob Richmond
> Knoxville, Tennessee
>
>
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/11/_/54531/_/969642584/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Actually, in most English dialects, the "r" following a vowel does not
indicate the presence of a true consonantal "r." It indicates that the
vowel, when spoken, is either retracted (the tongue is pulled further back
in the mouth while pronouncing the vowel) or retroflex (the tip of the
tongue moves further back while pronouncing the vowel).
In this case, Shavian is quite right to assign different letters to what
we write as "vowel plus r" in traditional spelling. The use of the added "r"
both in Shavian and traditional spelling is a convention, probably of
historical origin. I think in this case, Shavian adopts the "vowel plus r"
convention in deference to traditional spelling, or to avoid adding entirely
new letters for the retroflex vowels of English.
Dr. Daniel Szczurek, Ph.D. (Anthropological Linguist)

----------
>From: "A.M.Callaway" <acal@...>
>To: shavian@...
>Subject: Re: [shavian] On the subject of different pronunciations.
>Date: FriThurSepJun 2229, 2000200029,07:03
>

>
> At 08:59 AM 9/22/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>> <http://www.egroups.com/mygroups>My Groups |
>> <http://www.egroups.com/group/shavian>shavian Main Page |
>> <http://click.egroups.com/1/8150/11/_/54531/_/969627576/>Start a new group!
>>
>> Andy Callaway notes:
>>
>> >>The differing pronunciation problem seems to me to be almost exclusively
>> about vowels. The consonants seem to be universally pronounced the same.
>> (except in the case of the silent/non-silent r)<<
>>
>> Don't forget those of us who retain a phonemic distinction between /w/ and
>> /hw/. I think this distinction is universal in Scotland, and it is common
>> among older Americans of Scots ancestry (like myself). Does it survive in
>> Australia?
>
>
> No. Its just /w/ here. Do you have both /wh/ and /w/? If not, I'm sure there
> would be a dialect somewhere with both.
>
>
> - .+'^'+. -- A.M.Callaway --------------------
> - A N D Y ------------------------------------
> - `+.,.+' -- www.ozemail.com.au/~acal --------
>
>
>
>
>