Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel G. Szczurek" <twojbrat@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [shavian] A Couple Questions for the Experts



<snip a lot of excellent comments>

> On the other hand, I would like to suggest a weekly (?) element for
the
> Shavian e-group. I would like to see someone post a paragraph of Shavian
> transliteration to all the members of the group every week or two. It
should
> be posted without a text in the accompanying "Standard English Spelling,"
in
> order to maintain its value for intelligibility testing. After the
posting,
> I would like to see group members' comments on the spelling used in the
> "Regular Paragraph." This would be, I think, a wonderful way to promote
the
> evolution of Shavian spelling. For me, a really valuable response to such
a
> posting would be from people who cannot understand a word in the posting.
> That would provide me with really valuable information.

A wonderful idea. I'd love to see this kind of exchange going on.

BTW: Perhaps I should pick something a bit less challenging than Mark Twain
for starters. <hehe> The problem is that things more modern than that tend
to still be in copyright, and not available online in electronic form.
Twain does play fast and loose with spelling, though. Words like "warn't"
(weren't), "sumf'n" (something), "gwyne" (going to) litter the Twain-ian
landscape, making difficult for a new reader to know if he got the word
right or not!

<snip>

> PS. I have a copy of "Androcles" somewhere in the house that I can xerox
for
> you, until you find a copy that you can buy. It is better ethically, I
> think, to buy a copy if you can find one. I am aware, however, that this
can
> be difficult. My personal belief, however, is that it is best not to take
a
> small amount of writing as definitive for all writing in any spelling
> system, especially one like English where the vowels are extremely
variable.
> The members of this group can provide a larger sample of written Shavian.
>
I will try to search out a copy for myself. I went to the library today,
but since when I checked it out originally 37 years ago it was already
tattered, it didn't surprise me to find that the book was no longer on the
shelves. (What was I thinking to even go look? <hehe>)

BTW: I am more than willing to bow to the judgement of others more
knowledgable in linguistics than myself. Linguistics has long been a hobby
of mine, but nothing more, and I have absolutely no training in it, beyond
those aspects of regular grammers applicable to computer programming
languages.

--gary

>
>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/54531/_/974958056/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Zuck <mailto:frimmin@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 4:01 PM
Subject: [shavian] Relaxing phonemicism (Was "eat" and "if")

<snip>

Very interesting comments. I'm going to give them a lot of thought.

AH, AWE, and ON seem problematic for many people. I simply don't understand AWE at all, and won't use it. I think most people will agree the sounds are close, even if they are distinct vowels, so why not let the concept rule over minor pronunication differences: If it's a Roman a, use AH, if it's a Roman O, or an AW, use ON. I'd dispense with AWE as splitting hairs. (No more would Robert be spelled /rybxt, but as /robDt.)

I wonder how you would spell "fall", or "fault" without the AWE sound? It seems quite essential to me, since no other Shavian letter seems to come close enough to be used in these words.

I prefer EAT to IF for word endings like terminal -Y, -LY or -ING. It seems closer to the actual pronunciation, but the same understood allowable variations are there just in case anyone actually does say "citih."

Perhaps the person who redered Androclese had a peculiar accent, or a speech impediment that explains his choice ;-)


Not a major point, but I don't like OIL and OUT. Unlike our present long vowels, most of which are presently diphthongs, these are presently conceived by us a diphthongs. They're fussy to write, and they are a dyslexic's nightmare, and even though I'm not dyslexic, I can't keep them straight. I'd write Oil and yUt.

Why yUt and not aMt as I would have thought to render it without "out" Frankly, in the first three chapters of Huckleberry Finn I have yet to use the "ah", and don't have the faintest idea why it's any different than "ado". They both sound like "father" to me. What is the distinction?

Now that I've pist of the whole Shavian community, go ahead and let me hear about it. :-)

It's beginnig to sound like there are as many iconoclasts out there as traditionalists. Your comments certainly didn't pis mI Yf. (hI-hI)

--gary

---
Shalom v'Tovah,
Jon Zuck
Web URL: http://surf.to/frimmin

It is more important to love much than to think much.
Always do that which most impels you to love.
--St. Teresa of Avila




eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=974959111?>

AH, AWE, and ON seem problematic for many people. I simply don't understand AWE at all, and won't use it. I think most people will agree the sounds are close, even if they are distinct vowels, so why not let the concept rule over minor pronunication differences: If it's a Roman a, use AH, if it's a Roman O, or an AW, use ON. I'd dispense with AWE as splitting hairs. (No more would Robert be spelled /rybxt, but as /robDt.)

AH AWE ON are not so problematic for RP speakers; the sounds are distinct there. "Father" and "bother" don't rhyme at all. And Robert IMO should never have been /rybxt but always /robxt or /robDt, since it has the sound "short o".


Not a major point, but I don't like OIL and OUT. Unlike our present long vowels, most of which are presently diphthongs, these are presently conceived by us a diphthongs. They're fussy to write, and they are a dyslexic's nightmare, and even though I'm not dyslexic, I can't keep them straight. I'd write Oil and yUt.

I wouldn't use Oil but rather oil (or even Yil) if you *are* going that way, since I don't hear a long O in that word.

Cheers,
Philip

eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=974985808?>

Why yUt and not aMt as I would have thought to render it without "out" Frankly, in the first three chapters of Huckleberry Finn I have yet to use the "ah", and don't have the faintest idea why it's any different than "ado". They both sound like "father" to me. What is the distinction?

About the distinction between the vowels "father" and "brother" -- "ado" sounds similar to "up", which is the vowel I use in "brother" (bruHD). I distinguish them as stressed (up) and unstressed (ado) shwa -- IPA "wedge" (looks like a small upside-down V; ASCII IPA "V") for "up" and "shwa" (ASCII IPA "@") for "ado".

Do you distinguish "mention" and "men shun"? If not, you may realise both V and @ as @. For me, they're different, so I use "ado" and "up" differently.

Cheers,
Philip


eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=974986211?>

hF,

F hAv disFdid t rFt in /SEvian bikoz H Onli stuf HAt hAz bIn sxkjUlEtiN rIsantli hAz bIn stuf HAt kwescanz H veri nEcD v /SEvian. wFl F'm not agenst it, F TiNk wI SUd lE it Yl t wun sFd, krAk Opan a bC, n tYk a bit in /SEvian. F mIn, hC'z His wundDfUl Alfabet HAt iz hel betD HAn H wun it riplEsiz, n Yl wI kAn TiNk t dM iz tYk abQt it... :)

sO hC F Am, tYkiN in it. HX iz nO rIzan fP it, but wot H hel. F inJq rFtiN in it. HAt's wun v H TiNz F inJq abQt H Alfabet mOst. jet F hAvant hAd H cyns in fR tM loN, n F TiNk H /SEvian mEliN list SUd bI H prFm plEs t dM it.

kum on Hen evriwun, let's lE dFalekts, Vs v kAriktDz, stuf lFk HAt, Yl t wun sFd fP a mOmant n mEk sum prAktikal Vs v His wundDfUl Alfabet.

/hV

eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=974994563?>

I had this sudden AHA experience while reading this post. Perhaps this is something so obvious that it has been discussed before, but I believe that problem here is in the choice of "on" as the exemplar word in the reading guide. The unspoken assumption seems to be that "on" is pronounced the same by everyone.

To the American the vowel sound in "on" is IDENTICAL to the vowel sound in "father" and "bother", which very cleary DO rhyme in Amercian English, while "father" and "rather" don't even come close to rhyming. To the British speaker the AWE seems superfluos because the vowel sound in "on" is very nearly the same as the vowel sound in "fault". (correct me if I'm wrong about this, but that's how it sounds to American ears.)

Clearly the pronunciation guide should have been provided as an audio recording, or rendered in some universally accepted standard such as IPA (which I don't know anyway :)

This may be a rather bold proposal, I think that a lot of these differences that are argued about in this group might be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction if a different set of exemplar words were choosen for the reading guide. The task would be to find words whose vowels sound are alike in both British and American English, and use THOSE words as the examples in the reading guide. OR to produce two versions of the reading guide, one using British English examples and one using American English examples. (And perhaps additional versions for Australian and East Indian English.)

For example, the "a" in "father" is very close in both dialects (although the British version of the vowels sounds jest a tetch "rounder" to my ears). So which Shavian vowel describes the "a" in "father", To my American ears "on" and "ado" are the two which are closest. If, indeed, the intention of the creator that "on" be used to represent the British pronunciation of "on", then the British reading guide could have "on" for the sound of the letter, while the American guide could use "lawn", or "awe" as the example for that vowel sound, since "lawn" (which does not rhyme with "on" in American) would be read by an American as rhyming with the British pronunciation of "on".

Your use of "Robert" below is a good example of this. No American would EVER use the "AWE" in Robert, since the American "AWE" doesn't even come close to the American pronunciation of that name. And the spelling of "oil" you give below would be pronounced "aisle" by an American, again because the exemplar word "on" is pronounced differently, and so we Yanks try to use "on" differently because, without realizing it, we are not the least in agreement as to how the vowel in "on" is pronounced in the first place.

The propsed reading guide might contain entries like this: o -- Br. on Am. awning; Such an entry would make the true sound of the vowel clear to speakers of any dialect.

My battle cry: Don't change the spelling, fix the reading guide!

--gary

----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Newton <mailto:philip.newton@...>
To: 'shavian@...' <mailto:'shavian@...'>
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: [shavian] Relaxing phonemicism (Was "eat" and "if")

AH, AWE, and ON seem problematic for many people. I simply don't understand AWE at all, and won't use it. I think most people will agree the sounds are close, even if they are distinct vowels, so why not let the concept rule over minor pronunication differences: If it's a Roman a, use AH, if it's a Roman O, or an AW, use ON. I'd dispense with AWE as splitting hairs. (No more would Robert be spelled /rybxt, but as /robDt.)

AH AWE ON are not so problematic for RP speakers; the sounds are distinct there. "Father" and "bother" don't rhyme at all. And Robert IMO should never have been /rybxt but always /robxt or /robDt, since it has the sound "short o".


Not a major point, but I don't like OIL and OUT. Unlike our present long vowels, most of which are presently diphthongs, these are presently conceived by us a diphthongs. They're fussy to write, and they are a dyslexic's nightmare, and even though I'm not dyslexic, I can't keep them straight. I'd write Oil and yUt.

I wouldn't use Oil but rather oil (or even Yil) if you *are* going that way, since I don't hear a long O in that word.

Cheers,
Philip


eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=975000961?>

a gUd FdW. F fQnd jP pOst IzI t rId, Ivin HO sum v H speliNz sxprIzd mI. F kUd definitlI hC a /britiS aksent in wot V rOt, but it in nO wE intxfCd wiH mF komprIhendiN it. F agrI wiH V HAt His grMp kUd bI An ekselent plEs t komVnikEt wiH uHxz in /SavWn, n not Just RgV abQt hQ it SUd bI Vzd.

pxhAps if wI wx t Just Vz it amuN Qrselvz a de-fAktO stAndxd wUd xFz in tFm bF "nAceril prosesiz". Hen, Az wI Yl pik n cMz amuN H speliN wI prIfx wI kUd revil in H divxsitI n not grQc abQt H lak v unifPmitI.

--gXI


----- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mailto:mixsynth@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 4:17 PM
Subject: [shavian] And now for something completely different...

hF,

F hAv disFdid t rFt in /SEvian bikoz H Onli stuf HAt hAz bIn sxkjUlEtiN rIsantli hAz bIn stuf HAt kwescanz H veri nEcD v /SEvian. wFl F'm not agenst it, F TiNk wI SUd lE it Yl t wun sFd, krAk Opan a bC, n tYk a bit in /SEvian. F mIn, hC'z His wundDfUl Alfabet HAt iz hel betD HAn H wun it riplEsiz, n Yl wI kAn TiNk t dM iz tYk abQt it... :)

sO hC F Am, tYkiN in it. HX iz nO rIzan fP it, but wot H hel. F inJq rFtiN in it. HAt's wun v H TiNz F inJq abQt H Alfabet mOst. jet F hAvant hAd H cyns in fR tM loN, n F TiNk H /SEvian mEliN list SUd bI H prFm plEs t dM it.

kum on Hen evriwun, let's lE dFalekts, Vs v kAriktDz, stuf lFk HAt, Yl t wun sFd fP a mOmant n mEk sum prAktikal Vs v His wundDfUl Alfabet.

/hV


eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=975002171?>

hApI

TANksgivIN,

evribodI!

---
Shalom v'Tovah,
Jon Zuck
Web URL: http://surf.to/frimmin

It is more important to love much than to think much.
Always do that which most impels you to love.
--St. Teresa of Avila

eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=974994563?>


eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=975003146?>

The problem that the ON and AWE sounds of British Received Pronunciation
create for North American Shaw Alphabet writers has been discussed at length
before. For me, at least, the problem is that British Received Pronunciation
simply has one more vowel phoneme than I do, and I can only spell words with
these vowels by looking them up in a British Received Pronunciation
dictionary. There is no way I can tell by looking at the word that "cat" is
/kaet/ and "bath" is bawth.

My own practice is to omit the ON letter entirely, and write what for the BRP
speaker is two different sounds, with the letter AWE.

The reverse problem exists with the cluster (or single phoneme) that begins
words like what and white. BRP does not distinguish this sound from w - I
think it's regarded as a substandard Scots usage to be eschewed once you've
left Glasgow for Oxbridge. For me and many (though be no means all) North
American speakers it's a full phoneme, which I write hw in the Shaw alphabet.
(It's unfortunate that the two Shaw letters don't form an easy digraph.)

George V's phonemes, George III's tea....

Bob Richmond
Knoxville TN

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/54531/_/975013700/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

FROM: DANIEL SZCZUREK
ABOUT: Vowel Problems in Writing English in Shaw Script


AH, AWE, and ON seem problematic for many people. I simply don't understand AWE at all, and won't use it. I think most people will agree the sounds are close, even if they are distinct vowels, so why not let the concept rule over minor pronunication differences: If it's a Roman a, use AH, if it's a Roman O, or an AW, use ON. I'd dispense with AWE as splitting hairs. (No more would Robert be spelled /rybxt, but as /robDt.)

I wonder how you would spell "fall", or "fault" without the AWE sound? It seems quite essential to me, since no other Shavian letter seems to come close enough to be used in these words.

-----I personally need "awe" and "ah," but never use "on," because this vowel is variable in my speech. Long ago I posted notes on the occurence of the "on vowel" in American English. It is an extremely difficult problem in American English dialects. I avoid this for "awe" or "ah." Dan

I prefer EAT to IF for word endings like terminal -Y, -LY or -ING. It seems closer to the actual pronunciation, but the same understood allowable variations are there just in case anyone actually does say "citih."

----- For the "-y" and "-ly" endings, I always use "eat" as a vowel, as I do in words like "city." The "-ing" ending gives me a lot of trouble. I am not at all sure which I am saying at any time, Ph.D. in linguistics notwithstanding. I think I'll just opt to use "if," unless I find or hear of a really convincing reason to do otherwise. Dan




Frankly, in the first three chapters of Huckleberry Finn I have yet to use the "ah", and don't have the faintest idea why it's any different than "ado". They both sound like "father" to me. What is the distinction?

----These are completely different sounds for me! A lot of unstressed vowels reduce to "ado" in my speech. The majority of the occurences of "on" are really "father" in my speech. Dan

Now that I've pist of the whole Shavian community, go ahead and let me hear about it. :-)

It's beginnig to sound like there are as many iconoclasts out there as traditionalists. Your comments certainly didn't pis mI Yf. (hI-hI)

---I just expect this in movements that are movements for radical changes, like the Shaw Alphabet Spelling Movement. But radicals, even those I disagree with, are usually more interesting people to me than most people, especially if they're not intolerant. Dan

--gary





eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=975019427?>