Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

----------
>From: "Gary Shannon" <reboot@...>
>To: <shavian@...>
>Subject: Re: [shavian] Relaxing phonemicism (Was "eat" and "if")
>Date: Nov Fri, 2000, 10:03
>

> As I mentioned in another thread in Shavian, it seems clear that Shavian can
> either be phonetic or it can be uniform, but it simply cannot be both. If
> we wish for it to remain phonetic then spellings will remain
> non-standardized for as long as people continue to speak differently. If we
> standardize spellings then Shavian ceases to be phonetic. It's really that
> simple.

> --gary

Actually, Gary, your statement is over-simplified, and may close the door to
what Shavian actually is undergoing as people use it. As we develop scripts
for previously unwritten languages, we start out with very phonetic scripts.
After the alphabet is designed and "set," we get people to write as much as
they can phonetically. Eventually, we have found, people begin to adopt
spellings that don't exactly match their own phonetics, but do so closely
enough to be understood by themselves and by a wider audience. People begin
to adopt "compromise spellings" as they interact with their audience,
especially as the audience becomes wider and wider.
What I am suggesting is that we treat modern spoken English as an
unwritten language, being written for the first time in Shavian. If we start
out writing phonetically, I suspect that a standard will develop (not by
being imposed), when writers find forms that are acceptably "phonetic" to
them, but can be understood by the audience that they wish to reach by their
writing.
A forum like this can serve as a "Shavian written language community,"
in which people write phonetically and determine what the limits of
intelligibility of their spelling is. If the community is large and diverse
enough (and ours certainly is diverse!); and if communication is regularly
conducted in Shavian, I believe, the compromise spellings will develop, as
they have been doing in the languages I have worked with in the past.
Shavian, like any other writing system, is not either all phonetic or
completely uniform, Gary. It is a compromise between these two poles, as are
all "phonetic" writing systems. People do not write just for themselves. At
the same time, it's extremely hard for people to read and write in a writing
system that bears no relation at all to their speech. Let's use the Shavian
in communication, and allow the compromise to take place among us as we
communicate.
Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. Daniel G. Szczurek, Ph.D., Th.D.
Consulting Linguist, The Canadian Ladakhi Literacy Project
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/4/_/54531/_/975135801/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel G. Szczurek <twojbrat@... <mailto:twojbrat@...> >
To: <shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...> >
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [shavian] Relaxing phonemicism (Was "eat" and "if")

>
>
> ----------
> >From: "Gary Shannon" <reboot@... <mailto:reboot@...> >
> >To: <shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...> >
> >Subject: Re: [shavian] Relaxing phonemicism (Was "eat" and "if")
> >Date: Nov Fri, 2000, 10:03
> >
>
> > As I mentioned in another thread in Shavian, it seems clear that Shavian can
> > either be phonetic or it can be uniform, but it simply cannot be both. If
> > we wish for it to remain phonetic then spellings will remain
> > non-standardized for as long as people continue to speak differently. If we
> > standardize spellings then Shavian ceases to be phonetic. It's really that
> > simple.
>
> > --gary
>
> Actually, Gary, your statement is over-simplified, and may close the door to
> what Shavian actually is undergoing as people use it. As we develop scripts
> for previously unwritten languages, we start out with very phonetic scripts.
> After the alphabet is designed and "set," we get people to write as much as
> they can phonetically. Eventually, we have found, people begin to adopt
> spellings that don't exactly match their own phonetics, but do so closely
> enough to be understood by themselves and by a wider audience. People begin
> to adopt "compromise spellings" as they interact with their audience,
> especially as the audience becomes wider and wider.
> What I am suggesting is that we treat modern spoken English as an
> unwritten language, being written for the first time in Shavian. If we start
> out writing phonetically, I suspect that a standard will develop (not by
> being imposed), when writers find forms that are acceptably "phonetic" to
> them, but can be understood by the audience that they wish to reach by their
> writing.
> A forum like this can serve as a "Shavian written language community,"
> in which people write phonetically and determine what the limits of
> intelligibility of their spelling is. If the community is large and diverse
> enough (and ours certainly is diverse!); and if communication is regularly
> conducted in Shavian, I believe, the compromise spellings will develop, as
> they have been doing in the languages I have worked with in the past.
> Shavian, like any other writing system, is not either all phonetic or
> completely uniform, Gary. It is a compromise between these two poles, as are
> all "phonetic" writing systems. People do not write just for themselves. At
> the same time, it's extremely hard for people to read and write in a writing
> system that bears no relation at all to their speech. Let's use the Shavian
> in communication, and allow the compromise to take place among us as we
> communicate.
> Sincerely,
> Rev. Dr. Daniel G. Szczurek, Ph.D., Th.D.
> Consulting Linguist, The Canadian Ladakhi Literacy Project
> >

F'l gO wiH His. t mI it sImz lFk H subJekt v stAndDdFzESan iz priti muc rApt up bF His pOstiN. F TiNk wI SUd kIp tYkiN in /SEvian n sI wot hApanz.

/dAn, dM V hAv an /html-inEbald mEl rIdD? lFk /QtlUk /ikspres, P sumTiN lFk it? F'm Just wundDiN if V kAn rId Yl His /SEvian flFiN arQnd...

/hV

Namer dot idea: Cole's Funny Picture Book (the Second Shaw Alphabet's equivalent of Androcles) suggested it's optional whether to use the Namer dot before every capital letter in a title and string of names, or to use it just before the first capitalized word. i.e.

/vFs-/prezident /Al /gP v H /VnFted /stEts v /amXika
or /vFs-prezident Al gP v H /VnFted stEts v amXika

Another idea just came to me:
how about framing a string of proper names with the dots, as plain-text e-mail messages used the * to frame words for *emphasis*?

In other words, how about doing it like this?
/vFs-prezident Al gP v H VnFted stEts v amXika/, sed tMdE HAt. . .

if that's confusing, though, the uncapitalized words can be demoted by not framing them.

/vFs-prezident Al gP/ v H /VnFted stEts/ v /amXika/, sed tMdE HAt. . .

It uses the same logic as parentheses or quotation marks (or HTML tags).
However, in handwriting, I think I'll just make the emphasis in a larger case...
/vFs-prezident Al gP v H VnFted stEts v amXika/, sed tMdE HAt. . .

---
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

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shannon <mailto:reboot@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 3:28 PM
Subject: [shavian] Short Stories by Poe

The first of what I hope will be many computer-translated short stories is now available to read on the web or download and enjoy off line.

Edgar Allen Poe's "The Pit and the Pendulum" can be found at http://www.teleport.com/~fiziwig/shaw.html

--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=975165015?>

---
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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel G. Szczurek" <twojbrat@... <mailto:twojbrat@...> >
To: <shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...> >
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [shavian] Relaxing phonemicism (Was "eat" and "if")


Rev, Daniel,

I like your perspective. you're right. Shavian is a compromise, but a much more workable compromise than the one we've got now with our 26 over-stressed letters. I spent last night reading Read's Quickscript manual, which reveals his thoughts on how to use Shaw sensibly, after corresponding with hundreds of people all over the world, for several years.

He felt that the main compromises should be in common prefixes and word endings. Even if they don't represent what we say exactly, (EAT and IF, for instance), agreement there narrows variant spelling to just about 1%, which is definitely workable.

I realized that a lot of what we do in this group is cover territory which was already covered before by Read in his working out the practical use of the alphabet. I for one, am willing to defer to Read's wisdom and use IF in word endings (even thought we all know we say EAT, and it's perpetuating a mistaken convention, nonetheless, having such a convention is useful.)

I would recommend everyone get a copy of the Quickscript manual. This really seems to be the last word on Shaw alphabets by their creator. I may also be posting some of his tips to my website soon. The Quickscript manual and a massive article both in and on the Second Shaw Alphabet is available from: collin-@... <mailto:collin-@...> I found Roger Collin most helpful, prompt, and the material VERY reasonably priced. $5 US.

/rev. dAnjl/,

F lFk jr pDspetiv. jr rFt. GSEvWn z a komprOmFz, bat a mac mP wDkabl komprOmFz HAn H wan wI'v got nQ ziT Qr 26 OvD-strest letDz. F spent lAst nFt rIdN GrId'z /kwikskript mAnVal, wic rivIlz hiz Ttots on hQ tM Vz GSY sensibli, AftD kPespondN wiT handredz v pIpl Yl OvD H wDld, f sevDl jIrz.

(F'v inkPpDEtd sam v hiz saJescnz in His tekst, Az wel Az VzN H Gseknt GSY [D] f [x], nnn.)

> Actually, Gary, your statement is over-simplified, and may close the door to
> what Shavian actually is undergoing as people use it. As we develop scripts
> for previously unwritten languages, we start out with very phonetic scripts.
> After the alphabet is designed and "set," we get people to write as much as
> they can phonetically. Eventually, we have found, people begin to adopt
> spellings that don't exactly match their own phonetics, but do so closely
> enough to be understood by themselves and by a wider audience. People begin
> to adopt "compromise spellings" as they interact with their audience,
> especially as the audience becomes wider and wider.
> What I am suggesting is that we treat modern spoken English as an
> unwritten language, being written for the first time in Shavian. If we start
> out writing phonetically, I suspect that a standard will develop (not by
> being imposed), when writers find forms that are acceptably "phonetic" to
> them, but can be understood by the audience that they wish to reach by their
> writing.
> A forum like this can serve as a "Shavian written language community,"
> in which people write phonetically and determine what the limits of
> intelligibility of their spelling is. If the community is large and diverse
> enough (and ours certainly is diverse!); and if communication is regularly
> conducted in Shavian, I believe, the compromise spellings will develop, as
> they have been doing in the languages I have worked with in the past.
> Shavian, like any other writing system, is not either all phonetic or
> completely uniform, Gary. It is a compromise between these two poles, as are
> all "phonetic" writing systems. People do not write just for themselves. At
> the same time, it's extremely hard for people to read and write in a writing
> system that bears no relation at all to their speech. Let's use the Shavian
> in communication, and allow the compromise to take place among us as we
> communicate.
> Sincerely,
> Rev. Dr. Daniel G. Szczurek, Ph.D., Th.D.
> Consulting Linguist, The Canadian Ladakhi Literacy Project
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
> Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
> It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
> and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/4/_/54531/_/975135801/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
>
>

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=975168857?>

[big snip]

I would recommend everyone get a copy of the Quickscript manual. This really seems to be the last word on Shaw alphabets by their creator. I may also be posting some of his tips to my website soon. The Quickscript manual and a massive article both in and on the Second Shaw Alphabet is available from: collin-@... <mailto:collin-@...> I found Roger Collin most helpful, prompt, and the material VERY reasonably priced. $5 US.

F must get His. /kwikskript ofDz sum rWli VsfUl insFt intM wot /rId wUd hAv dun difDantli hAd hI hAd a sekand cyns t rilIs H /SY /Alfabet.

(F'v inkPpDEtd sam v hiz saJescnz in His tekst, Az wel Az VzN H Gseknt GSY [D] f [x], nnn.)

hmmm... His iz sumTiN F SUd TiNk abQt rWli. F hAd fDgotan HAt /rId himself ifektivli rimMvd H 'stres' fIcD from /kwikskript, wic wUd mIn H mxJiN v 'x' n 'D'. mEbi it's fP H best, if HAt's wot hI himself did. if evriwun agrIz on His, F wil v kPs cEnJ mF speliN t mIt wiH H kansensas. pxsanali F lFk H stres fIcD - F TiNk it mEks H Alfabet klOsD t spIc. but nQ HAt /Jon hAz pqntid Qt HAt /rId sY nO nId fP it in hiz lEtD invencanz, it mFt bI a betD FdW.

uHD TYts on His? (in /SEvian, prefDabli!)

/hV

<snip>

> > ... it seems clear that Shavian can
> > either be phonetic or it can be uniform, but it simply cannot be both.

<snip>

> > --gary
>
> Actually, Gary, your statement is over-simplified, and may close the door
to
> what Shavian actually is undergoing as people use it.

<snip>

> Rev. Dr. Daniel G. Szczurek, Ph.D., Th.D.
> Consulting Linguist, The Canadian Ladakhi Literacy Project

It doesn't surprise me in the least that my conclusion was overly
simplistic, since I have no formal training in liguistics. Your post was
very imformative, and I find myself in complete agreement.

--gary



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/4/_/54531/_/975178837/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

I think I've got it.
After some consultation with my dictionary this morning, I finally realized the distinction between y,o, and Y. To be sure, I don't think I use AWE very much, my speech is a little bit flatter than that, but it is a distinct sound in fall, a very deep sound. I was confused because I had thought that AWE was midway between AH and ON, but I was wrong--AWE is the deepest of the three.

y Ah- is the broad a in father (which I think we all pronounce alike.) And its the a sound in hasta la vista (Tells you something about how difficult our language is if to clarify its sounds we have to go to other languages!)
o On- is the short o sound. If I'm understanding my dictionary right, this sound is pretty strongly associated with the Roman letter o. On, hot, not, etc.
Y Awe- is the sound we Americans might make in fall, ball, and a few other words. I think our Commonwealth Comrades say it not only there, but also when they see au, aw, all, and sometimes o. fought?

If you say them rapidly in sequence, you hear the pitch deepening, and feel the expansion inside your mouth. If you've seen Home Improvement, (still showing weekdays on reruns), Tim Taylor uses all three in sequence, and in both directions!

yoY: (descending) is Tim's expression of optimism about how much he'll enjoy using a new tool, or making a particular "improvement," and
Yoy: (ascending) is his expression of surprise to Wilson or Jill when he's realized something he hadn't considered before.

---
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 Avil



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=975179531?>

Here's some of the issues I run across in translating "The Pit and the Pendulum" and "The Fall of the House of Usher". As a non-lingust who has been away from Shavian for 37 years these represent problems I've yet to resolve. I'd be interested in hearing comments on how each might be "properly" addressed.

The case of the implied vowel:

The word "table" presents an interesting case in how to represent a vowel sound that is not written in Roman script. It could be argued that the implied vowel between "b" and "l" is a vowel sound of indefinite identity and could be rendered by some generic unstressed vowel character "tEbil". It could also be rendered at is actually sounds: TAY-bull, "tEbUl". My own tendency has been to render it by not specifying any specific vowel: TAY-bl, "tEbl". This last has the virtue of being succinct while not attempting to coerce the sound into any one category. It seems that whatever sound is made between "b" and "l" is a sound that arises naturally from the motions made by the mouth as it navigates from the "b" producing configuration to the 'l" producing one. In other words, it seems to me that since the sound of the implied vowel arises quite naturally when "bl" is pronounced, and there is no need to specify that sound in writing. Any written symbol between "b" and "l" is, therefor, redundant. A more extreme example is "listened" which, in translating Poe, I renedered "lisnd", leaving out two "implied" vowels.

The case of the initial "a":

I have seen "ability" (or words with similar intial sounds) rendered with an initial "ado" "abilitI", and initial "ash" "AbilitI", and an intial "up" "ubilitI". Words of this sort seem somewhat unstable in that it seems that the initial vowel sound is often colored by the ending sound of the previous word in the sentence. It is also interesting to note that all three versions seem to be readable, in context, with no difficulty at all. I would conclude that the choice of the identity of the initial vowel sound is, therefore, arbitrary within certain limits. While each person might argue for the symbol which most closely matches their own pronunciation of not only "ability" but of the exemplar words on the reading guide, it can also be argued that nothing in particular is lost by agreeing to select some particular symbol as a matter of convetion. In reviewing my translation of "The Pit and the Pendulum", and my translation-in-progrees of "The Fall of the House of Usher" I find that my own choices have been quite arbitrary and show no consistency whatsoever.

The case of the terminal "y":

This one has been argued before on this group, and I will simply restate the situation for the sake of completeness. Should the word "city" be rendered as pronounced with the long "e" sound "SitI", or in accord with the short "i" convention established by Androcles: "Siti". (Although it may be the case that the particular dialect of the person translating Androcles had him rendering the sound "i" in speech as well, in which case the "i" convention is not so much a convention as it is an acurate phonetic representation of that one person's speech habits.)

== earlier comments made by Hugh ==
"In Androcles, the 'if' phoneme is used in preference to 'eat' at the end of words like 'funny', 'chivalry' and 'family', so as to make the stress clear; the 'eat' phoneme is almost always fully stressed. Take the words 'beady', 'queenly', 'queasy', 'squeezy' - if the same phoneme were used (as is often actually the case), the stress would be completely indeterminable, therefore confusing readers; so, it is understandable that the Androcles transliterators made the distinction, and also that I do. "
== ==

The case of minutely different pronunciations:

When one boils a minute quantity of water for one minute, should those two versions of "minute" be rendered differently? My preference is to say yes, they should indeed be rendered differently. Some more ambiguous cases exist, however. "I worked to perfect my skills and create a perfect masterpiece." is such a case. Here "perfect" is usually pronounced somewhat differently as a verb than as an adjective. I tend to render them differently: "pxfikt", "pxfekt".

The case of dictionary order:

Has it been established what the cannonical order of the symbols is? If the dictionary were to be translated, in what order would the words be arranged? The present dictionary has related words close together by virtue of their similar spellings. ("able" - "ability" for example) The initial vowel sounds in these two words are different, however, and would be represented by different initial Shavian symbols. Is there any virtue in selecting spellings which are not strictly phonetic, yet which preserve information about the word, its origin and relatedness to other words? In other words, should "able" and "ability" have the same initial symbols in spite of not having the same initial sounds?

The case of the extra "g":

The word "hungry" is pronounced "hung-gree", and not "hung-ree". There is an extra "g" sound here that snuck in behind our backs. Should this be rendered hung-gree, "huNgrI", or hung-ree, "huNrI" in Shavian. The one seems decidedly unphonetic, while the other seems redundant. I haven't decided which I prefer, and found words rendered both ways in my own translations. But I do find it confusing to read a word like "miNld", which I believe should be rendered "miNgld".

The case of drawing conclusions:

"Conclusion" is a good example of an ambiguous, or at least contested, initial vowel sound. Is it kon-klew-zhun, "konklMZun", or kun-klew-zhun "kunklMZun". The first seems more natural, but the second seems more accurate, while speakers in other dialects might find both "wrong". Again, I've not yet decided which I prefer. Being unstressed it seems to me an arbitrary choice, although in my own translations I have leaned toward "konklMZun". (Words like "conformation", on the other hand, seem to have unambiguous initial vowels, although this may simply be a feature of my dialect.)

The case of seeking conformation:

Unstressed internal vowels can be problematic. To wit: "conformation". Is it to be rendered kon-for-MAY-shun, "konfPmESun", or kon-fir-MAY-shun, "konfxmESun"? Again the "fP" version seems more natural, while the "fx" version seems more accurate. To my ears at least.

Who is Ian, and why can't he get along with the other children?

There has been a lot of discussion about the use of "ian". I tend to use it whenever the "if-ado" OR "if-up" OR "if-on" sound presents, stressed ot unstressed. But others have different views involving stressed vs. unstressed sounds.

== earlier comments made by Hugh ==
"the distinction should be made between 'ian' and 'if'+'ado' - the stress is unclear if 'ian' is used all the time. 'Ian' is pronounced 'EAR', without the 'r' (in rhotic dialects) - the 'if' sound in it is strongly pronounced and stressed, the small 'ado' sound at the end is almost swallowed up. So, bearing this in mind, try *saying* 'centurion' if 'ian' is used - it comes out (in RP) as 'SEN-CHUR-EARN' (with capitals showing stress). Exactly my point - all the syllables have tress. If using 'If'+'ado' instead, it comes out as 'SEN-CHUR-i-an', with NO stress on the final syllable (exactly how is is supposed to be said). You'll notice I have left the case of 'ear' vs. 'if'+'array' till last, funnily enough because it is hardly ever observed. Why? Because it's silly - you can't write words like 'brainier', 'siller' and 'easier' in Shavian using 'ear', they would sound daft ('BRAYN-EAR', 'SILL-EAR', 'EEZ-EAR'), so writers use 'if'+'array' to even out the stress. Notice something familiar here? 'Ear' is only the rhotic equivalent of 'ian', and 'array' the rhotic equivalent of 'ado'! The 'ear' vs. 'if'+'array' issue is, phonetically, EXACTLY the same as the 'ian' vs. 'if'+'ado' issue, except without the rhoticism, so how can one make the distinction in one but not the other?!?
== ==

Does this sound familiar?

The word familiar is another good example (provided by Hugh in connection with the "ian" controversy) which can be spelled in a number of ways: "fumilC", "fumilIx", "fumiljx", "familC", "fAmiljx", "fAmilWr", to mention but a few of the possibly two dozen different ways. What are the virtues of each? Which should be prefered, and for what reason? I tend toward "familjx" for no particular reason at all.

When are double letters justified?

In certain cases it seems to me that doubel consonants are required to render the correct pronunciation. For example "openness" seems to require two "n's"; "Opennes". "Openes" just doesn't seem right to me. Comments?

Rendering foreign names and phrases:

Is "Von Weber" to be rendered "/von /webx"? or "/fOn /vEbx"? I much prefer to render the name as closely as possible to its proper German pronunciation, and would choose "/fOn /vEbx".
On the other had, I would lean towards rendering Latin phrases in the Roman aplhabet, since Shavian was not deisgned to render Latin, and the ancient Roman's used the Roman alphabet themselves. Thus, just as a Greek quotation should be rendered in the Greek alphabet, so should Latin quotations be rendered in the Roman alphabet. Comments?


--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=975190996?>

First things first.

Should the word "city" be rendered as pronounced with the long "e" sound "SitI", or in accord with the short "i" convention established by Androcles: "Siti". Actually, "city" should be spelled with a SURE, not a SO. Something more like siti or sitI. So be careful not to spell "city" so shittily!

But seriously folks!

Here's what Read indicates from the Quickscript manual for unstressed vowels in prefixes and suffixes:

"Only a few much-used affix syllables are contracted with advantage, but as their unstressed vowels may be VARIABLY (emphasis mine) pronounced, some standard usage must be established."

-es (plural or present tense) omit the vowel after S, Sh, Ch, J or Z sounds.
kisz, diSz, swicz, briJz, plIzz

-ed (past tense after a T or D sound) omit the vowel
Add, fitd

-ing (as a suffix, not as part of the root) omit the vowel.
kYlN, rFtN, but sINN, rINN.

terminal -al, -el, -le, -il (after a consonant sound) omit the vowel.
trFbl, animl, iniSl, levl, kupl, sivl.
(after a vowel sound, spell in full):
bxal, viZVal, lqal
if the LOLL is not the last consonant, spell the ADO.
miNald

-ally, -able, -ible, -ibly, -ably (write the ADO)
-ali, -abl, -abli

-tion,-ssion, -shion, -cean, -sion, -gion, -ation, -asion.(omit ADO)
-Sn, -ESn.

-en, -on (write the ADO)
hApan, pijan, lesan

-ent, -ant, -ence, -ance (write the ADO)
-ant, -ans

-land, -ment, -man. .(omit ADO)
/INlnd, pEmnt, ombudzmn
-men (when plural, write the EGG)
sImen

-us, -ous, -cious, -scious, -tious (write the ADO)
sxkas, preSas

-less, -ness, -est, -ess (write EGG)
hOples, prinses

terminal -er (write ARRAY)
NOTE: in the second alphabet, ERR/EARTH/URGE is completely gone.
It's up to you if you want to keep it, (and I think it looks cool)
but Read got rid of it.
YTD, rFtD, gIvD

unstressed -ier, -ior, -ear etc. (write EAR)
hApC, JMnC
stressed -ier, -ior, -ear etc. (write EAT+ARRAY)
dID, karID, hID

unstressed -ia, -ea, -ian, -ean, -ion (write IAN[+N])
YstrW, vDJinWn
stressed -ia, -ea, -ian, -ean, -ion (write EAT+ADO[+N])
kPIa, /Ian
if with a 'y' sound (write Y+ADO+N)
anjan, miljan

unstressed -y,-ey, -ie, -e, -ily, -ity (write IF)
hApili wiT mani in H citi
stressed -ee (write EAT)
pEjI, trastI, komitI

unstressed -ain (write ADO+N)
kDtan, mQntan
stressed -ain (write AGE+N)
mEntEn, atEN

-age (write ADO+J)
bAgaJ, kAbaJ
-iage (as deriving from a root ending in Y, write IF+J)
mXriJ, kXriJ

stressed con- com- (write ON) (usually these are nouns)
kontents, kontrAst, kompQnd
unstressed con-, com- (omit the vowel. usually these are not nouns)
kntent, kntrAst, kmend

un- (ADO+N even if an N follows in the root word)
anles, antil, annon

unstressed a-, al-, an-, ar- (write ADO ALONE as the prefix)
anQns, anal, alot, alFk, arFv, arEnJ, arQnd
stressed, spell the ASH.
AnVal, AlOkEt, ArOz.

unstressed ob-, of- (with ADO) afiSal
stressed ob-, of- (with ON) ofis

unstressed be-, de-, re (use IF)
bigin, disFd, risIv
stressed be-, de-, re- (use appropriate vowel)
betD, definit, rIbild.

unstressed pre-, pro- (use IF)
prizDv, pridMs
stressed pre-, pro- (use appropriate vowel)
prIsapoz, prOnQn

per-, pur- (always ARRAY)
pDcas, pDfVm

unstressed en- (use IF+N)
inklOzd

Source: Quikscript: It's alphabet and manual, Kingsley Read, pp.19-22.


---
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=975200498?>

I agree whole-heartedly with everything you wrote. This idea of using
certain sounds to represent stress makes no sense whatsoever to me. If you
want to try that, then use the standard diacritical marks for that purpose
and don't screw up Shaw's alphabet.

Paige

At 02:05 PM 11/21/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
>To: <shavian@...>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:53 AM
>Subject: Re: [shavian] "eat" and "if"--institutional mispellings?
>
><snip>
>>
>> As we all know, in the character table there are two characters for what
>> might seem to be identical sounds: 'up' and 'ado'. Why are they there, if
>> they are so similar that one character could suffice to represent them
>both?
>> To represent stress. I thought about this for ages, and the way I see it,
>> the only way to avoid using an 'apostrophe' type character in every single
>> multi-syllabic word to highlight stress (as dictionaries do) is to have a
>> 'schwa' character that could be used to show where the *unstressed* part
>of
>> the word is.
>>
>> OK, the schwa thing is probably self-evident, that's why we all use it.
>But
>> what are not so self-evident are things like 'eat' vs. 'if' (at ends of
>> words),
>
>I have a problem with using "if" at the end of a word like "really". I
>supose I could simply adopt this deliberate misspelling and be done with it,
>but at the present time I'm using my new translator program to translate
>Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. (The translation is proceeding at about one
>chapter per day.) Now to quote Mr. Twain from the introduction:
>
>==
>In this book a number of dialects are used, to wit:
>the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the
>backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike
>County" dialect; and four modified varieties of this
>last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard
>fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly,
>and with the trustworthy guidance and support of
>personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.
>
>I make this explanation for the reason that without
>it many readers would suppose that all these characters
>were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.
>==
>
>I am trying to preserve, as closely as possible, those dialects as recorded
>my Mr. Twain.
>
>If I rendered "Missouri" with the "if" sound at the end readers accustomed
>to the conventional misuse of the final "if" would believe that it is really
>pronounced "ee", and might pronounce the word "MiZOO ree", which is how it
>is commonly pronounced everywhere BUT Missouri. There, the "proper"
>pronunciation is "MiZOO rih", (The terminal sound is actually between "if"
>and "up", leaning more towards "if" in some parts of the state and more
>towards "up" in others.) in other words, it quite clearly terminates with
>the "if" sound, a nuance that is completely lost if "if" is to be used to
>represent two different sounds "ih" and "ee". It seems to me that Mr. Shaw
>did not intend for any alphabet created in his name to perpetuate the same
>ambiguities as the Roman alphabet.
>
>While the subject of stress has been mentioned, it should also be mentioned
>that conventional Roman spelling does quite well without any stress
>indicators. We do, after all, know how to pronounce the words we use.
>Allowing alternate symbols for a vowel based on whether it is stressed or
>not seems redundant.
>
>I understand that Androcles is taken to be the sacred gospel by which such
>disputes are resolved, however I find it hard to accept that the
>translator(s) of Androcles anticipated every possible problem and objection
>that might be raised. Or that Shavian could be used not only to simplify
>English spelling, but also to capture and record nuances of dialect more
>acurately than the Roman alphabet. Assigning alternate sounds to a single
>letter effectively destroys Shavian's ability to record those nuances, since
>we can no longer take it as given that a word is always pronounced as
>written. That, and given the fact that the copy of Androcles that I read was
>checked out of the library 37 years ago, and I haven't seen another copy
>since, I have to rely on my own common sense to make such determinations.
>
>Now if it is strongly felt by the Shavian community at large that "ih" is
>the proper way to terminate a word like "really" then I will bow to that
>convention and adjust my translation program accordingly, even though it
>would mean the loss of a certain degree of the unique flavor of many
>American authors. I would really appreciate seeing more opinions on the
>subject.
>
>BTW: Just how large IS the Shavian community anyway?
>
>--gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/4/_/54531/_/975201008/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->