Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

If he's reflecting his pronunciation, perhaps he should have written: "durt wonted." :)

Paige
----- Original Message -----
From: Star Raven
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] primer


[snip] Just because "wanted" is
spelled out as it is, doesn't mean that the sign down the road from
where my father lives isn't correct. "Dirt Wonted" He's just reflecting
his pronunciation.


--Star


==========

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad

Just because you're evil on the inside, doesn't mean you can't look pretty on the outside.
--Mother Mae-Eye

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "shawalphabet" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Newton
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] primer



Others say, write the way you pronounce it, so if you merge "pen" and
"pin", use one letter for both vowel sounds.

For those who are more knowledgeable about Spanish (which is spoken over a large geographical area) than I am, does Spanish have as many dialectical differences as we seem to have with English? I have read that Spanish has a relatively simple set of symbol to sound correspondences so that a child hearing a word spoken can spell a word correctly if they hear it pronouned.

This leaves me puzzled about the insistence that, despite using an improved alphabet, such as Shavian or QS, we still will be required to look up words in the dictionary on, apparently, a regular basis. Can Gen. Amer. and RP be truly that far apart that we are unlikely to grasp the meaning intended? If one writes "grahss" vs. "grass," do we really believe the meaning won't come through. Do the majority in this group think that an occasional reduction in reading speed would be more onerous to the writer than looking words up in the dictionary repeatedly? It seems to me that the latter choice would involve more loss of time for everyone.

Another thought occurs: how is a writer supposed to know which words to look up? If he speaks an American dialect, is he supposed to memorize which words are written differently in the official "standard" from his dialect? That sounds like a lot of extra effort. I read letters years ago in QS written in a New Zealand dialect. Penmanship slowed me down more than the dialect did. In fact, I enjoyed the dialect coming through the spelling.
I guess I'll never understand the compulsion and fascination with standardization.


Though this will undoubtedly mean, for many writers, looking up words
in a dictionary that makes those distinctions if their own 'lect
doesn't make them, to see whether e.g. "grass" is written with "ash"
or with "ah". (I'd say "grahss" and "mahster", but "crass" and
"passta".)

Even in TO, would it not make sense when English adopts a word from another language, to spell it in such a way that the pronunciation would remain close to the original, rather than using the spelling in the original language, such as "pasta" and then using English spelling conventions, such as they are, and messing up the pronunciation? I believe Spanish adjusts the spelling when it adopts a word to match Spanish conventions. It is my impression that the "ash" sound is not used in Italian so, perhaps, "pasta" should be spelled "pahsta" in English. No doubt, an Italian hearing someone say "passta" would be unlikely, without context, to know what was being referred to. In fact, without context, I probably would take a moment to figure out what "passta" referred to.

Paige


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "shawalphabet" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Here is the new proposed order.
>
> 1. Adoo (ado)
> 2. Alef (ash)
> 3. Aitch (Ice)
> 4. Bet (Bib)
> 5. Gimel (Gag)
> 6. Delta (Dead)

(Ect.)

I officially stand against the new names as unpronouncable. Is that
aetch? itch? atch? iech? and the rest?

--Star

=========
http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad

Just because you're evil on the inside, doesn't mean you can't look pretty on the outside.
--Mother Mae-Eye



____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

C. Paige Gabhart skribis:
>
> For those who are more knowledgeable about Spanish (which
> is spoken over a large geographical area) than I am, does
> Spanish have as many dialectical differences as we seem to
> have with English?

I'm not an expert on Spanish, but Spanish does have quite a few
dialects. However, in English the differences are primarily in the
pronunciation of various vowels, but in Spanish the differences
are primarily in the pronunciation of various consonants. The letter
represented by "J" for example can vary widely from Spain to
Mexico to Argentina.


> I have read that Spanish has a relatively simple set of symbol
> to sound correspondences so that a child hearing a word
> spoken can spell a word correctly if they hear it pronouned.

Certainly more so than in English, but Spanish has a few ambiguous
spelling rules, too. For example, there is the silent H, and in many
dialects the digraph LL sounds the same as the letter Y. I have been
told on another list by native speakers that it is not unusual to see
spelling mistakes where LL and Y have been reversed or an H has
been added to a word (or omitted where it should be). I've also
been told that some Spanish speakers normally leave off all the
accent marks, which are needed to disambiguate words.



Philip Newton skribis:
>
> Though this will undoubtedly mean, for many writers, looking up words
> in a dictionary that makes those distinctions if their own 'lect
> doesn't make them, to see whether e.g. "grass" is written with "ash"
> or with "ah". (I'd say "grahss" and "mahster", but "crass" and
> "passta".)

Interesting. General American has "ash" for grass/master/crass, but
has "ah" for pasta.


--Ph. D.

The use of a silent letter doesn't comport with the manner in which I conceive an alphabet should work. I assume that a silent letter almost always must be a vestige of the way the word used to be pronounced. On the other hand, though, at least the "h" is always silent. Not coming and going as would be likely in English.

Presumably, for historical reasons both "ll" and "y" exist. So in those dialects where "ll" and "y" sound the same, should their substitution, one for the other, matter, i.e. should spelling be so important? The assumption is that you must be illiterate if you don't know the difference, but, could it not be that given the sound equivalence, it isn't worth taking the time to memorize something that should not matter?

If I substitute an equivalent in math, the outcome does not change: 4 + 5 = 9, (2+2)+ 5 = 9. Is there a difference? So if I substitute a "ll" for "y" and the sound is the same, should we consider it a difference? If writing is just a code representing graphically the sounds of language, and "ll" or "y" stand for the same sound, then they should be interchangable and either should be "correct" since there in no functional difference between them.

Today I received a slick advertisement from a national magazine, albeit, one of relatively small circulation. The mailing contained one of those folded-in-half inserts that attempts a second shot at convincing you to subscribe. The front of the pale green paper suggested I should open it and "take a peak." No, it was not a magazine for mountaineers. The concept I was just suggesting may be occurring in English despite the attempts of purists to hold back the flood. With spellcheckers held high, those who failed to heed their English teachers' admonitions about the importance of spelling seem, increasingly, to be taking over. It is not just e-mails anymore, spelling errors are becoming more common even in printed materials. So in the long run those of you who favor standardized spelling may be fighting a losing battle after all, whether it is in TO or Shavian or Quikscript.

Paige




----- Original Message -----
From: Ph.D.
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] primer


C. Paige Gabhart skribis:
>
> For those who are more knowledgeable about Spanish (which
> is spoken over a large geographical area) than I am, does
> Spanish have as many dialectical differences as we seem to
> have with English?

I'm not an expert on Spanish, but Spanish does have quite a few
dialects. However, in English the differences are primarily in the
pronunciation of various vowels, but in Spanish the differences
are primarily in the pronunciation of various consonants. The letter
represented by "J" for example can vary widely from Spain to
Mexico to Argentina.


> I have read that Spanish has a relatively simple set of symbol
> to sound correspondences so that a child hearing a word
> spoken can spell a word correctly if they hear it pronouned.

Certainly more so than in English, but Spanish has a few ambiguous
spelling rules, too. For example, there is the silent H, and in many
dialects the digraph LL sounds the same as the letter Y. I have been
told on another list by native speakers that it is not unusual to see
spelling mistakes where LL and Y have been reversed or an H has
been added to a word (or omitted where it should be). I've also
been told that some Spanish speakers normally leave off all the
accent marks, which are needed to disambiguate words.


Philip Newton skribis:
>
> Though this will undoubtedly mean, for many writers, looking up words
> in a dictionary that makes those distinctions if their own 'lect
> doesn't make them, to see whether e.g. "grass" is written with "ash"
> or with "ah". (I'd say "grahss" and "mahster", but "crass" and
> "passta".)

Interesting. General American has "ash" for grass/master/crass, but
has "ah" for pasta.


--Ph. D.





SPONSORED LINKS George bernard shaw Ttf fonts Font software
Organizational culture


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "shawalphabet" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

_http://www.foolswisdom.com/users/sbett/spanish-inconsistencies.html_
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/users/sbett/spanish-inconsistencies.html)

Spanish is around 85% phonemic
By the same measure, English is about 8% phonemic.
Phonics advocates are usually in denial about this claiming that English is
85% predictable. It is true that an average of 4 patterns per sound is
sufficint to
account for 85% of the traditional spellings in the dictionary. This is not
anywhere
near 85% predictable. You have to make four guesses.

My guess is that Spanish has the same problems as English when it comes to
the variety of dialects. The difference is that Spanish chose the dialect
that the
writing system was going to describe in 1490. This was endorsed by the
Academia
Real 200 years later.

While we talk about the king's or queen's English, it has never been
selected as the model.
There have been phonemic texts develope that describe southern educated
english better than written spanish describes Castilian (the dialect of the
castle or the court). However, this was just an exercise and not a writing system
that our best writer's use.

S P A N I S H


Phoneme
Letter
Phoneme
Letter
/i/
i, final y
/y/
y
/e/
e
/tS/
ch
/a/
a
/x/
j, gi, e
/o/
o
/m/
m
/u/
u
/n/
n
/p/
p
/ø/
ñ
/t/
t
/N/
n, m
/k/
c, qui, e
/l/
l
/b/
b, v
/´/
ll
/d/
d
/L/
l
/g/
g, gui, e
/R/
r
/f/
f
/r/
rr
/T/
z, ci, e
/R/
r
/s/
s


The letter h is silent in all cases and so corresponds to no phoneme.
C. Paige Gabhart skribis:
>
> For those who are more knowledgeable about Spanish (which
> is spoken over a large geographical area) than I am, does
> Spanish have as many dialectical differences as we seem to
> have with English?
Probably and they were there from the beginning (1490).
English had some initial problems because the language of court since 1100
was Norman French. Things had changed by 1500 but evidently not enough to
have
a King's English.

I'm not an expert on Spanish, but Spanish does have quite a few
dialects. However, in English the differences are primarily in the
pronunciation of various vowels, but in Spanish the differences
are primarily in the pronunciation of various consonants. The letter
represented by "J" for example can vary widely from Spain to
Mexico to Argentina.


> I have read that Spanish has a relatively simple set of symbol
> to sound correspondences so that a child hearing a word
> spoken can spell a word correctly if they hear it pronouned.
Children who speak a dialect that is quite different that Castilian
do make spelling errors. They are spelling a dialect they do not speak.
However, it seems that the problem is not as great as in English where
most of the time we are spelling a dialect that no one speaks.

Certainly more so than in English, but Spanish has a few ambiguous
spelling rules, too. For example, there is the silent H, and in many
dialects the digraph LL sounds the same as the letter Y. I have been
told on another list by native speakers that it is not unusual to see
spelling mistakes where LL and Y have been reversed or an H has
been added to a word (or omitted where it should be). I've also
been told that some Spanish speakers normally leave off all the
accent marks, which are needed to disambiguate words.



Philip Newton skribis:
>
> Though this will undoubtedly mean, for many writers, looking up words
> in a dictionary that makes those distinctions if their own 'lect
> doesn't make them, to see whether e.g. "grass" is written with "ash"
> or with "ah". (I'd say "grahss" and "mahster", but "crass" and
> "passta".)

Interesting. General American has "ash" for grass/master/crass, but
has "ah" for pasta.
SB: Why would a borrowed word /pästä/ be repronounced? /pæst&/?

Hi Star
The Proposed New Name for the Shaw Ice Letter is pronounced
Ice+Church. It doesn't seem particularly complicated.
It is the same as the pronunciation of the Roman name of the
H Letter, by some Britons.
I agree that there might be some confusion?
Can you think of any name starting with the Aye sound, that would be
less confusing and still recognizable as an English name.
Ice doesn't cut it for me.
Regards, Paul V.

P.S. It is too early to stand against the new names. It was just a
starting point and incomplete to boot.
You will just have to wait.
Restrain yourself, girl. You will get your chance.
______________________attached_________________________________


--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
<celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
>
> I officially stand against the new names as unpronouncable. Is that
> aetch? itch? atch? iech? and the rest?
>
> --Star

Hi Everyone
I will show the correspondences with Roman Alphabet Order.

A > 1. Adoo (ado)
A > 2. Alef (ash)
A > 3. Aitch (Ice) pronounced like Aye with a Ch ending
B > 4. Bet (Bib)
G > 5. Gimel (Gag)
D > 6. Delta (Dead)
H > 7. Hey (Ha-ha)
V > 8. Vav (Vow)
Z > 9. Zaiyeen (zoo)
T > 10. Tawf (tot) pronounced like Toff-ee
Y > 11. Yad (Yea)
Y > 12. Yood (Yew)
K > 13. Kawf (kick) pronounced like cough
L > 14. Lamed (loll)
M > 15. Mem (mime)
N > 16. Nash (nun)
N > 17. Ingga (hung)
S > 18. Sam (so)
E > 19. Ester (egg)
E > 20. Eisawv (age) pronounced like A-salve
E > 21. Eiran (air) pronounced like Air-an
P > 22. Pey (peep) pronounced like pay
ER > 23. Earl (Array)
ER > 24. Urd (Urge)
R > 25. Resh (Roar)
SH > 26. Shawn (Sure)
F > 27. Fee (fee)
W > 28. Wazoo (woe)
J > 29. Jawn (measure) pronounced like the the French "Jean"
CH > 30. Cheetch (church)
J > 31. Judge (judge)
TH > 32. Thor (thigh)
TH > 33. Thawn (They)
I > 34. Izrah (If)
I > 35. Eesy (Eat) pronounced like E.C.
O > 36. Oprah (Oak)
O > 37. Oivy (Oil)
U > 38. Ooze (ooze)

The only Roman letters equivalents not represented are C, Q and X.
The Order of the letters is quite similar, and more importantly the
lesser used letters have been migrated to the end of the list.
Any suggestions on improving the Shavian sequence of letters.

Regards, Paul V.
_______________________attached___________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink11@h...> wrote:
> Hi Philip
> I'd like to make a Primer too.
> But I was concerned that the order and the Names of the Shaw
> Alphabet might be an unnecessary hurdle for someone familar with
the
> order of the Roman Alphabet.
> I find the fact that the Greek and Hebrew Alphabets are close to
the
> Roman Alphabet in order, to helpful in looking up a word in those
> languages.
> A while back I suggested an Alternate Shavian Alphabet order with
> more distinctive names. Maybe we could use that as a starting
point.
> I think it is also a good idea that the more commonly used letters
> should be at the beginning of the Alphabet.
>
> Here is the new proposed order.
>
> 1. Adoo (ado)
> 2. Alef (ash)
> 3. Aitch (Ice)
> 4. Bet (Bib)
> 5. Gimel (Gag)
> 6. Delta (Dead)
> 7. Hey (Ha-ha)
> 8. Vav (Vow)
> 9. Zaiyeen (zoo)
> 10. Tawf (tot) pronounced like Toff-ee
> 11. Yad (Yea)
> 12. Yood (Yew)
> 13. Kawf (kick) pronounced like cough
> 14. Lamed (loll)
> 15. Mem (mime)
> 16. Nash (nun)
> 17. Ingga (hung)
> 18. Sam (so)
> 19. Ester (egg)
> 20. Eisawv (age) pronounced like A-salve
> 21. Eiran (air) pronounced like Air-an
> 22. Pey (peep) pronounced like pay
> 23. Earl (Array)
> 24. Urd (Urge)
> 25. Resh (Roar)
> 26. Shawn (Sure)
> 27. Fee (fee)
> 28. Wazoo (woe)
> 29. Jawn (measure) pronounced like the the French "Jean"
> 30. Cheetch (church)
> 31. Judge (judge)
> 32. Thor (thigh)
> 33. Thawn (They)
> 34. Izrah (If)
> 35. Eesy (Eat) pronounced like E.C.
> 36. Oprah (Oak)
> 37. Oivy (Oil)
> 38. Ooze (ooze)
>
> I haven't figured out a good order for the remaining 10
> Vowel sounds. They are harder to fit into the traditional pattern.
>
> up, on, ah, wool, out, awe
> Ir, Are, Or
> and Ian
>
> Suggestions?
> Regards, Paul V.
>
_______________attached________________________________________
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton
> <philip.newton@g...> wrote:
> > On 8/10/05, Ph.D. <phil@p...> wrote:
> > > Philip Newton skribis:
> > > >
> > > > One resource that's occasionally pointed to is AHD4 (The
> American
> > > > Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
> Edition), which
> > > > you can find at http://dictionary.reference.com/ (among
other
> places);
> > > > it makes more distinctions than General American (e.g. cot-
> caught, but
> > > > not horse-hoarse or for-four, which Shavian also does not
> > > > distinguish). Although it seems to use "ash" for
> > > > pass/faster/master/grass/ask/answer, which surprises me.
> > >
> > > Why does this surprise you? General American does make a
> distinction
> > > between cot/caught but not between horse/hoarse or for/four.
> >
> > I was under the impression that the 'lect underlying AHD4 was
not
> GA
> > but something a bit closer to British pronunciation --
> specifically,
> > something moderately suitable for Androcles-style Shavian.
> >
> > (And I didn't know that GA does not have the cot/caught merger.)
> >
> > It appears that AHD4 is not *that* great an approximation at
> Androcles
> > Shavian, but it may still be better than the native 'lect for
some
> > people.
> >
> > > General American does have the sound of "ash" in
> > > pass/faster/master/grass/ask/answer.
> >
> > I see.
> > --
> > Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>

Hi Folks,

Shavian is not only beautiful by its appearance. Once memorized it is
the simplest to write down, with its single-stroke letters. And even
though it was intended for the Received Pronounciation it is rather
versitle at writing down the other Dialects of English if one is so
adaptive as to recognize this. Typically, the Received Pronounciation
is not very Rhotic in nature. But the Shavian Alphabet is very much a
Rhotic Alphabet, thus making Shavian half-way between American and
Brittish. If any one has some questions for me how to adapt Shavian to
the American Pronounciation, just ask, and I will gladly answer.

Best of Regards,

Carl

> P.S. It is too early to stand against the new names. It was just a
> starting point and incomplete to boot.
> You will just have to wait.
> Restrain yourself, girl. You will get your chance.

PPPPBBBLLLLLTTTTT!

Now that's over, we can get on to the business. I agree that yes, the
original names could use some tweaking, but I don't think we should go
so far as to re-do the whole thing. Perhaps, like in English we
consider names like our English letters.

A-ee
Bee
See
Dee
Ee
Ef
Gee
and so on, but reworked for our letters. Pip bib gig t-- well, you get
the idea.

--Star

=========
http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad

Just because you're evil on the inside, doesn't mean you can't look pretty on the outside.
--Mother Mae-Eye



____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs