Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

>
> I invite any comments on this. Any reason why it should be in any
> other
> order than the one given in Androcles?

Ethan, I think that this is a important note, and thank you for
posting. We use a lot of that book as cannon for the questions that we
answer, after all, it is the first major work printed in Shavian. While
there are discrepencies, would it be enough to count them as
pronunciation differences in context?

--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

Hi Ethan
> Yes, Tweeking, yes.
> I am willing to restrain my impulses for unrestricted change if I
> can find some interest.
I updated the list of names incorporating some of your suggestions.
Regards, Paul V.
_______________attached_________________________
A > 1. Adoo (ado)
A > 2. Alef (ash)
B > 3. Beeb (Bib) rhymes with Dweebs
D > 4. Delta or Dad (dead)
E > 5. Ester (egg)
E > 6. Ein-way (age) rhymes with Janeway from Star Trek Voyager
F > 7. Fey (Fee)
G > 8. Gig or Gimmel (Gag)
H > 9. Ha or Hey (Ha-Ha)
I > 10. Ai-way (Ice) rhymes with Highway
V > 11. Vav (Vow)
Z > 12. Zaiyeen (zoo)
T > 13. Tawf (tot) pronounced like Toff-ee
Y > 14. Yad (Yea)
Y > 15. Yood (Yew)
K > 16. Kawf (kick) pronounced like cough
L > 17. Lamed (loll)
M > 18. Mem (mime)
N > 19. Nash (nun)
N > 20. Ing or Ingga (hung)
P > 21. Pey (peep) pronounced like pay
R > 22. Resh (Roar)
ER > 23. Earl (Array)
ER > 24. Urd or Urj (Urge)
ER > 25. Eiran (air) pronounced like Air-an
S > 26. Sam (so)
SH > 27. Shawn (Sure)
J > 28. Jonra (measure) pronounced like the the French "Genre"
CH > 29. Cheetch (church)
J > 30. Judge (judge)
TH > 31. Thor (thigh)
TH > 32. Thawn (They)
W > 33. Wazoo (woe)
I > 34. Izrah (If)
I > 35. Eesy (Eat) pronounced like E.C.
O > 36. Oprah (Oak)
O > 37. Oivy (Oil)
U > 38. Ooze (ooze)
* > 39. Otter (on)
* > 40. Ah (Ah)
* > 41. Oscar or Awesum (Awe)

This still leaves Are, Ear, Or, Out and Ian to be added.
Also I seem to be short a couple Letters.
It should add up to 48.

Ethan contributed:

> Well, for what it's worth, here are the changes
> I've been using for some time. Not as radical 
> as some, but it fixes a few problems. 

What about, to build upon your suggestions:

peep bib (pip bib, or pop bob, just to have the same vowel)
tot dad (tat dad, or tut dud, ditto)
kick gig √

All plosives thus begin and end with the same sound, and each
pair uses the same vowel.

fee vow (fief verve, begins and ends with same sound, as above)
thigh they (thigh thy, same vowel)
so zoo (sauce zoos, begins and ends...)
sure genre (sure azure, same vowel)
church judge √

For the fricatives, one must choose between using the same
vowel in each pair consistently, or beginning and ending some
with the same sound, as above. An alternative would be:

fan van, or few view, (but see below)
thigh thy
sue zoo, or sip zip
sure azure
cheap jeep

Though it would be a pity to lose church and judge, this is a
simpler arrangement. The differentiation of vowels among the
paired sets could perhaps reinforce memory retention, and the
use of the same vowel within each pair could help underscore
the phonemic relationship of voiceless and voiced consonants,
all for ease of initial learning.

yea woa (yea way, same vowel)
ing ha (ing he, ditto)

lol roar (what about lull, or loll, which are actual words)
mime nun (mime nine, same vowel)

And for the vowels, again to further identify phonemic
pairing and reinforce visual similarity:

if eat (it eat, same ending)
egg age (edge age, ditto)
ash ice (ale isle, ditto)
ado up (abut but, ditto)
on oak (on own, ditto)
wool ooze (pull pool, ditto)

out oil (owl oil)

>ah awesome (In some dialects, ah and awe are pronounced the same)

I personally think ah and awe are fine, as I distinguish the two
sounds. But ah and all might do the trick for you, or father and
falter. Of course, considering the original inspiration for this
group, why not Shah and Shaw?

are or √
In my antiquated speech form I even distinguish or from ore.

>air urge (Many people pronounce Err like Air)
Yes they do. What about fair and fur?

>better ear (Better is bettER than ARRay, which is not the right
>sound in all dialects)
Good point, as most instances of this sound would appear to occur
at the ends of words. What about better beer, just to be amusing?

ian yew (few would be a more familiar word)

In some of the latter examples the original principle of beginning,
when possible, each key-word with the sound it is intended to
convey has been abandoned for the sake of clarity. Not everyone
may agree that such an undertaking is necessary. However, in one
case (wool, or pull) there is no choice, so the pattern is in any
event unsustainable. And, a virtue might be made of (contrived)
necessity by further differentiating the -r words through the simple
method of giving them all consonantal beginnings, not just the
examples already suggested. To wit:

far for
fair fur
better beer, or feather fear, if for the sake of uniformity one would
prefer to have all the -r words begin with the same sound. Perhaps
eventually some graphicallv gifted person might devise a new letter
for us to convey the triphthong "fire".

> So there you have it.  Make of it what you like.  Comments
> are most welcome.

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton wrote:


> 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.

The American Heritage Dictionary came into being in
part because of dissatisfaction with the Third International
Webster's, which, though smaller, is the American equivalent
of the OED. The term "International" was thought justified as
it includes British pronunciations, identified as such.

However, in this edition (published, if memory serves me,
in the eighties or thereabouts, so perhaps we may expect a
newer edition soon) and in contrast to the two previous
editions (from the thirties and somewhere along at the turn
of the century, respectively), the editors were more lenient
to current trends, admitting usages and pronunciations which
the sponsors of the American Heritage found objectionable.
This, of course, is the age-old tension between presciptionist
and descriptionist philosophies governing dictionary production,
with educators generally preferring the former and linguists
the latter.

One dispute in particular was the further development of
the ash-sound. It is the "American" Heritage, so "ash" is the
preferred form in the "past master" group of words, but it
is also the American "Heritage" dictionary, a euphemism for
"conservative", with "ash" being definitely "ash". The Third
WID entertained acceptance of a development underway in
America's largest cities where the ash-words are raised to
something approximating a high-front diphthong. If this
continues there will be a use for the "ian" Shaw alphabet
letter which some people have thought superfluous. This
pronunciation may best be heard as sung by Lou Reed of
the once and perhaps still influential Velvet Underground,
where especially the word "and" is no longer but a mere
conjunction but is used as the stressed opening of declarative
sentences, as in the lyric "And I'm her Man", where both
opening and closing words are pronounced (and stressed)
more or less as EH-an(d).

This development, like so many others before it, has taken
place under the radar screen, so to speak, and is either not
generally recognized or is deliberately ignored, as the AH
prefers to do. Then one day someone calls attention to the
fact that the current generation speaks differently than what
the dictionaries would have us believe. It has repercussions
too, setting in motion what William Labov of the University
of Pennsylvania calls chain-shifts, affecting in turn the
pronunciation of other vowels. This is probably the same
process that caused our Great Vowel Shift of earlier centuries,
and which has severed our pronunciation pattern from that
used by other European languages. This too may have been
the time when our a-words, whether ash or ah, began to differ
from the Continental "a" that you must learn if you wish
to speak French or Italian, the "a" of Paris, pasta and the
equally useful Italian word "basta".

In Britain there is the growth of Estuary English, with all the
changes that may bring about, and before that there was the
fronting, or rather centring and diphthongization, of oh-words,
so that they became ago-wool rather than the pure "o" of Scots
(and earlier English). This movement has left a gap in the
mid-back region which is now being increasingly filled by the
raising of the awe-words so that words such as law and fall can
be understood by an American ear as low and foal. Fortunately
for us there is no choice of Shavian letter for these two
interpretations of "oh" and the oak letter may serve for both;
pity the same situation does not apply for the ash-ah words.

Goosey goosey gander,
Whether dost thou wander?

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton wrote:


> ... but I'd say that something intended for a general audience
> (rather than, say, specifically a US one) should probably be
> written with a maximum number of distinctions.


Yes.


> 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.


Actually, the AHD does distinguish between horseâ€"hoarse and
forâ€"four, as you can see in the footnote to the key-word list.
Both pronunciations are given for the words concerned, and
this is true for all editions of the American Heritage, large and
small, a point of great comfort for old farts such as myself who
persist in maintaining this distinction. Usage in the various
versions of Webster’s varies depending upon age and/or size
of edition, and publisher. The older, larger versions tend to
insist upon the difference, the newer and generally smaller
editions do not, or sometimes include both pronunciations as
alternatives. The British imports, the Oxford American, Longman's
and Penguin dictionaries do not, and for some reason choose to
make a point of not doing so, which seems a bit haughty to me
(their editors are Americans). The distinction was also maintained
in the first edition of the OED as well as in the various works by
the great Fowler brothers of "King's English" fame, but abandoned
in the second.

The AHD does distinguish between cot and caught, and in a
clever way. The key word chosen for the short o is pot, and those
who pronounce that word with a true short o are happy, as are all
those who interpret it and every other word of that class as being
pronounced with an ah, simply by assigning that pronunciation to
the symbol o topped with, withâ€"I can never remember the name
of the downward pointing, smiling curve used as a diacritic above
vowels. We do the same, or should, with the Shaw alphabet sign for
"on”, each person pronouncing it their own way, but using the
same symbol.

regards,
dshep

On 8/18/05, dshepx <dshep@gis.net> wrote:
> The AHD does distinguish between cot and caught, and in a
> clever way. The key word chosen for the short o is pot, and those
> who pronounce that word with a true short o are happy, as are all
> those who interpret it and every other word of that class as being
> pronounced with an ah, simply by assigning that pronunciation to
> the symbol o topped with, withâ€"I can never remember the name
> of the downward pointing, smiling curve used as a diacritic above
> vowels.

I've usually heard it called a "breve", even when not marking a short vowel.

> We do the same, or should, with the Shaw alphabet sign for
> "on”, each person pronouncing it their own way, but using the
> same symbol.

This is perfectly fine for reading: people can learn that "sign X and
sign Y represent the same sound" and can then read either as the
merged sound in their 'lect.

It's more difficult in writing, though, since people who merge sounds
in their speech would have to know which one to use in writing, part
of the problem that TO provides as well. (For example, whether to use
a |c| or an |s| for a /s/ sound, or whether to write "there" or
"their", cannot be determined merely by hearing the word spoken in
isolation.)
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink" wrote:


> iz it kYld /hFkM?


jes, NFkM.


ariJanali it wyz, apArantli, but Ha Opanih pyrt
ov muc lOhgar pOams, but at sum tFm sevaral
Nundred jirz agO bakEm an indapendant And
muc-luvd pOatik form, TAnks prFmarali to a
wyndarih munk nEmd /mAtsMO /kinsykM, NM
tUk Ha nEm /bySO.

Niz poams ar YlwEz reprasentad in evari AnTolaJi
ov /JApanIz litaratUr, And espaSali Ha folOwih pOam,
Nwic trAnslEtad litarali iz az folOz:

brEkih He sFlans
ov an Encant pond,
a frog Jumpt intM wytar--
a dIp resanans.

VZali His apirz in its litarari (az apozd tM
litaral) translESan:

lisan! a frog
Jumpih intM Ha stilnes
ov an Encant pond.

F NAv ylso sIn a vurZan Nwere Ha furst
wurd, insted ov "lisan", waz simpli "plop!".


kUriasli, Ha ariJanal, in .JApanIz, cAn bI writan
Vzih He SY Alfabet:

fMrMIke Jy,
kywyzM tObikOmM,
mizM nO OtO.

(kQnt He numbar ov vQwalz tM daturmin
Ha numbar ov silabalz.

And ov kOrs, thIz pOamz wur YlwEz in Ha form
ov kaligrafi, turnih Hem intM dubal yrt formz.


fun, E?


ragyrdz,
dSep

On Aug 17, 2005, at 3:29 PM, dshepx wrote:

> Ethan contributed:
>
> All plosives thus begin and end with the same sound, and each
> pair uses the same vowel.
>

This is probably a bad idea. In noisy environments, words (or letter
names) with similar vowels will be difficult to distinguish. This
problem exists with all the rhyming letter names we have in Roman. For
example, I recently had to call my brother to get a serial number (I
had lost mine) so I could reinstall Windows. Despite the fact that my
phone is normally fairly clear, it was (very nearly) a miracle that I
ended up with the right one.
This is the reason for the so-called "phonetic", Alpha-Bravo-Charley
type alphabets designed for use over radio. Ideally, this issue should
be build into the names already. This is probably why Read used
different vowels. While it's usually possible to determine the
position of a consonant with a rhyming name, it's hardly ever possible
to know if it's voiced in these situations.
The system that Read later used in Shaw-Script often alternated vowels,
as in pea-bay, tea-day etc. It isn't normally a problem that Pea and
Tea have the same vowel because they're in different positions, but Pea
and Bay need to be different. Of course, the names in Androcles are
even more distinct, but either should be sufficient. Then again, it
wouldn't be unacceptable to have two sets of names for different
purposes.

Also note that in general, the names of plosives given in Androcles
begin and end with the same sound, while the fricatives don't. This may
relate to the fact that voiceless plosives in English are usually
aspirated in initial position and nowhere else. A native speaker of a
language that uses aspiration distinctively (Hindi, for example), would
then be reminded that these letters stand for both sounds (which are
the same in English). This is not necessary for fricatives.

> For the fricatives, one must choose between using the same
> vowel in each pair consistently, or beginning and ending some
> with the same sound, as above. An alternative would be:

Neither is really necessary, but repeating the consonant sound in its
name can't hurt.

> And for the vowels, again to further identify phonemic
> pairing and reinforce visual similarity:
>
> if eat (it eat, same ending)
> egg age (edge age, ditto)
> ash ice (ale isle, ditto)
> ado up (abut but, ditto)
> on oak (on own, ditto)
> wool ooze (pull pool, ditto)
>
> out oil (owl oil)

I think some of these may be a little too similar, though the idea is
good. And I believe "ale" should be El. "Abut" may also be confusing,
but would be a good name if we ever wanted to throw out the letter Up
entirely.

> I personally think ah and awe are fine, as I distinguish the two
> sounds. But ah and all might do the trick for you, or father and
> falter. Of course, considering the original inspiration for this
> group, why not Shah and Shaw?

I like ah and all, though Shah and Shaw are too similar again.

> are or √
> In my antiquated speech form I even distinguish or from ore.

I do sometimes, though in my dialect it's usually by sentence stress,
with or being an unstressed word.

>> air urge (Many people pronounce Err like Air)
> Yes they do. What about fair and fur?

These vowels are different enough that those names could work.

>> better ear (Better is bettER than ARRay, which is not the right
>> sound in all dialects)
> Good point, as most instances of this sound would appear to occur
> at the ends of words. What about better beer, just to be amusing?

Or bitter beer. :)

> ian yew (few would be a more familiar word)

Good point, and it would settle the issue of the ew being spelled as a
diphthong.

> better beer, or feather fear, if for the sake of uniformity one would
> prefer to have all the -r words begin with the same sound. Perhaps
> eventually some graphicallv gifted person might devise a new letter
> for us to convey the triphthong "fire".

The letter Array (Better, Bitter, Feather — Letter?) can be used to
form diphthongs and triphthongs in -r, of which English generally has
two (sometimes three): FD (fire), UD (poor), sometimes OD (four—usually
two syllables, or just fP).
When I develop my Shavian handwriting a little more, I may just
ligature these letters when it wouldn't bridge a syllable boundary.
But this is probably just a matter of presentation. The only time a
distinction might be necessary is perhaps if someone distinguishes
words like lyre and liar, which I for one don't.

Regards,
Joseph Spicer
·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼

On Aug 17, 2005, at 5:35 PM, dshepx wrote:

> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton wrote:
>
> The Third
> WID entertained acceptance of a development underway in
> America's largest cities where the ash-words are raised to
> something approximating a high-front diphthong. If this
> continues there will be a use for the "ian" Shaw alphabet
> letter which some people have thought superfluous. This
> pronunciation may best be heard as sung by Lou Reed of
> the once and perhaps still influential Velvet Underground,
> where especially the word "and" is no longer but a mere
> conjunction but is used as the stressed opening of declarative
> sentences, as in the lyric "And I'm her Man", where both
> opening and closing words are pronounced (and stressed)
> more or less as EH-an(d).

I noted this in my own dialect and thought I might need a new letter
for it, but I can't find any minimal pairs for it. I've read that in
some dialects it distinguishes the verb "can" (with the ash sound) from
the noun (which has this sound raised sound) but I doubt there could be
any confusion there. Then again, I've been unable to find any minimal
pair distinguishing ash from ah. I would still consider them phonemic,
since their pronunciation can't be determined from their position, and
it's only a matter of time before these minimal pairs become more
available, appearing in new and changed words.

> This development, like so many others before it, has taken
> place under the radar screen, so to speak, and is either not
> generally recognized or is deliberately ignored, as the AH
> prefers to do. Then one day someone calls attention to the
> fact that the current generation speaks differently than what
> the dictionaries would have us believe. It has repercussions
> too, setting in motion what William Labov of the University
> of Pennsylvania calls chain-shifts, affecting in turn the
> pronunciation of other vowels. This is probably the same
> process that caused our Great Vowel Shift of earlier centuries,
> and which has severed our pronunciation pattern from that
> used by other European languages. This too may have been
> the time when our a-words, whether ash or ah, began to differ
> from the Continental "a" that you must learn if you wish
> to speak French or Italian, the "a" of Paris, pasta and the
> equally useful Italian word "basta".

These chain shifts are also probably what created the various accents
that exist now in English. In fact, learning the shifts that have
occurred in a dialect is a good way of learning to speak it.

> In Britain there is the growth of Estuary English, with all the
> changes that may bring about, and before that there was the
> fronting, or rather centring and diphthongization, of oh-words,
> so that they became ago-wool rather than the pure "o" of Scots
> (and earlier English). This movement has left a gap in the
> mid-back region which is now being increasingly filled by the
> raising of the awe-words so that words such as law and fall can
> be understood by an American ear as low and foal. Fortunately
> for us there is no choice of Shavian letter for these two
> interpretations of "oh" and the oak letter may serve for both;
> pity the same situation does not apply for the ash-ah words.

Of course, if those rising awe sounds stick around, spelling them the
same way will cause the very problems we're trying to fix.

> Goosey goosey gander,
> Whether dost thou wander?

I often resent the fact that my dialect is incompatible with such
rhymes. Many of the rhymes that work only with American pronunciation
often do so only because the author was ignorant of the difference. Of
course, many are intentional, but most aren't very good anyway.

Regards,
Joseph Spicer
·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton wrote:


> I've usually heard it called a "breve", even when not
> marking a short vowel.

Yes, breve. I can never remember. Thank you.

> > We do the same, or should, with the Shaw alphabet sign for
> > 'on', each person pronouncing it their own way, but using
> > the same symbol.
>
> This is perfectly fine for reading: people can learn that "sign X
> and sign Y represent the same sound" and can then read either
> as the merged sound in their 'lect.
>
> It's more difficult in writing, though, since people who merge
> sounds in their speech would have to know which one to use
> in writing, part of the problem that TO provides as well. (For
> example, whether to use a |c| or an |s| for a /s/ sound, or
> whether to write "there" or "their", cannot be determined
> merely by hearing the word spoken in isolation.)

So true. I suppose a certain amount of commitment to memory
is inevitable in any system however rational. Eventually some
standards would emerge I should think (only perhaps to be
challenged by free spirits). Perhaps such tension is a good thing.

regards,
dshep