Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Spicer wrote:


> > 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.

Don't resent it. This is an example of vowel shift. It once rhymed;
it no longer does, anywhere.

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Spicer wrote:


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

> > 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.

Well, that may be true. I was thinking about its mnenomic
advantages in a classroom environment of small children
putting them to memory, in sing-song fashion: pip-bib,
tat-dad, kick-gig etc. It could be confusing in some
environments, but the purpose of the Alpha Bravo
alphabet is to come to the rescue of such confusion.

> The system that Read later used in Shaw-Script often
> alternated vowels, as in pea-bay, tea-day etc.

That's a possibility, rhythmical alternation:
pea-bay, tea-day, key-,
or let's try pea-buy, tea-die (or dye), key-guy.

> 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.

No it wouldn't. This discussion began with a query for a set of
keywords easily remembered and more importantly, easily learned
by newcomers, which would I think require some form of
organization. The present system is entirely random.

> Also note that in general, the names of plosives given in Androcles
> begin and end with the same sound, while the fricatives don't.

Church and judge are fricatives.

> 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.

That's a good point, especially as so many people in India speak
English.

> > For the fricatives, one must choose between using the same
> > vowel in each pair consistently, or beginning and ending some
> > some with the same sound:
>
> Neither is really necessary, but repeating the consonant sound
> in its name can't hurt.

Again, I was merely searching for some order that would render
them easy (easier) to remember.

> > 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) oops, wrong
> > 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.

Right you are; slipped up there. There don't seem to be any
really convincing alternatives.

>"Abut" may also be confusing,

The idea was to contrast the unstressed and stressed
in a similar form: abut/but

> but would be a good name if we ever wanted to throw
> out the letter Up entirely.

You mean, use only the schwa? But it is always unstressed.

> > 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.

I feel sure that Bernard Shaw would not be happy to hear his name
pronounced anything like Shah.

> > 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.

Yes, I've heard that in people. But how would you pronounce NPR.org?

> > > 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. :)

Why not?.

> > 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 â€" 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 (fourâ€"usually two syllables, or just fP).

Yes it can, but this leaves us with two groups of r-words: one that
can be represented with a single symbol, and those that require two,
when it would be simpler and more systematic (I think) to use either
one method or the other. In my own usage I've found it easier to just
ignore all the special symbols for r-combinations and simply use a
vowel plus r, even though my speech is hardly rhotic. The final
r is just treated as being different from initial r, as indeed it is
in everyone's speech (but in different ways), something the IPA
recognizes.

> When I develop my Shavian handwriting a little more, I may just
> ligature these letters when it wouldn't bridge a syllable boundary.

That is possible for 'poor' for example, but not easily for 'fire' or
'pour'.

regards,
dshep

Hi Joseph
I agree.
While it might be nice to be able to derive consonant names by using
a standard formula, and the same vowel, there is much more benefit
in making each letter name distinctive and recognizable different by
more than one sound.
One suggestion. Use a selection of Long or Dipthong Vowels that are
not easily confused with other letter sounds. Hopefully, the letter
names will be clear enough that we can use them to safely spell out
words.
And We definately need to provide clearly distinct (Different) names
for each of the voiced/unvoiced sound pairs. If you whisper, a
voiced Consonant it normally sounds almost indistinguishable with
the unvoiced consonant sound.
Names in the form of Consonant Vowel Repeated Consonant could sound
just too similar when whispered.

Regards, Paul V.
_________________attached___________________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Spicer <wurdbendur@g...>
wrote:
> 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 â€" 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
(fourâ€"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
> ·ð`¡ð`´ð`•ð`§ð`" ·ð`•ð`ð`²ð`•ð`¼

On 8/18/05, dshepx <dshep@...> wrote:
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Spicer wrote:
>
> > Also note that in general, the names of plosives given in Androcles
> > begin and end with the same sound, while the fricatives don't.
>
> Church and judge are fricatives.

No, they're not: they're affricates. (Roughly, composed of a
plosive/stop plus a fricative.)

Perhaps the reason they follow the ABA pattern is that they "contain"
a plosive even if that's not the only thing marking those particular
phonemes.

I'm told that in English, they also "pattern" with stops; that is,
ch/j can occur in the same environments as, say, t/d but not
necessarily in the same as, say, s/z or f/v. I can't think of an
example, though.

I think those are the only two phonemic affricates in English; German
also has "pf" and "ts", for example, and "kkh" in some dialects.

> > > 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.
>
> I feel sure that Bernard Shaw would not be happy to hear his name
> pronounced anything like Shah.

Then he shouldn't visit those parts of Anglophonia which merge those
two phonemes... it's not something he can choose.
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

On Aug 18, 2005, at 2:17 AM, dshepx wrote:

> Well, that may be true. I was thinking about its mnenomic
> advantages in a classroom environment of small children
> putting them to memory, in sing-song fashion: pip-bib,
> tat-dad, kick-gig etc. It could be confusing in some
> environments, but the purpose of the Alpha Bravo
> alphabet is to come to the rescue of such confusion.

I guess it makes a better mnemonic, but it also makes a good tongue
twister.

> That's a possibility, rhythmical alternation:
> pea-bay, tea-day, key-,
> or let's try pea-buy, tea-die (or dye), key-guy.

Yes, Read used the name Gay. I suppose it wasn't an issue at the time.
I like yours, though. In fact, Read used fee-vie, presumably because
vay is not a word...

>> ...it wouldn't be unacceptable to have two sets of names
>> for different purposes.
>
> No it wouldn't. This discussion began with a query for a set of
> keywords easily remembered and more importantly, easily learned
> by newcomers, which would I think require some form of
> organization. The present system is entirely random.

Well, not entirely... Anyway, the names given in Shaw Script make much
more sense than the ones in Androcles.

>> 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.
>
> That's a good point, especially as so many people in India speak
> English.
>
>
>>> 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) oops, wrong
[snip]
>>> I think some of these may be a little too similar, though
>> the idea is good. And I believe "ale" should be El.
>
> Right you are; slipped up there. There don't seem to be any
> really convincing alternatives.

Maybe Al-aisle?

>> "Abut" may also be confusing,
>
> The idea was to contrast the unstressed and stressed
> in a similar form: abut/but

I guess it does that well, while being easy to remember, but I still
think it would be easily misunderstood.

>> but would be a good name if we ever wanted to throw
>> out the letter Up entirely.
>
> You mean, use only the schwa? But it is always unstressed.

And Up is always stressed, making them mutually exclusive. There have
been proposals in the past to get rid of Up and use Ado in its place,
as Read did with Quikscript. I've considered doing this in my writing,
but I like having some indication of stress.

> I feel sure that Bernard Shaw would not be happy to hear his name
> pronounced anything like Shah.

That made me laugh. I'm sure he wouldn't, but he certainly understood
the diversity of English and wouldn't expect everybody to pronounce it
the same way.

>> I do sometimes, though in my dialect it's usually by sentence
>> stress, with or being an unstressed word.
>
> Yes, I've heard that in people. But how would you pronounce NPR.org?

For some reason I have the triphthong in "org", which I pronounce ODg.
Other words, like "four" tend to vary depending on how quickly I'm
speaking.

>> The letter Array (Better, Bitter, Feather â€" 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 (fourâ€"usually two syllables, or just fP).
>
> Yes it can, but this leaves us with two groups of r-words: one that
> can be represented with a single symbol, and those that require two,
> when it would be simpler and more systematic (I think) to use either
> one method or the other.

A agree that would make more sense.

> In my own usage I've found it easier to just
> ignore all the special symbols for r-combinations and simply use a
> vowel plus r, even though my speech is hardly rhotic. The final
> r is just treated as being different from initial r, as indeed it is
> in everyone's speech (but in different ways), something the IPA
> recognizes.

Most of the special letters are hardly more than presentational
ligatures anyway, at least in most positions. Of course, some dialects
may need to distinguish the combination of a rhotic vowel followed by a
another vowel from one with simply vowel + r + vowel. Androcles has
this in a few places, but I'm not sure how important it is.

>> When I develop my Shavian handwriting a little more, I may just
>> ligature these letters when it wouldn't bridge a syllable boundary.
>
> That is possible for 'poor' for example, but not easily for 'fire' or
> 'pour'.

Well, "poor" is the easy one. I have ideas for the others; but my
scanner has recently become unavailable, and my tablet is acting up, so
I'll have to come up with an image later.

Regards,
Joseph Spicer
·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼

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


> On 8/18/05, dshepx <dshep@g...> wrote:

> > Church and judge are fricatives.
>
> No, they're not: they're affricates. (Roughly, composed
> of a plosive/stop plus a fricative.)


Quite right. Half-fricatives then.


> Perhaps the reason they follow the ABA pattern is that they
> "contain" a plosive even if that's not the only thing marking
> those particular phonemes.
>
> I'm told that in English, they also "pattern" with stops; that is,
> ch/j can occur in the same environments as, say, t/d but not
> necessarily in the same as, say, s/z or f/v. I can't think of an
> example, though.

That's interesting. Most books I'm familiar with just lump them
with the fricatives (sometimes with a footnote disclaimer), hence
my readiness to include them in that category. However, if they
function more like plosives then perhaps they they should be
more often included with that group. Or of course kept separate,
but there are several other "separates": one lateral, one aspirate,
one trill, one flap, so that grouping suffers. No reason why it
shouldn't, I suppose, except convenience. The IPA doesn't even
think (our) affricatives deserve a place in the table of consonants,
being a combination, and have banished them to a footnoteâ€"as if
to say, just one of those odd things that "Les Anglais" are known to
fool around with.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > I feel sure that Bernard Shaw would not be happy to hear
> > his name pronounced anything like Shah.
>
> Then he shouldn't visit those parts of Anglophonia which
> merge those two phonemes... it's not something he can choose.

No, but I suspect he would have something to say about it; and
would have visited any errant part of Anglophonia to confront the
perpetrators in person, not with malice intent but with amusement.
He was a remarkably witty man, and notoriously quick-witted; he
would have been a sensation on television.

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Spicer wrote:

> On Aug 18, 2005, at 2:17 AM, dshepx wrote:
>
> > Well, that may be true. I was thinking about its mnenomic
> > advantages in a classroom environment of small children
> > putting them to memory, in sing-song fashion: pip-bib,
> > tat-dad, kick-gig etc. It could be confusing in some
> > environments, but the purpose of the Alpha Bravo
> > alphabet is to come to the rescue of such confusion.
>
> I guess it makes a better mnemonic, but it also makes a
> good tongue twister.

Do you think so really? Tongue-twisters?

> > That's a possibility, rhythmical alternation:
> > pea-bay, tea-day, key-,
> > or let's try pea-buy, tea-die (or dye), key-guy.
>
> Yes, Read used the name Gay. I suppose it wasn't an issue at the
> time. I like yours, though. In fact, Read used fee-vie, presumably
> because vay is not a word...

There used to be a silly little couplet used in greeting cards
that went something like this:

" As you now step forward on life's highway,
" May you always be carefree, happy and gay!

Times, and words, change.

> > > 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.
> >
> > That's a good point, especially as so many people in India speak
> > English.

This is more than good point, come to think of itâ€"perhaps an
essential one if we were ever to attract any Indian members.

> > > > 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) oops, wrong
...
> > Right you are; slipped up there. There don't seem to be any
> > really convincing alternatives.
>
> Maybe Al-aisle?

That would work. I suspect that some would say that al/aisle is a
less attractive choice than ash/ice, and perhaps they would be right,
so the decision would depend upon just how important it may be to
have easily recognizable and clearly related groups of words. I think
it could be of some importance in presenting the Shaw alphabet as
a thoroughly compelling, well-arranged system of coherent thought
(and not just another internet oddity).

> > > "Abut" may also be confusing,
> >
> > The idea was to contrast the unstressed and stressed
> > in a similar form: abut/but
>
> I guess it does that well, while being easy to remember, but I
> still think it would be easily misunderstood.
>
> > > but would be a good name if we ever wanted to throw
> > > out the letter Up entirely.
> >
> > You mean, use only the schwa? But it is always unstressed.
>
> And Up is always stressed, making them mutually exclusive.
> There have been proposals in the past to get rid of Up and use
> Ado in its place, as Read did with Quikscript. I've considered
> doing this in my writing, but I like having some indication of
> stress.

So do I. It seems to me that practically every other letter, or
every third or fourth, is already the schwa, so using that symbol
for anything else would only fill sentences up even more with a
repetitive symbol.

> > I feel sure that Bernard Shaw would not be happy to hear his
> > name pronounced anything like Shah.
>
> That made me laugh. I'm sure he wouldn't, but he certainly
> understood the diversity of English and wouldn't expect
> everybody to pronounce it the same way.

No, but he would have had something amusing to say about it.

> > > I do sometimes, though in my dialect it's usually by sentence
> > > stress, with or being an unstressed word.
> >
> > Yes, I've heard that in people. But how would you pronounce
> > NPR.org?
>
> For some reason I have the triphthong in "org", which I pronounce
> ODg. Other words, like "four" tend to vary depending on how
> quickly I'm speaking.

Not awrg? like they say on NPR?

regards,
dshep

On Aug 18, 2005, at 11:36 PM, dshepx wrote:

>> I guess it makes a better mnemonic, but it also makes a
>> good tongue twister.
>
> Do you think so really? Tongue-twisters?

Well, it may just be me, but I can't keep from saying "tad-dat"
whenever I read it, though the other pairs listed are easy enough. I
would imagine that the fun only continues from there.

> There used to be a silly little couplet used in greeting cards
> that went something like this:
>
> " As you now step forward on life's highway,
> " May you always be carefree, happy and gay!
>
> Times, and words, change.

There was another little rhyme like that, but I can't remember it...

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That's a good point, especially as so many people in India speak
>>> English.
>
> This is more than good point, come to think of itâ€"perhaps an
> essential one if we were ever to attract any Indian members.

A quick look at the phonemes of Hindi doesn't reveal anything else that
I think may influence letter names—but I don't speak it, so another
opinion would be good.

>> Maybe Al-aisle?
>
> That would work. I suspect that some would say that al/aisle is a
> less attractive choice than ash/ice, and perhaps they would be right,
> so the decision would depend upon just how important it may be to
> have easily recognizable and clearly related groups of words. I think
> it could be of some importance in presenting the Shaw alphabet as
> a thoroughly compelling, well-arranged system of coherent thought
> (and not just another internet oddity).

Most people are used to random, unrelated letter names anyway. They're
probably won't sway anybody's opinion one way or the other.
And yes, I prefer ash-ice.

>>>> "Abut" may also be confusing,
>>>
>>> The idea was to contrast the unstressed and stressed
>>> in a similar form: abut/but
>>
>> I guess it does that well, while being easy to remember, but I
>> still think it would be easily misunderstood.
>>
>>>> but would be a good name if we ever wanted to throw
>>>> out the letter Up entirely.
>>>
>>> You mean, use only the schwa? But it is always unstressed.
>>
>> And Up is always stressed, making them mutually exclusive.
>> There have been proposals in the past to get rid of Up and use
>> Ado in its place, as Read did with Quikscript. I've considered
>> doing this in my writing, but I like having some indication of
>> stress.
>
> So do I. It seems to me that practically every other letter, or
> every third or fourth, is already the schwa, so using that symbol
> for anything else would only fill sentences up even more with a
> repetitive symbol.

Good point. And knowing that any of those is unstressed helps a lot
with the rest of the word, since it tends to alternate syllables. But
I still think it's useful to have a stress marker of some kind (like a
diacritic), at least while learning.

>>> I feel sure that Bernard Shaw would not be happy to hear his
>>> name pronounced anything like Shah.
>>
>> That made me laugh. I'm sure he wouldn't, but he certainly
>> understood the diversity of English and wouldn't expect
>> everybody to pronounce it the same way.
>
> No, but he would have had something amusing to say about it.

As always.

>> For some reason I have the triphthong in "org", which I pronounce
>> ODg. Other words, like "four" tend to vary depending on how
>> quickly I'm speaking.
>
> Not awrg? like they say on NPR?

On second thought, mine is really not a triphthong. I just pronounce a
pure o, more or less exactly as in IPA [o], but awrg still sounds to me
like a noise of anguish. It might depend on the context, though.
Maybe my dialect is subject to those rising awe sounds? It's hard to
know sometimes with my strangely-blended Midwest accent.

Regards,
Joseph Spicer
·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼

Hi Group,

Been learning Shavian since the spring. I would like to post all my
messages here using the Shavian characters. How would I post a message
using a shavian font like "Shaw Sans No.2" or the others. I saw some
older postings on the old Shavian group which were all in Shavian. I
tried to use HTML tags in the message like <FONT FACE="Lionspaw"
SIZE=4>mF mesAJ in SyvWn</FONT> but it did not show correctly in the
preview. I did not try to post it. Maybe it works then. Will see with
this post.

Thanks for the help,
Brian

On Aug 19, 2005, at 3:13 PM, bdasts wrote:

> Hi Group,
>
> Been learning Shavian since the spring. I would like to post all my
> messages here using the Shavian characters. How would I post a message
> using a shavian font like "Shaw Sans No.2" or the others. I saw some
> older postings on the old Shavian group which were all in Shavian. I
> tried to use HTML tags in the message like <FONT FACE="Lionspaw"
> SIZE=4>mF mesAJ in SyvWn</FONT> but it did not show correctly in the
> preview. I did not try to post it. Maybe it works then. Will see with
> this post.
>
> Thanks for the help,
> Brian

Hello and welcome. It's always good to hear from new people.
Unfortunately, the Yahoo! web interface won't allow you to use HTML.
For that to work, you'll need a separate email client. Instead of
switching fonts, you may want to try Unicode (this also won't work with
Yahoo!). What system are you using now? The solution will depend on
your computer and available software. Aside from that, there are some
resources available online (maybe start with http://www.shavian.org )
that may help you get started.

Regards,
Joseph Spicer
·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼