Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

On Sep 7, 2005, at 3:08 PM, dshepx wrote:

> In shawalphabet@...m,
> Joseph Spicer wrote:
>>
>> I'd be tempted to spell it \rifx\ (rifx), which
>> seems like it would fit right in with Androcles-
>> style spelling. Whether this matches any other
>> accent besides mine, I can't say.
>
> I just used the key-word 'urge' instead of 'err',

I certainly agree to that, since the second syllable is stressed.

> and whether one uses 'if' or 'ado' as the unstressed
> vowel is something that depends upon the extent
> of contrast one feels is exhibited in pronunciation.

Some people might be more comfortable with \rafx\, but the vowel sounds
more like \i\ to me. It's weak, but it's not a schwa.

> This isn't always easy to judge, but the problem is
> that if one admits the use of \i\ as an alternate
> unstressed vowel, then there is a vowel-sign,
> \i\, that can be both stressed (as in 'bit') and
> unstressed (as in 'indent').

Any vowel sign besides \a\, \u\, \D\ and \x\ can be either stressed or
unstressed. We have four stress-sensitive vowel signs that help predict
the stress of other syllables, which are then spelled according to
their phonemic quality. If we were to use another sign for
weakly-stressed vowels that aren't a schwa, we'd need a lot more
because they're not at all unusual. There's nothing special about \i\
except that it occurs in this situation more often. That said, I'm not
going to argue about which pronunciation/spelling is "correct". I'll
just keep spelling the way that sounds natural to me.

> To resolve this I try
> to consistently use \a\ as the only unstressed
> vowel. This is not a perfect solution as words
> often end in a weak \i\, as in 'happy'.

Maybe it's just my accent, but this seems strange to me. I have several
unstressed vowels that aren't reduced (like the second syllable of
"fellow"), though most of these probably have secondary stress in other
accents.

Regards,
Joseph Spicer
·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼

Hi Joseph
The unstressed /i/ sound sometimes called schwi, is much less common
in American and Canadian pronunciation. And I can't recall ever
hearing it at the end of a word.
happy would be pronounced "hApI" or "hApE" over here.
So personally, I agree.
Any unstressed vowel should be written as an "Ado".
I think a Schwi sounds closer to an Ado sound in any case.

As far as stress goes, stress is relative. You only know if a
syllable is stressed or unstressed by comparing it to the sound of
the syllables or words around it. For example in American English,
prepositions and other small grammatical words (i.e. a, an, and,
as, ...) tend to be less stressed than the Nouns that follow after
them.
Given that, I would tend to regard most single syllable words as
unstressed,
although the prevailing doctrine, at least insofar as "Array"
and "Urge" is concerned is to use the Stressed Sound of Urge for
writing single syllable words that contain the "er" sound. I

I always have much more difficulty differentiating those two sounds
(Array" and "Urge").
Whereas, the difference between the sounds of Ado and Up seem much
more obvious and natural.

Does anyone else have a similar problem. Is it an American Thing.
As an American speaker, I accept that I use the "ah" sound for the
British "On" sound. And in fact I can't really distinguish them.
But I have learned to accomodate the ineffable
"On" sound.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. But in any case, I should have spelt refer as "rafx".
___________________________attached_______________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Spicer <wurdbendur@g...>
wrote:

> On Sep 7, 2005, at 3:08 PM, dshepx wrote:
>
> > In shawalphabet@...m,
> > Joseph Spicer wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd be tempted to spell it \rifx\ (rifx), which
> >> seems like it would fit right in with Androcles-
> >> style spelling. Whether this matches any other
> >> accent besides mine, I can't say.
> >
> > I just used the key-word 'urge' instead of 'err',
>
> I certainly agree to that, since the second syllable is stressed.
>
> > and whether one uses 'if' or 'ado' as the unstressed
> > vowel is something that depends upon the extent
> > of contrast one feels is exhibited in pronunciation.
>
> Some people might be more comfortable with \rafx\, but the vowel
sounds
> more like \i\ to me. It's weak, but it's not a schwa.
>
> > This isn't always easy to judge, but the problem is
> > that if one admits the use of \i\ as an alternate
> > unstressed vowel, then there is a vowel-sign,
> > \i\, that can be both stressed (as in 'bit') and
> > unstressed (as in 'indent').
>
> Any vowel sign besides \a\, \u\, \D\ and \x\ can be either stressed
or
> unstressed. We have four stress-sensitive vowel signs that help
predict
> the stress of other syllables, which are then spelled according to
> their phonemic quality. If we were to use another sign for
> weakly-stressed vowels that aren't a schwa, we'd need a lot more
> because they're not at all unusual. There's nothing special about
\i\
> except that it occurs in this situation more often. That said, I'm
not
> going to argue about which pronunciation/spelling is "correct".
I'll
> just keep spelling the way that sounds natural to me.
>
> > To resolve this I try
> > to consistently use \a\ as the only unstressed
> > vowel. This is not a perfect solution as words
> > often end in a weak \i\, as in 'happy'.
>
> Maybe it's just my accent, but this seems strange to me. I have
several
> unstressed vowels that aren't reduced (like the second syllable of
> "fellow"), though most of these probably have secondary stress in
other
> accents.
>
> Regards,
> Joseph Spicer
> ·?`¡?`´?`•?`§?`" ·?`•?`?`²?`•?`¼

Hi Star
The stressed or unstressed distinction is always in relation to the
surrounding syllable whether they are inside the word or outside the
word. In English speech there is usually no pause between most words
in a phrase.
The word boundaries, we use in writing are a convenience and don't
always represent a pause or even a Glottal stop.
It all in your mind. Do you want to be a Lert?
Do you put a pause between the following phrases.
"some of you" {no pause}
"a bird in a hand" {only one pause/break}
"son of a gun" {only one pause/break just before gun}
"for me"
"did you see them" {didya sIem}
"double you" {dubya}
"go for it"
"and so on"

Word boundaries are very conveniant and should be preserved in
Shavian writing, but let's not impose this theoretical model
on top of the reality of stressed and unstressed sound.
Which can be measured.

The difference in stress can affect whether we consider
an English word to be a noun or a verb.
If some one yells "a Shooter" or "Shoot her",
can we really tell the difference?
They sound the same to me.

Regards, Paul V.
___________________attached______________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
<celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
> Question: How can Urge be unstressed if it is a one syllable word? If
> you are going to use an example of a schwer, it should be on a multi
> syllable word.
>
> --Star

Hi D Shep
Liberal in that sense is an Americanism.
Liberal in Canada and England is a middle of the road political
party, without much of a POLITICAL AGENDA except staying in power.
I think they are all very Politically correct and pragmatically
positive.
Liberal in Canada is synonomous with "stick in the mud"
Our real left wing party is called the "New Democrats"
The Conservatives are considered as close to Republicans, with
reform/fascist
elements.
You can't really compare political terminologies outside of your own
country.
I'm in the same boat.
Regards, Paul V.
____________________attached_______________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@g...> wrote:
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Ethan wrote:
>
> > dshepx wrote:
> >
> > >That's a possibility, rhythmical alternation:
> > >pea-bay, tea-day, key-,
> > >or let's try pea-buy, tea-die (or dye), key-guy.
>
>
> > It's so sad. Gay used to be so non-controversial,
> > now we rarely can use it in its original (happy or
> > colorful) sense. I hate it when language chnges
> > that way!
>
> What about liberal? Once a generally positive description
> no one would have reason to object to; and now a term of
> abuse.
>
>
> > >Church and judge are fricatives.
>
> > To be more accurate, they are africates, combining a
> > plosive with a fricative.
>
> Yes indeed, the alert Philip Newton caught that within
> minutes of its being posted.
>
> regards,
> dshep

Hi D Shep
I couldn't find a regular English word that started with the vowel
sound of Wool either.
I considered Oops, but some people pronouce it oops like ooze.
By the way, Ooze is the only common word that starts with
sound of the Shavian letter Ooze. Any other candidates. (i.e. Uzi)
Regards, Paul V.
____________________attached____________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@g...> wrote:
> In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> Ethan Lamoreaux wrote:
>
>
> (on the subject of an alternative key-word for the
> lower-mid-back vowel "awe")
>
> > How about "awl"? Yes, I know, it's pronounced
> > the same as "all", but perhaps some people don't
> > pronounce "all" with an "awe". Still, "awesome"
> > is very distinct!
>
> Some people pronounce this word as "ahsome" Awl
> might very well be a good choice as it is nowadays
> an unusual word, and unusual words generally stand
> a better chance of retaining older pronunciations,
> not being swept up in fashion changes.
>
> The diversity of pronunciation for this particular vowel
> is actually quite interesting. In America one can hear
> ball pronounced as "bahl", but on television the sport
> is always "footbawl", while in England it is "footboll".
>
> ..........
>
> > > ian yew (few would be a more familiar word)
>
> > "You" is a pretty familiar word.
>
> But is sometimes pronounced "yoo"
>
> ..........
>
> > > Good point, and it would settle the issue of the
> > > /ew/ being spelled as a diphthong.
>
> > Yet it doesn't begin with its own sound.
>
> There is the word "ewe"
>
> ..........
>
>
> > Best if you can have letter names begin with their
> > own sound. Air and Urge are distinct and begin with
> > their own sound.
>
> Best yes. unfortunately there is the anomaly of "wool"
>
> > Otherwise, use the same letter for all
> > (far, for, fair, fur, fetter, fear, fian[?], few)
>
> That is a possibility, for vowels and diphthongs one
> might use:
>
> bit/beat bet/bait bat/bite abut/but box/boat
> book/boot bout/boy bah/bought;
>
> And for combinations:
>
> far/for fair/fur feather/fear feel/few
>
>
> regards,
> dshep

On 9/8/05, paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
> By the way, Ooze is the only common word that starts with
> sound of the Shavian letter Ooze. Any other candidates. (i.e. Uzi)

Oolong (tea). A proper noun, though, and a loanword at that.
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

I guess ouzo should not count either.
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Newton
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Re: alphabet names


On 9/8/05, paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
> By the way, Ooze is the only common word that starts with
> sound of the Shavian letter Ooze. Any other candidates. (i.e. Uzi)

Oolong (tea). A proper noun, though, and a loanword at that.
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>


SPONSORED LINKS Shaw rug Shaw carpets Corporate culture
Business culture of china Shaw flooring Shaw florist


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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

Paul, Joseph, and others

I think it would help to have our spellings based on a particular dictionary
or perhaps two dictionaries since different pronunciation guides are
published for different regions.

very happy = 'vEri 'h{pi in SAMPA
where the i is an unstressed short variant of /i:/

Webster represents this as 'ver-E 'hap-E
which gets the vowel qualtiy about right along with the stress but
misrepresents the length.

Like the mid-lax schwa, the schwi (sometimes rep. as a barred i) is
extremely short (< 50 ms)

The Thorndike-Barnhart dictionary uses 'veri 'hapi
which is not as good as IPA but the short (ih) sound does a better job of
getting the
vowel length right. In my ideolect, it misrepresents the vowel quality.

Joe seems to suggest using vEr@ hæp@
which would do a better job representing stress and vowel length but would
not
represent the vowel quality found in GA.

For a time, Unifon represented IH0 and EE0 (CMU notationt) as a schwa.
Currently it is represented as IH and EE. very = VERÉ

--Steve

Hi Joseph
The unstressed /i/ sound sometimes called schwi, is much less common
in American and Canadian pronunciation. And I can't recall ever
hearing it at the end of a word.
happy would be pronounced "hApI" or "hApE" over here.
So personally, I agree.
Any unstressed vowel should be written as an "Ado".
I think a Schwi sounds closer to an Ado sound in any case.

As far as stress goes, stress is relative. You only know if a
syllable is stressed or unstressed by comparing it to the sound of
the syllables or words around it. For example in American English,
prepositions and other small grammatical words (i.e. a, an, and,
as, ...) tend to be less stressed than the Nouns that follow after them.
Given that, I would tend to regard most single syllable words as unstressed,
although the prevailing doctrine, at least insofar as "Array"
and "Urge" is concerned is to use the Stressed Sound of Urge for
writing single syllable words that contain the "er" sound. I

I always have much more difficulty differentiating those two sounds
(Array" and "Urge").
SB: The two are merged in Unifon. another = UNUÐ3R urgent = 3RJUNT
Same symbol different stress pattern.


Whereas, the difference between the sounds of Ado and Up seem much
more obvious and natural.
Merged in Unifon: UDÚ UP

Does anyone else have a similar problem. Is it an American Thing.
As an American speaker, I accept that I use the "ah" sound for the
British "On" sound. And in fact I can't really distinguish them.
But I have learned to accomodate the ineffable
"On" sound.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. But in any case, I should have spelt refer as "rafx".

> >> JS: I'd be tempted to spell it \rifx\ (rifx), which
> >> seems like it would fit right in with Androcles-
> >> style spelling. Whether this matches any other
> >> accent besides mine, I can't say.
> >
> > DSHEP: I just used the key-word 'urge' instead of 'err',
>
> I certainly agree to that, since the second syllable is stressed.
>
> > and whether one uses 'if' or 'ado' as the unstressed
> > vowel is something that depends upon the extent
> > of contrast one feels is exhibited in pronunciation.
>
> Some people might be more comfortable with \rafx\, but the vowel
sounds more like \i\ to me. It's weak, but it's not a schwa.
SB: It is a barred i or schwi. Let the pronunciation guide of the house
style dictionary
decide. r@-'f3^ or ri-f3^ are both good options.


> > PV: This isn't always easy to judge, but the problem is
> > that if one admits the use of \i\ as an alternate
> > unstressed vowel, then there is a vowel-sign,
> > \i\, that can be both stressed (as in 'bit') and
> > unstressed (as in 'indent').
>
> JS: Any vowel sign besides \a\, \u\, \D\ and \x\ can be either stressed or
> unstressed. We have four stress-sensitive vowel signs that help predict
> the stress of other syllables, which are then spelled according to
> their phonemic quality. If we were to use another sign for
> weakly-stressed vowels that aren't a schwa, we'd need a lot more
> because they're not at all unusual. There's nothing special about \i\
> except that it occurs in this situation more often. That said, I'm not
> going to argue about which pronunciation/spelling is "correct". I'll
> just keep spelling the way that sounds natural to me.
>
> > PV: To resolve this I try
> > to consistently use \a\ as the only unstressed
> > vowel. This is not a perfect solution as words
> > often end in a weak \i\, as in 'happy'.
>
> JS: Maybe it's just my accent, but this seems strange to me. I have
several
> unstressed vowels that aren't reduced (like the second syllable of
> "fellow"), though most of these probably have secondary stress in other
> accents.

On Sep 8, 2005, at 2:28 AM, stbetta@... wrote:

> Paul, Joseph, and others
>  
> I think it would help to have our spellings based on a particular
> dictionary or perhaps two dictionaries since different pronunciation
> guides are published for different regions.
>  
> very happy = 'vEri 'h{pi in SAMPA
> where the i is an unstressed short variant of /i:/
>  
> Webster represents this as 'ver-E 'hap-E
> which gets the vowel qualtiy about right along with the stress but
> misrepresents the length. 

I once had a Webster's dictionary (at least I think it was) that used
'i' with a middle-dot before it, like 'ver·i' and 'hap·i' I was
initially confused by this, as I expected the sound to be represented
as a 'long e" (ē, e with macron).

> Like the mid-lax schwa, the schwi (sometimes rep. as a barred i)  is
> extremely short (< 50 ms)

In the IPA, a barred-i is a high-central vowel, between i and u. What
notation uses it as a schwi? I like the idea, though. It's more clear
for those who need it, and not obtrusive for those who don't expect it.

> The Thorndike-Barnhart dictionary uses 'veri 'hapi
> which is not as good as IPA but the short (ih) sound does a better job
> of getting the
> vowel length right.  In my ideolect, it misrepresents the vowel
> quality.
>  
> Joe seems to suggest using vEr@  hæp@
> which would do a better job representing stress and vowel length but
> would not
> represent the vowel quality found in GA. 

I guess I wasn't very clear. I normally use \i\. It seemed a bit
strange when I started reading Androcles, but it doesn't cause me any
confusion.

> For a time, Unifon represented IH0 and EE0 (CMU notationt) as a schwa. 
> Currently it is represented as IH and EE.   very = VERÉ
>
> --Steve


Either of these is okay. I prefer IH in word-final position because it
more accurately represents the length, and the lax vowel normally isn't
allowed there anyway. The Quickscript manual suggests using the lax
vowel word-finally when it's unstressed, probably for that reason. It
may be confusing in other places, so I suggest letting your accent
dictate spelling there.

Regards,
Joseph Spicer
·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 ·𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼

DSHEP,

RE: Graphic missing from message # 1084

The missing graphic can be found in the file section of the old Shavian list.
I haven't uploaded it to shawalphabet.

This is the Unifon converter which is kind of fun to play with and indicative
of what we could do with Shavian. It displays the font without having to
download it.
Microsoft Explorer required.

_http://24.245.76.208/UFLookup/UFXLate.htm_
(http://24.245.76.208/UFLookup/UFXLate.htm)

Here is a related graphic that has been updated:



This isn't the graphic you wanted but I think you can get from the IPA to
Shavian.

Halloo,

In your posting 1084 to ShawGroup Two you intended, or perhaps did, include
a table
that did not come through on my browser, even though i switched to Unicode
and to other
options. Is it secret?

regards,
dshep