Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
"dshepx" wrote:

> > even though reference is an expansion of the word
> > "refer" = \rafD\
>
> Correction:
>
> refer, of course, is not \rafD\ but roar-ago-fief-urge,
> second syllable stressed. Haste not only makes waste
> but all too often silly error as well.

Reminiscing about this a bit, i recall that I've met
people who did pronounce it something like \rafD\,
or more accurately \refEHR\. I believe the Scots do.
Certainly McPherson is pronounced that way, and
with a trilled 'r' to boot. Lovely.

dshep

In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
steve betts wrote:

> The on-line Merriam Webster disagrees with
> "refer" = \rafD\
> ri-'f&r short unstressed i instead of schwa-a

> > Correction:
> >
> > refer, of course, is not \rafD\ but roar-ago-fief-urge,
> > second syllable stressed.

As does the OED -â€" disagree, that is. But then, I disagree
with them on occasion, and why not? Dictionaries embody
custom, not law.

However, Webster's defines the schwa (and the schwi) so:

"This symbol (the reversed-e), called the schwa, represents
the mid-central- relaxed vowel of neutral coloration heard
in the unstressed syllables of the a in ago, the e in agent,
the i in sanity, the o in comply, and the u in focus, etc.'
The degree and quality of the dulling of such vowels vary
from word to word and from speaker to speaker. In many
contexts the vowel is often raised to 'i'..."

and

"This symbol (i) represents the high-front-unrounded vowel
of 'hit' and is also used for the vowel in the unstressed
syllables of such words as 'garbage', goodness, preface,
deny', etc. In such contexts, reduction to (the schwa) is
commonly heard:..."

which implies some latitude of choice. It also confirms
the existence of two symbols to represent unstressed
sounds, and one might say that this is useful in that
there is thus a symbol for high (close) and low or mid
(open) unclear, dulled sounds, which really are a little
different in quality, perhaps in length as well. The Shaw
alphabet, however, has only one letter for unstressed
vowels, (or two, counting the schwer, which however is
a compound, more or less).

This means, when reading Shawscript, that it is not
immediately evident whether the \if\ letter is unstressed
or not; one must judge by context â€"â€" a not insurmountable
difficulty as we do it all the time when reading standard
orthography, but which one might wish were self-evident
in a reform script. One of the ambitions I would think of
the Shaw alphabet is to simplify such matters.

Other versions of Webster's and the American Heritage
prefer to indicate weakened vowels not with a schwa but
through the use of a breve superscript. This is probably
the more accurate method, as the examples listed above,
ago etc., are not exactly all the same, something easily
tested by pronouncing the words aloud. But as several
people from time to time rightly remind us in this forum,
the Shaw alphabet is not meant to be phonetic, registering
subtle shades of pronunciation, but rather phonemic, where
a common symbol can serve to represent a variety of
pronunciations. The \oak\ and \up\ letters do this well,
as could the \ado\ letter. It is only the existence of
alternatives that cause problems (if they are problems):
\ash-ah\ for the past-master words, \on-ah\ for the
what-pot words, \awe-ah\ for the bought-law words.
Interesting that \ah\, a sound that may have evolved
only in the past several hundred years or so, is involved
in all (awl) of the above. It is an easy sound to produce
and that may explain its popularity.

Well, there you have it. I propose a certain sacrifice of
phonetic accuracy for the sake of speed and simplicity,
and everyone should judge for themselves whether this
is worthwhile.

regards,
dshep

In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
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.

> > 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').
>
> > 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


Spell the way that is most comfortable for you. I've heard
'fellow' pronounced \fell-o\, \fell-a\, and even \fell-er\.
It would be my contention that a phonemic \ado\ could
stand for the pronunciation of all weak vowels, a trade-off
between exactness and convenience, which could perhaps
hasten word-recognition and thus ease reading
comprehension. To this end I think it unfortunate that the
\ago\ letter is not more distinctive; the ideal choice for
the simplest sound would probably have been the \if\
letter had that not already been taken as it is the simplest
possible graphic sign. I've experimented, when writing by
hand, in curling the upward stroke around and back so as
to enclose a small circle wherever the schwa occurs and
that seems to work reasonably well, the next step being
if one wishes to skip the upward stroke and keep only the
circle, similar to the degree symbol except at mid-level.
Such shortcuts will not appeal to everyone but it does I
think speed up word recognition by directing attention
to the stressed syllable.

regards,
dshep

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

> Hi Joseph

> 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,

I've pondered this too. While i don't think I would go so far as to
regard all single-syllable words as unstressed, it does seem to be
the case that prepositions are for the most part unstressed. Such
a notion however conflicts right away with the key-word \on\. But
in a sentence such as "I do hope you come on time", there is not a
lot of emphasis on "on". "Please come in the house" is another
example. This does however get into the complexities of sentence
stress, something which perhaps should be avoided. Still...


regards,
dshep

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


> Liberal in Canada is synonomous with "stick in the mud"
> Our real left wing party is called the "New Democrats"

"Stuck in the mud" sounds, well, somewhat Conservative.

regards,
dshep

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

> I couldn't find a regular English word that started with the
> vowel sound of Wool either.

I don't think there are any. I believe the \up\ pronunciation
is a product of developments in Modern English (after ca. 1500).
Most of the words in this category were earlier pronounced using
either \wool\ or \ouzo\ (I'm all for that key-word), as they still
are often in the north of England. But, for reasons that only
linguists comprehend have unrounded to their present, but
perhaps not permanent position, as they have continued (at
least in some words) to float forward. Many Americans at
Wimbleton have wondered what the score really was when it
was announced as "lahv fawty".

Moreover, as probably everyone in this language-interested group
knows, all the \out\ words were pronounced \oot\ in Anglo-Saxon
days, before the Great Vowel Shift. According to the historian
Simon Schama the Norman invaders were met at Hastings with
defiant but unsuccessful taunts of "ut, ut, ut!". What would
our language have sounded like had the Normans been repelled?

regards.
dshep

In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
Joseph Spicer wrote:

> 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" (Ä", e with macron).

The raised dot used in this way I think indicates a syllabic
break rather than a vowel modifier.


> In the IPA, a barred-i is a high-central vowel, between i and u.

Yes, as in the Scots pronunciation "guid" = good.

regards,
dshep

Hi D Shep

I strongly agree with your suggestion.
The Schwa Sound is a the minimal vowel sound, much shorter and much
less distinct than
the other Soft vowels. Even the unstressed "if" is not so short.
It would be nice if it was represented by a smaller symbol in the
Shaw Alphabet. A tiny circle or even a dot would be quite appropriate.

There also seems to be a tendancy in American English pronunciation,
to reduce the soft vowels in unstressed syllables and words to the
Schwa sound. We have to recognized the ubiquitous Schwa will be more
used as time goes on.

Additionally I find the 4 curved signs for the soft vowels + Schwa to
be easily confused, and would benefit from their reduction by one.

Because the issue of Stress can be varied for emphasis or even if the
Preposition is attached to a Verb, I would recommend against adding
any more Letters for unstressed Vowels or Vowel+r combinations.
Look at examples such as: (walk-in clinic, one-of, sleep-in, sit-in,
best of breed, pack'em in, suppose)
I would suggest that if there is any doubt about the pronunciation
of an unstressed vowel sound, we simply write it as a Schwa.
And go on. It will be a closer representation over all of American
English.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. One of the aims of the Shaw Alphabet was to simplify spelling and
make it more Phonemic.
_____________________attached_____________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@g...> wrote:
> Spell the way that is most comfortable for you. I've heard
> 'fellow' pronounced \fell-o\, \fell-a\, and even \fell-er\.
> It would be my contention that a phonemic \ado\ could
> stand for the pronunciation of all weak vowels, a trade-off
> between exactness and convenience, which could perhaps
> hasten word-recognition and thus ease reading
> comprehension. To this end I think it unfortunate that the
> \ago\ letter is not more distinctive; the ideal choice for
> the simplest sound would probably have been the \if\
> letter had that not already been taken as it is the simplest
> possible graphic sign. I've experimented, when writing by
> hand, in curling the upward stroke around and back so as
> to enclose a small circle wherever the schwa occurs and
> that seems to work reasonably well, the next step being
> if one wishes to skip the upward stroke and keep only the
> circle, similar to the degree symbol except at mid-level.
> Such shortcuts will not appeal to everyone but it does I
> think speed up word recognition by directing attention
> to the stressed syllable.
>
> regards,
> dshep

Hi D Shep

As for the Shaw Letter name for the Schwa.
Ado pronounce a-due seems fine.
However, Array pronounced a-ray falls short.
The unstressed "er" sound doesn't naturally begin a word.
Sample words, Irk, Ernest (Ernie), Earl, Ergo, Irving, erstwhile,
earn, urge, urn, early, all seem to be stressed. So they would be
represented by the letter "Urge"
In fact, it is hard to find this unstressed sound anywhere except at
the end of the syllable or word. I can only think of a few examples,
West-ern, des-ert (place), lan-tern, awkward, where it isn't
precisely at the end of a syllable.
This unstressed "er" sound is usually found right at the end of the
syllable.
For example in the words, Mirror, Azure, worker, baker, digger,
writer, lawyer, fire, and flower.

But when we compare the words, "awk-ward" and "word", which should be
a minimal pair, the difference in pronunciation is slight. Almost
negligable. At least in an American rendering of the words.

Personally,
I wouldn't mind having these two sounds lumped together as a Phoneme
and represented by just one Shaw Letter.

Regards, Paul V.

You must remember however, that this was also made to ease the reading
of handwriting as well, hence the base line tall and deep letters as
well as the smaller short letters. Wouldn't the ado get lost? For
instance, writing Abrupt in the middle of a sentance with bad hand
writing might result in "He stopped, Bruptly." With the tiny circle
being mistaken for a namer dot. The same small circle could be used to
differenciate the dot from a period. But then, I have quick (read, bad)
handwriting.

Just remember, not everything is type written, even in the information
age.

--Star



I've experimented, when writing by
> hand, in curling the upward stroke around and back so as
> to enclose a small circle wherever the schwa occurs and
> that seems to work reasonably well, the next step being
> if one wishes to skip the upward stroke and keep only the
> circle, similar to the degree symbol except at mid-level.
> Such shortcuts will not appeal to everyone but it does I
> think speed up word recognition by directing attention
> to the stressed syllable.
>
> regards,
> dshep
>
>


=========
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



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com