Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

I can't recall myself, though I'm sure that it was either my Junior or
Senior year of High school. It was very interesting and grabbed my
attention right off as an alternative for this bad speller.

--Star

--- circtf <circtf@...> wrote:

> 'Fraid I can't recall the exact name of the textbook. I don't even
> recall it having a specific name, it was just "English Level Three"
> or something to that extent.
>
> As for the err/array thing... you've got a point, array would fit
> much better into interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
> Morphonym... I like that! mPfanimz? Or mPfOnimz?
>
> Anyways, in unrelated news... I've decided that instead of having my
> website just sit around and host files for me, as it's done the past
> few years, I might use it to help me practice my Shavian by doing the
> entire thing in it. Whattaya think? Which font would work best for a
> web page?
>
> -----------------------
>
> 'frEd F kAn't rIkyl it hAviN a spasifik nEm, it wuz Just "INliS leval
> TrI" P sumTiN t HAt ekstent.
>
> As fP H x-D TiN... V'v got a pqnt, D wUd fit muc betD intM intDestiN.
> TEnkz fP pqntiN HAt Qt. mPfanim... F lFk HAt!
>
> anIwEz, in unralEtid nMz... F'v desFdid Hat insted v hAviN mF websFt
> Just sit arqnd n hOst fFlz fP mI, Az it'z dun H pAst fV yIrz, F mFt
> Vz it t help mI prAktis mF /SyvWn bF dMiN H entFr TiN in it. wudaya
> Tink? wiC font wUd wxk best fP a webpEJ?
>


=========
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

> > I only found a couple of instances where I questioned your
> transcriptions.
> >
> > I think that we should choose a dictionary to determine how words are
> > pronounced.
> > There are a few words where dictionaries disagree. Before we claim
> > that our interpretation is the best one we should be at least one
> > dictionary to support it.

All my transcriptions can be verified in the *American* Heritage Dictionary
(www.dictionary.com).

The transcriptions are not specifically 'English-English' - they merely
contain broad phonemes, leaving it to either dialect to interpret the
phonemes in their own way. "Iraq" would be pronounced if+roar+AH+kick had I
been intending to spell as I speak.

Hugh B

Hi Hugh

While I would recommend using a Dictionary, suitable to your accent,
when you are not certain of the standard pronunciation of a word.
Say for is a technical word, that you haven't heard used before.
But for ordinary Letter writing, I would just write what I say.
I guess I have to agree with Ethan in this matter.

Right now, Shavian is like a loose fitting garment that we have to
grow into. I am certain that (rule based) spelling standards will
eventually develop which will make some of these spelling decision
easier. But for now I think it is a little premature.

I think right now, I am more interested in determining the range and
limits of these spelling variations at this point.
In particular, I am interested in using the shorter of any 2
acceptable Shavian spellings.
As I have a better understanding of Mid-West American pronunciation,
where vowel sounds do seem a little more restricted and simpler,
this seems to work for me.
Please do not feel that I am imposing in any way my suggested
spellings on Non-American English speakers.

Hopefully, in the future someone will develop and provide a computer
program, that would convert any particular piece of English text into
Standard British, Standard Indian, Standard American or Standard
Australian.
I think it is just a case of compiling a big enough Database on the
variations.

Regards, Paul V.
_____________attached__________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead"
<mixsynth@f...> wrote:
> > I only found a couple of instances where I questioned your
> > transcriptions.

I think that we should choose a dictionary to determine how words are
pronounced.
> > > There are a few words where dictionaries disagree. Before we
claim
> > > that our interpretation is the best one we should be at least
one
> > > dictionary to support it.
>
> All my transcriptions can be verified in the *American* Heritage
Dictionary
> (www.dictionary.com).
>
> The transcriptions are not specifically 'English-English' - they
merely
> contain broad phonemes, leaving it to either dialect to interpret
the
> phonemes in their own way. "Iraq" would be pronounced
if+roar+AH+kick had I
> been intending to spell as I speak.
>
> Hugh B
>

Yeah, it was during my Junior year that I had the book, so that could be the same one. I remember it was a yellow book, with a picture of a lake on the front that had a cityscape in the background.

---------

jeA, it wuz dUriN mF JMnjD jC HAt F hAd H bUk, sO HAt cUd bI H sEm wun. F rimembD it wuz a yelO bUk, wiT a pikcD v a lEk on H frunt HAt hAd a sitIskEp in H bAkgrQnd.

(Is that spelling of "Yeah" at all accurate? I couldn't find a better way to put it.)

Ethan,


It is very easy to write dialect in Shavian.
If you could understand the spoken dialect, you can understand
it when it is written in Shavian. That is the virtue of a phonemic notation.

Yes, the published dialect should be a broadcast dialect as described
in a dictionary.

--Steve


> Steve wrote to Hugh and Paul,

> I only found a couple of instances where I questioned your transcriptions.
>
> I think that we should choose a dictionary to determine how words are
> pronounced.
> There are a few words where dictionaries disagree. Before we claim
> that our interpretation is the best one we should be at least one
> dictionary to support it.

𐑘𐑧𐑕, 𐑞𐑨𐑑 𐑢𐑫𐑛 𐑚𐑰 𐑩 𐑜𐑫𐑛 𐑲𐑛𐑾.
𐑯𐑧𐑝𐑼𐑞𐑩𐑤𐑧𐑕, 𐑲
𐑣𐑨𐑝 𐑨𐑚𐑕𐑩𐑤𐑵𐑑𐑤𐑰 𐑯𐑴 𐑑𐑮𐑳𐑚𐑤 𐑮𐑰𐑛𐑦𐑙
𐑰𐑞𐑼 ·𐑣𐑿𐑟 𐑹
·𐑐𐑷𐑤𐑟 𐑮𐑲𐑑𐑦𐑙. 𐑝 𐑒𐑹𐑕 ·𐑐𐑷𐑤𐑟 𐑤𐑫𐑒𐑕 𐑥𐑹
𐑓𐑩𐑥𐑦𐑤𐑘𐑼,
𐑕𐑦𐑯𐑕 𐑲 𐑣𐑽 𐑯 𐑕𐑐𐑰𐑒 𐑩𐑐𐑮𐑪𐑒𐑕𐑦𐑥𐑩𐑑𐑤𐑰
𐑞 𐑕𐑱𐑥, 𐑘𐑧𐑑
·𐑣𐑿𐑟 𐑦𐑟 𐑷𐑤𐑕𐑴 𐑓𐑩𐑥𐑦𐑤𐑘𐑼 𐑑 𐑥𐑰, 𐑚𐑰𐑦𐑙

"·𐑦𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑖-𐑦𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑖" 𐑨𐑟 𐑢𐑰 𐑒𐑷𐑤 𐑦𐑑
𐑴𐑝𐑼 𐑣𐑽. 𐑞𐑱 𐑸
𐑚𐑴𐑔 𐑰𐑟𐑰 𐑑 𐑮𐑰𐑛, 𐑰𐑝𐑩𐑯 𐑦𐑓 𐑞𐑱 𐑸𐑯𐑑
𐑒𐑩𐑯𐑕𐑫𐑤𐑑𐑦𐑙
𐑛𐑦𐑒𐑖𐑩𐑯𐑺𐑰𐑟. 𐑲 𐑓𐑹 𐑢𐑳𐑯 𐑢𐑫𐑛 𐑯𐑪𐑑 𐑚𐑰
𐑒𐑩𐑯𐑕𐑻𐑯𐑛
𐑩𐑚𐑬𐑑 𐑒𐑩𐑯𐑕𐑫𐑤𐑑𐑦𐑙 𐑩 𐑛𐑦𐑒𐑖𐑩𐑯𐑺𐑰
𐑳𐑯𐑤𐑧𐑕 𐑲 𐑢𐑩𐑟
𐑐𐑮𐑵𐑓𐑮𐑰𐑛𐑦𐑙 𐑩 𐑥𐑨𐑯𐑿𐑕𐑒𐑮𐑦𐑐𐑑
𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑧𐑯𐑛𐑩𐑛 𐑓𐑹 𐑥𐑨𐑕
𐑷𐑛𐑾𐑯𐑕𐑩𐑟. 𐑝 𐑒𐑹𐑕 𐑦𐑑 𐑯𐑧𐑝𐑼 𐑣𐑻𐑑𐑕 𐑑
𐑤𐑻𐑯!

Yes, that would be a good idea. Nevertheless, I have absolutely no
trouble reading either Hugh's or Paul's writing. Of course Paul's looks
more familiar, since I hear and speak approximately the same, yet Hugh's
is also familiar to me, being "English-English" as we call it over
here. They are both easy to read, even if they aren't consulting
dictionaries. I for one would not be concerned about consulting a
dictionary unless I was proofreading a manuscript intended for mass
audiences. Of course it never hurts to learn!


--
Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

Hi Circ

There are a couple of ways to spell Yeah phonetically.
I'd probably use the word yes, myself.
If I was going to write Yeah, it would be "ju", "jaA" or maybe
just "jA".
I would certainly recognise "jeA", it is just an unusual vowel
combination, so I'd have to think about it.

There is a problem with writing the class of English Words, known as
interjections, even in Shavian. Yeah is an interjection. An
interjection is a word added to a sentence to convey emotion. It is
not grammatically related to any other part of the sentence and is
not bound by the same rules. Some people say that interjections came
before any other kinds of words.

Here are some sample ones. Notice that their funny spelling is result
of the Roman Alphabets inability to come close to expressing their
proper pronunciation.

(i.e. tsk-tsk (double click) whew (soft whistle), hmmn, huh, eeuw,
wow, yuck, uh-uh, Oh, yo, yoohoo, hey, hunh, ouch, oops, etc)
Most writing tries to avoid using these words, but obviously they are
a common part of speech. We will have figure out a standard
representation in Shavian.

Regards, Paul V.
_____________________________attached_____________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "circtf" <circtf@y...> wrote:
> jeA, it wuz dUriN mF JMnjD jC HAt F hAd H bUk, sO HAt cUd bI H sEm
wun. F rimembD it wuz a yelO bUk, wiT a pikcD v a lEk on H frunt HAt
hAd a sitIskEp in H bAkgrQnd.
>
> (Is that spelling of "Yeah" at all accurate? I couldn't find a
better way to put it.)
>

> Here are some sample ones. Notice that their funny spelling is result
> of the Roman Alphabets inability to come close to expressing their
> proper pronunciation.
>
> (i.e. tsk-tsk (double click) whew (soft whistle), hmmn, huh, eeuw,
> wow, yuck, uh-uh, Oh, yo, yoohoo, hey, hunh, ouch, oops, etc)

If I make make an attempt...

t-t, wrIM, hmm, hu, IV, wQ, juk, u-u (unt-u), O, jO, VhM, hE, hn, Qc, Mpz

I'm pretty confident with most of them, but they might not match other dialects' representations.

Hey Circ

Just a couple comments.

"hunh" is pronounced "hu" with nasalization of the Vowel u.
NH probably refers to an alternate n-sound in the Roman Alphabet,
because an h after other consonants always indicates a similar but
different sound.
(i.e. th, ch, sh, ph, gh, wh)

oops would be spelt Mps. Valid consonant clusters in English never
mix Tall consonants with Deep Consonants. It makes clusters easier to
write.

Regards, Paul V.
_____________________attached_______________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "circtf" <circtf@y...> wrote:
>
> > Here are some sample ones. Notice that their funny spelling is
result
> > of the Roman Alphabets inability to come close to expressing
their
> > proper pronunciation.
> >
> > (i.e. tsk-tsk (double click) whew (soft whistle), hmmn, huh, eeuw,
> > wow, yuck, uh-uh, Oh, yo, yoohoo, hey, hunh, ouch, oops, etc)
>
> If I make make an attempt...
>
> t-t, wrIM, hmm, hu, IV, wQ, juk, u-u (unt-u), O, jO, VhM, hE, hn,
Qc, Mpz
>
> I'm pretty confident with most of them, but they might not match
other dialects' representations.
>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink11@h...> wrote:
>
> Hey Circ
>
> Just a couple comments.
>
> "hunh" is pronounced "hu" with nasalization of the Vowel u.
> NH probably refers to an alternate n-sound in the Roman Alphabet,
> because an h after other consonants always indicates a similar but
> different sound.
> (i.e. th, ch, sh, ph, gh, wh)
>
> oops would be spelt Mps. Valid consonant clusters in English never
> mix Tall consonants with Deep Consonants. It makes clusters easier to
> write.

Acknowledged and accepted.

Hi Circ

There is this whole interesting part of Linguistics, where they talk
about the pragmatics of English. How we choreograph and interweave
our conversations back and forth by using sentence Delimiters and
interjections (i.e. Oh, eh, hunh, what) to show whether we are
following or getting out of sync.
On the radio, with even poorer levels of redundancy than
conversational speech, you need even more of these delimiters
(i.e. Over, Roger Wilco)

Thank Goodness. That isn't needed to the same extent, to communicate
with written messages.

That's all for now. Awaiting your next message.

Regards, Paul V.
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "circtf" <circtf@y...> wrote:
>
> Acknowledged and accepted.
>