Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

circtf 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.)

wel, difrant pIpl sE it difrantlI, but F wUd pryblI spel it "jA". but
HAks Jast mI! sum mFt rFt "jea", wFl uHDz wUd rAHD sE "F"!
(/bHw/, Fm kxntlI rFtiN Just Az klOs az pysabl t H wE F spIk. F nPmllI
rFt in a mP Vnivxsl speliN.)

--

Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, �???? �??????
(P, /ITn /lAmrO, H wE F sE it)

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

I notice you skip a lot of vowels. I haven't actually read a lot of Shavian, so I'm wondering if this is common, or just how you prefer to do it.

F nOtis V skip a lot v vQlz. F hAvint AkcUalI red a lot v /SyvWn, sO F'm wUndDiN if His iz koman, P just hQ V prifx it.

On 11/12/05, circtf <circtf@...> wrote:
> I notice you skip a lot of vowels. I haven't actually read a lot of
> Shavian, so I'm wondering if this is common, or just how you prefer to do
> it.

He did say that he was, in that particular message, writing as closely
as possible to the way he actually speaks (hence the "kerntly" for
"currently", for example), and that he usually uses a more universal
spelling.
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>

Well, just checking, as some of those pronunciations come out really
awkwardly (or just plain wrong, in the case of some of the
misspellings I noticed) the way he spells them, so I just wanted to
make sure.

And I don't mean any offense, either, sorry if it came out that way.

Hi Circ
In some cases people don't say the sound.
interesting becomes int-resting
Sometimes people lose a letter when they are writing fast.
And there is one more tricky situation that people fail to
recognize.
Intellectually, it is easier to write phonetically, than to read.
There is ome extra processing for certain letters.
Certain letters can be pronounced as consonants or as standalone
syllables.
girl, chasm, listen
Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "circtf" <circtf@y...> wrote:
>
> Well, just checking, as some of those pronunciations come out really
> awkwardly (or just plain wrong, in the case of some of the
> misspellings I noticed) the way he spells them, so I just wanted to
> make sure.
>
> And I don't mean any offense, either, sorry if it came out that way.
>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink11@h...> wrote:

******* Let me expand on my original note and give you context.
******* First I wanted to explain why an apparently missing vowel
******* is not necessarily a Shavian Spelling mistake.
>
> Hi Circ
> In some cases people don't say the sound.
> in-ter-esting becomes int-resting
> Sometimes people lose a letter when they are writing fast.
> And there is even one more tricky situation that most people fail to
> recognize.
unless they know a lot about phonetics.
> Certain letters can be pronounced as consonants or as standalone
> syllables.
(i.e. l, m, n, r)
> girl, chasm, listen, subtle
spasm, table, blossom, lighten, sudden, often, bottom, Earl.
These standalone or vocalic r-sounds are so common in English, that
Shavian has an extra letter, "array" to represent them.
I use Array, whenever applicable and to more clearly indicate the
other standalone syllabic letters, I insert an Ado before one of
those other Letters
when writing in Shavian.
girl => gDal
chasm => kAzam
listen => lisan
subtle => sutal

Most people don't bother, producing what look like unpronouncable
syllables to the untrained eye.
For example, I would write kxntlI as kDantlI
but I still recognize it either way, with the n having a vowel aspect.
It is a standalone syllabic letter in this word cur-en-tly

> Regards, Paul V.

P.S.
> Intellectually, it is easier to write phonetically, than to read it.
> There is some extra processing for certain letters.
____________________attached_____________________________

> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "circtf" <circtf@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, just checking, as some of those pronunciations come out
really
> > awkwardly (or just plain wrong, in the case of some of the
> > misspellings I noticed) the way he spells them, so I just wanted
to
> > make sure.
> >
> > And I don't mean any offense, either, sorry if it came out that
way.
> >
>

Hi Circ

I clipped out a similar thought from a much earlier message just to
re-iterate that a lot of what we have to say has already been brought
up in previous posts.

We need to recognize a wider range of words on a Phonetic basis when
we are reading a message written in the Shavian Alphabet.
We shouldn't be expecting an exact fit with our own pronunciation.
Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "albert" wrote:
(*snip*)
Accent-related spelling disputes can happen anytime someone's
idiolect does not distinguish between different sounds.
For example, some Americans do not distinguish
between the "on", "ah" and "awe" sounds.
So they would presumably pick one or the other based on the old Roman
Orthography, which might jar with people who do actually distinguish
between the three sounds.

Aksent-rilEtad speliN dispVts kAn hApan enItFm sumunz idiOlekt duz not
dustiNgwiS batwIn difDent sQndz.
fP egzympl, sum amXakanz dM not distiNgwiS batwIn
H (on), (y) n (Y) sQndz.
sO HE wUd prazMmablI pik wun P H uHD bEsd on Old /rOmen PTogrAfI, wic
mFt JR wiH pIpl
hM dM AktVlI distiNgwiS batwIn H TrI sQndz.

However, Since I agree that we want to minimize spelling differences,
we should encourage these Americans to go at least half way. They
should as a minimum try to recognize the difference between the
shorter "on" vowel and the longer more drawn out "awe" vowel.

And I don't mean to suggest that Americans are oblivious to the
difference. It is just both speakers do not realize the extent to
which or repective languages have grown apart. No offense. I am not
making value judgements as to which idiolect is more advanced.
(*snip*)

I had no problem reading what was written, I only asked if vowel
sounds were commonly left out like that - a simple "no" sufficed.

If they were words where the vowel sound was barely present or
commonly unpronounced, I wouldn't have even brought it up, but some of
them seemed downright strange, and so I asked if this was something he
commonly did or if it was just because he was typing with his accent
in mind.

Hi Circ

Sorry. I over-elaborated a simple point.
Clear Audible Vowel sounds are not normally left out.

Currently tho, some such people such as myself, feel it is necessary
to mark the Schwa sound (Minimal vowel sound) in words such as:
currently -> kDantlI
commonly -> kYmanlI
chasm -> kAsam
blossom -> blossom
girl -> gDal
table -> tEbal
spelling bee -> spelaN bI
and some people don't consider it necessary, as they consider the Vowel
sound to be barely present and unnecessary.

Regards, Paul V.
_______________________attached______________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "circtf" <circtf@y...> wrote:
>
> I had no problem reading what was written, I only asked if vowel
> sounds were commonly left out like that - a simple "no" sufficed.
>
> If they were words where the vowel sound was barely present or
> commonly unpronounced, I wouldn't have even brought it up, but some of
> them seemed downright strange, and so I asked if this was something he
> commonly did or if it was just because he was typing with his accent
> in mind.
>

Those all sound about right to me.

> Currently tho, some such people such as myself, feel it is necessary
> to mark the Schwa sound (Minimal vowel sound) in words such as:
> currently -> kDantlI
> commonly -> kYmanlI
> chasm -> kAsam
> blossom -> blossom
> girl -> gDal
> table -> tEbal
> spelling bee -> spelaN bI
> and some people don't consider it necessary, as they consider the Vowel
> sound to be barely present and unnecessary.