Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

On 12/14/05, stbetta@... <stbetta@...> wrote:
>
> Advocates of Shavian:
>
> I am going to post an article extoling Shavian but for now I would like for
> the group to attempt to explain why Shavian notation is superior to Unifon
> and the IPA.

Superior for what purpose?

I don't know Unifon, but my opinion is that the Shaw alphabet is
better than the IPA _for representing the phonemes of English_.

Firstly, IPA is the International _Phonetic_ Alphabet and is designed
to represent phones, not phonemes; secondly, even though it can be --
and is -- used to represent a language's phonemes, it's not tailored
to any particular language, and some sounds (particularly dipthongs
and affricates) which are phonemes in a language have to be
represented by sequences of IPA characters.

For this reason, I believe schemes that are tailored to a particular
language can do a better job of representing that language's phonemes;
the Shaw alphabet is one such scheme which happens to have been
created to represent English phonemes. (Or the phonemes of a
particular dialect of English; for example, it distinguishes between
the vowels of "cot" and "caught" but not between the beginnings of
"which" and "witch", or "horse" and "hoarse" -- the last two pairs
sound identical for me but I know that there are speakers who
distinguish between them.)

On the other hand, I believe the Shaw alphabet is ill-suited to
represent arbitrary sounds; for example, it's not a good fit to
represent, say, German or French. The IPA would be better for this
purpose; a language-specific phonemic transcription even better.

Another advantage of the Shaw alphabet is that since it represents
phonemes, not phones, it doesn't tie you down to a particular
realisation of those phonemes. So, for example, people from Australia,
New Zealand, Michigan, London, and other places, who have different
phonetic vowel inventories, nevertheless have similar phoneme
inventories. So while the vowel sound of "day" and "play" may vary
from place to place, I believe all speakers rhyme those words, so they
can use the same symbol _age_ for both. Strictly speaking, IPA should
represent how each particular person pronounces a phoneme, so someone
whose _age_ phoneme sounds more like the way I pronounce _ice_
(Australians?) should write not /EI/ but /aI/ (or something like that)
in ASCII IPA. This masks the fact that the phonemes are the same.

> Shavian has an IPA inspired keyboard map but it also has arbitrary
> symbols for some diphthongs.

That's not part of the Shaw alphabet, though, merely an arbitrary
convention used by certain fonts which map Shaw alphabet letters to
ASCII symbols so that they can be keyed in from a regular keyboard on
systems which do not support Unicode fonts or changeable keyboard
schemes.

"Proper" Unicode fonts -- which already exist -- do not need to map
Shaw alphabet letters to English letters at all, but can place them in
the Unicode Shavian block U+10450 - U+1047F.

I wouldn't place too much attention to the keyboard mapping.

(If you wanted, you could also create a font which maps Shaw alphabet
letters to ASCII symbols in another way, for example -- say, 'c' to
_array_ rather than to _church_. The important thing is the resulting
shapes; it's they which represent the sound.)

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

On 12/14/05, stbetta@... <stbetta@...> wrote:
>
> PN: Firstly, IPA is the International _Phonetic_ Alphabet and is designed
> to represent phones, not phonemes; secondly, even though it can be --
> and is -- used to represent a language's phonemes, it's not tailored
> to any particular language, and some sounds (particularly dipthongs
> and affricates) which are phonemes in a language have to be
> represented by sequences of IPA characters.
>
> SB: Abercrombie, Sweet, Jones, and John Wells have used an IPA based
> script for representing BBC English and related dialects. The Association
> has never endorsed a particular mapping of the symbols. There are at least
> a dozen in use and while there may be a 90% overlap, they are all different
> in some respect.

Oh, sure, it can be done; it's just not what it was optimised for.

> SB: An IPA based phonemic alphabet has all of these capabilities.
> The example is not ideal since there is considerable variation in the
> pronunciation of *cot.

*nods* That's kind of my point.

A phonemic alphabet doesn't care how someone pronounces a given sound;
it doesn't use phonetic symbols saying this is "a half-mid close
rounded vowel" or the like, but merely identifies the phoneme as "the
'o' in 'cot'" (or whatever). So however anyone pronounces it, they can
use the same symbol.

If people merge what other people consider two separate phonemes, then
the merging person will probably use only one of the two phoneme
symbols, but as long as people have the same sets of phonemes, it
doesn't matter how they're pronounced -- they can use the same
symbols.

> cat-cot-caught = kæt- kAt/kOt/kQt - kO:t where O represents the mirrored c
> symbol.
> Shavian: kAt - kot kYt - kyt

I would say that in Shavian, "cot" is always _kot_, except for people
who merge "cot" and "caught".

> SB: Pitman did something similar with the i/t/a. He insisted that it was
> not a pronunciation guide, only a reading guide. The sounds associated
> with particular letters were dialect specific.

That sounds like a similar goal.

The Shaw alphabet also doesn't indicate pronunciation beyond saying
"this symbol is pronounced the way you pronounce the sound 'x' in the
word 'xyz'".

> PN: Strictly speaking, IPA should represent how each particular person
> pronounces a phoneme, so someone whose _age_ phoneme sounds
> more like the way I pronounce _ice_ (Australians?) should write not /EI/
> but /aI/ (or something like that) in ASCII IPA. This masks the fact that
> the phonemes are the same.
>
> SB: So all of those dictionaries that use IPA for their key are wrong;-)

No; they're merely not general -- if the dictionary key is designed
well, it'll correctly represent the sounds of a particular
dialect/accent.

For people with different accents, it'll be "wrong" (or at least, not
correspond to their pronunciation the way the IPA symbols are usually
defined).

> > Shavian has an IPA inspired keyboard map but it also has arbitrary
> > symbols for some diphthongs.
>
> PN: That's not part of the Shaw alphabet, though, merely an arbitrary
> convention used by certain fonts which map Shaw alphabet letters to
> ASCII symbols so that they can be keyed in from a regular keyboard on
> systems which do not support Unicode fonts or changeable keyboard
> schemes.
>
> SB: I have argued that the keyboard map could be more user friendly.

*shrugs* I suppose.

> The keyboard map is not completely arbitrary but more readable options
> could have been used. Reforming the keyboard map is relatively simple.

Go right ahead -- you can use any map you'd like.

As I say, the keyboard map is supposed to be irrelevant; when you read
a printed page of Shavian, you don't care whether the short vertical
mark indicating the letter _if_ was produced by typing "i" or "Q" or
"&". Once you've pressed the key -- in whatever keyboard map your font
uses -- and you see the shape on the screen, that's what's important.

The keyboard map only becomes relevant in the situations where it is,
unfortunately, not possible to display the proper shapes and you see
Roman letters instead.

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

Hi Philip
I would like to expand on your arguments against using the
I.P.A. as an auxilary English Alphabet.
As well as the fact that Dictionary Keys using I.P.A. generally
reflect either the Standard British or General American rather than
any Global English accent, it also overlaps with the Roman Alphabet
spelling of English words.
The I.P.A. uses a superset of the Roman Alphabet, which would
confuse any novice learner. Generally, it assumes that reader already
has a fluent understanding of the standard European pronunciation of
the Roman Alphabet. This is counter productive for a Novice English
Speaker.
Regards, Paul V.
++++++++++++++++++++attached+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton
<philip.newton@g...> wrote:
>
>> > SB: So all of those dictionaries that use IPA for their key are
wrong;-)
>
> No; they're merely not general -- if the dictionary key is designed
> well, it'll correctly represent the sounds of a particular
> dialect/accent.
>
> For people with different accents, it'll be "wrong" (or at least,
not
> correspond to their pronunciation the way the IPA symbols are
usually
> defined).
>
> > --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>
>

Arguments against using the I.P.A. as an auxilary English Alphabet.


PAUL: Dictionary Keys using I.P.A. generally reflect either the Standard
British
or General American rather than any Global English accent, it also overlaps
with the Roman Alphabet spelling of English words.

SB: Internally there is no overlap. I don't know of a dictionary that
claims to
represent the Global English accent. What is that?

PAUL: The I.P.A. uses a superset of the Roman Alphabet, which would
confuse any novice learner.

PAUL: Generally, it assumes that reader already has a fluent understanding
of the standard European pronunciation of the Roman Alphabet.
This is counter productive for a Novice English Speaker.
Regards, Paul V.

SB: The typical learner of English is not a native English speakers and
is probably familiar with the Latin alphabet.

SB: I don't think there are any such presumptions. It would certainly help
to
be familiar with the Latin sound-symbol correspondences. The dictionary
key is a code relating symbols to speech sounds.

SB: One set of symbols is probably as good as the next unless you were
already
literate in one code or moving on the another code.

++++++++++++++++++++attached+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SB: So all of those dictionaries that use IPA for their key are wrong;-)

> PN: No; they're merely not general -- if the dictionary key is designed
> well, it'll correctly represent the sounds of a particular
> dialect/accent.

SB: Dictionary publishers will make a different key for each major dialect:
BBC English, NBC English, Australian English, South African English......

> PN: For people with different accents, it'll be "wrong" (or at least,
not correspond to their pronunciation the way the IPA symbols are
usually defined).

Hi Steve
Non English speaking Foreigners who do know the Roman Alphabet, Know
the Roman Alphabet with a different vowel pronunciation. (Remember
the Great Vowel Shift) They know the primary pronunciation, as
developed for the Romance Languages.

Even people with a Germanic or Scandinavian language background have
difficulty matching up the various vowel sounds to all the odd letter
combinations used by English spelling.
Philip can confirm this.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Global English is the juxtaposition of the English of TV
Anchormen (CBS, CNN, BBC, etc) which is broadcast Globally and is now
becoming the new world standard. Unfortunately, there is no
Dictionary available.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Arguments against using the I.P.A. as an auxilary English
Alphabet.
> PAUL: Dictionary Keys using I.P.A. generally reflect either the
Standard British
> or General American rather than any Global English accent, it also
overlaps
> with the Roman Alphabet spelling of English words.
>
> SB: Internally there is no overlap. I don't know of a dictionary
that claims to
> represent the Global English accent. What is that?
>
> PAUL: The I.P.A. uses a superset of the Roman Alphabet, which would
> confuse any novice learner.
>
> PAUL: Generally, it assumes that reader already has a fluent
understanding
> of the standard European pronunciation of the Roman Alphabet.
> This is counter productive for a Novice English Speaker.
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> SB: The typical learner of English is not a native English
speakers and
> is probably familiar with the Latin alphabet.
>
> SB: I don't think there are any such presumptions. It would
certainly help
> to
> be familiar with the Latin sound-symbol correspondences. The
dictionary
> key is a code relating symbols to speech sounds.
>
> SB: One set of symbols is probably as good as the next unless you
were
> already
> literate in one code or moving on the another code.

I'm absolute beginner, and spanish. My aim is to better my phonetic in
english. Both S. an Q. seem appropiate for my aims, but learning both
is to much for a 78 years old. So, Which one, and why?
Thanks,
Durosay

I thought my suggestion was to use the Continental values - the Latin
sound-symbol correspondences used in most European languages and also in English
until around 1450.
Have you checked out spanglish which is built on the old Saxon alphabet.
_www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/spanglish.htm_
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/spanglish.htm)

Spanglish was an answer to the continuing critique that continental or IPA
spelling is not readable. Spanglish wuz an annser tu the continiuing critiek
that continental or IPA speling iz not riedabl. To achieve the close
correspondence to tradspel Spanglish has ten exception rules ... it is a predictable
positional spelling not a one symbol per sound spelling.

Hi Steve
Non English speaking Foreigners who do know the Roman Alphabet, Know
the Roman Alphabet with a different vowel pronunciation. (Remember
the Great Vowel Shift) They know the primary pronunciation, as
developed for the Romance Languages.

Even people with a Germanic or Scandinavian language background have
difficulty matching up the various vowel sounds to all the odd letter
combinations used by English spelling.
Philip can confirm this.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Global English is the juxtaposition of the English of TV
Anchormen (CBS, CNN, BBC, etc) which is broadcast Globally and is now
becoming the new world standard. Unfortunately, there is no
Dictionary available.
There is an NBC dictionary and a BBC dictionary or pronunciation guide.
I wouldn't call this a new standard. Motion pictures and television shows
also influenced the norms of English speech.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Arguments against using the I.P.A. as an auxilary English
Alphabet.
> PAUL: Dictionary Keys using I.P.A. generally reflect either the
Standard British or General American rather than any Global English accent,
it also overlaps with the Roman Alphabet spelling of English words.

> SB: Internally there is no overlap. I don't know of a dictionary
that claims to represent the Global English accent. What is that?
>
> PAUL: The I.P.A. uses a superset of the Roman Alphabet, which would
> confuse any novice learner.
SB: My 9 year old grand daughter was able to read IPA text after a couple of
minutes of explanation. Check out David Abercrombies English Phonetic Texts
and try the experiment yourself. Code switching is not that difficult for
children once they have mastered one code.

> PAUL: Generally, it assumes that reader already has a fluent
understanding of the standard European pronunciation of the Roman Alphabet.
This is counter productive for a Novice English Speaker.
> Regards, Paul V.

> SB: The typical learner of English is not a native English
speakers and is probably familiar with the Latin alphabet.

> SB: I don't think there are any such presumptions. It would
certainly help to be familiar with the Latin sound-symbol correspondences.
The
dictionary key is a code relating symbols to speech sounds.

> SB: One set of symbols is probably as good as the next unless you
were already literate in one code or moving on the another code.

S. looks better, is harder to master than Q. but is quite distinctive.
Working with either will give you new insights into phonetics generally.
To improve phonetic performance get a CD-ROM of multiple languages.
These are being sold off cheaply after a boom ten years ago.
They feature graphs matched to native speaker examples.
You have to match the graphs for speed, or vowel quality or
intonation...
"The eye hears; the ear sees."
jb
---------------------
On Dec 19, 2005, at 7:08 PM, shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:18:16 -0000
> From: "durosay" <durosay@...>
> Subject: shavian or quickscript
>
> I'm absolute beginner, and spanish. My aim is to better my phonetic in
> english. Both S. an Q. seem appropiate for my aims, but learning both
> is to much for a 78 years old. So, Which one, and why?
> Thanks,
> Durosay
>

Keyboard Mapping Conventions
from _www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/worst-alphabet.htm_
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/worst-alphabet.htm)

Shavian SEvian unigrafic [schwa-a] F=/aI/ Keyboard Map

nOih uHDz iz wizdam;
nOih Ha self iz enlFtanmant.
mAstDih uHDz rakwFrz fOrs;
mAstDih ta self nIdz strehT. With font installed _cshaws2.ttf_
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/cshaws2.ttf)
nOih uHDz iz wizdam;
nOih Ha self iz enlFtanmant.
mAstDih uHDz rakwFrz fOrs;
mAstDih ta self nIdz strehT.


Unlike Shavian and Unifon, ENgliS has no display font. The typographically
challenged
mixed case representation is it. .unlYk SAvian and Unifon, ENgliS hqz nO
displA fQnt.



ENgliS unigrafic [schwa-a, q reassigned to /æ/] 36 phonograms. 14 v, 24
consonants
This is a candidate for ASCII keyboard assignments for any IPA compatible
phonemic writing system. It is supposed to be an improvement for both keyboard
Shavian and keyboard Unifon.

Since there are only 38 phonograms (the diphthongs [ou and oi] are not
unigraphs), there are ten Shavian symbols for combinations and ligatures. These
are not currently referenced by ENgliS.

Webster Latin 1 - WLO
Caps are replaced with accented letters or Latin 1 characters. Traditional
caps retained. (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett)
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) .noIN uDarz iz wizdam
.nOin Da self iz inlYtanment
.mqstariN uDarz rEkwYrz fors:
.mqsteriN Da self nEdz strenT
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett)
Nóiñ uðèrz is wizdàm
Nóiñ ð self iz inlýtènmènt
Mæstèriñ uðèrz rëkwýrz fôrs
Mæstèriñ ð self nédz streñth


(above) uDarz vs uHDz (keybd shaw). D is a combination or ligatured sound
sign. It is not unlike c in Unifon. The difference is that in Shavian, you
could substitute uHDarz. In Unifon you can't. There is no independent symbol
for the unstressed schwa. U and I can be used since the stressed and
unstressed UH are merged. u=V+@. ENgliS also has R for the stressed UH+R or
/3`/. murder = /'m3`d`/ = mRdar
Unifon is a mixed case notation invented in 1950 and proved to be an
excellent initial teaching code with the capability of accelerating literacy.
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett)
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett)
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett)
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) _
Unifon _ (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett)
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) _unigrafic [uppercase dot marker] [schwa-c] _
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) _ data-unifon.ttf_
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/data-unifon.ttf) Keyboard Unifon

.nOiN uDcrz iz wizdcm [rEkwIrz]
.nOiN Da self iz inlItcnmcnt
.mastcriN uDcrz rikwIrz fOrs;

.mastcriN Dc self nEdz streNT.

Data Control Font Installed

.nOiN uDcrz iz wizdcm [rEkwIrz]
.nOiN Da self iz inlItcnmcnt
.mastcriN uDcrz rikwIrz fOrs;

.mastcriN Dc self nEdz streNT.

.nOiN uDcz iz wizdum [rEkwIrz]
.nOiN Da self iz inlItunment
.mastciN uDcz rEkwIrz fxrs;

.mastciN Du self nEdz streNT.

.nOiN uDcz iz wizdum
.nOiN Da self iz inlItunment
.mastciN uDcz rEkwIrz fxrs;

.mastciN Du self nEdz streNT.



The data control font has a schwa
The Komic Sans font merges ER0 and ER1 (3` and @`)
The second examples represents classic Unifon.


(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett)
_Spanglish_
(http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Steve%20Bett/My%20Documents/My%20Webs/spanglish.htm) digrafic +
12 exception rules _Spanglish_
(file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Steve/My%20Documents/My%20Webs/spanglish.htm) .htm

Spanglish is a transitional writing system that is supposed to devolve into
tradspel.
Spanglish is as phonemic as Spanish [about 85%] compared to tradspel [7%]
and has highly predictable spelling if you memorize the 12 exception rules.
12 is better than 200 but most people don't want to bother learning 12 rules
and find Spanglish spelling easy to read but hard to write.
The Latin 1 version approximates simpler one-symbol-per-sound system.
The limitations of the digraphic solution needs to be discussed. There are
a few problem words.
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) ASCII version of Spanglish
No-ing utherz iz wizdam
Nowing the self iz enlaitanment
Mastering utherz rekwairz fors:
Mastering the self niedz strength
Latin 1 ANSI accents
Nóing uthèrz iz wizdòm
Nóing ðè self iz enlýtènmènt
Mæstèring uthèrz rìkwýrz fors:
Mæstèring ð self nédz streñth
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett)
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) Why
æ? Because World English must recognize that the Latin-a is different from
the sound usually associated with the a in written English. To many
foreigners, the English æ as in axe and at, is close to their /E/ sound. For details
go to www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett


(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett) .
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett)

I found this article to be interesting. Do you only become literate once?
Is it true that no one learns to read twice? Comments welcomed. --SB

"The Oxford English Dictionary became the unofficial bible of British
spelling. Unlike the real bible, though, if you break one of the Oxford English
Dictionary's commandments, you don't go to hell — hell comes to you." -N.
Waldman

Have you noticed that you’ve accidentally swapped ‘hung’ and ‘haha’ in your
examples...



Hugh B



_____

From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of stbetta@...m
Sent: 20 December 2005 17:51
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com; openrite@yahoogroups.com
Cc: spell4lit@yahoogroups.com; unifon@yahoogroups.com; kca@suscom.net;
vyule@...
Subject: [shawalphabet] Keyboard maping conventions





Keyboard Mapping Conventions
from <http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/worst-alphabet.htm>
www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/worst-alphabet.htm

Shavian SEvian unigrafic [schwa-a] F=/aI/


Keyboard Map

nOih uHDz iz wizdam;
nOih Ha self iz enlFtanmant.
mAstDih uHDz rakwFrz fOrs;
mAstDih ta self nIdz strehT.

With font installed <http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett/cshaws2.ttf>
cshaws2.ttf
nOih uHDz iz wizdam;
nOih Ha self iz enlFtanmant.
mAstDih uHDz rakwFrz fOrs;
mAstDih ta self nIdz strehT.




Unlike Shavian and Unifon, ENgliS has no display font. The typographically
challenged
mixed case representation is it. .unlYk SAvian and Unifon, ENgliS hqz nO
displA fQnt.

ENgliS unigrafic [schwa-a, q reassigned to /æ/] 36 phonograms. 14 v,
24 consonants
This is a candidate for ASCII keyboard assignments for any IPA compatible
phonemic writing system. It is supposed to be an improvement for both
keyboard Shavian and keyboard Unifon.

Since there are only 38 phonograms (the diphthongs [ou and oi] are not
unigraphs), there are ten Shavian symbols for combinations and ligatures.
These are not currently referenced by ENgliS.



ENgliS-yel.jpg

Webster Latin 1 - WLO
Caps are replaced with accented letters or Latin 1 characters. Traditional
caps retained.


<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett> .noIN uDarz iz wizdam
.nOin Da self iz inlYtanment
.mqstariN uDarz rEkwYrz fors:
.mqsteriN Da self nEdz strenT

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>
<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>

Nóiñ uðèrz is wizdàm
Nóiñ ð self iz inlýtènmènt
Mæstèriñ uðèrz rëkwýrz fôrs
Mæstèriñ ð self nédz streñth

(above) uDarz vs uHDz (keybd shaw). D is a combination or ligatured sound
sign. It is not unlike c in Unifon. The difference is that in Shavian, you
could substitute uHDarz. In Unifon you can't. There is no independent
symbol for the unstressed schwa. U and I can be used since the stressed and
unstressed UH are merged. u=V+@. ENgliS also has R for the stressed UH+R
or /3`/. murder = /'m3`d`/ = mRdar

Unifon is a mixed case notation invented in 1950 and proved to be an
excellent initial teaching code with the capability of accelerating
literacy.

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>
Unifon <http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>
<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett> unigrafic [uppercase dot marker]
[schwa-c] <http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett/data-unifon.ttf>
data-unifon.ttf


Keyboard Unifon

.nOiN uDcrz iz wizdcm [rEkwIrz]
.nOiN Da self iz inlItcnmcnt
.mastcriN uDcrz rikwIrz fOrs;

.mastcriN Dc self nEdz streNT.

Data Control Font Installed

.nOiN uDcrz iz wizdcm [rEkwIrz]
.nOiN Da self iz inlItcnmcnt
.mastcriN uDcrz rikwIrz fOrs;

.mastcriN Dc self nEdz streNT.


.nOiN uDcz iz wizdum [rEkwIrz]
.nOiN Da self iz inlItunment
.mastciN uDcz rEkwIrz fxrs;

.mastciN Du self nEdz streNT.

.nOiN uDcz iz wizdum
.nOiN Da self iz inlItunment

.mastciN uDcz rEkwIrz fxrs;

.mastciN Du self nEdz streNT.

The data control font has a schwa
The Komic Sans font merges ER0 and ER1 (3` and @`)
The second examples represents classic Unifon.

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett> spanglish banner

<http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/S
teve%20Bett/My%20Documents/My%20Webs/spanglish.htm> Spanglish digrafic +
12 exception rules Spanglish
<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Steve\My%20Documents\My%20Webs\spangl
ish.htm> .htm

Spanglish is a transitional writing system that is supposed to devolve into
tradspel.
Spanglish is as phonemic as Spanish [about 85%] compared to tradspel [7%]
and has highly predictable spelling if you memorize the 12 exception rules.
12 is better than 200 but most people don't want to bother learning 12 rules
and find Spanglish spelling easy to read but hard to write.
The Latin 1 version approximates simpler one-symbol-per-sound system.
The limitations of the digraphic solution needs to be discussed. There are
a few problem words. <http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>



ASCII version of Spanglish
No-ing utherz iz wizdam
Nowing the self iz enlaitanment
Mastering utherz rekwairz fors:

Mastering the self niedz strength

Latin 1 ANSI accents
Nóing uthèrz iz wizdòm
Nóing ðè self iz enlýtènmènt
Mæstèring uthèrz rìkwýrz fors:

Mæstèring ð self nédz streñth

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett> Why æ? Because World English must
recognize that the Latin-a is different from the sound usually associated
with the a in written English. To many foreigners, the English æ as in axe
and at, is close to their /E/ sound. For details go to
www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett




<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>
<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>


.

<http://www.foolswisdom.com/%7Esbett>

I found this article to be interesting. Do you only become literate once?
Is it true that no one learns to read twice? Comments welcomed. --SB



"The Oxford English Dictionary became the unofficial bible of British
spelling. Unlike the real bible, though, if you break one of the Oxford
English Dictionary's commandments, you don't go to hell — hell comes to
you." -N. Waldman