Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Many thanks, John.
Durosay

John Burrows <burrows@...> wrote:
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






---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "shawalphabet" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I disagree. I believe Shavian to be easier to master than Quickscript
for two simple reasons: the 180 degree tilt of voiced/unvoiced
consonants, present in Shavian, discarded in Quickscript, and second,
Quickscript contains ligatures which multiply the possibilities, which
have to be individually learned, even further. That said, their
esthetic qualities are practically equal; I prefer the look of
Shavian, but this may simply flow from my preference for Shavian for
other reasons.

> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:49:26 +0100
> From: John Burrows <burrows@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 284
>
> S. looks better, is harder to master than Q. but is quite distinctive.
> Working with either will give you new insights into phonetics generally.

> 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


--
Christopher Zervic, Esq.

---- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
---- Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

> We have something as close as
> possible to a Shavian English
> dictionary, if such a thing is
> desired: The American Heritage
> Dictionary.
>
> http://www.dictionary.com/
>
> As we know, it's an American
> dictionary, defaulting very much
> on General American for all words
> where RP would disagree, but its
> pronunciation guides use pretty
> much the same phonemic set as
> Shavian (unlike those of the OED
> or Merriam Webster). Plus, it's
> easily accessible and easy to query.
>
> If anybody wants to find out the
> *ideal* Shavian spelling, all they
> have to do is look up the word on
> the site, then translate the
> pronunciation guide given to Shavian
> characters. To make this easier for
> anyone who hasn't studied phonetics,
> I created a conversion chart: http://
> mixsynth.fearfulsilence.com/
> shavian/ahdpronshaw.htm
>
> People don't have to use those
> spellings, but if they want to write
> something that is pretty much
> "Atlanticly neutral", they're able
> to fall back on them.
>
> Hugh B

I second this suggestion. While my natural
inclination is to prefer "spell as you speak"
as the more natural procedure to follow when
using an alternative alphabet such as Shavian --
after all, the Elizabethans managed quite well
spelling this way, thank you very much -- if
there is to be a standard reference then the
American Heritage is the least objectionable.

Why is this so? Because the dictionary/
dictionaries that most closely reflected the
language of "Androcles", namely the first
edition of the OED and the several editions
of the Concise OED up to about the sixth
edition, published until the seventies or
thereabouts, are no longer readily available
except in second-hand bookshops (but
worth their cost).

The second and current edition of the OED,
and all derivatives, is relentlessly non-rhotic.
So are all the other British dictionaries, a
feature guaranteed to, if not necessarily
alienate, then perhaps confuse American
speakers seeking a guide to pronunciation.
However, for what it's worth, It should be
kept in mind that Oxford--I'm almost certain
--is the world's largest publisher of dictionaries
and their offerings are the reference of choice
for World English speakers.

But, the fact remains that RP, the model
championed by Oxford as something of a
Platonic ideal (as only a minority of Brits,
according to the experts, actually employ
this speech in its pure form) is non-rhotic,
and as Shaw (that's >SY< not >Sy<) declined
to endorse it (RP) for his proposed alphabet,
specifically recommending another variety as
the desired model to emulate, some other
reference source must be found, if one is
wanted.

What then about the many varieties of
Webster's? The objection to them is that
they all rely upon the American distribution
of vowels, as do the American versions of
British dictionaries (Oxford American,
Longman's, etc) While this of course is
not a restriction for Americans, it can be
for others.

The American Heritage Dictionary, generally
more conservative than Webster's, represents
something of a compromise. Perhaps not
everyone will be pleased, but that is the nature
of a compromise. In effect it means, besides the
acknowledgement of an implied or possible
rhoticity, the acceptance of a short 'a' in the
past/mastergroup of words in exchange for
the retention of the short 'o' in the what/pot group
of words and of the open-o sound in the ought/all
group. To this end I propose the use of the word
"odd" as the keyword for the short-o sound instead
of "on". This does not introduce a new sound, but
should help to remind American-English speakers
of its divergent nature. Whereas Webster's uses the
a-dieresis symbol to indicate this sound, merging
it with the "ah-sound" of 'father', the AHD uses an
o-breve which, although larger editions of this
dictionary reveal that this is meant to indicate IPA
script-a (="ah"), allows users to easily substitute
other pronunciations if they so wish.

Finally, there is convenience. The AHD is available
online, and in inexpensive paperback versions.
There is even a College Edition for under 30 USD
that includes a CD with complete contents therein
so that your computer may be fully manned at all
times.

men bild tM meni wYlz
And not anuf briJaz.

/Fzak nVtan

...dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

>
> Have you noticed that you've
> accidentally swapped `hung' and
> `haha' in your examples...
>
> Hugh B


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

Right on!

Surely an act of commendable reason and
welcome precision.

dshep

Correction:
Not sure how this happened. --Steve
Of course the Shavian h looks more like a TS G than the N.

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



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



Keyboard Map

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




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.

mXI krismas t wan n yl!

a konvDtD wUd help pIpal lern SAvian

Kirk wrote:

F hav litel teknikal noleJ, but F imAJin a konvDtD wUd bI veri helpful.
**************************************
F hav litel teknikal noleJ, but F imAJin a konvDtD wUd bI veri helpful.

I hav litL teknikL nolej but I amqjin a konvRtR wvd bE very helpful.
ENgliS keyboard notation: _www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/ENgliS.htm_
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/ENgliS.htm)

I hav



I have volunteered to help build a similar converter for Shavian.
So far there hasn't been much interest in the project.

It appears that the Unifon converter has a similar problem to the one
mentioned by Kirk.
If a spelling has two pronunciations, the converter can only provide one.
With a change in programming, however, it could flag multiple selections as
in the original CMU pronunciation dictionary.
_http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict_
(http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict)

More on Unifon: _http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html_
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html)
(_http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html_
(http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html) )

hF /stIv n /kxk

a konvDtD wUd indId help pIpal t lxn /SAvIan.
F hAv a lyt v intDest, n wUd bI glAd t help wiT H
dasFn n testiN v suc a prydukt.

hQ evD, F dOnt TiN HAt His tEks awE H mP imIdIat nId
fP sum kFnd v rMdamentarI /SAvIan dikSunXI.
F imAJin HAt F wMd hAv sum sapPt fP His pryJekt?

rigRdz, /pYl /vI.
______________________atAct______________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink11@h...> wrote:
>
>
> hF /stIv n /kxk
>
> a konvDtD wUd indId help pIpal t lxn /SAvIan.
>
> F hAv a lyt v intDest, n wUd bI glAd t help wiT H dasFn n testiN v suc a prydukt.
>
> hQ evD, F dOnt TiN HAt His tEks awE H mP imIdIat nId fP sum kFnd v rMdamentarI /SAvIan dikSunXI. F imAjin HAt F hAv sum sapPt fP His pryjekt?
>
> rigRdz, /pYl /vI. ______________________atAct______________________________ --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> >
> > a konvDtD wUd help pIpal lern SAvian
> >
> > Kirk wrote:
> >
> > F hav litel teknikal noleJ, but F imAJin a konvDtD wUd bI veri helpful.
> > **************************************
> > F hav litel teknikal noleJ, but F imAJin a konvDtD wUd bI veri helpful.
> >
> > I hav litL teknikL nolej but I amqjin a konvRtR wvd bE very helpful.
> > ENgliS keyboard notation: _www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/ENgliS.htm_
> > (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/ENgliS.htm)
>
>
> > I have volunteered to help build a similar converter for Shavian.
> > So far there hasn't been much interest in the project.
> >
> > It appears that the Unifon converter has a similar problem to the one
> > mentioned by Kirk.
> > If a spelling has two pronunciations, the converter can only provide one.
> > With a change in programming, however, it could flag multiple selections as
> > in the original CMU pronunciation dictionary.
> > _http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict_
> > (http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict)
> >
> > More on Unifon: _http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html_
> > (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html)
> > (_http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html_
> > (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html) )
> >
>

hF /stIv n /kxk


a konvDtD wUd indId help pIpal t lxn /SAvIan.
F hAv a lyt v intDest, n wUd bI glAd t help wiT H
dasFn n testiN v suc a prydukt.


hQ evD, F dOnt TiN HAt His tEks awE H mP imIdIat nId
fP sum kFnd v rMdamentarI /SAvIan dikSunXI.
F imAJin HAt F wMd hAv sum sapPt fP His pryJekt?

rigRdz, /pYl /vI.
______________________atAct______________________________ --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
>
a konvDtD wUd help pIpal lern SAvian
>
> Kirk wrote:
>
> F hav litel teknikal noleJ, but F imAJin a konvDtD wUd bI veri helpful.
> **************************************
> F hav litel teknikal noleJ, but F imAJin a konvDtD wUd bI veri helpful.
>
> I hav litL teknikL nolej but I amqjin a konvRtR wvd bE very helpful.
> ENgliS keyboard notation: _www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/ENgliS.htm_
> (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/ENgliS.htm)
>
>
> I have volunteered to help build a similar converter for Shavian.
> So far there hasn't been much interest in the project.
>
> It appears that the Unifon converter has a similar problem to the one
> mentioned by Kirk.
> If a spelling has two pronunciations, the converter can only provide one.
> With a change in programming, however, it could flag multiple selections as
> in the original CMU pronunciation dictionary.
> _http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict_
> (http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict)
>
> More on Unifon: _http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html_
> (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html)
> (_http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html_
> (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/unifon-malone.html) )
>

Hi Kirk
We are not talking about carefully spoken English.
We are talking about the normal give and take of ordinary English
speech where the different accents contrive to create a very low
common denominator. All People don't differentiate those other Schwa
sounds in normal speech. Most people can not even consistently
differentiate the Schwa and Schwi sounds.

The two pronunciations of "separate" that you spoke about earlier,
in fact represent 2 distinct words.
sepDat is an adjective indicating the objects are "mutually exclusive"
sepDEt is a verb is describing the action of splitting apart or
isolating of one kind of thing from another type of thing.
The fact that Roman Spelling is the same for the two different words,
should not hold us back from realizing the truth.
Regards, Paul V.
__________________________attached_______________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "kirk" wrote:
H 5 oHer Swyz

'seperate' iz a mispeliN frIkwentli sIn on vArius bjUrokrAtik pEperz
n fOrmz submited t klFents. in pronunsiESon it duznt mAter muc
bikYz H sekond vQl iz a Swy. mF pQnt iz HAt Ani v H SOrt vQlz in
HAt poziSon wUd bI pronQnsd Az a Swy sO, in Order t mEk H rOmAn kOd
(befOr konverZon t H /bernard kiNzli tekst) mOr Izili rIdabel, wF
not let H sekond vQl konfOrm t trAdiSonal OrTogrAfi?
............... /kirk

...in carefully spoken General American, then, one may hear,
sometimes faintly, sometimes more distinctly, not the pure schwa
sound but a trace of the short vowel found in a word's spelling -- a
sound somewhere between novul and novel, lemun and lemon, anumul.and
animal. The American Literacy Council would, of course, welcome
breves above these unstressed vowels to identify them clearly, but...