Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

reply to message 1590 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote:


> I can see what you are talking about, but in Canada and most of
> Rhotic English speaking America, we don't have all of those vowels
> sounds.

I would put it at about half the United States, if that, Canada I
wouldn't
know. The dialect you are referring to benefits from being labelled
"General American" which gives the impression that it is or should be
the standard speech of the country. But upon closer inspection one
finds that it does not include the Northeast, New York, the Atlantic
Seaboard, or the South -- a considerable area with a large population.
And is it possible to forget Texas? Of some surprise is that even the
speech of the cities on the edge of the Great Lakes, those areas closest
to Canada, are identified as speaking 'Inland Northern' which shares
some features with General American but differs in others.

General American, which probably should be called Midwestern,
according to all the people who study this sort of thing begins
somewhere
in central Ohio and gradually increases in north-south extent as it
extends
westwards to the Mississippi, where it then broadens to encompass the
entire west, excluding Texas. So, the central parts of three states
east of
the Mississippi, and the vast and sparsely peopled regions to the
Rockies,
an area losing population as family farms succumb one by one to giant
agri-businesses. The exception, and the reason General American has
the stature it has acquired, is because it is the dominant speech form
on the west coast and in particular dynamic California, home of the
movies, America's chief cultural export, even to other parts of the U.S.
If there is any one person who personifies this way of speaking I
suppose
it might be Clint Eastwood.


> In particular, the Shavian "o" has moved frontward, and shares the
> same spot as the Shavian "y". Essentially, the low, back, unrounded
>"ah" and the low, back, rounded "o" are gone. That corner of the
> Diagram is empty, which adds to the distinct American Accent.

It would appear the 'short-o' and the 'broad-a' have coalesced. What
a pity.

> The Shavian "Y" has also moved in that direction (forward) to a
> little bit above the "y". In fact, the most distinctive difference
between
> the Shavian "y" and "Y", is simply that "Y" is longer and more
> stressed.

The chief difference is that \Y\ is a rounded vowel. As in basebALL,
footbALL. LAW and order. SouthpAW. wAR. And \y\ in 'father', 'calm,
and such words is long.

> And the Shavian Dipthong "Q" (out/our)starts from the same place
> as "Y". The Shavian "q" (oil) has moved up to be closer to "O" (oat).

You mean \y\ (ah). There are an increasing number of people who
pronounce 'our' as 'are'. 'Oh-el'? I always enjoyed the Texan version:
'awl', as in "I'm in the awl bidness".

> And I know that everyone says that the Short/Long vowel distinction,
> is less about vowel length and more about a particular mouth
position.
> To say the vowels clearly. you need a specific mouth position and the
> right length.

I think it's rather tongue position and shape of mouth opening. Most
modern writers on the subject now prefer the terms "lax" and "tense".

> The length of the vowel still contributes to the recognizability of
> the vowel in American English. And especially in differentiating the
> mid-vowels ado(a), up(u) and wool(U).
> Regards, Paul V.

Both quantity and quality are important in all forms of English. Do you
unround \U\ 'wool' as well?

wondringly,
dshep

Hi DShep
Perhaps you are a little out of date. Mid-West/Western English
is the prestige accent of the United states.
It's not just the Movies out of Hollywood.
It's all you see on TV.
Even on TV shows set in New York or Miami. It may not be the
standard, but certainly anyone who watches TV is completely familar
with it.
Southern English, Texas accent and Black English are around but have
a lower value. The North New England Accent was almost disappeared.
New York has 3 different and difficult accents.
So by default, Mid-West/Western English is definately the American
Standard, and what I would recommend people to learn.
It predominates American speech.

As for the question about whether Americans unround \U\ 'wool' as
well as the "Ah"/"On"?
In fact the "wool" vowel is never found stand-alone or at the
beginning or end of a word. It is almost always found in the Medial
position between 2 Consonants. If the first consonant is rounded, as
in wool, would, wood, then the \U\ 'wool' sound following it is
rounded. Otherwise it is unrounded. I thought that was how it worked
in practice in British English?
Regards, Paul V.
______________________attached______________________
-- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
> reply to message 1590 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote:
> I would put it at about half the United States, if that, Canada I
> wouldn't
> know. The dialect you are referring to benefits from being labelled
> "General American" which gives the impression that it is or should
be
> the standard speech of the country. But upon closer inspection one
> finds that it does not include the Northeast, New York, the Atlantic
> Seaboard, or the South -- a considerable area with a large
population.
> And is it possible to forget Texas? Of some surprise is that even
the
> speech of the cities on the edge of the Great Lakes, those areas
closest
> to Canada, are identified as speaking 'Inland Northern' which shares
> some features with General American but differs in others.
>
> General American, which probably should be called Midwestern,
> according to all the people who study this sort of thing begins
> somewhere
> in central Ohio and gradually increases in north-south extent as
it
> extends
> westwards to the Mississippi, where it then broadens to encompass
the
> entire west, excluding Texas. So, the central parts of three
states
> east of
> the Mississippi, and the vast and sparsely peopled regions to the
> Rockies,
> an area losing population as family farms succumb one by one to
giant
> agri-businesses. The exception, and the reason General American has
> the stature it has acquired, is because it is the dominant speech
form
> on the west coast and in particular dynamic California, home of the
> movies, America's chief cultural export, even to other parts of the
U.S.

> > In particular, the Shavian "o" has moved frontward, and shares
the
> > same spot as the Shavian "y". Essentially, the low, back,
unrounded
> >"ah" and the low, back, rounded "o" are gone. That corner of the
> > Diagram is empty, which adds to the distinct American Accent.
>
> It would appear the 'short-o' and the 'broad-a' have coalesced. What
> a pity.
>
> > The Shavian "Y" has also moved in that direction (forward) to a
> > little bit above the "y". In fact, the most distinctive
difference
> between
> > the Shavian "y" and "Y", is simply that "Y" is longer and more
> > stressed.
>
> The chief difference is that \Y\ is a rounded vowel. As in basebALL,
> footbALL. LAW and order. SouthpAW. wAR. And \y\ in 'father', 'calm,
> and such words is long.
>
> > And the Shavian Dipthong "Q" (out/our)starts from the same place
> > as "Y". The Shavian "q" (oil) has moved up to be closer to "O"
(oat).
>
> You mean \y\ (ah). There are an increasing number of people who
> pronounce 'our' as 'are'. 'Oh-el'? I always enjoyed the Texan
version:
> 'awl', as in "I'm in the awl bidness".
>
> > And I know that everyone says that the Short/Long vowel
distinction,
> > is less about vowel length and more about a particular mouth
> position.
> > To say the vowels clearly. you need a specific mouth position
and the
> > right length.
>
> I think it's rather tongue position and shape of mouth opening. Most
> modern writers on the subject now prefer the terms "lax"
and "tense".
>
> > The length of the vowel still contributes to the recognizability
of
> > the vowel in American English. And especially in differentiating
the
> > mid-vowels ado(a), up(u) and wool(U).
> > Regards, Paul V.
>
> Both quantity and quality are important in all forms of English. Do
you
> unround \U\ 'wool' as well?
>
> wondringly,
> dshep
>

Hi DShep
Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I had Yahoo acess problems.
Here is a response to your previous comment:
>
> You mean \y\ (ah). There are an increasing number of people who
> pronounce 'our' as 'are'.
> 'Oh-el'? I always enjoyed the Texan version:
> 'awl', as in "I'm in the awl bidness".
Paul had said:
>And the Shavian Dipthong "Q" (out/our)starts from the same place
> as "Y". The Shavian "q" (oil) has moved up to be closer to "O"
(oat).

In fact, I am not exactly certain where those Dipthongs start.
They don't necessarily start at the same place as a simpler vowel.
We just categorize them that way for convenience.
I just wished to point out that the starting point for thos two
Dipthongs had pulled away from the lower back vowel "o" in
American accented English.
Also as you may remember, that I have said that the locations of "y"
and "Y" moved closer together in American speech and the distinction
between "y" and "Y" is much more a matter of Vowel length.
So the whole question becomes moot, in any case.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. The diminshment in the pronunciation of "Our" until is sounds
like "Are" is real problem in American speech. As "y" and "Y" have
become closer and the difference between them becomes much more a
matter of Vowel length, "our" starts to pronounced more and more
like "are". If you check the table of r-sounds, you will see
"are" is r-sound derived from Ah "y", and "our" is the r-sound
derived from Aw "Y" in American English.
Thanks for pointing that out.
____________attached________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
>
> Hi DShep
> Perhaps you are a little out of date. Mid-West/Western English
> is the prestige accent of the United states.
> It's not just the Movies out of Hollywood.
> It's all you see on TV.
> Even on TV shows set in New York or Miami. It may not be the
> standard, but certainly anyone who watches TV is completely familar
> with it.
> Southern English, Texas accent and Black English are around but
have
> a lower value. The North New England Accent was almost disappeared.
> New York has 3 different and difficult accents.
> So by default, Mid-West/Western English is definately the American
> Standard, and what I would recommend people to learn.
> It predominates American speech.
>
> As for the question about whether Americans unround \U\ 'wool' as
> well as the "Ah"/"On"?
> In fact the "wool" vowel is never found stand-alone or at the
> beginning or end of a word. It is almost always found in the Medial
> position between 2 Consonants. If the first consonant is rounded,
as
> in wool, would, wood, then the \U\ 'wool' sound following it is
> rounded. Otherwise it is unrounded. I thought that was how it
worked
> in practice in British English?
> Regards, Paul V.

response to message 1584 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote:

--- --- ---

> From what Hugh was saying about words such as "forward", "foreword",
> "circumference", "furtherable", "perturber", "suburban", it might
be that I
> and other Americans, are not stressing some syllables that the
British
> speakers are consistently stressing.

I think it is the other way round, that in much American speech all
syllables
tend to be given some stress; it's the unstressed syllables that are
missing.

or so believes the habitually unstressed
dshep

response to message 1581 from hugh birkenhead, who wrote;


> 1. There are still issues differentiating 'ah' and 'on' in the
States. It's
> one of the only sound pairs almost every single person on this
list uses
> interchangeably. I'm quite certain that a large number of people
simply
> don't differentiate in their speech, and get confused as to which
one to
> use. We have a choice here to rectify this now or forever be
seeing "pot"
> written "paht". We either consolidate 'ah' and 'on' into one
phoneme as Cut
> Shavian did (which would leave Brits* with one less phoneme), or
we simply
> say to those who are uncertain: "use 'on' always and learn the
handful of
> odd words that take 'ah'" (from sources such as the AHD). Doing
either of
> these will remove the stateside issue with this letter pair.

I vote for the latter alternative. There really are only a handful of
words that
everywhere require \ah\: father, calm, palm, psalm, and a few more.

> 2. There are still issues differentiating 'up'/'ado', and
'err'/'array'.
> It's clear that although obvious to those with any linguistic
training, not
> everyone else can identify the stress in their speech and use
these letters
> in the correct contexts. Maybe all that needs to be done is to
emphasize
> exactly how to detect stress in your speech if you are not
immediately aware
> of it. Possibly people in doubt could submit recordings of them
saying
> certain words, such as "forward", "foreword", "circumference",
> "furtherable", "perturber", "suburban", etc., and have their
stress pointed
> out to them.

Hear, hear!

> 3. 'Air'/'egg+roll', 'ear'/'if+roll', 'err'/'up+roll'. This is
another
> Atlantic difference -- Brits* observe vowel length differences,
while many
> (most?) US speakers do not. Many US speakers say the word pairs
> "merry"/"Mary", "ferry"/"fairy" and "very"/"vary" exactly the
same, where
> Brits would say the 1st are short and the 2nd are long. This leads
to words
> such as "America" being spelt "Am-air-ica", "mirror" spelt "m-ear-
or" and
> "current" spelt "c-err-ant". This might be a little more difficult
to solve.
> As with 'ah'/'on', it might involve teaching ones self word lists,
but
> short/long vowels occur just as often as each other, and very
often too, so
> this would be difficult. Or, the 3 offending compound vowels could be
> dropped altogether, with users required to use "egg/if/up + roll",
but as
> with 'ah'/'on' this would leave Brits* without a way of
distinguishing
> between them. "I caught the f-e-rry" - does this mean I crossed
the channel
> on a boat, or am I claiming to have apprehended a tiny winged
person down
> the bottom of my garden?

Speaking for an older generation, we (I am certainly not alone) not only
distinguish these words by quantity but by quality as well: \feri
\fAri\, \veri\vAri\.
All the more reason for dropping single-letter compounds IMHO.

> These issues are a problem because they lead to excessive spelling
> differences where really there should only be a handful. Kingsley
Read
> wanted a standardised alphabet, not a universally inconsistent one.

This is a problem, but the solution requires compromise, which few
appear to
be interested in. And it does underline an essential question: is
Shavian to be
a flexible medium welcoming all dialects or a standardized written
form that
everyone must adhere to. (I just managed to end two sentences in a
row with
prepositions and I am glad my old teachers are not alive to reprimand
me.)
A good argument can be made for both points of view

> Cut Shavian was my attempt at a solution, with my approach there
being removal
> of those letters that could be confused with others, namely "up",
"err",
> "air", "ear" and "on", leaving non-distinguishers only one way of
writing
> each sound. I notice that many people were not keen on the idea,
mainly
> people who DO understand the 'offending' letters. So, if removal
of letters
> is not an acceptable approach, we should decide what is. In my
opinion, the
> only other alternative I can see is for non-distinguishers to
learn, despite
> their own speech, when to use the letters; that is, unless anyone
else can
> suggest any other alternatives.

I vote again for the second alternative, but I doubt very much if
any consensus
will be reached on this subject. By the way, ha/hung is a real issue
(sorry, couldn't
resist).

cheerfully,
dshep

reply to message 1585 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote:


> ekskVz mF, DaShep

> "canoe" iz AktValI spelt "kAnM", sumtFmz kYld a kFyAk, in H fR nPT.
> it iz a slendD vesal prafxD bF /kAnEdiAnz fP H Iz wiT wic it kan
bI kXId
> yn H SOldDz fP lYN distAnsez.

a kanM F kAn NAndal; F trFd a kFjAk wuns,
And fQnd it a veri wet eksirians.

YlmOst drQnd,
/dSep

reply to message 1583 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote
about Nova Scotia:

--- --- ---

> H inhAbitents R mEnlF v /skytiS /hFlAndD dasent.
> /gElik iz stil tyt in H VnavDsatI. F suspekt sum v H OldD genDESun
> mFt hAve ratEnd a /skytiS prOnunsIESun v "abQt"
> enI wun nO wut H Old /skytiS prOnunsIESun v "abQt" wUd
> sQnd lFk?

F dont nO abQt /skots pranunsiESan, but F
dM nO anuHar lOkESan Nwer pIpal sE "abMt",
nEmli Ha /tFdwotar rIJan ov /varJija, Az
spOkan bF Ha lOkal Aristokrasi (Ha Old lAnd-
Onarz). it iz kwFt posabal, in fAkt lFkli, HAt
/JYrJ /woSihtan sed "abMt".

--- --- ---

> /pI. /es. adresas intO /kAnadu dM nOt wxk
> wiTQt AdiN H sIkret pOstal kOd.
> ask enI pOstAl wxkD.
> smelI! perhAps V mIn H tradiSunal /kAnEdIan /pI sMp
> Tik anuf t bI trAnspPtad in a brQn pEpD bAg?
> y. wut memarIz HAt briNz bAk.

mEbi, F SAl ankwFr. sQndz lFk a preti gUd
wepan.


nO kanM, sAdli,
/dSep

reply to message 1591 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote:



> Baa which is an extended "bat" sound.
> Bah which sounds like "cop"
> Baw as in an infant's cry. Similar to the sound in "call"
> Perhaps you can provide more sample words using this vowel sound.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

This is how I would form r-compounds from those vowels:

bat there, air, bare, dare, fair, hair, lair, mare, pear/pair, rare,
tear (v), wear
bah are, bar, car, dart, far, heart, jar, large, mar, par, shark,
star, tar
bawl born, dinosaur, for, gorge, horse, morning, nor, or, sort,
short, stork, tort,
wart, war, york


> I found a few other differences to explore.
> Would you rhymne either 'merry' and 'marry' with 'murray'.
> I don't distinguish 'merry' and 'marry', myself.
> Perhaps you can provide more sample words using these
> vowel sounds to make minimal pairs that are distinguishable
> to my ear.

I consider neither merry \meri\ nor marry \mAri\ to rhyme with murray
\muri\.

berry, cherry, ferry, Jerry, Kerry, merry, Perry, sherry, Terry, very;

Barry, chary/carry, fairy, hairy/Harry, Larry, marry, nary, parry,
tarry, vary, wary;

curry, furry/flurry, hurry, Murray, worry.

As minimal pairs:

berry/barry/blurry; cherry/chary/churlish; ferry/fairy/furry; here/
hair/hurry;
merry/marry/murray; perry/parry/pearly; terry/tarry/turn; very/vary/
verge.

> Also, I would consider a trailing-off murmur, to be a Schwa or Schwer
> vowel and sufficient in itself to be the second syllable.

So would I; that's what a final schwa/schwer is to me, an indistinct,
trailing-off murmur; but yes, definitely a syllable.

> I do not distinguish between or and ore.
> I do not distinguish between for and four.

I cannot imagine a golfer shouting "for" on the fairway, nor the Three
Musketeers proclaiming "One four all, and all four one". I try to listen
carefully to people, admittedly mostly on television where they tend
to watch their enunciation, and I believe I detect a difference between
the two sounds even in people like yourself (and Clint Eastwood) who
probably do not believe they make such a distinction, or hear it when
spoken by others. I also have tested this with Midwesterners I happen
to meet with the same result: I hear it, they don't, even in their own
speech. It's a slight difference, but a difference all the same.


> Basic Vowels, Dipthongs and R-sound vowels

> And I only find 14 possible r-Compounds.
> AD (arg) is an archaic interjection like tsk tsk, not really a usable
> vowel for making English words.

I have known people who pronounce all the "bar" category of words
like that. Can't remember where they were from however.

> I inventoried the R-sounds again.
> 13 of them seem to be directly related to the basic vowels and the 4
> Dipthongs. 1,2,3,4,5,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16.
> Of those 1,3,4,11 and 12 seem to to represent a 1 syllable sound

To me as well.
feather; fear, fair, far, four; to which i would add fur, for, poor,
and pure

> and 2,5,6,8,10,13,14,15, and 16 sound like 2 syllables to me.

No. 2 I would agree to skier and we're, but not to clears and cheers.
No. 5 Something of a grey area; mostly two syllables but sometimes
not, as in \mEar\.
No. 6 Argh, when it occurs, would have to be called a single, long
drawn-out syllable.
No. 8 I would distinguish between sewer, you're (two syllables)
and poor, sure, tour (one, admittedly rounded syllable)
No. 10 Two syllables
No. 13 ditto
No. 14 Fewer and newer two; pure and cure one
No. 15 Flower and shower two, flour one
No. 16 Definitely two syllables.

This can only be an approximation as these words run together, even in
the same speaker, depending upon situation. I doubt very much that
pronunciation can be exactly defined and delineated as many books on
the subject often assume.

I would also contest your assertion that No. 9 (oor) is unknown in
English;
what about doer? (someone who does, frequently)


> I was surprised that they are not pronounced that way in British
> English, except the R-sound associated with 16.

I don't use the intrusive-r myself, as I think it is, well,
intrusive. But others
do, especially the more intensely non-rhotic individuals that one
increasingly
finds in younger generations. So I pronounce lawyer as \lYjar\,
sawyer in a
similar fashion, and must confess a somewhat French pronunciation for
foyer: \fwyjE\ (more or less).


> As well as the 13 discussed above there is
> another one r-sound in English that doesn't seem tied to
> any of the basic vowels.
> x (blur, sure, cur, urge, courage, slurry, purge, concur)


It would be tied to the \u\ of 'but', would it not?

> The addition of this r-sound (x) to the Shaw R-letters
> 1,3,4,11 and 12 plus the 16 vowel letters brings us to 22
> Vowel letters.

I appear to have over thirty, counting compounds. I think this calls
to mind
again the question about whether or not there should be a standard.
There
is a good argument for both sides of the issue: a standard would
certainly
simplify matters (and I have argued for simplicity in other aspects)
but not
having a standard would allow, and perhaps encourage, people speaking
every conceivable dialect to participate. This admittedly opens the
door to
unruliness, perhaps near-chaos, but at least avoids the issue of which
standard to adopt -- something about which there is not likely to be any
agreement. You might say and probably will that there could be a British
standard and an American standard; but what should people in say, New
York do, who definitely do not speak as Midwesterners do, or the people
in Old York, who do not ordinarily speak RP?

chaotically,
dshep

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


> Perhaps you are a little out of date.

I am perpetually out-of-date; it's something
I've begun to take pride in being.

> Mid-West/Western English
> is the prestige accent of the United states.
> It's not just the Movies out of Hollywood.
> It's all you see on TV.
> Even on TV shows set in New York or Miami. It
> may not be the standard, but certainly anyone
> who watches TV is completely familar with it.

I watch very little television, usually just the
commentaries on world events, where it's most
often a rainbow of accents from people all over
the world. Besides the perspectives gained in
how badly things are going you do get to hear a
lot of different ways to speak English. I did
however view Seinfeld occasionally. They did
not I think speak Midwestern.

> Southern English, Texas accent and Black
> English are around but have a lower value.

I have forwarded your opinion to the White
House. Expect a knock on your door soon.

> The North New England Accent was almost
> disappeared. New York has 3 different and
> difficult accents.

That's news to me. What are they?

> So by default, Mid-West/Western English is
> definately the American Standard, and what
> I would recommend people to learn. It
> predominates American speech.

Well, if everyone spoke like Robert Redfern
maybe; but I don't think many people do.

> As for the question about whether Americans
> unround \U\ 'wool' as well as the "Ah"/"On"?
> In fact the "wool" vowel is never found stand-
> alone or at the beginning or end of a word. It
> is almost always found in the Medial position
> between 2 Consonants.

I think not almost always, but always.

> If the first consonant is rounded, as in wool,
> would, wood, then the \U\ 'wool' sound following
> it is rounded. Otherwise it is unrounded.

The sound represented by \U\ is, I would assert,
always rounded, no matter what consonant preceded
it. It is a rounded vowel. Not much perhaps, but
some, except in Scots where 'good' is pronounced
as a high-mid vowel, and often spelled 'guid' to
indicate that Lallans is being used.

personally not very round,
dshep

Hi DShep
I guess our Syllable stress patterns are less pronounced in American
speech, or occasionally just simply different for some words.
There doesn't seem to be consistent difference, to be honest, just
differences.
People should prepared to accept the use of the Schwa (Ado) and the
Scher (Array) (unstressed sounds) as subsitutes for the more distinct
vowels in words like "forward", "circumference", "furtherable"
and "suburban".
Regards, Paul V.
____________________attached_______________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:>
>
> I think it is the other way round, that in much American speech all
> syllables
> tend to be given some stress; it's the unstressed syllables that are
> missing.

> > From what Hugh was saying about words such
as "forward", "foreword",
> > "circumference", "furtherable", "perturber", "suburban", it might
> be that I
> > and other Americans, are not stressing some syllables that the
> British
> > speakers are consistently stressing.