Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi DShep
In response to Hugh's first issue, I thought the best solution was
for the American's to always use "ah" and for the Brits to use "On"
because that's the way they are pronounced. If we each use only that
one letter consistently there shouldn't be any confusion at all.
I am sure that the small list of exceptions (father, calm, palm,
psalm, Amen) where the Brits would use /Ah/ are so rare that it would
not confuse anyone as to whether that person consistently says /Ah/
or whether he consistently says /On/.
I think being petty about this issue, only turns off the Americans,
and adds to the difficulties of a non-English speaker learning
Shavian.

In the third point, we have to realize that an R-sound after the
vowel is not always incorporated into the vowel.
Sometimes the R-sound begins the next syllable.
So syllable boundaries become very important.
The following pairs of words are differented by me mostly at the
syllable boundary.
merr-y"/"Ma-ry", "ferr-y"/"fai-ry" and "ver-y"/"va-ry
This is easiy indicated in Shavian as long as people use the compound
R-sound letters, instead of making Diagraphs, in imitation of the
Roman Alphabet.
Down with the Romans.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. DShep. What is your opinion of creating a new Shavian letter for
Hung (tilde).
___________________attached_____________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>

hF /daSep
menI v HOz Aristokrats hAd t mMv t /kAnadu AftD H /AmXikAn wP
v indapendens, wic krIEtad H fxst rIlI a signifakAnt
/iNgliS spIkiN pypVlESun
hC in /OntXIO. HE kyld it upD /kAnadu, bAk Hen. up-rivD AktvlI.
F sapOz "abMt" mFt hAv bIn Vzd in /KAnadu bAk Hen, but
F hAv nevD hxd it nQ a dEz.
ragRdz, /pYl /vI.
pI. es. H wxd Aristokrats haz a vXI negativ konatESun in /AmXika.
espeSalI in JOks.
dM HE stil kYl Hem H /tyfs in H V. kE. ?
_____________atAct_________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
> reply to message 1583 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote
> about Nova Scotia:
>
> 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
>

Hi DShep
In reference to your first question about meaning,
I wanted to know how you pronounced "baa"
You used it as reference word, but how could I guess exactly
how you pronounced it? Baa, I need plain common examples.

Obviously, you are hearing distinctions, not noted in America.
However,
When we are writing our English phonemically, we have to go with
what we hear. All other suggestions would only be temporary in any
case given the evolution/devolution in the pronunciation of English.
I don't speak like George Washington anymore and it would be
foolhardy to speak according to some old style, that is unfamilar to
the majority of English speakers,
just because some groups have preconceived (out-of-date) notions of
the proper pronunciation for me.

So lets look to the future.
The idea of phonemes is that if there is no minimal pair, you lump
that sound under one symbol.
So let's look for minimal pairs.
And if there few or only a single minimal pair (i.e. Argh) lets just
note it as an exception and move on.

I think that is the same case with R-sounds.
If we have a system that covers all but a handfull of exceptions, why
not go ahead with it rather than grumbling that it is broken and
going back to inherently imprecise Roman style Diagraphs.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Down with the Romans.
P.S.S. Document exceptions.
P.P.P.S. The combination of the "u" sound with the r-sound produces
something very close to the ar (AD) sound in Argh, not "err"
P.P.P.P.S. Doer sounds like dM-D a clear case of a vowel that goes
across 2 syllables.
______________________attached________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> 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?

> Paul wrote:
>
> In response to Hugh's first issue, I thought the best solution was
> for the American's to always use "ah" and for the Brits to use "On"
> because that's the way they are pronounced. If we each use only that
> one letter consistently there shouldn't be any confusion at all.
> I am sure that the small list of exceptions (father, calm, palm,
> psalm, Amen) where the Brits would use /Ah/ are so rare that it would
> not confuse anyone as to whether that person consistently says /Ah/
> or whether he consistently says /On/.

Thankyou - you've highlighted the problem. If Americans always use 'ah' and Brits always use 'on', you get consistent spelling differences in every single word with that phoneme (thousands), when in fact the exact same phoneme should be written. The vowel letter used in the word "fog" SHOULD be the same for everyone, because it's the same PHONEME, never mind if the pronunciation differs.

So, on the contrary, 'ON' should be the default phoneme, as that is by far the most common of the two. Using it means your spelling will not needlessly be at odds with that of Brit-Eng speakers.

Does anyone else remember, several years ago I actually drew up that list of most of the words that required 'ah'. In case anyone's forgotten, here it the list again, from 30th July 2002:

Yugoslavia [/VgaslyvIa]
Bahamas [/bahymaz]
Ghana [/gyna]
Kuala Lumpur [/kwyla /lUmpUD]
Nazi [/nytsI]
Panama [/pAnamy]
Afrikaans [/Afrikynz]
Gujurati [/gMJDytI]espionage [espjanyZ]
father [fyHD]
half [hyf]
calm [kym]
palm [pym]
rationale [rASanyl]
psalm [sym]
ah! [y!]
amen [ymen]
drama [dryma] (ONLY if you use that phoneme and not 'ash')
rather [ryHD] (ditto)
strata/substratum [stryta/substrytam] (ditto)

21 words. That's it. Only 10 are standard English words, with the rest being names. There are probably more, but most of those will be foreign words or place names. I don't think it's a challenge to learn, if it means the ah/on issue is dispensed with.

What do we think: shall we go with it?

> The following pairs of words are differented by me mostly at the
> syllable boundary.
> merr-y"/"Ma-ry", "ferr-y"/"fai-ry" and "ver-y"/"va-ry

Hmmm. The syllable boundaries you describe aren't what I'd expect.

To take "ferry/fairy", both the AHD and M+W put the 'r' at the end of the 1st syllable. Their own pronunciation guides say (using different syntax):

AHD: fěr'ē / fâr'ē
M+W: 'fer-E / 'far-E, 'fer-E

Hugh B

Hi Hugh
I would love to consider the "Ah" and "On" to be one Phonemic unit
with one Shavian letter representing both, preferably "On".
Unfortunately,
there are those 20 or so exceptions. I have no problems representing
those exceptions with a new letter, but I think it would just confuse
things for the Americans. if we say to them that "Ah" and "On"
represent the same sound, but then just for these exceptions we
switch things around and say there is some difference and re-activate
an obsolete letter.

An altogether new letter for the British "Ah" sound would not only
not be confusing to Americans and previous users of Shavian, but
reinforce the fact that this pronunciation is exceptionl.
Let me suggest that the name of this new letter be Ahms, and we can
reuse the old "y" keymapping.
If you like I can suggest a distinctive shape for the new letter?
Anyone else have a comment?
Regards, Paul V.
_____________________attached_____________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
wrote:
> > In response to Hugh's first issue, I thought at first the best
solution was
> > for the American's to always use "ah" and for the Brits to
use "On"
> > because that's the way they are pronounced. If we each use only
that
> > one letter consistently there shouldn't be any confusion at all.
> > I am sure that the small list of exceptions (father, calm, palm,
> > psalm, Amen) where the Brits would use /Ah/ are so rare that it
would
> > not confuse anyone as to whether that person consistently
says /Ah/
> > or whether he consistently says /On/.
>
> Thankyou - you've highlighted the problem. If Americans always
use 'ah' and Brits always use 'on', you get consistent spelling
differences in every single word with that phoneme (thousands), when
in fact the exact same phoneme should be written. The vowel letter
used in the word "fog" SHOULD be the same for everyone, because it's
the same PHONEME, never mind if the pronunciation differs.
>
> So, on the contrary, 'ON' should be the default phoneme, as that is
by far the most common of the two. Using it means your spelling will
not needlessly be at odds with that of Brit-Eng speakers.
>
> Does anyone else remember, several years ago I actually drew up
that list of most of the words that required 'ah'. In case anyone's
forgotten, here it the list again, from 30th July 2002:
>
> Yugoslavia [/VgaslyvIa]
> Bahamas [/bahymaz]
> Ghana [/gyna]
> Kuala Lumpur [/kwyla /lUmpUD]
> Nazi [/nytsI]
> Panama [/pAnamy]
> Afrikaans [/Afrikynz]
> Gujurati [/gMJDytI]
> espionage [espjanyZ]
> father [fyHD]
> half [hyf]
> alms [ymz]
> calm [kym]
> palm [pym]
> rationale [rASanyl]
> psalm [sym]
> ah! [y!]
> amen [ymen]
> drama [dryma] (ONLY if you use that phoneme and not 'ash')
> rather [ryHD] (ditto)
> strata/substratum [stryta/substrytam] (ditto)
>
> 21 words. That's it. Only 10 are standard English words, with the
rest being names. There are probably more, but most of those will be
foreign words or place names. I don't think it's a challenge to
learn, if it means the ah/on issue is dispensed with.
>
> What do we think: shall we go with it?

Hi Dshep
Seinfield is a Comedy set in upper class New York.
Seinfield & Elaine himself speaks pretty standard American
English. The other characters are all comedians and their speech
can not be used as a gauge of the New York accents. A funny extreme
Ethnic accent is part of a Comedians stock in trade.

As for the 3 New York accents.
According to Sam Chwat, self-proclaimed "speech therapist to the
stars" and the director of New York Speech Improvement Services,
"People talk about borough-defined New York accents, but, really, the
different types of native New York accents are all ethnic,"
"You have the Jewish accent, as typified by Jackie Mason or Fran
Drescher, the Italian accent -- Robert De Niro or Tony Danza. There's
the Irish New York accent, like Rosie O'Donnell or Mayor Giuliani."
Like the East End of London, New Your is a city of immigrants and the
children of immigrants. He specializes in helping people to overcome
a limiting accent.
In the article in the Forward about him, they said that the
struggle to remove one's accent and changing a particular style of
speaking is more like going to college
than getting just a nose job. It's not a simple operation.
It's a major undertaking.
After Henry Higgins helped Eliza Doolittle gain her "lady's voice,"
she no longer knew who she was and had to figure out a whole new way
to live her life.
I don't think hardly anyone will change their Accent in order to
learn to write Shavian better?

An accent is still an important fixture to life in America.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. I don't notice any particular rounding in the "oo" sound in
words like good, book, look, shook, took or pull. In Canada, we seem
to be lax about Vowel rounding. Any other opinions?
_______________attached___________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@...> wrote:
1. > > 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.

> Hi Hugh
> I would love to consider the "Ah" and "On" to be one Phonemic unit
> with one Shavian letter representing both, preferably "On".
> Unfortunately,
> there are those 20 or so exceptions. I have no problems representing
> those exceptions with a new letter, but I think it would just confuse
> things for the Americans. if we say to them that "Ah" and "On"
> represent the same sound, but then just for these exceptions we
> switch things around and say there is some difference and re-activate
> an obsolete letter.

Let's hear from "the Americans" then. :) Americans like Star will disagree
with you that it's "obsolete", so it's by no means a 'redundant' distinction
over there. Not to mention that us over here need it, and since the effort
involved to observe it is so little, I don't see a problem.

> An altogether new letter for the British "Ah" sound would not only
> not be confusing to Americans and previous users of Shavian, but
> reinforce the fact that this pronunciation is exceptionl.
> Let me suggest that the name of this new letter be Ahms, and we can
> reuse the old "y" keymapping.
> If you like I can suggest a distinctive shape for the new letter?
> Anyone else have a comment?
> Regards, Paul V.

OK, now you've lost me. We're not talking about new letters. 'Ah' is already
the letter for the 'ah' sound.

Here's the bottom line:

*For those not differentiating between 'ah' and 'on', use 'on', except if
the word is one of the exceptions in the list.*

This *simple* rule will solve the first issue, and we can then deal with the
remaining two -- which will doubtless be more tricky.

Hugh B

hF /daSep
F AgrI HAt it SUd bI a fUl-hFt SYrt letar.
a SPt vxtikal bR At H stRt, HAt mEks it lUk
lFk a stFalFzd bAnD P flAg, wUd bI fFn.

P wI kUd just strec H tild simbal vDtiklI.
it wUd Hen lUk H sentD lFn v H "yin n yAN"
simbal rOtEted kQntD klykwiz 90 dagrIz.
it bakumz a pretI wFd letD, but Az F sed bafP
F dOnt TiNk HAt iz a pryblem.
HX iz a gUd pikSD v H "yin n yAN" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_Yang
enJq.

rigRdz, /pYl /vI.
_________________________________atAct_____________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
> reply to message 1559, in which
> paul vandenbrink proposes:
>
>
> lets cynsintrEt yn H letD "huN".
> pDsanAlI, F wUd lF t kAl H nV letD "iNga",
>
> wUd it bI posabal tM atAc a SYrt vurtikal byr
> tM wun end, Hus mEki~ it a fUl-NFt SYrt letar
> (Yr Ivan bOT endz)?
>
> ri~i~li,
> /dSep
>

Hey Paul,

I still have a copy of your Revised Shaw Abjad, from omniglot. But
since I have been extremely imprinted with the orignal Shavian. So I
am having difficulty translating or transliterating your revision, with
the original. So Paul, I would appreciate it you could give me a key
on how "Shavian" and "Revised Shaw Abjad" correlate.

Thanks,


Carl :)

another response to message 1593 from paul vandenbrink,
uncertain canadian, who asserts:

> Mid-West/Western English
> is the prestige accent of the United states.

I wonder why a Canadian should be such a champion of an
American dialect, that is, a dialect of the United States. Isn't
there supposed to be some sort of national consciousness that
you should be defending? Should I report you to the Mounties?

Besides my Nova Scotian friend, I have, to my knowledge, only
met a handful of people from Canada, the most notable being the
economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who gave a lecture I attended
years ago in which he compared the concept of trickle-down
economics, then in vogue, to a well-known process recognized in
horse-and-buggy days where, as a saying went, if the horses are
well fed, so shall be the sparrows (think about it). Another was
Margaret Macmillan, who gave a talk at a book-signing about her
interesting work on the Versailles peace negotiations of 1919.
And I have also listened closely to interviews of Margaret Atwood,
an author I admire. In their speech, admittedly a small sample,
but nevertheless a sample, I thought I detected something slightly
different from any American accent that I am familiar with. I can't
pin it down, it is, at least to me, too subtle for definition, perhaps
an r-undertone different from anything I had ever heard. I attribute
it, as a guess, to the Scots influence in Canada which I believe is
significant.

Whatever it was, it seemed to me to be distinctive.

wondringly,
dshep