Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Hugh & Philip
Concerning your last point. See bottom of attached post.
Under that scheme, wouldn't the vowel "Ah" expand
to include most of the "Awe" vowel words?
regards, Paul V.
______________________attached________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Newton"
<philip.newton@...> wrote:
> That's what I thought at first as well, but I'm not quite sure. For
> example, in 4.1 he talks about Americans who "will be confronted
with
> the uncertainty of how to spell words in which they use this vowel
> sound. They are going to have to write it *o* as in *lot* in most
> words, but presumably -- unless we allow both possibilities in
> reformed spelling -- as *a* in a minority of cases such as _father_
> and _palm_."
>
> So I think he's advocating keeping "ah" around, but only for the
short
> list of PALM words; I believe he's in favour of merging BATH into
> TRAP, which would substantially reduce the number of words requiring
> "ah": most of the words I'd pronounce with "ah" would then either
take
> "ash" or "are".
>
> So you'd merge four vowels (ash/ah/on/awe) into three (ash/ah/on) --
> the only one that disappears completely is "awe", but "ah" will lose
> nearly all of its words to "ash". So "on" and "ah" would still be
> separate, but "ah" will be very small.

Hi Philip
I have been reading your discussions, and would be glad for an
opportunity
to move forward on this issue.
I was getting a bit frustrated, so I hope you will excuse
me, if I seemed somewhat one-sided on this issue.
Regards, Paul V.
____________________attached____________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Newton"
<philip.newton@...> wrote:
>
> On 3/24/06, Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@...> wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure he meant to just use one letter, 'o', for
> > 'cloth/lot/thought', and another, 'a', for 'sam/psalm/father'.
>
> Ah yes, that does sound like what he proposed.
>
> > He mentioned
> > the American 'father/bother' rhyme, but rather than suggesting
keeping a
> > separate letter for the 'ah' sound, he suggested that Americans
use the
> > letter 'a' rather than 'o' in certain words (against their
instinct); these
> > 'certain words', I believe, would be the same words that we've
just listed
> > to use the Shavian 'ah' letter.
>
> Okay.
>
> > Yes, he's merged 'bath/trap', which I completely agree with,
since both
> > American AND northern English dialects make this distinction, and
no
> > southern Englishman has any difficulty understanding this merger
seeing as
> > it's a part of so many dialects here.
>
> *nods* When I visited my relatives in Leicester and heard them
> pronounce, say, "master" with "ash", it sounded odd and slightly
wrong
> to me, but I had no problem understanding them. It's something to
get
> used to, but not a barrier to communication.
>
> > > So you'd merge four vowels (ash/ah/on/awe) into three
(ash/ah/on) --
> > > the only one that disappears completely is "awe", but "ah" will
lose
> > > nearly all of its words to "ash". So "on" and "ah" would still
be
> > > separate, but "ah" will be very small.
> >
> > Again, as above, I'm quite certain it's only 2. Furthermore,
considering the
> > 'bath/trap' merger, one would question keeping 'ah' at all,
seeing as
> > there'd be so few 'native' words (not foreign names) that use it.
We could
> > examine doing what Wells suggested, nominating 'a' (or 'ash' in
Shavian's
> > case) for the exception words like 'father', 'palm', etc.
>
> Ah, now I see what you mean -- "ah" disappearing completely and
being
> subsumed entirely into "ash". So "father" would be written
with "ash"
> in that case.
>
> A bit odd at first, but will surely be understandable -- and since
> many of my "ah" words (the BATH set) will wander off into "ash"
> territory anyway, having a few more (the PALM set) do so, too, won't
> be much different.
>
> > > > Maybe we can fix Shavian yet?
> > >
> > > :) I doubt it! Everyone will have their own little pet plans and
> > > preferences. But who knows? Maybe I'm being too negative.
> >
> > Well, yes, people have their own ideas. But I'm optimistic.
Common sense
> > normally prevails, and that's what this discussion is all about.
I'm hoping
> > it's not just us reading this thread...?
>
> :) I wonder. It does seem sometimes to me that we have dshep and
Paul
> V on one side and Hugh B and myself on another "and never the twain
> shall meet" (and a number of lurkers/infrequent posters such as
Star).
>
> But I think this is an orthography that can be learned by most of
us.
>
> (Whether to call the result "Shavian" or something else -- "Cut
> Shavian" or "Pan-English Shavian" or whatever -- is another
question,
> but that can wait for the time when there's a rough consensus
hammered
> out.)
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of paul vandenbrink
> Sent: 24 March 2006 21:36
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [shawalphabet] The First of 3 issues with shavian
>
> Hi Philip
> I don't think you were talking nonsense.
>
> The list of Palm words is quite small for British English,
> but includes most of the Soft-O words in Amercan English.
> It reminds me of the old Shell Game where you never
> know under what Shell/Name the particular vowel sound "ah",
> will pop up.

The small list *IS* for American speakers, so they know when to use 'ah'
instead of 'on'.

However, if we are to introduce the 'trap/bath' merger, some British
speakers might need to use the list too, because they might no longer know
when to use 'ah' instead of 'ASH'! Confusing or what!

> From an American point of view, if we coalesce these 2 letters
> representing "ah" (Palm) and "on" (Lot) into one, we will be happy.

I'm starting to be certain of this.

> So what to do with the British list of Palm type words.
> Why don't we just double up the "On" letter, put 2 in a row, whenever
> we wish to emphathize that it is the longer "ah", Palm sound.
> And if G-d forbid someone gets it wrong, it won't be a glaring
> spelling mistake. That's the situation we have now.
> I would never normally suggest this doubling as it is never used in
> Shavian any where else, but first the need is great and secondly,
> you assure me it would only affect a handful of mostly uncommon words.
> Would it include the word Spa as well as Bra, for instance?

I'm not keen on the idea of doubling letters in standard writing. But I
suppose, if people do need 'unofficial' written clarification of exact
pronunciation, it's acceptable.

> Regards, Paul V.
> P.S. As for future merges of other vowels that are not differentiated
> by RP or other Non-Rhotic English accents, I think it would better to
> let it lie. I don't want to go there.

There are plenty of 'minor' variations within dialects everywhere, and of
course the alphabet shouldn't have to represent every last one. Of that we
can all agree.

> P.P.S. {Let me get on my Soapbox, instead}
> We are not looking for something that works for everyone.
> That is raising the bar too high.
> We are merely trying to adjust the Shaw Alphabet, so that it will
> not produce contradictory spellings between people writing down
> normal British inflected English and people writing down normal
> American inflected English.
> Since both of those English accents are in a state of flux,
> it behooves us not to look too closely.
> {Let me get off my Soapbox}

This is exactly my point. So we agree.

Hugh B

> -----Original Message-----
> From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of paul vandenbrink
> Sent: 24 March 2006 21:51
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: English accents and their implications for
> spelling reform
>
> Hi Hugh & Philip
> Concerning your last point. See bottom of attached post.
> Under that scheme, wouldn't the vowel "Ah" expand
> to include most of the "Awe" vowel words?
> regards, Paul V.

Yes, that's what would happen. This would take care of the 'cot/caught'
merger.

Whether or not we think the 'cot/caught' merger is worthy of attention in
Shavian is another matter. As I said, it could be that if you have just 'ah'
and 'awe' letters, their symmetry should soften any spelling differences
writers might make.

Hugh B

Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

>>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?
>
>
That's why I started using "On". And it's not that hard, it's
familiar: Most words using "On" are spelled with the letter O. Just
think of the O in "On". The few words using "Ah" are also spelled with
an "A", so think of the A in Ah. And if you just absolutely cannot
remember those few words, I doubt anybody will get really upset if you
happen to spell it with an "On" instead. Think

>
>
>>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
>
>
I always thought of them that way. Fehr-ee, not feh-ree. In my
more-or-less standard General American pronunciation, the "r" in either
word is pronounced as a rhotic schwa, that is, a schwa with the tongue
in a retroflex position. Since it's a vowel when pronounced normally,
it would make little sense to change it into a consonant by putting it
after the syllable boundary. Since both the AHD and M/W also put it
that way, that simply confirms my usage.

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

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

Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

>>Hi Hugh
>>You can't have it both ways.
>>Either we are talking about trying a Phonemic representation, where
>>the Shavian letter "On" represents both the "On" used by the British
>>or the "Ah" sound used by the American's or you are not.
>>And there is a good precedent for such a Phonemic "On".
>>The R-Sound Vowel Letters were designed to provide a standard
>>spelling even tho they would be pronounced quite differently by a
>>Rhotic and and non-Rhotic English Speaker.
>>
>>
>
>>From an American point of view, there really will be two letters with
>apparently the same sound; just it's no different from us Brits, who get
>both 'ah' and 'are' for our single 'ah' sound.
>
>Think about it. Us poor Brit speakers have to include all these rhotic
>vowels when we don't pronounce them any differently, for the sake of US
>readers. That's our part of the bargain, and from what I've seen, we seem to
>do it pretty well.
>
>In exchange, US speakers have a much less difficult option to please Brit
>readers: remember a TINY scattering of 'ah' words and just use 'on' in every
>other occurrence of that sound (unless it's the 'are' sound).
>
>Is it a deal?
>
>Hugh B
>
>
It sounds like a fair deal to me! I can live with that. And I have
been. It's not that hard!
Imagine what it would look like if the British speakers wrote like this
(or similar - I'm not always certain about some of the pronunciations!):
TiNk abQt it. us pMa Gbrit spIkaz hAv t iNklMd Yl HIz rotik vQalz wen
wI dOnt pranQns Hem Ani difrantli, fY H sEk v GVsG rIdaz. HAts Qa pyt v
H bygan, n from wot Fv sIn, wI sIm t dM it priti wel.

in ekscEnJ, GVsG spIkaz hAv a muc les difikult opSan t plIz Gbrit rIdaz:
rimemba a GtFniG skAtariN v 'y' wadz n Just Vz 'on' in evri uHa Okurans
v HAt sQnd (unles its H 'y(r)' sQnd).

Is it a deal? I dare say it's a pretty good deal!

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, �???? �??????

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

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Philip Newton wrote:


> It'll remove a distinction some people make, but I think that's
> unavoidable in a compromise orthography intended to serve more than
> one dialect. (Heck, the NORTH/FORCE distinction isn't even in Shavian,
> so those who distinguish "or" and "ore" are already left high and
> dry.)

So true, so true. However, our patron Bernard Shaw did make the
distinction or/ore as did the designated model whose speech Shavian
was to be based upon, George V. Kingsley Read simply missed this,
either consciously or unconsciously.

Don't take my word for it, look for some old recordings,
dshep

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


> Yes, it's the vowel differences that afflict Shavian, and it won't just 'go
> away'. Nobody ever moans about the consonants (unless you're DShep... ;-).

Moan, moan, moan -- but yes, while misplaced consonants only
require graphic adjustment, vowels are much the greater problem
as they represent the heart or muscle of everyone's speech, and
everyone believes himself to speak rightly, or at least not wrongly.
The current discussion is perhaps a practical demonstration thereof.

I should like to remind everyone that Shaw's expressed desire for
his alphabet was that it should reflect a form of English that was
in itself a compromise: the speech of the theatre as James Pitman
put it in the introduction to "Androcles", something which would
appear to be a natural choice for a playwright. If anything this
would mean a somewhat artificial speech as actors strive through
the use of clear enunciation to be as easily understood as possible.
If Albert Finney can without apparent difficulty be accepted on
either side of the Atlantic as speaking naturally then we should
be able to do so as well, or at least try.

ever moaning,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Philip Newton wrote:
>
> So you'd merge four vowels (ash/ah/on/awe) into three (ash/ah/on) --
> the only one that disappears completely is "awe",

How can we do that? That's the vowel of "Shaw"? He'll be rolling in his
grave, wishing he hadn't sponsered all this confusion.

dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Philip Newton wrote:


> It's interesting to see which mergers we take for granted but which
> some speakers don't have -- for example, I had heard that some people
> distinguish "horse" from "hoarse",

To repeat myself, "some people" included Bernard Shaw and George V.

repetitiously,
dshep