Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

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

> 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.


Don't the Irish already pronounce it that way, at least sometimes (or in
some places)?


from the other side,
dshep

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


> The inclusion of the R-sound vowel letters was a sop to the
> intellectual elites who spoke RP English, so they wouldn't look like
> twits writing Phonetically. Imagine what it looks like to a American
> Rhotic speaker, if you wrote a passage in Roman letters without the
> R letter.

I don't think it was meant that way at all, rather, as theatre English
as used by travelling troupes it had to reach out to as many as possible;
an inclusive, yet clear and elegeant compromise rather than a sop to
anyone.

But I agree that high-school students are the real target if mass
exposure is ever to be achieved; all my tiresome complaints are
directed towards providing something this most critical (and easily
bored) body of recipients might be persuaded to find interesting
and useful.

dshep

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

>
> 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.

Yes, it would serve that purpose; a worthwhile purpose I think.

dshep

On 3/25/06, dshepx <dshep@...> wrote:
> --- 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.

They did? I wasn't aware of that.

In that case, it would seem that the alphabet which was selected did
not completely meet the requirements Shaw had set out.

Which doesn't mean that I think Shavian-as-we-have-it-now should be
discarded or have another letter included to make that distinction; if
the distinction is to be reflected in writing through a new letter,
that should make a new alphabet, which could compete on its own
merits.

Though if compound letters are abolished, it would seem to be as
simple as choosing on+roar or oak+roar, depending on the word.

(Though in the spirit of Hugh's proposed mergers, it may be easier for
the largest group of people to ignore the difference, as many speakers
of English do.)

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

--- 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.
>
> They did? I wasn't aware of that.
>
> In that case, it would seem that the alphabet which was selected did
> not completely meet the requirements Shaw had set out.


No it doesn't, not entirely. This is Kingsley Read's doing.


> Which doesn't mean that I think Shavian-as-we-have-it-now should
> be discarded or have another letter included to make that distinction;
> if the distinction is to be reflected in writing through a new letter,
> that should make a new alphabet, which could compete on its own
> merits.

No new letter is necessary; this is why I spell 'or/ore' as 'Yr/Or '
rather than P.


> Though if compound letters are abolished, it would seem to be as
> simple as choosing on+roar or oak+roar, depending on the word.

One could use 'or' rather than 'Yr"; I'm actually a little uncertain
myself which is better.


> (Though in the spirit of Hugh's proposed mergers, it may be easier for
> the largest group of people to ignore the difference, as many speakers
> of English do.)

The largest group of people always do as they see fit.



dshep

Hi Hugh
Thank you for being in agreement. We are looking at 2 scenario's
Do you have a preference?
Regards, Paul V.
_______________________attached_____________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
wrote:
> 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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of paul vandenbrink
> Sent: 26 March 2006 02:40
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: The First of 3 issues with shavian
>
> Hi Hugh
> Thank you for being in agreement. We are looking at 2 scenario's
> Do you have a preference?
> Regards, Paul V.

I'm not sure anymore.

While it seems quite obvious that an easy solution to the 'ah/on' problem is
the "ah-words shortlist", the same kind of solution can't apply to the 2
remaining problems, detecting stress and defining use of 'air/err/ear'; the
latter problem I believe might only be adequately solved by dropping those
letters altogether.

Kingsley Read dropped both stress and rhotic vowels from Quikscript, which
says to me the same kind of trouble was encountered by Shavian users back
then too. We're just repeating it 30-40 years later.

Hugh B

Hi Hugh
Let's just concentrate on the one problem that you, me, Philip and
the others have been discussing.
I don't think anyone wants to do any drastic about the other two
issues that you brought up. Essentially, you are talking about
creating a Shavian that would work better for non-Rhotic English.
That idea requires a lot more analysis and discussion.

I rather focus in on the first of the three issues that you brought
up.
It is simpler for one thing.
The Problem involving the differing pronunciations for
4 Shavian Letters, Ash, Ah, On, Awe
The pronunciations of these Letters overlaps slightly which is very
confusing to American speakers.

First idea was to limit the use of "Ah" to a special exception list.
Second idea was to reduce the number of letters involved.
There two suggestions on how to implement the second idea.

First suggestion was to merge the 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.
However, Ah would then grow by including all the words formerly
written with "Awe"
In this suggestion, the overlapping Ah moves in the direction of Awe.

The Second suggestion was to combine On and Ah into one letter,
preferably "On" and then allow people to write a Doubled "On" to
represent any longer sound that falls inbetween "On" and "Awe".
To start with that would include your entire exception list for "Ah".
Hopefully, the demarcation between these 2 letters would work itself
out with usage and the Doubling would eventually disappear.

Does this description cover the first issue and the suggestions
discussed so far.
Any corrections or additional suggestions?
Regards, Paul V.
____________attached____________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
wrote in response to the following question:
> > We are looking at 2 scenario's
> > Do you have a preference?
> > Regards, Paul V.
>
> I'm not sure anymore.
>
> While it seems quite obvious that an easy solution to the 'ah/on'
problem is
> the "ah-words shortlist",
> the same kind of solution can't apply to the 2
> remaining problems, detecting stress and defining use
of 'air/err/ear'; the
> latter problem I believe might only be adequately solved by
dropping those
> letters altogether.

Hi Hugh & Phil
I am assuming that the "Ah" sound in British English is noticeably
shorter in length than the "Awe" sound and maybe not quite so
noticably but still a bit longer than the "On" sound.
Is that right?

Also to me the "Awe" sound sounds closer to the "Ah" sound.
This is consistent with the Letter Shapes.
Perhaps, to British speaker, "Awe" sounds closer to the "On" sound?
Please clarify your perceptions.
Maybe my underlying assumptions are incorrect?
Regards, Paul V.
_________________attached_______________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
> Let's just concentrate on the one problem that you, me, Philip and
> the others have been discussing.
> I don't think anyone wants to do any drastic about the other two
> issues that you brought up. Essentially, you are talking about
> creating a Shavian that would work better for non-Rhotic English.
> That idea requires a lot more analysis and discussion.
>
> I rather focus in on the first of the three issues that you brought
> up.
> It is simpler for one thing.
> The Problem involving the differing pronunciations for
> 4 Shavian Letters, Ash, Ah, On, Awe
> The pronunciations of these Letters overlaps slightly which is very
> confusing to American speakers.
>
> First idea was to limit the use of "Ah" to a special exception list.
> Second idea was to reduce the number of letters involved.
> There two suggestions on how to implement the second idea.
>
> First suggestion was to merge the 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.
> However, Ah would then grow by including all the words formerly
> written with "Awe"
> In this suggestion, the overlapping Ah moves in the direction of
Awe.
>
> The Second suggestion was to combine On and Ah into one letter,
> preferably "On" and then allow people to write a Doubled "On" to
> represent any longer sound that falls inbetween "On" and "Awe".
> To start with that would include your entire exception list
for "Ah".
> Hopefully, the demarcation between these 2 letters would work
itself
> out with usage and the Doubling would eventually disappear.
>
> Does this description cover the first issue and the suggestions
> discussed so far.
> Any corrections or additional suggestions?
> Regards, Paul V.

On 3/26/06, paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
> First suggestion was to merge the 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.

I think that's what it ended up being, yes.

> However, Ah would then grow by including all the words formerly
> written with "Awe"
> In this suggestion, the overlapping Ah moves in the direction of Awe.

No, I think that was my misunderstanding -- 'awe' words would end up
written with 'on' instead. "Cot" and "caught" would be spelled the
same -- these sounds are merged by a fair number of Americans anyway.
"Ah" words would be either the short list (the PALM words) or even
disappear entirely, with PALM words being spelled with "ash"
(probably).

> The Second suggestion was to combine On and Ah into one letter,
> preferably "On" and then allow people to write a Doubled "On" to
> represent any longer sound that falls inbetween "On" and "Awe".

I don't think that was one of the suggestions Hugh and I had, and I
personally don't see doubled letters as particularly desirable.

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