Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

reply to message 1609 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote:

> 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.


bOT wUd wurk; F ges F wUd cMs Ha sekand
Ylturnativ, but NQ dM wI dM it?

/dSep

reply to message 1614 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote about
famous canadians:

> Margaret Macmillan is not a good representative of Canadian
> speech as she spent much of her formative years in England.

My bubble remains unpopped. Whatever it was it was very pleasant to
hear. Very intelligent. I didn't however think she sounded particularly
English except perhaps in her intonation. Again there was this something
i cannot name, an undertone of something that I thought I heard in
Galbraith's speech as well, even though he drawled, while Margaret
Macmillan spoke in a clipped fashion. In fact I'm sure I heard it,
whatever
it was. I've also heard your new Prime Minister on television and there
is to my ear something distinct, slight but distinct. None of them
sound like,
say, the Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert,
who is from the Midwest, or Darth, uh, Dick Cheney, who is from the
west.

>Now, I do not know Margaret Atwood's background, but as a writer
> and Poet she has a very affected style of speech, the influence of
> which I would hesitate to ascribe to anyone or anything save Margaret
> Atwood, herself.

Her speech may well be affected, after all she is a creative person,
and creative
people usually create themselves first of all. You shouldn't be so
dismissive as
she stands a good chance of someday being given the Nobel Prize as
her work
I'm fairly certain satisfies the peculiar demands that Nobel required.

were i but half as creative,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Philip Newton wrote:
>
> On 3/26/06, paul vandenbrink wrote:

> > 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?
>
> No -- "ah" and "awe" are both long sounds, at least for me, and are
> pretty much the same length. "On" is noticeably shorter. "Ah" and
> "awe" differ in quality, not in length. "Awe" is rounded while "ah"
> isn't; I'm not sure what other differences exist.

For me as well, on all counts.

> > 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?
>
> The sound of "awe" seems closer to "on" than to "ah" to me, probably
> because both are rounded. But "awe" is not a longer version of "on".

Well, Daniel Jones thought so at first, as he used an open-o sign for 'on'
and an open-o plus length marker (:) for ought in the original EPD.

> Hm, looking at the IPA chart and relying on my memory, I think British
> "awe" is an open-mid back rounded vowel (X-SAMPA [O:]), the rounded
> version of "up" (open-mid back unrounded vowel, X-SAMPA [V]). British
> "ah" is an open back unrounded vowel (X-SAMPA [A:]), the unrounded
> version of "on" (open back rounded vowel, X-SAMPA [Q]).

Right again.


> Trying them out seems to confirm this: "up" and "awe" have roughly the
> same tongue position and differ mostly in lip rounding and vowel
> length (up is short and unrounded, awe is long and rounded); and "ah"
> and "on" again have roughly the same tongue position and differ mostly
> in lip rounding and vowel length (ah is long and unrounded, on is
> short and rounded).

Right again, but 'up' and 'ought' have moved away from each other;
the former forward and the latter upwards (in the IPA chart).
>
> Apparently, many varieties of America have the father-bother merger
> ("ah" and "on" merge), the cot-caught merger ("on" and "awe" merge) or
> both (all three merge into one), so that may make it difficult to hear
> the differences. I'm not sure what the target of the mergers is, but I
> think it may be [A] -- the British "ah" sound. So an American saying
> "law" might sound as if he were saying "la" to a British person.

All tend towards 'ah'. And yes, law is sometimes 'la', hawk 'hock', talk
'tock', taught 'tot', etc.

and cheers here too,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Hugh Birkenhead 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
>
> I'm not sure that the majority of speakers on either side of the Atlantic
> nowadays do observe a difference.
>
> Hugh B


The majority on either side of the Atlantic may not anymore, but in the
United States the distinction is a feature of the Southern states, which
are in rough numbers a quarter or a third of the entire population, which
means more than the entire population of the British Isles. Of course,
one may dismiss this particular accent, and region, as many do, but it
and California are the two most dynamic regions both in population and
economic growth (and political power as well).

hoarsely,
dshep

> Hi Philip
> Thank you for your impressions.
> It confirms that my own impressions that the British take on the
> basic Open/lower vowel sounds in the mid to back range is correct.
> Essentially "Ah" is in the middle of the Open/Lower range and "On"
> and "Awe are further Back in more or less the same position.
>
> Now how does this compare to the American Accent. First
> you are correct in your response that
> there is the merger of "Ah" and "On",
> making father and bother rhyme. This a Key difference.
> This change is nearly universal in
> North American English, occurring almost everywhere
> except for parts
> of eastern New England, like the Boston accent. And the merger has
> resulted in the new "on" sound moving from the Back to the Mid-
> Front where "Ah" used to be. With the Merger, "On" is no longer a
back vowel.



> Secondly there is the so-called cot-caught merger, where cot and
> caught are homophones. This is equivalent to the merger of "On"
> and "Awe". This change has occurred in eastern New England, in
> Pittsburgh and surrounding areas, and from the Great Plains
> westward,
> but this change although common is hardly Universal among Americans
> in those areas. In fact a couple of recent surveys indicate
> that less than 40% of American English speakers
> merge the vowel sounds of cot and caught or Don and Dawn.
> The peculiar thing is that those
> American's are actually differentiating "Ah" from "Awe" as in
> Palm Pawn or Lama Long or Psalm Song or Bra Brawn
> or Spa Spawn or hock hawk or Calm Kong or Doc Dawg.
>
> I guess this Highlights the fact that General American (Mid-West
> Accent) although pre-eminant in America and Canada
> is still not the final word
> for General American English.
>
> Still the fact that British English differentiates 3 vowels where
> only one or two are used in the vast majority of American English
> accents
> is going to be a major sticking point for Americans wishing to
> accept
> current British Shavian spelling as the standard.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> P.S. Philip, The Target of the father and bother is "Ah",
> but Law is still written with "Awe".
> P.P.S. Philip, Up and Awe have quite differen Mouth positions in my
> accent. Up is a little higher and a lot closer to the front.
> __________________attached_____________________
> > Apparently, many varieties of America have the father-bother
merger
> > ("ah" and "on" merge), the cot-caught merger ("on" and "awe"
merge)
> or
> > both (all three merge into one), so that may make it difficult to
> hear
> > the differences. I'm not sure what the target of the mergers is,
> but I
> > think it may be [A] -- the British "ah" sound. So an American
saying
> > "law" might sound as if he were saying "la" to a British person.


>> > No -- "ah" and "awe" are both long sounds, at least for me, and
are
> > pretty much the same length. "On" is noticeably shorter. "Ah" and
> > "awe" differ in quality, not in length. "Awe" is rounded
while "ah"
> > isn't; I'm not sure what other differences exist.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > The sound of "awe" seems closer to "on" than to "ah" to me,
probably
> > because both are rounded. But "awe" is not a longer version
of "on".
> >
> > Hm, looking at the IPA chart and relying on my memory, I think
> British
> > "awe" is an open-mid back rounded vowel (X-SAMPA [O:]), the
rounded
> > version of "up" (open-mid back unrounded vowel, X-SAMPA [V]).
> British
> > "ah" is an open back unrounded vowel (X-SAMPA [A:]), the unrounded
> > version of "on" (open back rounded vowel, X-SAMPA [Q]).
> [a] open mid unrounded vowel and [É’] open back rounded vowel.
> >
> > Trying them out seems to confirm this: "up" and "awe" have
roughly
> the
> > same tongue position and differ mostly in lip rounding and vowel
> > length (up is short and unrounded, awe is long and rounded);
> and "ah"
> > and "on" again have roughly the same tongue position and differ
> mostly
> > in lip rounding and vowel length (ah is long and unrounded, on is
> > short and rounded).
> >

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Paige Gabhart wrote:
>
> I believe I distinguish "horse" from "hoarse" although it is subtle.
> The latter seems to have a hint of a schwa sound after the initial vowel
> to me.

Yes, I too think I hear a glide to a schwa-like sound in words of that
category, making them a little bit longer. Other contrasting pairs are
storm/store, corn/core, morning/mourning, lord/lore, war/wore,
for/four(fore), born/borne, nor/ignore, dork/door, cork/court,
short/shore, etc.

> Also, I am curious. If one has merged the sound "awe" out of one's
> idiolect, what does one say for the word "awe"? Ah? the "on" sound by
> itself. So one would say, for example: "When the angels appeared, the
> shepherds were filled with ah." Does anyone really say this? If I
> heard someone say this, I doubt I would understand their meaning.
>
> Paige

Good point.

> P.S. do those who have merged "cot" and "caught" think that "nautical"
> refers to the "knots" that sailors have to know how to tie?

That's great!


thank you,
dshep

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

> On 3/27/06, paul vandenbrink wrote:
> > Hi Paige
> > Where would the name Horace, fit inbetween Horse and Hoarse?
> > Just curious.
> > In Shavian, I would spell Horace as "hPas" which has a definate schwa
> > sound (Ado) after the initial vowel sound "or".
>
> I'd spell it "horas".

> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton


I think that's the pronunciation (horas) recommended for the Roman poet
Horace, with the same vowel as that for Ovid.

veni vedi vici,
dshep

Hi DShep
I agree Stephen Harper does provide a nice clear example of
a Canadian accent. I will try and listen to him to see if I can spot
that difference you speak of. He grew up in Toronto, and was
transplanted to the West, which has probably smoothed out his accemt,
but in any case he is very representative.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. I would never be dismissive of Margaret Atwood.
You must have misunderstood me. Someone who can adjust their
speech to greater effect and clarity, is well worth listening to.
She is a great writer of insight and creativity.
I would a lucky man if I had half of her insight and creativity.
And She is supremely nice person, which alone is enough to qualify
her as a good example of a Canadian.
P.P.S. It is nice that you admire and follow the careers of a number
of illustrius Canadians. I hesitate to say Famous, as Canadians shun
fame, as a Moth shuns Moonlight.
__________________________attached__________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
> reply to message 1614 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote about
> famous canadians:
> >Now, I do not know Margaret Atwood's background, but as a
writer
> > and Poet she has a very affected style of speech, the
influence of
> > which I would hesitate to ascribe to anyone or anything
save Margaret
> > Atwood, herself.
>
> Her speech may well be affected, after all she is a creative
person,
> and creative
> people usually create themselves first of all. You shouldn't be so
> dismissive as
> she stands a good chance of someday being given the Nobel Prize
for
> her work, as
> I'm fairly certain that it satisfies the peculiar demands that a
Nobel required.

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


> I agree Stephen Harper does provide a nice clear example of
> a Canadian accent. I will try and listen to him to see if I can spot
> that difference you speak of. He grew up in Toronto, and was
> transplanted to the West, which has probably smoothed out his accemt,
> but in any case he is very representative.
> Regards, Paul V.

I can't quite put my finger on it; a different rhythm perhaps, or this
r-ness that I can't explain.


> P.S. I would never be dismissive of Margaret Atwood.
> You must have misunderstood me. Someone who can adjust their
> speech to greater effect and clarity, is well worth listening to.
> She is a great writer of insight and creativity.
> I would a lucky man if I had half of her insight and creativity.
> And She is supremely nice person, which alone is enough to qualify
> her as a good example of a Canadian.
> P.P.S. It is nice that you admire and follow the careers of a number
> of illustrius Canadians. I hesitate to say Famous, as Canadians shun
> fame, as a Moth shuns Moonlight.


Well good for you. I'm serious in thinking she really is a prime contender
for the Nobel Prize, as there are conditions for the prize which her work
fulfils. Of course, now that that they have given the prize to an English-
language writer this last year she will have to wait her turn as the Nobel
Committee likes to spread the award around, around the world that is.

regards,
dshep

On 3/27/06, dshepx <dshep@...> wrote:
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> --- Philip Newton wrote:
>
> > I'd spell it "horas".
>
>
> I think that's the pronunciation (horas) recommended for the Roman poet
> Horace, with the same vowel as that for Ovid.

I say Ovid with an "O" (oak), not an "o" (on) -- is this the
horse/hoarse thing again?

(I merge the two sounds, but I believe that horse ~ on+roar while
hoarse ~ oak+roar for those who make a difference.)

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