Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Philip
I don't think it is so simple. While generally speaking people do
work within the set of sounds they learned as a child, they are
constantly learning new words and depending on the context of that
learning (Say University) may strive to make their speech clearer.
New words tend to be pronounced closer to the standard.
And English has so many synonyms,
they can often just delete a troublesome word from their vocabulary.
For instance, replacing the problematic word "Car" with
the word "Vehicle".
Like a person with a Lisp avoiding words starting with Sibulants.
Regards, Paul V.
_____________attached___________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Newton"
<philip.newton@...> wrote:
>
> On 3/28/06, pgabhart@... <pgabhart@...> wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, if people expected English spelling to be a
relatively
> > accurate graphic representation of speech rather than a semi-
ideogram, does
> > anyone believe that would inhibit such changes as
the "cot" "caught" merger,
> > or are dialects already too ingrained by the time a person learns
to read?
>
> Well, you can see how many instances there are of "spelling
> pronunciations" (such as "fore-head" instead of "forrid" for
> "forehead"); there are some words, but not very many.
>
> I'd say that in general, pronunciation is not often based on
spelling (except for unfamiliar or rare words), and that there's
often a stigma
> attached to a spelling pronunciations in those cases.
>
> And anyway, I think you've hit on something with the "dialects
> [including accent/pronunciation] being too ingrained by the time a
> person learns to read".

hey all :^)
i'm looking for a free, simple program with which one can make their
own symbols for their own made-up language. also, some free, simple
program wherein one can make and organize the language itself. must
be downloadable.
i've looked in tucows and download.com as well as just doing an online
search. if i've missed programs because of searching under the wrong
words, please, say so.
thanks

On 3/29/06, melphleg1896 <erinpiperdane@...> wrote:
> hey all :^)
> i'm looking for a free, simple program with which one can make their
> own symbols for their own made-up language.

Font creation programs tend not to be simple, especially if you want
to create high-quality fonts. I've heard of "Softy" as a free font
creator; it's not being developed any more since its author, Dave
Emmett, has died, but the latest version still seems to be available.

There's also High-Logic's Font Creator ( http://www.high-logic.com/ ),
but that's shareware and only free during the 30-day trial period.

> also, some free, simple program wherein one can make and organize
> the language itself. must be downloadable.

The Shaw alphabet isn't a language, but a different alphabet for
writing English with, so I daresay most of the readers won't have much
experience in this context.

I recommend that you join the CONLANG mailing list, which is all about
making your own language; they probably have more advice to offer you.
You may also want to join the neographies list, which is specifically
about making one's own writing systems.

CONLANG: http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/conlang.html
neographies: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/neographies/

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

Hi Carl
Sorry to take so long to get back to you.
I got a little over-involved in the discussion on how to best
represent the Lower Back Vowels in Shavian. We are looking for a
strategy that would work better for both British and English Speakers.

Anyway,
Shavian is a highly Phonemic Alphabet which concentrates on the all
the sounds into letters in a word.
The Shaw Abjad is a more complicated construct. You still write down the
whole word, but the symbols of the Abjad minimizes the variation in
Vowel sounds, and it doesn't explicitly write them in a non-stressed
positions. Instead of explicity writing out a soft vowel in a non-
stressed position, you would just write a period or a dash as a Vowel
placeholder. Also the design of the Abjad will show word syllable
boundaries
which is a great pronunciation aid.
Because I admire the Shavian design, I kept almost all of the Shavian
Consonant Letters so it looks quite similar, and if you understand
Shavian and understand the concept of an Abjad, you can usually puzzle
out the words. I'll attach a note to the bottom of you question,
that explains what an Abjad is.
www.omniglot.com has an explanation and list some languages, that still
use Abjads to write things down.
Regards, Paul V.
________________attached__________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Carl G. Easton" <shavintel16@...>
wrote:
> 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.

________________attached__________________________________
When I set up a spelling system called the Revised Shaw Abjad
(Abjad = Consonant based alphabet) a while back,
I minimized the use of vowels and put more emphasis
on syllable boundaries.

I thought the vowel sounds of the 5 Roman Vowel letters and
all the Vowel Diagraphs were so screwed up, that the average
literate Englishman isn't making much use of that information to
sound out or recognise written words,
anyway and so it could be discarded as extraneous.
I created a working system, but it is too much of stretch for most
people. It is called an Abjad.
I write a vowel letters for a word only when the vowel sound
begins or ends a
syllable, or is the syllable itself. And of course, I write out all
the R-sound letters. I lump the R-sound letters in with the Consonant
letters. So I would write your message something like this in Shavian
Mapping.
b-t uv kPs! fP stRtDz, wI c-n g-t r-d uv Yl Hu vQalz... y-Nstxz H--z
d=z R s-nd-N t-kst m-seJ.z g-t bF j-st f=n w-TQt H-m!

* Schwa = ., Short = -, Long = --, Dipthong = =
It doesn't save space, but it does simplify the writing of Vowel
letters.
P.S. Let me know if you need the full spelling of my sample above.

Paige, dshep, and others,

I think you are on the wrong track here.
We are searching for a broad transcription that would not
distinguish near rimes. /hors/ for both horse and hoarse is
fine. We let the context distinguish which meaning to be associated
with the string of sound-signs.

I have had linguists tell me that they do not pronounce
*ale and *ail the same way. Therefore a writing system that
reduced both the /eIl/ would distort their ideolect.

So what? All we are trying to do is to get close enough to communicate.

Without a context a native speaker would associate /peIl/ with pale
and pail. The same would happen if the words were spoken.

Yes there are people who change /O/ to /A/ in many words. Some
dialects do not even contain /O/. This is a problem if you are an
advocate of spell as you speak.

I think the goal is (wide) communication and the optimize
communication you will spell as the newsreader speaks rather than your
regional dialect.

--Steve


--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@...> 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?

> dshep

Hi Paige
I do not distinguish "horse" and "hoarse". Perhaps you are
pronouncing it like "whores" (hwOxz).
As for the other minimal pairs, I only notice a slight lengthening of
the "Or" (P) sound when it is the final sound of the word.
I suspect that might not be an unusual occurence for any stressed
final syllable ending in a vowel.

Hi Steve
I agree with you 100%. I think we need to minimize obscure vowel
distinctions. The 24 vowel letters already provided in Shavian seem
more than adequate, especially considering that it replaces an
Alphabet where there are only 5 vowel letters.
The more vowel letters there are the more variant spellings we will
have due to
accent differences. For example, due to the father-fodder vowel
merge, Americans are typically unable to determine
when to use "ah" letter
and when to use "on", without looking back at the words Roman
Spelling.
This is not the way we want Shavian to work.

Regards, Paul V.
___________________attached_______________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Bett" <stbetta@...> wrote:
>
> Paige, dshep, and others,
>
> I think you are on the wrong track here.
> We are searching for a broad transcription that would not
> distinguish near rimes. /hors/ for both horse and hoarse is
> fine. We let the context distinguish which meaning to be associated
> with the string of sound-signs.
>
> I have had linguists tell me that they do not pronounce
> *ale and *ail the same way. Therefore a writing system that
> reduced both the /eIl/ would distort their ideolect.
>
> So what? All we are trying to do is to get close enough to
communicate.
>
> Without a context a native speaker would associate /peIl/ with pale
> and pail. The same would happen if the words were spoken.
>
> Yes there are people who change /O/ to /A/ in many words. Some
> dialects do not even contain /O/. This is a problem if you are an
> advocate of spell as you speak.
>
> I think the goal is (wide) communication and the optimize
> communication you will spell as the newsreader speaks rather than
your
> regional dialect.
>
> --Steve
>
>
> --- In shawalphabet@...m, "dshepx" <dshep@> 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.

Paul wrote:

> Hi Steve
> I agree with you 100%. I think we need to minimize obscure vowel
> distinctions. The 24 vowel letters already provided in Shavian seem
> more than adequate, especially considering that it replaces an
> Alphabet where there are only 5 vowel letters.
> The more vowel letters there are the more variant spellings we will
> have due to
> accent differences. For example, due to the father-fodder vowel
> merge, Americans are typically unable to determine
> when to use "ah" letter
> and when to use "on", without looking back at the words Roman
> Spelling.
> This is not the way we want Shavian to work.

I also agree 100%. There are phonemes provided that millions of speakers
just don't have anymore. If those speakers can easily communicate with the
rest of the world without those extra phonemes, there's probably no need for
them in a universal alphabet.

Maybe Wells was right about limiting the choices to just 'a' and 'o'
(probably 'ash' and 'on' in Shavian). I don't agree with merging 'wool' and
'ooze' though.

Hugh B

Thanks Hugh
It is nice to know that you see our point about keeping vowel letters
under control.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. There is a another even more modern Universal Alphabet, the
I.P.A. which has another purpose altogether.
P.P.S. I consider "wool" and "ooze" to be another short/long vowel
pair like If/Eat. It is funny in Shavian, that the Consonants are
organized along the lines of Voiced/Un-Voiced Pairs and the Vowels
along the lines of Short/Long Pairs. It makes for a very easy to
remember symetrical Alphabet.
_______________attached__________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
wrote:
> I also agree 100%. There are phonemes provided that millions of
speakers
> just don't have anymore. If those speakers can easily communicate
with the
> rest of the English speaking world without those extra phonemes,
there's probably no need for
> them in a universal English alphabet.
>
> Maybe Wells was right about limiting the choices to just 'a' and 'o'
> (probably 'ash' and 'on' in Shavian). I don't agree with
merging 'wool' and
> 'ooze' though.

Paul, Hugh, and others,

I am not used to getting so much agreement.
Perhaps you misunderstood my position?:-)

There is no need to be any more precise with respect to speech than
the dictionary key. Some people waste time trying to precisely
describe how people pronounce unstressed syllables. e.g., Is there a
bull in table? /teIbUl/ or /teIb@l/ or is even the schwa sound
missing? /teIb'l/. Is there a cow in *Moscow?

My shaw alphabet page
http://www.foolswisdom.com/users/sbett/shavian-short.html

Shaw Keys: tEbal trFbal mosko prizam prizan sxfx (sDfD)

Unigraf: tAbL trYbL mQskO prizM prizN (or priz&n) sRfe&r (s&f&)
Unigraf is a mixed case, non digrafic phonetic or phonemic ASCII entry
notation.

It is supposed to be as intuitive as you can get on an ASCII keyboard.
Altho typographically challenged, any tradspel adept is supposed to be
able to read and interpret it once they learn 8 somewhat arbitrary
assignments. e.g., Q for [Q] short o sound.

The display font can be IPA, Unifon, Shavian, or any digital font that
adopts the Unigraf keyboard conventions and dictionary key.

on = Qn (which is a british short rounded o SAMPA [Q])
alms = qms (SAMPA [A:] art = qrt army qrmE or qrmy
taut = tot (Unifon has to spell or as xr and army as ormE)
Unigraf eliminates these awkward features.
hurt = hRt (R is a pure vowel in Engish) Shaw=D) hDt

Why Unigraf instead of some other keyboarding convention? Because it
is faster to learn, easier to recall, and quicker to type.

Merging wool and ooze. I am not that against the merger.
u in Unigraf is somewhat ambiguous. It can be either [u] or [U].
ooze = uz or Vz, wool = wul or wVl. If you want to be precise use V
and W. If you want to be ambiguous, use u for both V and W.

"I lIk tu Uz & rOld &p wul blank&t for s&port hwen/wen I snuz."

tu yur tur (usually transcribed as [U] in the dictionary)
kUr fUl stU or stu

I don't have an ambiguous *on character yet for [A] or [Q] or [O].
on can be written on or Qn, depending on one's reference accent.

"I gQt &p at don, rAzd D oniG, and so an aul in mY trE."
up dawn the awning saw owl

"I so him sO D sEd in D fEld" D= [ð@] or [ði]
saw sew the the

o is visually disruptive to tradspel adepts. But IMO, there is no
other single letter than is a better preresentation of <awe> [O, O:].

The shavian keyboard uses Q and o

http://us.a1.yahoofs.com/users/41e1d00dz66234b2b/fca9/__tn_/d4b5re2.jpg?phoGYLEBd34c2cb2

--Steve

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> Paul wrote:

> > Hi Steve
> > I agree with you 100%. I think we need to minimize obscure vowel
> > distinctions.

> > The 24 vowel letters already provided in Shavian seem
> > more than adequate, especially considering that it replaces an
> > Alphabet where there are only 5 vowel letters.
> > The more vowel letters there are the more variant spellings we
> > will have due to
> > accent differences. For example, due to the father-fodder vowel
> > merge, Americans are typically unable to determine
> > when to use "ah" letter
> > and when to use "on", without looking back at the words Roman
> > Spelling. This is not the way we want Shavian to work.

> I also agree 100%. There are phonemes provided that millions of
speakers just don't have anymore. If those speakers can easily
communicate with the rest of the world without those extra phonemes,
there's probably no need for them in a universal alphabet.
>
> Maybe Wells was right about limiting the choices to just 'a' and 'o'
> (probably 'ash' and 'on' in Shavian). I don't agree with merging
> 'wool' and 'ooze' though.

> Hugh B

> Paul, Hugh, and others,
>
> I am not used to getting so much agreement.
> Perhaps you misunderstood my position?:-)
>
> There is no need to be any more precise with respect to speech than
> the dictionary key. Some people waste time trying to precisely
> describe how people pronounce unstressed syllables. e.g., Is there a
> bull in table? /teIbUl/ or /teIb@l/ or is even the schwa sound
> missing? /teIb'l/. Is there a cow in *Moscow?

Good point. The unstressed schwa is an important part of speech and should
without question be represented in writing as a schwa, not "hypercorrected"
to the vowel traditional orthography represents it with, e.g. spelling
"jargon" as [JRgon] instead of [JRgan]. The only issue is whether or not you
really need to distinguish it from its stressed counterpart.

> My shaw alphabet page
> http://www.foolswisdom.com/users/sbett/shavian-short.html
>
> Shaw Keys: tEbal trFbal mosko prizam prizan sxfx (sDfD)
>
> Unigraf: tAbL trYbL mQskO prizM prizN (or priz&n) sRfe&r (s&f&)
> Unigraf is a mixed case, non digrafic phonetic or phonemic ASCII entry
> notation.
>
> It is supposed to be as intuitive as you can get on an ASCII keyboard.
> Altho typographically challenged, any tradspel adept is supposed to be
> able to read and interpret it once they learn 8 somewhat arbitrary
> assignments. e.g., Q for [Q] short o sound.
>
> The display font can be IPA, Unifon, Shavian, or any digital font that
> adopts the Unigraf keyboard conventions and dictionary key.
>
> on = Qn (which is a british short rounded o SAMPA [Q])
> alms = qms (SAMPA [A:] art = qrt army qrmE or qrmy
> taut = tot (Unifon has to spell or as xr and army as ormE)
> Unigraf elimin.... [SNIP]

(Huh?)

Hugh B