Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

I've been watching this with keen interest. Lionel, you've played a blinder
-- well done!

As always though, almost immediately we come up against the "whose
pronunciation" hurdle.

As I always suggest at times like this: could we not use the American
Heritage Dictionary (www.dictionary.com) as a guide? Not only is it the
closest to a "consensus" pronunciation easily available on the web, it
always lists alternative pronunciations for any word where there are two or
more differing pronunciations (for example, "suggest" is listed as both
'su-jest' and 'sug-jest'), so it even offers a guide on when it's
appropriate to enter homonyms for the same words.

What's more, it's easy for anyone to transliterate the AHD pronunciation key
into Shavian, because I prepared a simple conversion chart (which anyone
will surely memorize after not very long):

http://mixsynth.fearfulsilence.com/shavian/ahdpronshaw.htm

Just a sug-jestion...

Hugh B


> -----Original Message-----
> From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Philip Newton
> Sent: 19 May 2006 15:25
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Re: Some ideas for modifications to
> phpGhotiFilleter
>
> On 5/19/06, paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
> > standard Rhotic British English.
> > That variant seems to have the most number of distinguishable
> > phonemes, and so it would be much easier to convert that form into
> > the other common English accents, which use only a subset of the 48
> > Shavian letters.
>
> In principle, yes; unfortunately, mapping SRBE to other accents is
> not, in general, an n:1 problem but an m:n problem -- you can't
> collapse all occurrences of X and Y into phoneme X (for any given X
> and Y, at least in general), since there may be cases when some X's
> turn into Z instead or stay as X or whatever. Hence my perceived need
> for extra symbols which basically identify "this is an X in dialect D1
> and a Y in D2", since not all X's in D1 turn into Y in D2.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I've added a Shavian wiki site to my wiki farm, to allow a set of
lexical map tables to be established collaboratively for each of the
different accents we want to use.

Go here:

http://www.saytheword.org.uk/shavian/wiki/

and then click on the Lexical Maps link.

Anyone can edit this page (or create new pages, if they wish) by
clicking on the Edit link. The wiki code should become obvious when
you look at the existing code.

I've set up a basic table containing all of the Shavian vowel symbols
and a few extra meta-phonemes, but I haven't spent any time thinking
about what other meta-phonemes might be required, or what the American
equivalents should be. If you have the time, please edit the table as
you see fit, while I work on the new PHP code. If you want to add a
new accent to the two that are there already, feel free to add a
column to the table.

Lionel Ghoti wrote:

>I've added a Shavian wiki site to my wiki farm, to allow a set of
>lexical map tables to be established collaboratively for each of the
>different accents we want to use.
>
>Go here:
>
>http://www.saytheword.org.uk/shavian/wiki/
>
>and then click on the Lexical Maps link.
>
>Anyone can edit this page (or create new pages, if they wish) by
>clicking on the Edit link. The wiki code should become obvious when
>you look at the existing code.
>
>I've set up a basic table containing all of the Shavian vowel symbols
>and a few extra meta-phonemes, but I haven't spent any time thinking
>about what other meta-phonemes might be required, or what the American
>equivalents should be. If you have the time, please edit the table as
>you see fit, while I work on the new PHP code. If you want to add a
>new accent to the two that are there already, feel free to add a
>column to the table.
>
>
Thanks, LG! I did notice on your map of unused characters, you include
G. I should mention that some Shavian fonts are using G for the namer
dot, so as to free up the forward slash.

--
Ethan

Have you ever wondered what it'd be like to fly like a bird? Wonder no longer! www.maximumride.com

Thanks, I've amended that now.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethanl@...> wrote:

> Thanks, LG! I did notice on your map of unused characters, you include
> G. I should mention that some Shavian fonts are using G for the namer
> dot, so as to free up the forward slash.
>
> --
> Ethan
>
> Have you ever wondered what it'd be like to fly like a bird? Wonder
no longer! www.maximumride.com
>

Hi Philip
Thanks for agreeing with me in principal. I accept that you
you can not collapse all occurrences of X and Y into phoneme Y.
(for any given X and Y, at least in general)

Now let us look at the 2 variations that you mentioned.
First, there may be some cases when some X's
stay as X or whatever, rather than consistently change into Y.
This case is not a problem as the word in SRBE would still be a valid
variant and would obviously predominate when X remains distinct.

Second, there may be cases when some X's
turn into Z instead of Y. These are either the exceptions to the basic
rule that you suggest we base the different language groupings on or
some new rule which applies to a different language grouping.
If there are too many exceptions, then the whole scheme falls apart,
because it is not practical to hand code a large group of words that
fall outside the rules.
Personally, I do not think there are enough exceptions to the rules
to invalidate automatic consolidation of phonemes for different
groups. I would suggest going ahead with automatic consolidation of
phonemes for different groups and fine tuning the transliteration
process later.

Regards, Paul V.
_____________________attached______________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Newton"
<philip.newton@...> wrote:
>
> On 5/19/06, paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
> > standard Rhotic British English.
> > That variant seems to have the most number of distinguishable
> > phonemes, and so it would be much easier to convert that form into
> > the other common English accents, which use only a subset of the
48
> > Shavian letters.
>
> In principle, yes; unfortunately, mapping SRBE to other accents is
> not, in general, an n:1 problem but an m:n problem -- you can't
> collapse all occurrences of X and Y into phoneme X (for any given X
> and Y, at least in general), since there may be cases when some X's
> turn into Z instead or stay as X or whatever.

Hi Philip
You raise a pretty point.
Is a Schwi an unaccented and foreshortened "i:" (ee) sound
found at the end of words like Lady, Pity, Silly and Really spoken
with a British RP accent or is it the reduced minimal vowel sound
of an unstressed "i" (i) sound found in words like regards, reduced,
relaxed, repeated, remainder, roses, prefer and between with a
General American accent?

Obviously, I prefer the second definition because I can reproduce it
in my own speech, but honestly they are both so close to being the
same sound, that I would just use the same word for both sounds.
After all for Shavian purposes, we are only talking about Phonemes
anyway.

And I really doubt that there are any minimal pairs that
differentiate these 2 sounds in the American accent.
If only because American English avoids ending a word with
a short unstressed vowel. The only exception I can think of is
"genre" with it's French pronunciation.

What do you think, Philip?

Regards, Paul V.
_______________________________attached_________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Newton"
<philip.newton@...> wrote:
>
> On 5/18/06, Lionel Ghoti <Lionel.Ghoti@...> wrote:
> > My copy of the OED uses the following:
> >
> > "peat" - /pi:t/
> > "pit" - /pIt/ (the smaller symbol, you know)
> > "pity" - /pIti/
> >
> > I.e., the final sound in the last example, schwi, has the quality
of
> > the sound in "peat", but the length of the sound in "pit". That
seems
> > pretty accurate to me, in my accent at least.
>
> Sounds like it to me, too.
>
> So the question arises, which phoneme does it represent -- "if"
(which
> it matches in length) or "eat" (which it matches in quality)?
>
> I think this is not "shwi", though -- as I use it, "shwi" is a
> nearly-neutral vowel but slightly "if"-coloured, as in the first
> syllable of "defend". Paul V may be able to say more about this
term.
>
> Or perhaps a better example (which I got from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwi ) is "roses" vs "Rosa's" -- the
> first word has a schwi in the second syllable, the second word has a
> schwa there. And for some people, it's a schwa in both words.
>
> "Roses" is not quite "roezizz" with a definite "if"-sound, but it's
> not quite as neutral as in "Rosa's", either.

On 5/23/06, paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
> Is a Schwi an unaccented and foreshortened "i:" (ee) sound
> found at the end of words like Lady, Pity, Silly and Really spoken
> with a British RP accent or is it the reduced minimal vowel sound
> of an unstressed "i" (i) sound found in words like regards, reduced,
> relaxed, repeated, remainder, roses, prefer and between with a
> General American accent?

I thought it was the second.

> Obviously, I prefer the second definition because I can reproduce it
> in my own speech, but honestly they are both so close to being the
> same sound, that I would just use the same word for both sounds.

For me, they're different -- the final vowel vacillates between "if"
and "eat", while the middle vowel vacillates between "if" and "ado".
The effects seem to me to be different.

> After all for Shavian purposes, we are only talking about Phonemes
> anyway.

Both sounds are difficult to assign an all-purpose phoneme to -- they
do share that property.

The final vowel may be easier since it seems that the "if"
pronunciation is losing ground quickly and that it sounds
old-fashioned or affected.

> And I really doubt that there are any minimal pairs that
> differentiate these 2 sounds in the American accent.

Probably.

> What do you think, Philip?

I'd want to reserve the name "schwi" for the sound in words such as "reduce".

I'm not so sure about "roses"; that may also be schwi, though.

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

Hi Philip
Unfortunately, in the Wikipedia article on Schwi, it appears that
while they waffle about it for a page or so, in summation they
definately do
assign one of the meanings of Schwi as the foreshortened "i:" (ee)
sound found at the end of words like Lady, Pity, Silly and Really
spoken with a British RP accent.

I would have thought too that Schwi was the reduced minimal vowel
sound
of an unstressed "i" (i) sound found in words like regards, reduced,
relaxed, repeated, remainder, roses, prefer and between, because that
sound is closer to the sound of a "Schwa", which is where the word
"Schwi" comes from. (along with the Schwer. Notably there is no
Schwir, because it would be almost indistinguishable from a Schwer)
I find that that in a number of words the Schwa and Schwi can be used
interchangably. So this distinction may also eventually disappear in
General American English.

Still, it does seem far more common than than the other sound
phenomena,
so I will assign the primary meaning of Schwi, as the reduced minimal
vowel sound of an unstressed "i" (i) sound found in words like
regards, reduced, relaxed, repeated, remainder, roses, prefer and
between, in a General American accent.

Any dissent?

Anyway, I am just happy that Shavian does distinguish all the other
r-colored vowels or rhotacized vowels. These would be vowels, either
with the tip or blade of the tongue turned up during at least part of
the articulation of the vowel (a retroflex articulation) or with the
tip of the tongue down and the back of the tongue bunched. Both
articulations produce basically the same auditory effect, a lowering
in frequency at the end of the vowel, which we hear as an R-sound.
After all, these sounds are only noticable as such in some of the
Rhotic English accents, such as Mid-Western American English.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. I definately hear "roses" with a Schwi at the end.
P.P.S. Nice point, Philip, on the 2 sounds of Schwi,
"the final vowel vacillates between "if" and "eat", while the middle
vowel vacillates between "if" and "ado".

___________________attached____________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Newton"
<philip.newton@...> wrote:
>
> On 5/23/06, paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
> > Is a Schwi an unaccented and foreshortened "i:" (ee) sound
> > found at the end of words like Lady, Pity, Silly and Really spoken
> > with a British RP accent or is it the reduced minimal vowel sound
> > of an unstressed "i" (i) sound found in words like regards,
reduced,
> > relaxed, repeated, remainder, roses, prefer and between with a
> > General American accent?
>
Philip: I thought it was the second.
>
> > Obviously, I prefer the second definition because I can reproduce
> > it
> > in my own speech, but honestly they are both so close to being the
> > same sound, that I would just use the same word for both sounds.
>
Philip: For me, they're different -- the final vowel vacillates
between "if" and "eat", while the middle vowel vacillates
between "if" and "ado".
The effects seem to me to be quite different.
>
> And I'm not so sure about "roses"; that may also be schwi, though.

paul vandenbrink wrote:

>Anyway, I am just happy that Shavian does distinguish all the other
>r-colored vowels or rhotacized vowels. These would be vowels, either
>with the tip or blade of the tongue turned up during at least part of
>the articulation of the vowel (a retroflex articulation) or with the
>tip of the tongue down and the back of the tongue bunched. Both
>articulations produce basically the same auditory effect, a lowering
>in frequency at the end of the vowel, which we hear as an R-sound.
>After all, these sounds are only noticable as such in some of the
>Rhotic English accents, such as Mid-Western American English.
>
>
In Mid-western American speech, I don't hear the R-coloring at the end
of the vowel, neither do I pronounce it at the end myself, as I speak
with this accent, unless it's a glide like Ear/Air/Are/Or. What I hear
and pronounce myself where Err and Array are used is a pure rhotic or
retroflex vowel all the way through. That's why I don't like to see
people replace Err with Up-Roar and Array with Ado-Roar, because I don't
pronounce any Up or Ado sounds at the beginning.


--
Ethan

Have you ever wondered what it'd be like to fly like a bird? Wonder no longer! www.maximumride.com

Hi Ethan
I guess I wasn't quite specific enough for you.
I was talking about all the r-colored vowel glides, that you
mentioned (i.e. Ear/Air/Are/Or) as well as the others that are formed
with the addition of the Array sound to a Dipthong.
(i.e. ier, ire, ower, ayer, oyer, our, oer, oor, etc.)
I could never imagine adding a consonant letter like Roar after the
vowel (i.e. Up-Roar, Ado-Roar) to represent
one of these r-colored glide sounds. I would have to add a
rhotic or retroflex vowel letter after the Dipthong or regular vowel
letter.

As for the sounds represented by Err (urge) and Array,
I wasn't really talking about them.
In fact, they really don't sound different enough to me to be worth
having 2 letters. The difference to my ear seems to be mostly that
Err (urge) is longer and I also feel that my tongue doesn't roll up
as much at the end of the sound or Err (urge).
But they are definately a distinct vowel sound and not a composite or
glide.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. If I had my druthers I would use Array only for composite sounds.
(i.e. ier, ire, ower, ayer, oyer, our, oer, oor, etc.)
and Err (urge) for everything else.
But in this matter, in fact, I mostly do go along with Shavian groups
preference based on accent, in my own writing.
Regards, Paul V.
___________________attached__________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethanl@...> wrote:
> >Anyway, I am just happy that Shavian does easily distinguish all
the other r-colored vowels or rhotacized vowels. These would be
vowels, either with the tip or blade of the tongue turned up during
at least part of
> >the articulation of the vowel (a retroflex articulation) or with
the
> >tip of the tongue down and the back of the tongue bunched. Both
> >articulations produce basically the same auditory effect, a
lowering
> >in frequency at the end of the vowel, which we hear as an R-sound.
> >After all, these sounds are only noticable as such in some of the
> >Rhotic English accents, such as Mid-Western American English.
> >
> >
Ethan said:
> In Mid-western American speech, I don't hear the R-coloring at the
end
> of the vowel, neither do I pronounce it at the end myself, as I
speak
> with this accent, unless it's a glide like Ear/Air/Are/Or. What I
hear
> and pronounce myself where Err and Array are used as a pure rhotic
or
> retroflex vowel all the way through. That's why I don't like to
> see
> people replace Err with Up-Roar and Array with Ado-Roar,
> because I don't
> pronounce any Up or Ado sounds at the beginning.