Hi all,
Paul has clearly put much thought into these three principles.
I will try to respond briefly (inline, below) to each principle and
its component (numbered) rules.
But first, some more general comments on incorporating dialectal
differences in (Shavian) spelling. These come from my perspective -
surely not unique - of a person who speaks two very distinct dialects
of English in different situations. The two dialects in question are
Australian English (AusE) and Malaysian English (MalE). That they
happen to be neither RP nor GAmE is immaterial; they might well be.
Depending on audience (or audience mix), I would choose one or the
other dialect for speech, and thus for Shavian writing and spelling.
Interestingly, both share a very broadly common "International
British" spelling system in Latin letters, with "American" forms
becoming increasingly common, especially for neologisms of the 20th
and 21st Centuries. However, IME their pronunciations. and hence
Shavian spellings, differ more than do those of RP and GAmE.
Regards,
Yahya
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lionel & Phillip
>
> I think we need to work harder to avoid accent related
> disputes.
> Although at some point in the far future, I expect to see an
> international standard for pronouncing World English
> as opposed to Mid-Western American English or BBC English
> or RP English, that is not for us to concern ourselves with.
> As long as the Shavian Alphabet has the Symbols to represent
> that futuristic pronunciation, it will be in the running as
> a valid alternate Alphabet to spell English.
>
> Currently, even within Dialects, there might be 2
> or even 3 common ways to pronounce an English word.
> Occasionally, this will result in 2 equally valid Phonetic
> spellings using the Shavian Alphabet.
>
> General, when we pick between these alternatives,
> we should follow the 3 principles of simplicity,
> Internal consistency and consideration for the reader.
>
> First simplicity.
> 1. Don't use more letters than you can clearly differentiate.
I agree entirely. In the context of my two dialects, this requires
spellings that reflect only the phonemes (not phones) of each dialect.
> For example, for the Average American speaker,
> I would recommend using a subset of the Shavian letters that
> excludes Ian, Tot, Ear and Err.
> Replace Ian with Eat+Ado
> Replace Tot with Ah
> Replace Ear with Eat+Array
> Replace Err with Array
> 2. If you are familar with 2 pronunciations, say them both
> and then use the one that comes most easily off your tongue.
If you need to write for two distinct dialect audiences, reflect the
pronunciation of each in your spelling.
> Concentrate on breaking the word down into syllables.
> if it is a multi-syllabale word.
Good point.
> 3. If you still can't decide which of the 2 English
> pronunciations to base your Shavian spelling of the word,
> choose the one with the least number of syllables or vowel
> sounds.
If you can't decide on an appropriate phoneme analysis for a dialect,
don't write in it. Instead, use the dialect with which you are most
familiar, your "D1", shall we say.
> 4. Always use [all] the compound letters as much as possible.
> Just not over a syllable boundary.
Question: Surely use of compound letters for any dialect should be
governed by the frequency of the phoneme sequence in that dialect?
If, for example, the sequence represented by Ear occurs very rarely,
whilst that of Ian is common, using Ear would only make the spelling
harder for others to follow. As a guideline, if (you estimate that)
the second phoneme occurs less than half a percent of the time after
the first, ie 1 in 200 times, you're better off using a Shavian
sequence than a Shavian compound. For example, in MalE, I'd analyse
the word "here" phonemically as /h/+/ia/; in AusE,
as /h/+/ear/. "sphere" is its exact rhyme in both dialects,
respectively /s/+/@/+/f/+/ia/ and /s/+/f/+/ear/. The analysis is
unaffected by "spherical", which
is /s/+/@/+/f/+/E/+/r/+/I/+/k/+/@/+/l/
and /s/+/f/+/E/+/r/+/I/+/k/+/L/ (using /L/ for the "dark l",
arguably a distinct phoneme in AusE, but absent in MalE). I don't
think /ear/ should be used in MalE, since the sequence /ia/+/r/
doesn't occur; but it represents a distinct saving in writing AusE,
where the sequence is common.
> Second Internal Consistency
> 1. Do not change the Shavian Spelling of a word,
> to make it more consistent with the Roman Letter spelling.
Absolutely! IMO, an analysis of the dialect's phonemes, proceeding
from its distinctive phones in actual pronunciation, is the only
sound basis (Pun Not Intended) for a phonemic spelling.
> 2. Once you decide on the Shavian spelling of particular
> kind of English word based on its pronunciation,
> use the same spelling for all other words that rhyme
> with the first word.
I agree entirely.
>
> Third Consideration
> If your pronunciation leads to a mapping that other people
> have difficulty understanding, follow the same strategy as
> an English speaker with a thick accent.
Please elucidate! I do agree with the general thrust
of "consideration for the reader" - but only within the constraints
of an accurate phonemic analysis.
> Increase redundancy by using repetition and synonyms.
> If some one doesn't understand you when you write, "you too?"
> then simply write, "you also?".
In my opinion, rules for clear writing have no place in rules for
phonemic spelling. People say what they say, and the goal of a
phonemic spelling is to use the same actual distinctive contrasts
that the speakers use. Accuracy in literal reporting would go out
the window if you have to replace actual utterances by hypothetically
superior or clearer ones. Remember that ambiguity is a fact of
natural languages; homophones abound.
> 2. Try to minimize variations in your pronunciation,
> by developing a terse even curt style of writing.
> Short simple sentences can get the message across.
> Over-literary English can be somewhat florid and
> hard to process in a phonetic script.
See previous comment. Please note that I'm not against clear
writing! I just don't believe that its rules chould govern your
phonemic analysis of a dialect.
> Finally I would like to sum my response to Lionel
> as to whether at this time
> we really need a standard spelling
> for English words written in the Shavian alphabet?
> More precisely a formal paradigm of Shavian spelling
> that encompasses all English Dialects.
>
> Let me say no, we don't have to standardize,
> but on the other hand we should
> all try to follow
> the 3 principles of simplicity,
> Internal consistency and consideration for the reader.
I share your conclusions, but am uncertain how to
translate "consideration" into practice. The only way I see of doing
so is to replace compound Shavian letters for rare phoneme sequences
by a sequence of simple Shavian letters, as in my /ear/ example above.
> If we do the best we can, our writing will
> be easily accessable to other Shavian readers.
One hopes!
> Does anyone have any comments or additions?
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> ___________________________________attached______________________
> Philip Newton wrote:
>
> > Accent-related spelling disputes can happen when someone's spoken
> dialect does not
> > distinguish between sounds. For example, some Americans are
unable
> distinguish
> > between the "on" and "ah" sounds; they would presumably pick one
> or the other, which might be jarring to people who can distinguish
> between the two sounds.
> > However, I agree that this should reduce spelling differences.
>
> Lionel wrote:
>
> Exactly. You say AH-Ado-Mime-Age-AH-OAk,
> I say Tot-Ado-Mime-AH-Tot-OAk.
>
> And we're not just concerned with transatlantic differences here:
> I'm English,
> but
> when I write in Shavian I'm also imitating a foreign accent,
because
> I try to type
> in a sort of modernised Androcles-standard
> Received Pronunciation accent,
> while my speaking voice is that of a yokel-Midlander.
> The distribution of my phonemes is
> different from that of Hugh's phonemes, say,
> because his accent is closer to RP.
>
> I think this is the greatest weakness of a phonemic alphabet.
> If we're to conform to a standard
> (for formal texts, say, such as books,
> or documents available on web sites -- if not in email discussion),
> then one accent is implicitly asserted to
> be superior to all others, or at least "more standard".
> And this places everyone else
> at a slight disadvantage. Having said that, there are at least two
> significantly different standardised spelling systems of English
> using the Roman alphabet (American and British/International),
> which are fundamentally similar, and which are
> intelligible to all English speakers,
> regardless of their accent. I'd find it hard to imitate,
> for example, an American Mid-Western accent in Shavian,
> since I might not be sure of
> the distribution of its phonemes --
> but I don't have any problem understanding
> any American writer's Shavian.
> As long as we all try to use the 48 Shavian letters
> to approximate as best we can our own accents,
> I don't think there should be any problem
> with mutual intelligibility,
> even if our spellings might differ a little.
> As for a standard,
> a formal paradigm of Shavian spelling,
> do we really need one?
>