Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi DaShep
I normally don't notice a significant difference between the
between the sounds of the first and second syllables of murmur,
but after saying it about 20 times I noticed that it did sound
slightly better, if I accentuated the first syllable a little more.
However,
It is just not a common enough distinction in my accent.
It does not come up often enough for me to really notice it.
Murmur is not a big word in my basic vocabulary.
I am not suggesting we dispense with the Letter Err(purge),
but simply to realize it is uncommon, in much the same way the "wh",
sound is uncommon in English.
It should be acceptable to use Array, for 99% of the words with the
"er" sound.
Is anyone else of like mind?
Perhaps I just missed the boat on this one.
Perhaps it is just a weakness in my own personal or family
pronunciation.
Regards, Paul V.
_____________________attached________________________--
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
> > paul vandenbrink wrote:
>
> > > the Array/Err split is more problematic with my
> > > own undistinguished Canadian pronunciation.
> > >
> > > While, I do hear the Err(Urge) sound in a few words (i.e.
Urge,
> > > purge, endured, concur, infer, insure, sure, Sir), and also a
few
> > > from your (Ethan's) list (i.e. permit) but then again the
Err
> (Urge)
> > > sound only shows up when I am using permit verb in the
> > > command sense. "Per-mit me to take your order."
> > >
> > > I think that also in the American pronunciation the stressed
Err
> > > (urge) sound is uncommon and usually replaced by the
unstressed
> > > Array (er) sound.
>
> Just as the word "abut" contains both the unstressed and stressed
> versions of the uh-vowel), so the word "murmur" contains both
> the stressed and unstressed variants of the er-vowel, whether
rhotic
> or not. There are still dictionaries that describe this
distinction in
> the following manner: aBUT and MURmur. I'll bet you do not
> actually lay equal emphasis upon both syllables of these words
> even if you think you do. In isolation perhaps, but not in the
> natural melody of a sentence.
>
> melodiously,
> dshep
>

in rIdiN /ITAn'z trAnsliterESon (liNks):
F hAv a kwescon abQt Jenesis 4:
hM iz referd t bF H wOrdz "evri won"???

4:14 bIhOld, HQ hAst drivan mI Qt His dE frum Hu fEs uv HI xT; And frum HF fEs SAl F bI hid; And F SAl bI u fVJitiv And u vAgubynd in HI xT; And it SAl kum tM pAs, HAt evrI wun HAt fFndiT mI SAl slE mI.

??? "evrI wun HAt fFndiT mI" hM wer HIz pIpel?
-----------lin jansen: histnjeog@...


---------------------------------
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.

You know this is an interesting thought: The bible has been translated,
and transliterated into every living language (including Klingon, I'm
sure) and a couple of dead ones. Now if there is anything that should
be transliterated, this is a great project.

Speaking of beginnings (genesis, anyone?) here at the dawn of this
written language, we seem to have two minor trouble spots: Input and
output.

Input: Typing shavian is a hassle and if you don't have the fonts you
get the romanji-truspel varient of gobldygook you see below, and that's
not counting if someone uses a different font that has a different key
layout. The only solution I can see here is time. This is one of the
many reasons that I prefer hand-writing it. Heck, I'm sure the
Babylonians had a little trouble getting the knack of cuneiform on
paper after using stone for so long. Is this really any different?

Output: Whose speech, dialect, accent, ect. do we use? I think the best
answer is to use the one you use every day. Doesn't it seem that Shaw
wanted an alphabet to reflect speech, rather than us few and faithful
tussling over how to come up with a proper received pronunciation
spelling for each word? Heck I'd leave it to webster, they seem to do a
good job.

If we made a group project of transliterating the bible, we can get a
good idea of how we use the letters (phonemes--phenomes? Look at me,
I'm not a linguist.) that make up our alphabet. I know that I learned
the difference between a couple of the debatable letters and of course,
y'all (yes, I'm southern) know what a proponant I am of the
"whitewheat" or /hw/ sound.

I'll leave it up to those who don't lurk--anyone other than me--to
figure out the best way of doing it. Now if only there were a way to,
say, post finished pieces so that they would be available to all.

Crazy. No-longer pregnant. Star.

P.S. Little T is doing great and has gained 2lbs in the last four
weeks. I know y'all haven't missed me. :)

--- lin jansen <histnjeog@...> wrote:

> in rIdiN /ITAn'z trAnsliterESon (liNks):
> F hAv a kwescon abQt Jenesis 4:
> hM iz referd t bF H wOrdz "evri won"???
>
> 4:14 bIhOld, HQ hAst drivan mI Qt His dE frum Hu fEs uv HI xT; And
> frum HF fEs SAl F bI hid; And F SAl bI u fVJitiv And u vAgubynd in HI
> xT; And it SAl kum tM pAs, HAt evrI wun HAt fFndiT mI SAl slE mI.
>
> ??? "evrI wun HAt fFndiT mI" hM wer HIz pIpel?
> -----------lin jansen: histnjeog@...
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get your own web address.
> Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.


=========
"Oh, how awful. Did he at least die painlessly? To shreds, you say. Well, how is his wife holding up? To shreds, you say."
--Professor Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform0121

Try this, in one-two syncopation:

SEARCHing for THIRSty PURple TURtles.

Wouldn't you agree that the first syllable, as is common in English,
receives more emphasis than the second? If so, then there is a need
for a stressed er-sound, because if not, the above sentence would
contain no stressed vowels.

Of course, it is a little peculiar for me to be making this point, as I
do not use the Shavian letter for 'err' anyway, preferring a substitute.
Still, it contains a stressed vowel.

syncopatedly,
dshep

Star Raven wrote:
> You know this is an interesting thought: The bible has been translated,
> and transliterated into every living language (including Klingon, I'm
> sure) and a couple of dead ones. Now if there is anything that should
> be transliterated, this is a great project.
>
> Speaking of beginnings (genesis, anyone?) here at the dawn of this
> written language, we seem to have two minor trouble spots: Input and
> output.
>
> Input: Typing shavian is a hassle and if you don't have the fonts you
> get the romanji-truspel varient of gobldygook you see below, and that's
> not counting if someone uses a different font that has a different key
> layout. The only solution I can see here is time. This is one of the
> many reasons that I prefer hand-writing it. Heck, I'm sure the
> Babylonians had a little trouble getting the knack of cuneiform on
> paper after using stone for so long. Is this really any different?
>
> Output: Whose speech, dialect, accent, ect. do we use? I think the best
> answer is to use the one you use every day. Doesn't it seem that Shaw
> wanted an alphabet to reflect speech, rather than us few and faithful
> tussling over how to come up with a proper received pronunciation
> spelling for each word? Heck I'd leave it to webster, they seem to do a
> good job.
>
> If we made a group project of transliterating the bible, we can get a
> good idea of how we use the letters (phonemes--phenomes? Look at me,
> I'm not a linguist.) that make up our alphabet. I know that I learned
> the difference between a couple of the debatable letters and of course,
> y'all (yes, I'm southern) know what a proponant I am of the
> "whitewheat" or /hw/ sound.
>
> I'll leave it up to those who don't lurk--anyone other than me--to
> figure out the best way of doing it. Now if only there were a way to,
> say, post finished pieces so that they would be available to all.
>
> Crazy. No-longer pregnant. Star.
First of all, congratulations, Star!

Second, I know I've not posted much myself lately, but that doesn't mean
I don't check in every so often when I notice new messages. Just to
see, you know, if anything new is being discussed!

Third, as for the Bible transliteration, I think it would be an
excellent project. Pick a book - there are books which are very long,
and some which are very short, so there's something within everyone's
grasp. Transliterate it as you see fit, and then you can post it here
in the group, or we can pick a place. I do have a web forum which is
available if anyone wishes to use it for that. I now have a forum
section there specifically for Shavian. I can truly say that this forum
is 100% spam free! I made some changes, and haven't had a single spam
since, and it's been nearly two months.

The forum is also currently rather user free, so If anybody should
choose to stop by, I won't mind a bit!

If you wish to see it, here's what I've posted so far of my own
transliteration, which I haven't done anything on for a while (for
various reasons) and some of it I probably will want to go through again
since my Shavian writing skills have improved considerably since I first
started the project.

My ISP has recently made some changes for the worse, which resulted in
my webpage being down for a couple months, and nothing that I could do
about it. This prompted me to make some changes of my own, in an effort
to gain a measure of independence from ISPs. One of them is I've copied
my entire first webpage to the site I own at http://ravenscall.net/ethanl/
The first few chapters of Genesis can be found at
http://ravenscall.net/ethanl/shavbible/
The forum can be found at http://ravenscall.net/forum/

Since I own the domain name, I can now make sure the site is accessible
in perpetuity, or at least as long as I'm alive and have a few dollars
to my name!

--
Ethan

He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust --Psalm 91:4a

On 4/2/07, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@...> wrote:
>
> Output: Whose speech, dialect, accent, ect. do we use? I think the best
> answer is to use the one you use every day. Doesn't it seem that Shaw
> wanted an alphabet to reflect speech, rather than us few and faithful
> tussling over how to come up with a proper received pronunciation
> spelling for each word? Heck I'd leave it to webster, they seem to do a
> good job.

Well, James Pitman says in the introduction to _Androcles_:

"In personal and intimate writing the forty-eight (40 + 8) characters
of the Shaw alphabet may faithfully portray the pronunciation of the
individual; but, as Shaw pointed out, too eccentric a dialect may
hamper, and even destroy, effective communication. He considered that,
though there was no need to standardize writing if not intended for
publication, there was every need for conformity in print; standard
spellings being particularly desirable when that print is intended for
circulation throughout the English-speaking world.

"In his Will, Shaw specified just such a standardization for this
play. He laid down for it a 'pronunciation to resemble that recorded
of His Majesty our late King George V and sometimes described as
Northern English'. He was an expert in stage direction and, so it may
be supposed, considered this pronunciation to be the best basis for
comprehension with acceptability in reading as he had found it to be
in speech from the stage."

(Though he does add,

"But by all means _write_ as you think fit, and leave experts to
standardize printers' spelling.")

Basically, my interpretation of this is that a text intended for a
publication for a wide audience is better off using a standardised
spelling, rather than to use a spelling representing "the [speech] you
use every day", though that is fine for more personal missives such as
letters or messages to a mailing list -- and I've taken "Northern
English" as a _de facto_ basis for such a standardised spelling, on
the basis of the passage above. (Which, by a happy coincidence, is
fairly close to my own speech *cough*, though I believe it merges TRAP
and BATH, which I keep separate.)

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

Philip Newton wrote:
> On 4/2/07, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@...> wrote:
>
>> Output: Whose speech, dialect, accent, ect. do we use? I think the best
>> answer is to use the one you use every day. Doesn't it seem that Shaw
>> wanted an alphabet to reflect speech, rather than us few and faithful
>> tussling over how to come up with a proper received pronunciation
>> spelling for each word? Heck I'd leave it to webster, they seem to do a
>> good job.
>>
>
> Well, James Pitman says in the introduction to _Androcles_:
>
> "In personal and intimate writing the forty-eight (40 + 8) characters
> of the Shaw alphabet may faithfully portray the pronunciation of the
> individual; but, as Shaw pointed out, too eccentric a dialect may
> hamper, and even destroy, effective communication. He considered that,
> though there was no need to standardize writing if not intended for
> publication, there was every need for conformity in print; standard
> spellings being particularly desirable when that print is intended for
> circulation throughout the English-speaking world.
>
> "In his Will, Shaw specified just such a standardization for this
> play. He laid down for it a 'pronunciation to resemble that recorded
> of His Majesty our late King George V and sometimes described as
> Northern English'. He was an expert in stage direction and, so it may
> be supposed, considered this pronunciation to be the best basis for
> comprehension with acceptability in reading as he had found it to be
> in speech from the stage."
>
> (Though he does add,
>
> "But by all means _write_ as you think fit, and leave experts to
> standardize printers' spelling.")
>
> Basically, my interpretation of this is that a text intended for a
> publication for a wide audience is better off using a standardised
> spelling, rather than to use a spelling representing "the [speech] you
> use every day", though that is fine for more personal missives such as
> letters or messages to a mailing list -- and I've taken "Northern
> English" as a _de facto_ basis for such a standardised spelling, on
> the basis of the passage above. (Which, by a happy coincidence, is
> fairly close to my own speech *cough*, though I believe it merges TRAP
> and BATH, which I keep separate.)
>
> Cheers,
>
This "Northern English" is also, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong)
closer to American English dialects than is the "BBC English" we
Americans most often hear and associate with British dialect. Am I
correct in assuming that Northerners speak a rhotic dialect?

--
Ethan

He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust --Psalm 91:4a

Not the least of problems in transliterating the English Bible into
Shaw Alphabet is pronouncing all those unfamiliar biblical names the
Hebrew Bible bristles with - the long strings of begats, the names of
tribal chieftains, and such.

Each of these names has a received English pronunciation, though I
understand there was disagreement about a good many of them. The Gideon
Bible in my hotel room, a King James of course, marks syllabic accent
but nothing else. A "pronouncing King James" - I have one at home -
gives a full pronunciation, using a complex diacritical markup - if the
font has a name I've never found it - that has largely disappeared from
dictionaries, and is probably quite a challenge to learn if you didn't
learn it as a child, as I did around 1948.

I'd certainly use the English received pronunciation of obscure
Biblical names, rather than trying to conform to the original Hebrew or
to an imagined Latin.

Bob Richmond
Knoxville, Tennessee
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.

On 4/2/07, Ethan Lamoreaux <ethanl@...> wrote:
>
> This "Northern English" is also, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong)
> closer to American English dialects than is the "BBC English" we
> Americans most often hear and associate with British dialect. Am I
> correct in assuming that Northerners speak a rhotic dialect?

I don't know. But it would explain why there are explicit rhotic
letters in the Shaw alphabet, since RP makes no distinction between,
say, "law" and "lore".

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

Your point, I believe that we have the stressed /ur/ sound as in URGE,
and the /schwer/ or /schwa+r/ sound. I am a big proponant of the
unstressed letters, and I belive the original point of the schwa and
the schwer included in the alphabet is to allow for stress. I think I'm
missing the debate point.

What's your substitute?
--Star

>
> Of course, it is a little peculiar for me to be making this point, as
> I
> do not use the Shavian letter for 'err' anyway, preferring a
> substitute.
> Still, it contains a stressed vowel.
>
> syncopatedly,
> dshep
>


=========
"Oh, how awful. Did he at least die painlessly? To shreds, you say. Well, how is his wife holding up? To shreds, you say."
--Professor Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad



____________________________________________________________________________________
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097