Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Paul,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink" wrote:
>
> Hi Yahya
> Sorry for my miss-spellings.

I was just teasing!

> How exactly would you spell your name in Shavian?
> Would it be "jyhajy" or "jAhajA"?

Neither; the "h" in the middle is followed *immediately* by the
second "y"; in fact I'd call the second "y" a semivowel glide into
the long final "a", whilst the first "y" is definitely consonantal.
And both "a"s are pure "Italian" (in truth, Arabic)-type vowels; the
first is short and the second long. Thus, I write my name: "/yahya",
tho perhaps I should write it "/yahyaa".


> Anyway, as for the difference between the English w-sound and
> the wh-sound.
> The un-voiced wh-sound is indeed very rare at the beginning of a
> word. (i.e. well, while, whoosh, why, Juan) and becoming rarer.

?well?

> However, I do hear it quite consistently after a Q-sound.
> (i.e. quick, queen, quote)

Hmmm ... is your "q" any different from your "k" or "c"? For me, the
equation (written) "qu" = (pronounced) "kw" works pretty exactly.


> In fact, the w-sound after any un-voiced consonant seems to be
> the unvoiced wh-sound. (i.e. twirl, twist, swift, swindle)
> If a w-sound follows a regular voiced consonant it is the real deal.
> The regular voiced w-sound. (i.e. Dwayne, Gwendolyn, Language,
> distinguish)

Yes - it seems to me I have a (more or less(*)) unvoiced "w"
allophone after an unvoiced consonant: foie gras (="fwa graa"), wheel
(="hweel"), twin, dissuade, quick, vanquish, bushwhack (="bush-
shwack"); and a (more or less(*)) voiced "w" allophone after a voiced
consonant: dweeb, anguish, bête noir (="bet nwaar"), voilà (="vwa-
la"). Since these two are in complementary distribution, I think
they are true allophones of each other. (*) I say "more or less",
because the amount of voicing seems to depend partly on the speed of
saying the vowel following the "w", but mostly on the preceding
consonant's voicing.


> I agree that a real minimal pairs to support the contention
> that "w" and "wh" are distinct phonemes in English, are hard to
find.
> For example.
> Which kind of witch are you?
> And whether the weather will improve.
> Both are not clearly differentiated.

No - in informal speech, the phrases "which witch" and "whether
weather" sound like simple repetitions, so the words involved are
fora ll intents and purposes homophones. But just as we can
distinguish "peer" from "pier", and "pare" from "pear" from "pair",
we can also distinguish "weather" from "whether", adn "which"
from "witch" - using context.

> As to the Glottal Stop, it is fairly commonly pronounced in English
> at the begining of those words that begin with a distinct Vowel
> sound,
> especially when it is needed to create a clear boundary between two
> words. For example, it is added to distinguish between the phrase
> "Some Ice" and "Some mice". If you say both these phrases over and
> over you will feel the extra little Glottal Stop, which is found
> only in the first phrase. But outside of this useful function, it
is
> remarkable uncommon.

In this sense, it has been said that no English word begins with a
vowel, since any that appear to do so, instead start with an
unwritten glottal stop; and that in the absence of any other initial
consonant, a glottal stop is *necessary* before we can begin sounding
a vowel. I don't know if the second half of this assertion is true,
but it seems to me that I, for one, can't start sounding a vowel
without a forcible onset, unless I slow my speech down abnormally and
ease into the sound. Certainly, in connected speech, I'm quite
likely to begin a word that's written with an initial vowel with a
semivowel glide (y/w/r/l): "stay up", "toy army"; "go under"; "far
away"; "full enough" - rather than with a glottal stop. If the
previous word ends in a stop, I usually transfer it to the following
syllable: "build up" -> "bil-dap"; "take-away" -> "tEy-ka-wEy"; "push
around" -> "pV-Sa-rawnd" and so on.

Still, I wonder whether we all say "some ice" and "some mice" as you
describe. In my own speech in normal speed, I have:
(a) "Give me some ice" = "givmIsamaIs"; and
(b) "Give me some mice" = "givmIsammaIs";
I simply double the "m" in exactly the same way I would in "plummet",
i.e. by lengthening it in comparison to the length of the "m"
in "plumb it".


> The question is really whether such an additional letter for the
> Glotal Stop would be used enough to make up for adding an
additional
> complication to the Shavian Alphabet.

To which I've suggested the answer is: if any English speaker really
needs the glottal stop to transcribe their own speech with
sufficiently little ambiguity, there should be one available for them
to use.

Which keyboard character do you use in Roman transcriptions: "'"
or "?" ? (I've seen both used, and each has drawbacks. I tend to
use "?", since I often use both double and single quotes.)


> I expect that if and when I was ready to provide a fully improved
> Shaw Alphabet, I would add this among other improvements.

We are of one mind. ;-)


> Thanks for the additional Glottal Stop examples. It occurs to me if
> "under-arm" has a Glottal stop, so might "sidearm".
> "two-up" seems like 2 distinct words like "blow up".
> I'd write it "tV up"
> There seems to some reduplication in "7-Up". I would pronounce it
> sev-an-nup, myself.

Familiarity, I guess, breeds elision as well as contempt ... "Two-
up" is Australia's national gambling game, and goes back a long way -
at least to the convicts of the late 1780s. It's a variant of an
older game, pitch-and-toss, and is played by placing two pennies (old
pre-decimal copper coins about an inch in diameter, not used as money
since 1967) on a flat wooden paddle (the "kip"), tossing them into
the air, and betting on the outcome: "(both) Heads", "(both) Tails"
or mixed ("Odds"). As traditionally played, it was a mathematically
fair game, which may account for some of its popularity. (More info
at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-up .) Anyway, we pronounce
it "tMM-wap", not "tMM-?ap"; where my "w" is like your second "n"
in "sev-an-nup", duplicating the lip rounding of the preceding
vowel "M" and replacing the theoretical glottal stop of slower speech.

Personally, I say something like "sev-n-nap" - the first "n" is
vocalic - or in slower speech, "sev-@n-ap". Had I not become
familiar with the brand while living overseas, I'd probably say "sev-
@n-?ap".

[rest snipped - YA]

Regards,
Yahya

Hi Ya-hya
It is nice to know how to pronounce your name.
That hya syllable is uncommon in English, so it
took me a little while.

Thanks for discussion of a relatively obtruse topic of English
pronunciation. It certainly helped me clarify my thoughts.
I recognized their is some variation in word pronunciation
based on whether a word is treated as an isolate or contrawise as
part of common compound word. (i.e. two-up)
This seems to part of English word evolution.
It can be quite extreme, if you counsider the compound "sheep herder"
has been pruned down to "shepherd" (Sepxd)
As a compound noun which represents one thing, I would write it
exactly as it sounds.

But as you also point out in common phrases like "give me" (gimI)
and "Let Them" (letem} and "have not" (havent), there are additional
contractions. However, these phrases have multiple combinations
(i.e. letus, hasent, givim) and
I do not want follow the route of the Roman Alphabet solution of
marking such contractions with an apostrophe and leaving the poor
reader to expand them into something understandable.

I want to treat the spelling of these phrases on a word by word
basis and if it means giving the words a slower, slightly less
natural rhythm, so be it.

Do you think this an un-natural distinction?
Regards, Paul V.
_______________attached________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya" <yahya@...> wrote:
> > How exactly would you spell your name in Shavian?
> > Would it be "jyhajy" or "jAhajA"?
>
> Neither; the "h" in the middle is followed *immediately* by the
> second "y"; in fact I'd call the second "y" a semivowel glide into
> the long final "a", whilst the first "y" is definitely
consonantal.
> And both "a"s are pure "Italian" (in truth, Arabic)-type vowels;
the
> first is short and the second long. Thus, I write my
name: "/yahya",
> tho perhaps I should write it "/yahyaa".
>
>
> > Anyway, as for the difference between the English w-sound and
> > the wh-sound.
> > The un-voiced wh-sound is indeed very rare at the beginning of a
> > word. (i.e. well, while, whoosh, why, Juan) and becoming rarer.
>
> ?well?
>
> > However, I do hear it quite consistently after a Q-sound.
> > (i.e. quick, queen, quote)
>
> Hmmm ... is your "q" any different from your "k" or "c"? For me,
the
> equation (written) "qu" = (pronounced) "kw" works pretty exactly.
>
>
> > In fact, the w-sound after any un-voiced consonant seems to be
> > the unvoiced wh-sound. (i.e. twirl, twist, swift, swindle)
> > If a w-sound follows a regular voiced consonant it is the real
deal.
> > The regular voiced w-sound. (i.e. Dwayne, Gwendolyn, Language,
> > distinguish)
>
> Yes - it seems to me I have a (more or less(*)) unvoiced "w"
> allophone after an unvoiced consonant: foie gras (="fwa graa"),
wheel
> (="hweel"), twin, dissuade, quick, vanquish, bushwhack (="bush-
> shwack"); and a (more or less(*)) voiced "w" allophone after a
voiced
> consonant: dweeb, anguish, bête noir (="bet nwaar"), voilà (="vwa-
> la"). Since these two are in complementary distribution, I think
> they are true allophones of each other. (*) I say "more or less",
> because the amount of voicing seems to depend partly on the speed
of
> saying the vowel following the "w", but mostly on the preceding
> consonant's voicing.
>
>
> > I agree that a real minimal pairs to support the contention
> > that "w" and "wh" are distinct phonemes in English, are hard to
> find.
> > For example.
> > Which kind of witch are you?
> > And whether the weather will improve.
> > Both are not clearly differentiated.
>
> No - in informal speech, the phrases "which witch" and "whether
> weather" sound like simple repetitions, so the words involved are
> fora ll intents and purposes homophones. But just as we can
> distinguish "peer" from "pier", and "pare" from "pear"
from "pair",
> we can also distinguish "weather" from "whether", adn "which"
> from "witch" - using context.
>
> > As to the Glottal Stop, it is fairly commonly pronounced in
English
> > at the begining of those words that begin with a distinct Vowel
> > sound,
> > especially when it is needed to create a clear boundary between
two
> > words. For example, it is added to distinguish between the
phrase
> > "Some Ice" and "Some mice". If you say both these phrases over
and
> > over you will feel the extra little Glottal Stop, which is found
> > only in the first phrase. But outside of this useful function,
it
> is
> > remarkable uncommon.
>
> In this sense, it has been said that no English word begins with a
> vowel, since any that appear to do so, instead start with an
> unwritten glottal stop; and that in the absence of any other
initial
> consonant, a glottal stop is *necessary* before we can begin
sounding
> a vowel. I don't know if the second half of this assertion is
true,
> but it seems to me that I, for one, can't start sounding a vowel
> without a forcible onset, unless I slow my speech down abnormally
and
> ease into the sound. Certainly, in connected speech, I'm quite
> likely to begin a word that's written with an initial vowel with a
> semivowel glide (y/w/r/l): "stay up", "toy army"; "go under"; "far
> away"; "full enough" - rather than with a glottal stop. If the
> previous word ends in a stop, I usually transfer it to the
following
> syllable: "build up" -> "bil-dap"; "take-away" -> "tEy-ka-
wEy"; "push
> around" -> "pV-Sa-rawnd" and so on.
>
> Still, I wonder whether we all say "some ice" and "some mice" as
you
> describe. In my own speech in normal speed, I have:
> (a) "Give me some ice" = "givmIsamaIs"; and
> (b) "Give me some mice" = "givmIsammaIs";
> I simply double the "m" in exactly the same way I would
in "plummet",
> i.e. by lengthening it in comparison to the length of the "m"
> in "plumb it".
>
>
> > The question is really whether such an additional letter for the
> > Glotal Stop would be used enough to make up for adding an
> additional
> > complication to the Shavian Alphabet.
>
> To which I've suggested the answer is: if any English speaker
really
> needs the glottal stop to transcribe their own speech with
> sufficiently little ambiguity, there should be one available for
them
> to use.
>
> Which keyboard character do you use in Roman transcriptions: "'"
> or "?" ? (I've seen both used, and each has drawbacks. I tend to
> use "?", since I often use both double and single quotes.)
>
>
> > I expect that if and when I was ready to provide a fully
improved
> > Shaw Alphabet, I would add this among other improvements.
>
> We are of one mind. ;-)
>
>
> > Thanks for the additional Glottal Stop examples. It occurs to me
if
> > "under-arm" has a Glottal stop, so might "sidearm".
> > "two-up" seems like 2 distinct words like "blow up".
> > I'd write it "tV up"
> > There seems to some reduplication in "7-Up". I would pronounce
it
> > sev-an-nup, myself.
>
> Familiarity, I guess, breeds elision as well as contempt ... "Two-
> up" is Australia's national gambling game, and goes back a long
way -
> at least to the convicts of the late 1780s. It's a variant of an
> older game, pitch-and-toss, and is played by placing two pennies
(old
> pre-decimal copper coins about an inch in diameter, not used as
money
> since 1967) on a flat wooden paddle (the "kip"), tossing them into
> the air, and betting on the outcome: "(both) Heads", "(both)
Tails"
> or mixed ("Odds"). As traditionally played, it was a
mathematically
> fair game, which may account for some of its popularity. (More
info
> at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-up .) Anyway, we pronounce
> it "tMM-wap", not "tMM-?ap"; where my "w" is like your second "n"
> in "sev-an-nup", duplicating the lip rounding of the preceding
> vowel "M" and replacing the theoretical glottal stop of slower
speech.
>
> Personally, I say something like "sev-n-nap" - the first "n" is
> vocalic - or in slower speech, "sev-@n-ap". Had I not become
> familiar with the brand while living overseas, I'd probably
say "sev-
> @n-?ap".
>
> [rest snipped - YA]
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>

Hi Paul,
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink" wrote:
>
> Hi Ya-hya
> It is nice to know how to pronounce your name.
> That hya syllable is uncommon in English, so it
> took me a little while.

Yes, so uncommon that I can't think of another instance.


> Thanks for discussion of a relatively obtruse topic of English
> pronunciation. It certainly helped me clarify my thoughts.

Great! Then it was well worth the time it took us both to write and
read.


> I recognized their is some variation in word pronunciation
> based on whether a word is treated as an isolate or contrawise as
> part of common compound word. (i.e. two-up)
> This seems to part of English word evolution.
> It can be quite extreme, if you counsider the compound "sheep
herder"
> has been pruned down to "shepherd" (Sepxd)
> As a compound noun which represents one thing, I would write it
> exactly as it sounds.
>
> But as you also point out in common phrases like "give me" (gimI)
> and "Let Them" (letem} and "have not" (havent), there are
additional
> contractions. However, these phrases have multiple combinations
> (i.e. letus, hasent, givim) and
> I do not want follow the route of the Roman Alphabet solution of
> marking such contractions with an apostrophe and leaving the poor
> reader to expand them into something understandable.

"Sir, I ha'n't got a good example t'my name, but if I'd had'un, why
then Sir, you'sh'd ha't - 'n' here's my hand on't." (Actually, I
think Dickens has examples worse than this, which he probably thought
just fine and dandy.)


> I want to treat the spelling of these phrases on a word by word
> basis and if it means giving the words a slower, slightly less
> natural rhythm, so be it.
>
> Do you think this an un-natural distinction?

Only slightly! ;-)

For an accurate representation of directly quoted speech, it's always
been permissible - even in formal writing - to show such contractions
as "don't" or "hasn't". However, for maximum clarity of expression,
I do think it's (ahem - "it is") a good idea for formal writing to
use the uncontracted forms wherever those words and meanings still
occur in the modern language, but not for direct quotes. Thus, for
example, I should write "it is" rather than "it's", but I should also
write "shilly-shally" rather than "shill-he shall-he".

Even then, there will always be contentious cases. Addressing my
letter of application to the Chairwoman of the Women's Electoral
Lobby, I should certainly write "Dear Ma'am", which is polite, rather
than "Dear Madam", which is sometimes not ...

[rest snipped - YA]

Regards,
Yahya

I've been having blasphemous thoughts about Shavian...

I've been wondering about our keywords, and in comparison with roman, we have a problem. Roman uses nearly nonsensical sounds Aee bee cee dee ee eff etc. Of course, the logic falls down when it comes to vowel sounds, but what's to stop us from using the original keywords as a guide and creating the nonsensical sounds to spell things out. Peep, Tot, Kick, could become Pah, Tah, Kah, or Pee, Tee, Kee, or Poh, Toh, Koh. Vowel sounds could be something along the lines of ah-poh, eh-poh, oo-poh or ah'd eh'd oo'd, or something like that, simply for pronunciation sake. I mean, how often do we write letter names for roman letters?

Blasphemous!
--Star

=========

"By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"
-- Dr. Lazarus, Galaxy Quest


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



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@...> wrote:
>
> I've been wondering about our keywords, and in comparison with roman, we
> have a problem. Roman uses nearly nonsensical sounds Aee bee cee dee ee eff
> etc. Of course, the logic falls down when it comes to vowel sounds, but
> what's to stop us from using the original keywords as a guide and creating
> the nonsensical sounds to spell things out. Peep, Tot, Kick, could become
> Pah, Tah, Kah, or Pee, Tee, Kee, or Poh, Toh, Koh.

And some languages do go that way.

> Vowel sounds could be
> something along the lines of ah-poh, eh-poh, oo-poh or ah'd eh'd oo'd, or
> something like that, simply for pronunciation sake.

That's more unusual, though -- as far as I know, vowel letters nearly
always have as their name simply the vowel sound.

So if I were to simplify/regularise letter names, I'd call the vowel
letters simply ah eh oo, etc.

> I mean, how often do we
> write letter names for roman letters?

Essentially never -- I'm not even sure there are standard spellings
for them! (Though I think that "aitch", for example, is standard for
the name of the letter Hh.)

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

On Monday 2008 May 05 11:37:58 Star Raven wrote:
> I've been having blasphemous thoughts about Shavian...
>
> I've been wondering about our keywords, and in comparison with roman, we
> have a problem. Roman uses nearly nonsensical sounds Aee bee cee dee ee eff
> etc. Of course, the logic falls down when it comes to vowel sounds, but
> what's to stop us from using the original keywords as a guide and creating
> the nonsensical sounds to spell things out. Peep, Tot, Kick, could become
> Pah, Tah, Kah, or Pee, Tee, Kee, or Poh, Toh, Koh. Vowel sounds could be
> something along the lines of ah-poh, eh-poh, oo-poh or ah'd eh'd oo'd, or
> something like that, simply for pronunciation sake. I mean, how often do we
> write letter names for roman letters?
>

F wynt it F wynt it F wynt it!

> Blasphemous!
> --Star
>
> =========>
>
> "By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"
> -- Dr. Lazarus, Galaxy Quest
>
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>_________ Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

sI.bI.es. sundE morniN wiH /corlz ozgUd: won v mF fEvOrit prOgrAmz.


jesterdE F desFded t kQnt H komerSialz.

hQ mAni duz a 90" prOgrAm kontEn?

F kQnted a tOtal v 89. several v Hem wer repIted 2 Or 3 tFmz.

wat F diskoverd waz HAt a 90-minut progrAm on "frI" televiZon iz akcMali
a 45" prOgrAm wiH 45" v spAm.

F hAv fFnali rIcd H pqnt wEr F nO loNger woc tI vI nMz n rErli mOr HAn
20 minuts v a t.v. mMvi; sO mAni interupSonz bekom dedeniN.

rIsentli Her or 'pop-up' Adz nQ apIriN TrMQt H mMvi! tM muc. tM muc!

F hAv desFded t turn Yf mF 'seleviZon' n return t H piAnO lesonz wAr F
left Yf wen F waz in mF prI-tIn jIrz.

``````````````````````````````

We can has it?
--lolcat star

=========

"By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"
-- Dr. Lazarus, Galaxy Quest


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



----- Original Message ----
From: jeff <akousw@...>
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2008 3:18:12 PM
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Keywords, keysounds


On Monday 2008 May 05 11:37:58 Star Raven wrote:
> I've been having blasphemous thoughts about Shavian...
>
> I've been wondering about our keywords, and in comparison with roman, we
> have a problem. Roman uses nearly nonsensical sounds Aee bee cee dee ee eff
> etc. Of course, the logic falls down when it comes to vowel sounds, but
> what's to stop us from using the original keywords as a guide and creating
> the nonsensical sounds to spell things out. Peep, Tot, Kick, could become
> Pah, Tah, Kah, or Pee, Tee, Kee, or Poh, Toh, Koh. Vowel sounds could be
> something along the lines of ah-poh, eh-poh, oo-poh or ah'd eh'd oo'd, or
> something like that, simply for pronunciation sake. I mean, how often do we
> write letter names for roman letters?
>
F wynt it F wynt it F wynt it!
> Blasphemous!
> --Star
>
> =========>
>
> "By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"
> -- Dr. Lazarus, Galaxy Quest
>
>
> http://www.livejour nal.com/users/ wodentoad
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
>_________ Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Sooooooooo, that being said, perhaps a new discussion is in order. Especially considering the annoyance factor with our usual three or four regular discussions. Of course, it *will* bring back the old up/ado argument. For that I am truly sorry ;) BUT it may solve the Ha/hung dilemma we often have. If the letters are all in some sort of order (random number generator anyone?) it might help.

--Star, who, at the end of the alphabet, says "zee"

=========

"By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"
-- Dr. Lazarus, Galaxy Quest


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



----- Original Message ----
From: Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2008 2:24:19 PM
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Keywords, keysounds


On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I've been wondering about our keywords, and in comparison with roman, we
> have a problem. Roman uses nearly nonsensical sounds Aee bee cee dee ee eff
> etc. Of course, the logic falls down when it comes to vowel sounds, but
> what's to stop us from using the original keywords as a guide and creating
> the nonsensical sounds to spell things out. Peep, Tot, Kick, could become
> Pah, Tah, Kah, or Pee, Tee, Kee, or Poh, Toh, Koh.

And some languages do go that way.

> Vowel sounds could be
> something along the lines of ah-poh, eh-poh, oo-poh or ah'd eh'd oo'd, or
> something like that, simply for pronunciation sake.

That's more unusual, though -- as far as I know, vowel letters nearly
always have as their name simply the vowel sound.

So if I were to simplify/regularise letter names, I'd call the vowel
letters simply ah eh oo, etc.

> I mean, how often do we
> write letter names for roman letters?

Essentially never -- I'm not even sure there are standard spellings
for them! (Though I think that "aitch", for example, is standard for
the name of the letter Hh.)

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



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, PV wrote:

> Anyway, as for the difference between the English w-sound and the wh-
> sound. The un-voiced wh-sound is indeed very rare at the beginning
of a
> word.

No, no, no! Not rare at all: what, when, where, why!!! Common,
important words all; all begin with /hw/, and all are clearly
differentiated.

I, and i daresay anyone of my generation, would never, ever (i have
now, through considerable effort, attained the status of Old Fart, a
rank granted me by a grateful citizenry) confuse, even without
context, whether with weather, which with witch, whine/wine, white/
wight, whit/wit, whee/wee, when/wen, whey/way, whale/wail, why/wye,
whir/were, what/watt, or where/
were(wolf). There are probably a few more that i don't recall at the
moment.
I must confess––as it is a reasonable request (or inevitable
occurrence) to be allowed to be cranky about something, which may be
an unavoidable indulgence as one, ah, matures––that, yes, the
pronunciation of wheat and wheel as weet and weel sounds to me odd
indeed. What the hell is a weel? Is it real?

In the United States one may hear these words pronounced (properly!)
in a soft, pleasant voice by the popular PBS commentator Bill Moyers.
It was he who last week gave the now famous Pastor Wright the
opportunity to explain hwat exactly the good pastor meant by his
inflammatory remarks which may cost Obama the presidency, and hwy he
would want to say them. Of course, part of the problem, if it is a
problem, is that if one does not oneself use a particular sound, one
simply does not hear it in the speech of others. Most everyone at one
time or another has had this experience: "But that's what I said! Ah
non, monsieur. Mais certainment non. Écoutez et répétez après moi…"
until finally you get within striking distance or your instructor
gives up in desperation. It is for this reason i believe that some
Americans do not hear the difference between war and wore, and do not
hear the short-o of the what/pot group of words, sometimes assuming,
even asserting, it does not exist.

Oh, if you find such grumbling to be annoying, wait till the time
comes when you shall wonder about your grandchildren's pronunciation;
and they yours.

wondringly,
dshep