Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

paul vandenbrink wrote:

> As Shavian focuses on the voiced/unvoiced distinction,
> I would not oppose the addition of a new Letter for an un-voiced
> w-sound (wh in Roman)
> or even a Glottal stop Letter for words like Hawai'i or Uh'Oh.
> But I can hardly champion the idea.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> P.S. Does anyone know any other good examples of English words or
> phrases with an embedded Glottal Stop?

Uh-uh (nasalized), meaning "no" (as opposed to "uh-huh" (also nasal)
meaning yes).
Also I recall in the movie "Crocodile Dundee" where a kangaroo hunter
calls for his buddy to shine the "spo'li'" (spotlight) in a certain
direction. That however is merely phonetic variation on the "t" phoneme.
The apostrophe works well for this if it's considered necessary.
However, we have no way to write nasal vowels, though those two examples
are English and use almost exactly the same sound as in the French word
"un" (a, one). Also a letter for "ch" as in "loch" and "Bach" would be
nice. Why isn't it acceptible to write "wh" as "hw" (𐑣𐑢)? That was
its original (Old English) spelling, and it corresponds with "qu" (kw)
in Latin. In fact I would argue that it is still phonemically "hw" and
not "voiceless w".

--
('> He shall cover thee with his feathers, <')
/)) and under his wings shalt thou trust: ((\
//'' his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. ''\\

Shavian:
𐑲 𐑓𐑲𐑯𐑛 𐑦𐑑 𐑛𐑦𐑓𐑦𐑒𐑤𐑑 𐑑 𐑮𐑰𐑛 𐑑𐑧𐑒𐑕𐑑 𐑣𐑢𐑦𐑗 𐑦𐑟
𐑐𐑴𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑛 𐑦𐑯 ·𐑮𐑴𐑥𐑩𐑯 𐑒𐑺𐑩𐑒𐑑𐑼𐑟, 𐑚𐑳𐑑 𐑦𐑯 𐑞 𐑹𐑛𐑼 𐑝
𐑞 𐑒𐑪𐑥𐑩𐑯 ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑒𐑰𐑚𐑹𐑛 𐑤𐑱𐑬𐑑. 𐑦𐑓 𐑧𐑝𐑮𐑰𐑢𐑳𐑯
𐑢𐑫𐑛 𐑑𐑮𐑲 𐑑 𐑜𐑧𐑑 𐑞𐑺 𐑕𐑦𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑥𐑟 𐑕𐑧𐑑 𐑳𐑐 𐑓𐑹 ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯
𐑑𐑧𐑒𐑕𐑑, 𐑦𐑑 𐑢𐑫𐑛 𐑥𐑱𐑒 𐑔𐑦𐑙𐑟 𐑥𐑳𐑗 𐑰𐑟𐑰𐑼!

ASCII in Shavian key order:
F fFnd it difiklt t rId tekst hwic iz pOstad in GrOman kXaktDz, but in H
PdD v H koman GSEvWn kIbPd lEQt. if evrIwun wUd trF t get HX sistamz set
up fP GSEvWn tekst, it wUd mEk TiNz muc IzID!

Roman:
I find it difficult to read text which is posted in Roman characters,
but in the order of the common Shavian keyboard layout. If everyone
would try to get their systems set up for Shavian text, it would make
things much easier!

Oh, and the subject line:
There's entirely too much Roman text around here!

·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯

--
('> He shall cover thee with his feathers, <')
/)) and under his wings shalt thou trust: ((\
//'' his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. ''\\

I know I promised a while back to provide information on an easy way to
switch your Linux keyboard between Roman and Shavian. (Easier than
typing "setxkbmap shavian" (or "us" or "gb" or what-have-you) in a
terminal every time you want to switch).

So here it is (finally!)

The best way I can explain is to post the keyboard section from my
xorg.conf file:

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Generic Keyboard"
Driver "kbd"
Option "CoreKeyboard"
Option "XkbRules" "xorg"
Option "XkbModel" "pc104"
Option "XkbLayout" "us,shavian"
Option "XkbOptions" "grp:menu_toggle,grp_led:scroll"
EndSection

The important parts are the addition of "shavian" to the "XkbLlayout"
option, and the "XkbOptions" option which includes "grp:menu_toggle" to
set my MENU key as a shavian layout toggle switch and "grp_led:scroll"
which causes my SCROLL LOCK light to come on when I'm in Shavian mode.

If you wish, you can use other keys besides the MENU key, for instance
"grp:rwin_toggle" will set the RIGHT WINDOW key as the switch instead of
the MENU key. Some valid keys are: menu, rwin, lwin, ralt, rctrl, caps
Note that when you assign one of these keys as a Shavian switch, the key
will no longer function as a normal key. Meaning that you may lose your
all-important RIGHT WINDOWS LOGO or MENU key (my two favorite picks) or
extra ALT or CTRL keys (avoid these if possible).

After you add the info to your xorg.conf file, restart your X server
(might need to CTRL-ALT-BKSPACE from your login screen to get a full X
restart) and it should work from then on. Note that if you already have
an "XkbOptions" line, you will need to add these new options to the ones
already present, since there can only be one such options line. In that
case just make sure you keep all options separated with commas.

Hope this helps!

Ethan
--
('> He shall cover thee with his feathers, <')
/)) and under his wings shalt thou trust: ((\
//'' his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. ''\\

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethan@...> wrote:
[snip]
> Look:
> ·ð`–·
> See a mark (box, question mark, or other single character) between
two namer dots? Installing a Shavian font should make the above text
visible.

Uh-uh! With UTF-8 encoding, I see a box surrounded by two namer dots.
With any other encoding, several characters replace the box. And I have
Shaw Sans No. 2 (with Arial) and Androcles fonts installed.

What's your encoding, Ethan? And what's you theory why your message
showed me no Shavian characters?

Regards,
Yahya

it iz pranQnsd wiT a "J" sQnd ---> /AlJCI

>> alGeri? is that a gag or a juj? Algeri Or AlJeri?

Yahya wrote:
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethan@...> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Look:
>> ·ð`–·
>> See a mark (box, question mark, or other single character) between
> two namer dots? Installing a Shavian font should make the above text
> visible.
>
> Uh-uh! With UTF-8 encoding, I see a box surrounded by two namer dots.
> With any other encoding, several characters replace the box. And I have
> Shaw Sans No. 2 (with Arial) and Androcles fonts installed.
>
> What's your encoding, Ethan? And what's you theory why your message
> showed me no Shavian characters?
>
> Regards,
> Yahya

As far as I know, none of those fonts include the proper encoding for
Shavian text. They are simply ascii fonts with the Roman characters
replaced with Shavian ones. You need a Unicode font which has the
Shavian characters at 10450, in Unicode Plane 1. UTF-8 is the de facto
standard for Unicode on the internet, and it's all I use. I set my
software to always send UTF-8, but to autodetect what others send to me.

I recommend two fonts: Andagii
<http://www.i18nguy.com/unicode/unicode-font.html> and ESL Gothic
Unicode <http://shavian.ravenscall.net/>

Install those and you should be able to read native Shavian text data,
with none of the strange nonsense often involved with ascii Shavian fonts.

--
('> He shall cover thee with his feathers, <')
/)) and under his wings shalt thou trust: ((\
//'' his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. ''\\

Hi Ethan

Your last point about
> Why isn't it acceptible to write "wh" as "hw" (ð`£ð`¢)? That was
> its original (Old English) spelling, it corresponds with "qu" (kw)
> in Latin. In fact I would argue that it is still
> phonemically "hw" and
> not "voiceless w".

I hear them as 2 different sounds.
For example hwYn in 'Juan' is 2 sounds.
But there is an un-voiced 'w' in quick (kwik) which makes sense,
because the consonant cluster 'qu' is unvoiced, so both
consonant sounds in the cluster are un-voiced.
Compare w-sound of 'sweat' with 'Dwayne'.
The plain W-sound is usually voiced, but in an
unvoiced consonant cluster, you definately can hear an
un-voiced 'w' or 'wh' sound.

regards, Paul V.
_________________attached_______________________



--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethan@...> wrote:
Does anyone know any other good examples of English words or phrases
with an embedded Glottal Stop?
>
> Uh-uh (nasalized), meaning "no" (as opposed to "uh-huh" (also
nasal)
> meaning yes).
> Also I recall in the movie "Crocodile Dundee" where a kangaroo
hunter
> calls for his buddy to shine the "spo'li'" (spotlight) in a
certain
> direction. That however is merely phonetic variation on the "t"
phoneme.
> The apostrophe works well for this if it's considered necessary.
> However, we have no way to write nasal vowels, though those two
examples
> are English and use almost exactly the same sound as in the French
word
> "un" (a, one). Also a letter for "ch" as in "loch" and "Bach"
would be
> nice. Why isn't it acceptible to write "wh" as "hw" (ð`£ð`¢)?
That was
> its original (Old English) spelling, and it corresponds with "qu"
(kw)
> in Latin. In fact I would argue that it is still
phonemically "hw" and
> not "voiceless w".

paul vandenbrink wrote:
> Hi Ethan
>
> Your last point about
>> Why isn't it acceptible to write "wh" as "hw" (ð`£ð`¢)? That was
>> its original (Old English) spelling, it corresponds with "qu" (kw)
>> in Latin. In fact I would argue that it is still
>> phonemically "hw" and
>> not "voiceless w".
>
> I hear them as 2 different sounds.
> For example hwYn in 'Juan' is 2 sounds.
> But there is an un-voiced 'w' in quick (kwik) which makes sense,
> because the consonant cluster 'qu' is unvoiced, so both
> consonant sounds in the cluster are un-voiced.
> Compare w-sound of 'sweat' with 'Dwayne'.
> The plain W-sound is usually voiced, but in an
> unvoiced consonant cluster, you definately can hear an
> un-voiced 'w' or 'wh' sound.
>
> regards, Paul V.

You could make the same argument for unvoiced "r" in words like "trash",
yet nobody's suggesting we ought to have a separated "unvoiced r" letter
in Shavian. While the unvoiced w sound is heard after most unvoiced
consonants, this still does not make it a distinct phoneme, as there are
no examples where voiced/unvoiced w makes a difference in meaning. The
difference always depends on another letter. Another such example with
vowels is the 𐑲 diphthong in 𐑲𐑕 (ice) and 𐑲𐑟 (eyes) which I
pronounce differently, yet it's not a phonemic difference, rather the
difference is made by the final consonant.

I guess this would all depend on your use of the "wh" cluster - do you
think of it as a single sound (voiceless w, no "h"), or as "h" followed
by "w"? And if so, is it common enough to justify the addition of
another letter? I know that to me it has always been two separate
sounds, and I've wondered most of my life why they put the "w" first!

Take care,

Ethan

--
('> He shall cover thee with his feathers, <')
/)) and under his wings shalt thou trust: ((\
//'' his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. ''\\

On Monday 2008 July 07 21:32:41 Ethan wrote:
> paul vandenbrink wrote:
> > Hi Ethan
> >
> > Your last point about
> >
> >> Why isn't it acceptible to write "wh" as "hw" (ð`£ð`¢)? That was
> >> its original (Old English) spelling, it corresponds with "qu" (kw)
> >> in Latin. In fact I would argue that it is still
> >> phonemically "hw" and
> >> not "voiceless w".
> >
> > I hear them as 2 different sounds.
> > For example hwYn in 'Juan' is 2 sounds.
> > But there is an un-voiced 'w' in quick (kwik) which makes sense,
> > because the consonant cluster 'qu' is unvoiced, so both
> > consonant sounds in the cluster are un-voiced.
> > Compare w-sound of 'sweat' with 'Dwayne'.
> > The plain W-sound is usually voiced, but in an
> > unvoiced consonant cluster, you definately can hear an
> > un-voiced 'w' or 'wh' sound.
> >
> > regards, Paul V.
>
> You could make the same argument for unvoiced "r" in words like "trash",
> yet nobody's suggesting we ought to have a separated "unvoiced r" letter
> in Shavian. While the unvoiced w sound is heard after most unvoiced
> consonants, this still does not make it a distinct phoneme, as there are
> no examples where voiced/unvoiced w makes a difference in meaning.
witch / which?
> The
> difference always depends on another letter. Another such example with
> vowels is the 𐑲 diphthong in 𐑲𐑕 (ice) and 𐑲𐑟 (eyes) which I
> pronounce differently, yet it's not a phonemic difference, rather the
> difference is made by the final consonant.
>
> I guess this would all depend on your use of the "wh" cluster - do you
> think of it as a single sound (voiceless w, no "h"), or as "h" followed
> by "w"? And if so, is it common enough to justify the addition of
> another letter? I know that to me it has always been two separate
> sounds, and I've wondered most of my life why they put the "w" first!
>
> Take care,
>
> Ethan

Hi all,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethan@...> wrote:
>
> paul vandenbrink wrote:
> > Hi Ethan
> >
> > Your last point about
> >> Why isn't it acceptible to write "wh" as "hw" (ð`£ð`¢)?
That was its original (Old English) spelling, it corresponds
with "qu" (kw) in Latin. In fact I would argue that it is still
phonemically "hw" and not "voiceless w".
> >
> > I hear them as 2 different sounds.
For example hwYn in 'Juan' is 2 sounds.
But there is an un-voiced 'w' in quick (kwik) which makes sense,
because the consonant cluster 'qu' is unvoiced, so both consonant
sounds in the cluster are un-voiced.
Compare w-sound of 'sweat' with 'Dwayne'.
The plain W-sound is usually voiced, but in an unvoiced consonant
cluster, you definately can hear an un-voiced 'w' or 'wh' sound.
> >
> > regards, Paul V.
>
> You could make the same argument for unvoiced "r" in words
like "trash", yet nobody's suggesting we ought to have a
separated "unvoiced r" letter in Shavian. While the unvoiced w sound
is heard after most unvoiced consonants, this still does not make it
a distinct phoneme, as there are no examples where voiced/unvoiced w
makes a difference in meaning. The difference always depends on
another letter. Another such example with vowels is the ð`²
diphthong in ð`²ð`• (ice) and ð`²ð`Ÿ (eyes) which I pronounce
differently, yet it's not a phonemic difference, rather the
difference is made by the final consonant.
>
> I guess this would all depend on your use of the "wh" cluster - do
you think of it as a single sound (voiceless w, no "h"), or as "h"
followed by "w"? And if so, is it common enough to justify the
addition of another letter? I know that to me it has always been two
separate sounds, and I've wondered most of my life why they put
the "w" first!
>
> Take care,
> Ethan

IMNSHO, Ethan has the right of it. In linguistics parlance, English
has a single [w] phoneme, with two phonologically conditioned
allophones [[w+V]] and [[w-V]]. (Please note my use here of various
brackets ({[/ etc is non-standard - I'm just using different brackets
to show a different type of phonological entity.) We DO have a
voiced and an unvoiced variant, but as Ethan rightly points out,
there is not a single known instance where choosing one over the
other would choose a different word (meaning) - there's no "minimal
pair". If you should (manage to) use the voiced allophone in an
unvoiced context, or vice versa, this would be heard by native
speakers as an aberrant pronunciation, not a different word. Rather
difficult to say "queen" with a voiced w, or "guano" with an unvoiced
w, I think!

Our casual speech here in Oz has (and our formal speech has almost)
completely replaced the initial consonant cluster /hw/
(orthographic "wh"), the legacy of the Proto-Indo-European /kw/, by a
simple /w/. Contrary to the teaching of generations of school-
teachers, the "aspirated w", [[w+H]], a [[w]] sound *accompanied* by
forceful breathing out (not preceded by it, as in [[h]][[w]]), is not
found in the wilds of native English speech, altho it certainly made
its appearance among the bizarre hothouse lifeforms paraded on many a
prize-giving stage, to the elocutionists' delight. This [[w+H]] is
quite simple to produce, but in the result, seems decidedly
unnatural. Try it: "Whether he would find out why wyes were used by
rail companies, or which layouts prevailed, was what I wanted to
know; and why she should care for what-nots, I wot not." Better to
say this kind of thing in one's everyday elocution, than risk being
called a blow-hard!

Regards,
Yahya