Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

I wrote yesterday:

> ... I think the rounding in this case (the pronunciation of "who")
> comes about as a result of forming the mouth to pronounce the
> following vowel -- 'oo', which you would not need to do, say, for
> "whee/he". Hey! Another minimal pair.

Well, while the following vowel may determine the rounding necessary
to properly pronounce the word "who" or "hoot", a simple check in the
mirror reveals that to pronounce any of the /hw-/ words also requires
a preliminary pursing of the lips into a small /o/ in order to produce the
aspiration. "Whee" and other similar words do it appears begin with a
small degree of rounding. Though the expenditure of energy required
is minuscule, the Principle of Least Effort works towards simplification,
which perhaps may explain why so many people no longer aspirate
these words today.

aspiratingly,
dshep

Hi Shep
Thanks for your help.
The whew/woo comparison seems to be key.
Woo seems to be the pure voiced w sound.
You can keep your mouth in 1 position and keep pushing the "woo"
out. I also notice some lip vibration from the rounding when I extend this sound.
This lip vibration without the voicing might be the wh-sound
I hear in "when" and "what".
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Unfortunatly I pronounce "whew" as a kind of a long drawn out
half whistle. Certain sound's like the Rasberry, Tsk Tsk, whew and Shoosh,
we don't really have letters for. Perhaps we should mark words of this type with a Namer Dot, because the Shaw Letters are only an approximation of the actual sound.
I think those kinds of words are called
onomatopoeia, which I don't know how to pronounce.
Thank G-d, for google, the best word finder in the world.
It accepts phonetic spelling by the way.
__________________attached__________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya" <yahya@...> wrote:
> But allow me to disagree with just a handful of them, namely:
> 1. whew/woo
> 2. whack/wak (you don't listen to much rap, I bet ...)
> 3. whim/Wim (Dutch proper name, as in the film-maker Wim Wenders - never gets aspirated)
> 4. whelk/Welk (American surname, as in bandleader Lawrence Welk, never aspirated)
>
> Hmmm ... no thumb! (Whether we should admit proper names in minimal pairs, I'm unsure; after all, they often preserve archaisms, and thus don't follow the logic of the language of their speakers.)
>
> And also, once again, reiterate that IMO the distinction between 'w' and 'wh' phonemes is one of aspiration only, not of voicing. Any change in voicing in minimal pairs seems - IMHO! - irrelevant.
>
> Penultimately, let me ask you, how do you pronounce 'whoop'? It's a word we only ever came across in print, e.g. as in 'war-whoops', but our (very old) English teacher told us (47 years ago) it should be pronounced 'hoop', objecting to us making it 'woop' or 'hwoop'.
>
> Which reminded me: to say that someone comes from a totally unimportant little backwater (you know, the kind of 'locality' marked on a map with a place name, but only two or three houses to be seen in the vicinity - not even a 'hamlet'), here in Australia we say they 'come from Woop-Woop'. Definitely not 'whoop-whoop'!
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshepx@ wrote:
> >
> > Besides:
> > what/watt, wheel/we'll, when/wen, where/(some pronunciations of)"were",
> > whether/weather, which/witch, whine/wine, and why/wye,
> >
> > There are:
> > whale/wail, whang/Wang, wheal/weal, whence/wince, whet/wet, whey/way,
> > Whig/wig, while/wile, whir/were, whish/wish, whit/wit, white/wight,
> > whither/wither, whoa/woe,
> >
> > Some words that may not have perfect matching contrasts but almost do:
> > whack (what the Mafia does to rivals)/wacky, whimper/wimp, whirl or
> > whorl/world, whist/wistful,
> >
> > Other hw- words without any minimal contrast (known to me) are:
> > wham, wharf, wheat (weet sounds inedible to me), wheedle (if you
> > tried to weedle someone to do something, would it work?), wheeze,
> > whelk, whelm (as in overwhelm), whelp, whew, whiff (could you say,
> > I caught a wiff of something?), whiffletree, whim, whimper, whimsical,
> > whimsy, whinny, whip (you couldn't wip someone, could you?), whippet,
> > whipsaw, whisk, whisker, whisk(e)y, whisper (wisper, which would
> > introduce a voiced consonant into this word, is a contradiction in
> > terms), whistle, Whitsun, whittle (I dare you to ask someone who
> > whittles if he were a wittler), whiz, whoop, whoosh, and whopper.
> >
> > Some of these words are onomatopoetic, but would no longer be if the
> > unvoiced /hw/ is allowed to decay to voiced /w/:
> > whish, whack, whir, whirl, wham, wheeze, whew, whinny, whish, whisk,
> > whiz, and whoosh.
> >
> > Which Whigs wear wigs, and why?
> >
> > whoppingly,
> > dshep
> >
>

Hi Star
I will give you "awoke", but how about, "awake"?
Would you pronounce, "awake", the same in the following 3 contexts?
1. Sadly, I had to go a wake.
2. Awake, life is much less a dream.
3. I ache when I'm awake.
Belated regards, Paul V.
_________________attached_________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@...> wrote:
>
> I disagree with Wind, wisp, aware, awake and awoke. I don't pronounce it awhoke.
>
> Contentious,
> --Star
>
> ==========
> "Life isn't worth living. It's to be taken, and beaten, and wrestled, and formed in your image."
> --Ares, Xena: Warrior Princess
>
>
> My LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad
> Andre Norton Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/colorado16/
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: paul vandenbrink <vandenbrinkg@...>
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:25:04 AM
> Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: keyword pronunciation
>
>
> Hi Ethan
>
> I guess I did not make my point clearly enough.
> I am not suggesting the necessity of an additional
> Shaw Letter. It might be nice, from a phonetic point of view,
> but that hardly makes it necessary. I am merely curious as to
> this sound might be found, in those rare places where it does exist.
> I suspect that outside of situation of a consonant cluster where the w-sound follows an unvoiced consonant, there are remarkably few cases where this sound is used. Wh is a rare Diagraph in Roman spelling, and I believe most of those words, are pronounced with a voiced w-sound, even by those people who can make the distinction.
> For example, whether, is always pronounced like weather.
> The few that I do note as still being eligible to be pronounced with the un-voiced w-sound are:
> what
> which
> why
> wind
> whoosh
> wisp
> aware
> awake
> awoke
> awhile
> Any other wh-sound eligable words, that you can think of?
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> ____________ _________ __attzched_ _________ _________ _________ _______
> --- In shawalphabet@ yahoogroups. com, Ethan <ethan@> wrote:
> > Ethan wrote:
> > > jeff wrote:
> > >> On Monday 2008 July 07 21:32:41 Ethan wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >>> 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?
> > >
> > > Witch begins with a W sound, Which begins with an H sound.
> > > That is, ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€"/ð�`£ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€" (wich/hwich) . Like I said:
> > >
> > >>> The
> > >>> difference always depends on another letter.
> > >
> > > In this case it's the letter ð�`£ (ha-ha). You wouldn't say that
> > > ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€"/ð�`•ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€" (witch/switch) was a voiceless w pair would you? Why
> > > ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€"/ð�`£ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€" (wich/hwich) ?
> > >
> >
> > And I should add as well that in many dialects, witch/which is not a
> > minimal pair at all, but they are both pronounced the same. In fact,
> > the only reason why I distinguish them is because my father and
> > grandfather distinguished them in their speech. My mother did not, and
> > I can go either way when I talk!
> >
> >
> > --
> > ('> He shall cover thee with his feathers, <')
> > /)) and under his wings shalt thou trust: ((\
> > //'' his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. ''\\
> >
>

2009/3/11 paul vandenbrink <vandenbrinkg@...>:
> Hi Star
> I will give you "awoke", but how about, "awake"?
> Would you pronounce, "awake", the same in the following 3 contexts?
> 1. Sadly, I had to go a wake.
> 2. Awake, life is much less a dream.
> 3. I ache when I'm awake.

I pronounce all three the same way. How do you pronounce them?

T

Hi Thomas
As well as the difference in stress between these common Vowel sounds, there is also a difference in the length or duration of the sounds. Ado, also called Schwa, is shorter than the soft u-sound called Up. Likewise, Array, is shorter than the Err. See words such as Urge, Urban, Confer and Convergence asemples of Err in action.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. In my mid-west American accent, there is not much difference between On and Awe, other than the greater length and stress of the Awe sound. These sound are quite distinctive when spoken with a British Accent.
__________________________attached________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 13:04, Thomas Thurman <tthurman@...> wrote:
> > 2009/2/22 ed_shapard <ed_shapard@...>:
> >> ERR and ARray have the same sound, but ERR is used for
> >> stressed vowel sounds. Similarly, Up and Ado have the same sound, but
> >> Up is used for stressed vowel sounds.
> >
> > I'm interested to know whether this is a consistent and accepted rule,
> > and whether all the vowel sounds have stressed/unstressed versions.
>
> Those are the only two stressed/unstressed pairs in Shavian that come
> to my mind.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
>

Hi Thomas
I pronounce wake as whake, in examples 2 and 3.
I've got to stop mumbling my w's when I'm tired.
Enunciation is one of my short-comings.
Regards, Paul V.
________________attached__________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Thurman <tthurman@...> wrote:
>
> 2009/3/11 paul vandenbrink <vandenbrinkg@...>:
> > Hi Star
> > I will give you "awoke", but how about, "awake"?
> > Would you pronounce, "awake", the same in the following 3 contexts?
> > 1. Sadly, I had to go a wake.
> > 2. Awake, life is much less a dream.
> > 3. I ache when I'm awake.
>
> I pronounce all three the same way. How do you pronounce them?
>
> T
>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, David Sheppard wrote:
[...]
> Well, while the following vowel may determine the rounding necessary to properly pronounce the word "who" or "hoot", a simple check in the mirror reveals that to pronounce any of the /hw-/ words also requires a preliminary pursing of the lips into a small /o/ in order to produce the aspiration. "Whee" and other similar words do it appears begin with a small degree of rounding.

Exactly!

> Though the expenditure of energy required is minuscule, the Principle of Least Effort works towards simplification,

Laziness is a principle?! ;-)

> which perhaps may explain why so many people no longer aspirate these words today.

I think you are right.
>
> aspiratingly,
> dshep

May you always aspire to better things,
Yahya

I was just playing around with cmudict and noticed that it does differentiate between 'On' and 'Awe' in the version I have. On = AA; Awe = AO

Also, all vowels in cmudict are assigned stress with numbers 0,1 and 2. This means you can tell Up (AH1) from Ado (AH0,AH2).

So, the real challenge in converting cmudict is to correct the father/bother merger. Same for Moby.

Also, cmudict seems only partially affected by the weak vowel merger (roses/Rosa's) that annoyed me on every page of Androcles, so that's another point in its favor. I don't know about Moby....

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Thurman" <tthurman@...> wrote:
>
> I spent some of a long aeroplane trip the other day comparing the
> vowels allowed in the Moby and CMUDict lexicons with those used in
> Shavian. In each case I looked up the name of the Shavian letter in
> the given lexicon, and these are my results:
>
> Shavian Moby CMUDict
> code example code example
> IF I /I/f IH IH1 F
> EGG E /E/g EH EH1 G
> ASH & /&/S/ AE AE1 SH
> ADO @ /@/'d/u/ AH AH0 D UW1
> ON A /A/n AA AA1 N
> WOOL U w/U/l UH W UH1 L
> OUT AU /AU/t AW AW1 T
> AH A /A/ AA AA1
> EAT i /i/t IY IY1 T
> AGE eI /eI/dZ/ EY EY1 JH
> ICE aI /aI/s AY AY1 S
> UP @ /@/p AH AH1 P
> OAK oU /oU/k OW OW1 K
> OOZE u /u/z UW UW1 Z
> OIL Oi /Oi/l OY OY1 L
> AWE O /O/ AA AA1
>
> Moby merges: Ado/Up, On/Ah (this is the father/bother merger)
> CMUDict merges: Ado/Up, On/Ah/Awe
>
> So it would seem that Moby was a generally better choice for a
> lexicon, although we still can't get away from the father/bother merger.
>
> As noted in an earlier thread, Ado/Up can still be distinguished using
> stress, which both lexicons mark.
>
> Thomas
>

Hi Yah.ya
Laziness is a principle.
But maintaining a a minimally recognisable word,
is a higher principle. Otherwise, the word become unintelligble
and is replaced by another word (synonym).
Anyway, Aspiration is important in words such as How, Who, Whom, Whose, whole, whore, etc. which are pronounced with the plain old
aspiration (h-sound), rather than the original hw-sound commonly written
as wh in the Roman Alphabet.
Regards, Paul V.
______________________attached__________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya" <yahya@...> wrote:
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, David Sheppard wrote:
> [...]
> > Well, while the following vowel may determine the rounding necessary to properly pronounce the word "who" or "hoot", a simple check in the mirror reveals that to pronounce any of the /hw-/ words also requires a preliminary pursing of the lips into a small /o/ in order to produce the aspiration. "Whee" and other similar words do it appears begin with a small degree of rounding.
>
> Exactly!
>
> > Though the expenditure of energy required is minuscule, the Principle of Least Effort works towards simplification,
>
> Laziness is a principle?! ;-)
>
> > which perhaps may explain why so many people no longer aspirate these words today.

Hi Paul (Pa.ul?)

I must respectfully disagree about these words using
"the plain old aspiration (h-sound)". Yes, aspiration
is important in those words you cite; but so is rounding.

For me, How is /hau/ - with no wh-sound involved. But
Who, Whom, Whose, Whole, and Whore all require *both*
aspiration and rounding. Whole/Hole is a minimal pair
for the wh/h contrast; Whore/Hoar is another.

If you pronounce "news" as we do in Australia: /nyooz/,
then presumably you also pronounce "hues" similarly,
in fact identically with "hews": /hyooz/. But if you
don't have the 'y' before the 'oo' in these words -
which seems to me to be the commoner North American
pattern for "news" - then these words would be /nooz/
and /hooz/, right? (Maybe not "hews".) Do Americans
who say "Noo York" pronounce "whose" in exactly the same
way as "hues"?

Regards,
Yahya

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, paul vandenbrink wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, Aspiration is important in words such as How, Who, Whom, Whose, whole, whore, etc. which are pronounced with the plain old aspiration (h-sound), rather than the original hw-sound commonly written as wh in the Roman Alphabet.
> Regards, Paul V.
> ______________________attached__________________________
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya" <yahya@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, David Sheppard wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Well, while the following vowel may determine the rounding necessary to properly pronounce the word "who" or "hoot", a simple check in the mirror reveals that to pronounce any of the /hw-/ words also requires a preliminary pursing of the lips into a small /o/ in order to produce the aspiration. "Whee" and other similar words do it appears begin with a small degree of rounding.
> >
> > Exactly!
> >
> > > Though the expenditure of energy required is minuscule, the Principle of Least Effort works towards simplification,
> >
> > Laziness is a principle?! ;-)
> >
> > > which perhaps may explain why so many people no longer aspirate these words today.
>