Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Steve
Good point. I agree with you in this suggestion.
A syllabic "l" letter would be very useful addition to the Shavian
Alphabet. It could be mapped as Capital -L.
We a syllabic R in the letter Array. Why not one for the L sound.
Very useful to write girl, table, oil, jewel, general, tunnel.
_______________attached_____________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> English speech can be accurately represented with 36 phonemes plus
an
> undetermined number of combinations. 36 is the minimum. 14 pure
vowels, 22 pure
> consonants.
>
> If you went to 26 phonemes, you would be merging phonemes. Some
phonemes
> such as ah and awe could probably me merged without much damage but
others
> couldn't. cot caught court are sometimes merged in some dialects
of English.
>
> If we were teaching illiterates, there would be some advantage in
minimizing
> the number of symbols. Since we are not, we might want to have a J
and CH rather than dZ and tS.
> and we probably want an L in additiona to /aL/.

On 1/16/05 1:50 AM, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Joe
>
> I can think of lots of names for this sound.
> Ergo, irksome, orangutan, early, Earl, Irving, ermine, Ursila,
> urgent.

The problem with those is that most of them are stressed and should be
spelled with x rather than D.
The word ³orangutan² could work if you spell it DXNgatAn, but the a should
actually be in a separate syllable here. This is the problem with most of
the words suggested for this ligature. As for the other words, I would
spell them as such: xgO, xksam, xli, xl, xviN, xmin, xsila, xJent.

> urbane is better than Urban. Much better than a-rray
> There must be others.

Probably. I just can¹t think of any. The word we¹re looking for will
probably start with a vowel + R + another consonant in T.O.

> Hi Steve

> Good point. I agree with you in this suggestion.

> A syllabic "l" letter would be very useful addition to the Shavian

> Alphabet. It could be mapped as Capital -L.

> We a syllabic R in the letter Array. Why not one for the L sound.

> Very useful to write girl, table, oil, jewel, general, tunnel.



Why 'Girl' and 'oil'? They're only one syllable so surely just write gxl and
ql? There is no syllabic 'l' here.



Hugh B

Paul wrote:

> I can think of lots of names for this sound.
> Ergo, irksome, orangutan, early, Earl, Irving, ermine, Ursila,
> urgent.

Ergo, irksome, early, earl, irving, ermine, ursila and urgent are not
examples of the 'schwer' (the 'er' sound takes the stress). Only orangutan
might be considered an example.

> urbane is better than Urban. Much better than a-rray
> There must be others.

Urbane takes 'err' too (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=urbane).

Hugh B

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:21:13 -0500, Joe <wurdbendur@...> wrote:
> F sxtanli hOp His wil wxk. :p
> 𐑲 𐑕𐑻𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑤𐑦 𐑣𐑴𐑐 𐑞𐑦𐑕 𐑢𐑦𐑤 𐑢𐑻𐑒. :𐑐

I could read both of those lines in your original message.

How do you write HTML with Gmail, though?

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

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:21:23 EST, stbetta@... <stbetta@...> wrote:
>
> philip.newton@... writes:
> while I can *read* Shavian in HTML, I can't *write* it like here.
> SB: Would the HTML be the same as keyboard Shavian?

Yes -- typing, say, "SEvWn" and formatting it with "Shaw Sans No. 2"
or some other Shavian font such as Androcles or Lionspaw -- since
plain text can't specify a font. (Or typing, say, "SAvQn" and
formatting it with a different font that has a different
letter-to-shape correspondance... which group readers would then also
need to have.)

It's not the method I'd prefer, since it's "fake", but to date, it
seems like the method that's supported by most computers.

I think Scott Harrison prefers the Unicode approach, and I do, too --
then you could just type "𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯" in plain text without needing to
fake the appearance through a font. However, not everyone can read or
write that.

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

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:18:02 EST, stbetta@... <stbetta@...> wrote:
>
> > fewer than 48 symbols. I can write mother as
> > muHar rather than muHD
>
> And I cannot :)
>
> SB: Why does connecting the phonograms make such a difference?

Because the shapes are supposed to represent sounds -- and since I
have no "r" sound in that word, writing it with an "r" seems
inappropriate to me.

Writing it with "D" is fine since I pronounce that shape [@] (schwa),
always. But saying that the Shaw letter roar is sometimes pronounced
"r" and sometimes not pronounced at all seems wrong to me; I'd prefer
to have the same sound written sometimes "ado" and sometimes "array".
That is, I'd prefer to have a perfect (well, as good as possible)
symbol-to-sound correspondence even if it's at the expense of a unique
sound-to-symbol correspondence (since that can be one-to-many).

Writing "muHar" would not represent my speech; writing "muHD" can
represent both my speech and that of a rhotic speaker.

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

Paul, Joe, and others,

The options are either to merge the two sounds /3/ and /@/ as in a Webster
notation
&r'bAn, '&rban, &'rang&tang, 's&rf&r
or we find key words that keeps them distinct as in the IPA.
urbane urban orangatang
surfer
@r'beIn DbEn, '3rb@n xban, @'rang@tang arANgatAn, 's3rf@r sxfD

As indicated by other writers, some of Read's choices for key words do not
work.
&-'rA <array> works for schwa, but not with schwa+r because the r is in the
next syllable.

Read was probably searching for a word that would be pronounced the same by
both
rhotic and non-rhotic speakers. To do this the written r has to be followed
by a vowel.
<butter on toast> might work but <butter> /'bVt@/ alone does not.

Proposed New key words
schwa - unstressed mid lax vowel: ago rather than ado /&'dü/
schwa+r - unstressed. urbane or urgent rather than array

stressed sound in up: up is fine
unstressed and stressed sound: abut

stressed and unstressed schwa+r (rhotic dialect) surfer murder, murmur,
herder

Other suggestions welcomed.

--Steve

wurdbendur@gmail.com writes:
> Hi Joe
>
> I can think of lots of names for this sound.
> Ergo, irksome, orangutan, early, Earl, Irving, ermine, Ursila,
> urgent.

The problem with those is that most of them are stressed and should be
spelled with x rather than D.
The word “orangutan” could work if you spell it DXNgatAn, but the a should
actually be in a separate syllable here. This is the problem with most of the
words suggested for this ligature. As for the other words, I would spell them
as such: xgO, xksam, xli, xl, xviN, xmin, xsila, xJent.

> urbane is better than Urban. Much better than a-rray
> There must be others.

Probably. I just can’t think of any. The word we’re looking for will
probably start with a vowel + R + another consonant in T.O.

Steve T. Bett
Austin, Texas

www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett

Phil,

You said that the keyboard map should be ignored. Now you say you like it
because it permits you to write "mother" without using an R.

There is no major non-rhotic problem with writing mother as muHar muHar
You just interpret <ar> as /a/ unless it comes before a vowel.

This is about the only available option in a standardized spelling.
Using a ligature D does nothing to improve the mismatch.

If you want to write dialect, then you can write muHa

--Steve
> > SB: fewer than 48 symbols. I can write mother as
> > muHar rather than muHD
>
> And I cannot :)
>
> SB: Why does connecting the phonograms make such a difference?

Because the shapes are supposed to represent sounds -- and since I
have no "r" sound in that word, writing it with an "r" seems
inappropriate to me.

Writing it with "D" is fine since I pronounce that shape [@] (schwa),
always. But saying that the Shaw letter roar is sometimes pronounced
"r" and sometimes not pronounced at all seems wrong to me; I'd prefer
to have the same sound written sometimes "ado" and sometimes "array".
That is, I'd prefer to have a perfect (well, as good as possible)
symbol-to-sound correspondence even if it's at the expense of a unique
sound-to-symbol correspondence (since that can be one-to-many).

Writing "muHar" would not represent my speech; writing "muHD" can
represent both my speech and that of a rhotic speaker.

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett

Hi Steve
I strongly support Philip in this matter, the Rhotic Shaw Letters,
allow Shaw writers from England, and the rest of the Commonwealth to
retain a strong semblense that they are writing the same language as
the Americans.
It effectively bridges that great Rhotic/Non-Rhotic English divide.
Let's not abandon any bridges before we know where we have to get to.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Thanks Phil. Right on.
P.P.S. Many of these Rhotic letters are very common. They keep number
of letters used tight.
_________________attached__________________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton
<philip.newton@g...> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:18:02 EST, stbetta@a... <stbetta@a...> wrote:
fewer than 48 symbols. I can write mother as muHar rather than muHD
> >
> > And I cannot :)
> >
> > SB: Why does connecting the phonograms make such a difference?
>
> Because the shapes are supposed to represent sounds -- and since I
> have no "r" sound in that word, writing it with an "r" seems
> inappropriate to me.
>
> Writing it with "D" is fine since I pronounce that shape [@]
(schwa),
> always. But saying that the Shaw letter roar is sometimes pronounced
> "r" and sometimes not pronounced at all seems wrong to me; I'd
prefer
> to have the same sound written sometimes "ado" and
sometimes "array".
> That is, I'd prefer to have a perfect (well, as good as possible)
> symbol-to-sound correspondence even if it's at the expense of a
unique
> sound-to-symbol correspondence (since that can be one-to-many).
>
> Writing "muHar" would not represent my speech; writing "muHD" can
> represent both my speech and that of a rhotic speaker.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>