Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Joe

I got a little lost in Scott's explanation and I disagree with one
small piece of Phil's explanation. For me, mem+Array+Eat, sounds like
the names Ma-rie or even Murray.

Let me re-iterate.
In American English, the Are sound followed by an Eat, has become
unpopular.
People switched pronunciation to Air + Eat.

Vary -> very
Mary -> merry
tarry -> terry as in terry cloth
Calgary -> Calgery
Gary -> Gerry
Larry -> Lerry
Nary -> Nerry

The Are sound is retained in a few words
starry
sorry (sari)

And the old way of pronouncing Mary is retained in the common
name Marie.

Now there are some people in the States, who still distinguish these
3 words, by accenting diffent syllables in different ways.
And of course, the Non-Rhotic English pronunciation preserves some
variations, but that doesnt help us. For us the Shaw spelling is the
same for all 3 T.O. Spellings.

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I think the key is to use a dictionary key as your guide rather
than your own
> dialect.
> Many people do not distinguish merry marry Mary. Webster: merE,
marE, merE
>
> Mary = 'mer-E, 'mar-E, 'mA-rE IPA: mEri, m{ri, meIri
>
> I think the AIR symbol may have been invented to represent an
ambiguous
> pronunciation.
>
> If you don't want to pick one of the pronunciations above, then use
mXF
>
> Read was originally trying to combine eh-ih-r in one symbol which
he would
> call AIR.
> The transposition error obscured this.
> I’ve mentioned before that I don’t distinguish the sounds
represented in
> Shavian by the letter X. I can’t usually tell them apart when I
hear them, but I’
> d like to at least distinguish them in my writing. Is there any
guideline I
> can follow for this?
> I spell both “Mary” and “merry” as mXi. I suspect that if
I were
> distinguish these sounds, they should be mArI and meri,
respectively. Is this correct?
> I know the issue of separate letters for these has been discussed
before, but
> I found it a bit hard to follow since I don’t use the sounds in
question.
>
> Regards,
> Joe
> /JO

If Shavian is to be an analog of the IPA, then it needs both /@/ schwa and
/@`/ schwer, and stressed schwer /3`/.

as in ago, surfer, and urge,
agO, sxfD, xJa

I think we have agreed that the ligatured sound signs can be pronounced in a
rhotic or non-rhotic manner. In other words D x can have the same
pronunciation as a.



If you want to minimize symbols, you can merge these sounds and add a stress
symbol as is done at www.m-w.com

--Steve
How very true, Hugh. Both the Schwa and the schwer are necessary, since
english speakers naturally will not fully pronounce the unstressed
vowel or vowel+r there by creating a need for an "un-vowel." Taking it
away would both slow transcription as we tried to decide what vowel to
use to replace the schwa and it would slow comprension. In TO, the
hardest thing for children to learn is how to read the emphasis and
stress in a new word,
The problem is that stress is usually not taught.
The traditional orthography does not mark stress in any systematic way.
If the child learned with the Shaw alphabet, there would be a way to indicate
relative stress in most words.
yet by the time we are adults, we have seen most
words before and have developed the "rhythm" of speech in our reading
(though there are a few adults I have met who still do not read aloud
with any confidence, which I can only attribute to a "word-method" of
learning to read and a lack of confidence in reading aloud at all).

Yes, both the schwa and up have a place in shavian, if we hope to
fulfill Shaw's dream of an alphabet to truly represent the sounds of
english.

--Star


> HB: Shavian has "array" for writing the schwer. It works perfectly and I
> fully agree with Philip's point that it allows both accent groups to use
> the same letter without necessarily pronouncing it the same. Is there any
need
> to discuss removing it? Besides, removing it would INCREASE the amount
> of letters used to write words, thus negating Shaw's wish for greater
> economy in writing.
SB: For economy in writing, it might be good to have a symbol for every word
or concept.
What we want is economy in a system that can clearly indicate pronunciation.

An optimal writing system is one with the fewest letters that can carry
enough information for phonological encoding.

--Steve

Hi Steve

I seem to have an idiosyncratic pronunciation for 2 of these words
that has screwed up this discussion.
I pronounce orangatang as either P'ANatAN
or orangatang = D'ANatAN
I pronounce Murmur as mDmD
But now I have got the rules straight, I will write it as mx'mD
just to go along with the group.

As I mentioned earlier. with my pronunciation, these sounds are
indeed quite similar.

It is nice that some people can consistently hear the extra Stress on
an Urge, but in many cases I cannot.

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> PV: Scott, While I would prefer a single letter, you do seem to be
confusing
> the 2 different pronunciations.
> Perhaps we can agree onanother of list of words where the sounds
> actually do seem to be different.
>
> PV: You can check on Dictionary.com
> 1. ur = urge, term, firm, word, heard, gird, bird, stirred, turn,
earn,
> nervous
> 2. ur + er = butter, murder, girder, murmur, further, gangster,
talker,
> Earl, or (er)angatan, earth, urbane, surfer, murmur, water, corner
>
> SB: The dictionary doesn''t make a distinction between one and two
syllable
> words or between closed and open syllables.. The distinction is
one of stress.
> If the ER sound is stressed it is /3`/ or x x.
> If the ER sound is unstressed, it is /@`/ or D D.
>
> orangatang = a'rANgatAN
>
> I don't care for a ligature across a syllable boundary.
> What is the consensus here?
>
>
> PV: Don't you find it interesting that most cases of sound 1, occur
in
> closed syllables?
>
> Sound 1 and 2 are usually the same.
>

On 1/19/05 6:01 PM, "stbetta@..." <stbetta@...> wrote:

> SB: The dictionary doesn''t make a distinction between one and two syllable
> words or between closed and open syllables.. The distinction is one of
> stress.
> If the ER sound is stressed it is /3`/ or x x.
> If the ER sound is unstressed, it is /@`/ or D D.
> orangatang = a'rANgatAN
>
> I don't care for a ligature across a syllable boundary.
> What is the consensus here?
>
>
> PV: Don't you find it interesting that most cases of sound 1, occur in
> closed syllables?
>
> Sound 1 and 2 are usually the same.
>
>
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> --- stbetta@a... wrote:
> SB:
>> > 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 @r'beIn DbEn,
> urban '3rb@n xban,
> orangatant @'rang@tang arANgatAn,
> surfer 's3rf@r sxfD
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>

Hi Steve

I can't hear Stress consistently, so that doesn't help me to have
stress syllable.
At least with vowels, I have some rules based on Syllable boundaries
that work 98% of the time.

Marking stress is an unnecessary complication for most readers.
As I said before British Non-Rhotic English speakers don't have any
difficulty differentiating all these vowel sounds.

It appears that it is just some Americans who have pruned and
combined their vowels sounds to make a smaller more sharply defined
subset of the English Vowel sounds.

Regards, paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> If Shavian is to be an analog of the IPA, then it needs both /@/
schwa and
> /@`/ schwer, and stressed schwer /3`/.
>
> as in ago, surfer, and urge,
> agO, sxfD, xJa
>
> I think we have agreed that the ligatured sound signs can be
pronounced in a
> rhotic or non-rhotic manner. In other words D x can have the same
> pronunciation as a.
>
> If you want to minimize symbols, you can merge these sounds and add
a stress
> symbol as is done at www.m-w.com
>
> --Steve
> How very true, Hugh. Both the Schwa and the schwer are necessary,
since
> english speakers naturally will not fully pronounce the unstressed
> vowel or vowel+r there by creating a need for an "un-vowel." Taking
it
> away would both slow transcription as we tried to decide what vowel
to
> use to replace the schwa and it would slow comprension. In TO, the
> hardest thing for children to learn is how to read the emphasis and
> stress in a new word,
> The problem is that stress is usually not taught.
> The traditional orthography does not mark stress in any systematic
way.
> If the child learned with the Shaw alphabet, there would be a way
to indicate
> relative stress in most words.
> yet by the time we are adults, we have seen most
> words before and have developed the "rhythm" of speech in our
reading
> (though there are a few adults I have met who still do not read
aloud
> with any confidence, which I can only attribute to a "word-method"
of
> learning to read and a lack of confidence in reading aloud at all).
>
> Yes, both the schwa and up have a place in shavian, if we hope to
> fulfill Shaw's dream of an alphabet to truly represent the sounds of
> english.
>
> --Star
>
>
> > HB: Shavian has "array" for writing the schwer. It works
perfectly and I
> > fully agree with Philip's point that it allows both accent groups
to use
> > the same letter without necessarily pronouncing it the same. Is
there any
> need
> > to discuss removing it? Besides, removing it would INCREASE the
amount
> > of letters used to write words, thus negating Shaw's wish for
greater
> > economy in writing.
> SB: For economy in writing, it might be good to have a symbol for
every word
> or concept.
> What we want is economy in a system that can clearly indicate
pronunciation.
>
> An optimal writing system is one with the fewest letters that can
carry
> enough information for phonological encoding.
>
> --Steve

Hi Steve
I will add Refer, Occur, Infer, Allure and figure to the
exception list.
Also Reefer refer, makes for a nice minimal pair.

Thanks, Paul V.
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Paul, Here are the requested exampbles of the sound in URGE that is
not in a
> closed syllable.
>
> occur Webster: &'k&r IPA @'k3` ENgliS akur Shaw
akx
> acre Webster Ák&r IPA 'eIk@r
Akar EkD
> infer inf&r IPA in'f3` ENgliS
infur Shaw
> infx
> reefer refer rEf&r ri'f&r rEfar
rEfur
> rIfD rifx
>
> --Steve
>
> Paul wrote
> I am tenatively willing to accept the use of both the array
> (Schwer) and Err (Urge) even without an appropriate sample name for
> the Schwer sound.
>
> I completely accept the need for Ado and Up. Lots of obvious
> benefits, and it is quite easy to distinguish the 2 phonemes.
> But that is not the case with Array and Err sounds.
>
> I see that Dictionary.com differentiates them quite nicely.
> But can anyone provide a varied list of examples showing where
both
> sounds are found in different words.
> I only see Err (Urge) in Consonant closed syllables.
> Perhaps someone else can provide a good Rhotic explanation.

Sorry about that last message. I accidentally sent it before I could add my
comments. ^_^;


On 1/19/05 6:01 PM, "stbetta@..." <stbetta@...> wrote:
>
> SB: The dictionary doesn''t make a distinction between one and two syllable
> words or between closed and open syllables.. The distinction is one of
> stress.
>
True, though syllables are probably the easiest way to determine stress if
you don¹t know a word and don¹t have a dictionary handy. Exceptions have to
be memorized, but it will work for lack of a better method.
>
> If the ER sound is stressed it is /3`/ or x x.
> If the ER sound is unstressed, it is /@`/ or D D.
>
Exactly.
>
> orangatang = a'rANgatAN
>
In T.O., this is usually spelled ³orangutan,² though there are various
acceptable pronunciations, which I suppose are what¹s important here.
>
>
> I don't care for a ligature across a syllable boundary.
> What is the consensus here?
>
Yes, my impression was that the ligatures were intended to be pronounced as
a single sound, so they can only be in one syllable at a time. Just like
any other letter, these shouldn¹t cross a syllable boundary. If it does, it
should either be split into two letters, or another letter should be added.
For example, even the example word array usually has a syllable break after
the Ado: arE. It may also have the D sound before the syllable break,
followed by an r. So, perhaps DrE would be a good compromise? Probably
not. I don¹t know if this word is ever pronounced this way. I sometimes
slip an extra r in some other words, but I think that¹s probably not
correct.
>
> PV: Don't you find it interesting that most cases of sound 1, occur in
> closed syllables?
>
> Sound 1 and 2 are usually the same.
>
I agree. These sounds are more or less interchangeable. You can¹t predict
them based on adjacent consonants.

Regards,
Joe
/JO

On 1/19/05 6:37 PM, "stbetta@..." <stbetta@...> wrote:

> If Shavian is to be an analog of the IPA, then it needs both /@/ schwa and
> /@`/ schwer, and stressed schwer /3`/.
>
> as in ago, surfer, and urge,
> agO, sxfD, xJa
>
> I think we have agreed that the ligatured sound signs can be pronounced in a
> rhotic or non-rhotic manner. In other words D x can have the same
> pronunciation as a.
>
Do you mean u? This is the stressed equivalent of a, which would correspond
to x, right? Or am I misunderstanding the non-rhotic accent here?
>
>
> If you want to minimize symbols, you can merge these sounds and add a stress
> symbol as is done at www.m-w.com <http://www.m-w.com>
>
QuikScript also has an optional stress symbol, which might as well be
included in Shavian. I wouldn¹t use it most of the time, but it could be
helpful for unfamiliar words.
>>
> The problem is that stress is usually not taught.
> The traditional orthography does not mark stress in any systematic way.
> If the child learned with the Shaw alphabet, there would be a way to indicate
> relative stress in most words.
>
I¹ve found Shavian¹s ability to suggest stress without explicitly indicating
it quite helpful. For learning, this could be supplemented with special
stress marks if necessary.
>>
> SB: For economy in writing, it might be good to have a symbol for every word
> or concept.
> What we want is economy in a system that can clearly indicate pronunciation.
>
> An optimal writing system is one with the fewest letters that can carry enough
> information for phonological encoding.
>
I agree. In my personal writing, I sometimes use such symbols for common
words, and I even included one of them in one of my fonts (the L is Shaw
Mono), but I wouldn¹t use them for normal writing. If someone else has to
read it, then it should clearly indicate it¹s pronunciation. If this means
sacrificing brevity an adding an extra letter, I say that¹s a trade up.

Regards,
Joe
/JO

I agree 100% Steve (apart from spelling dFvxs as dFvxrs!)



Stress is UNIVERSAL to English speakers, British or American. Perhaps it is
not easily noticed if one is not accustomed to looking for it - but it is
always there.



Maybe we should find some material all about English stress that might help
people having difficulty understanding it - the fact that some confuse 'err'
and 'array' is obviously not the fault of Shavian.



Hugh B



_____

From: stbetta@... [mailto:stbetta@...]
Sent: 19 January 2005 20:13
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Cc: euro-english@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Re: The Schwer, the answer, enough for now



Paul,



I think that your phonemic spelling (if it is General American) should be
derived from a dictionary key such as the one at www.m-w.com.



papers = 'pAp&rz [unstressed schwa or D] pEpDz

purrs = p'&rz [stressed schwa or x] pxz

diapers = 'dIp&rz [unstressed schwa or D] dFpDz

diverse divers = di'v&rs 'dIv&rz = dFvxrs dFvDz

reverse-rivers-driver = ri'v&rs 'riv&rz 'drIv&r = rivxs rivDz drFvD



PV: I can't confirm that all your examples would pronounce the vowel of
the second syllable as an Array. Maybe the stress and the syllable
boundaries are somewhat different for the American pronunciation.
In particular, I would spell



SB: I doubt it. To make such a claim you should at least identify one
case.
My guess is that stress differences in various dialects of English
are rather rare.

I think that relative stress is a key feature of English.
You can pronounce all syllables with equal stress, but it doesn't
sound right.

It also obscures noun-verb differences in words like rebel, object,
....



SB: If you are trying to match a dictionary key, all of your spellings are
wrong.



NO papers as > pE-pxz rhymnes with purrs > pxz
NO diapers as > dF-pxz
NO brothers as > bru-Hxz
NO liver as > lI-vxz
NO delivers > da-li-vxz
NO bounders > boun-dxz

Still, thanks for finding some valid exceptions to the rule.

HB:
> > So let me revise my rule for determining if the "er" sound should be
> > represented by "Array" or "Urge". I will incorporate the concept of a
> > Primary accented syllable.

> > 1. If the "er" sound is part of a syllable that ends in a Consonant
> > it is written with an Err/Urge.

SB: A consonant ending tells you nothing about stress and the key difference
between

array and Urge is a stress difference.



> > 2. If the "er" sound is part of the first syllable of the word and
> > that syllable has the primary accent, it is written with an Err/Urge.



SB: The most common distinction in tradspel is to use ur for the stressed
/3`/ and

er for the unstressed /@`/

SB: surfer is a good key word: sxfD



SB: However, there are plenty of exceptions: murmur mxmD herder hxdD



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.

SB: If Shavian is to be an analog of the IPA, then it needs both /@/ schwa
and /@`/ schwer, and stressed schwer /3`/.

as in ago, surfer, and urge,
agO, sxfD, xJa

I think we have agreed that the ligatured sound signs can be pronounced in a
rhotic or non-rhotic manner. In other words D x can have the same
pronunciation as a.


JW: Do you mean u? This is the stressed equivalent of a, which would
correspond to x, right? Or am I misunderstanding the non-rhotic accent here?
SB: I think you are right. Altho many non-rhotics insist that u is not the
same as their pronunciation of x. They say there is a difference in the way
they pronounce surfer and suffer.



If you want to minimize symbols, you can merge these sounds and add a stress
symbol as is done at www.m-w.com <http://www.m-w.com>


QuikScript also has an optional stress symbol, which might as well be
included in Shavian. I wouldn’t use it most of the time, but it could be helpful for
unfamiliar words.



The problem is that stress is usually not taught.
The traditional orthography does not mark stress in any systematic way.
If the child learned with the Shaw alphabet, there would be a way to indicate
relative stress in most words.


I’ve found Shavian’s ability to suggest stress without explicitly indicating
it quite helpful. For learning, this could be supplemented with special
stress marks if necessary.



SB: For economy in writing, it might be good to have a symbol for every word
or concept.
What we want is economy in a system that can clearly indicate pronunciation.

An optimal writing system is one with the fewest letters that can carry
enough information for phonological encoding.


I agree. In my personal writing, I sometimes use such symbols for common
words, and I even included one of them in one of my fonts (the L is Shaw Mono),
but I wouldn’t use them for normal writing. If someone else has to read it,
then it should clearly indicate it’s pronunciation. If this means sacrificing
brevity an adding an extra letter, I say that’s a trade up.

Regards,
Joe
/JO