Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:39:13 -0000, Hugh Birkenhead
<mixsynth@...> wrote:
>
> > Hugh, What about secondary stress?
> > according to your rule, syllables with secondary stress get err/urge
>
> Yes, that's right.

And I agree with Hugh on this.

> > The issue is which err/urge option do you use when the syllable has
> > secondary stress.
>
> It's still stress, so it still takes 'err'.

And this.

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

Marginal phonemes require conventions - Bob Richmond

SB: an-han I agree but what kind of convention?
an-han with a conventionalized nasal

uh-huh (yes) a n-ha n uh-uh (no) a n-a n whew hwM

uh-huh from www.m-w.com
Pronunciation: two m's or two n's separated by the voiceless sound h;
'&n-(")h&n, or '&n-(")&n-'

uh-uh
Pronunciation: two m's or two n's preceded by glottal stops; '&n-"&n
interjection
-- used to indicate negation

whew 'hwü, 'wü, 'hyü

-Steve

>>Ethan notes: But what about our own nasal phoneme? How do you spell the
common yes and no "grunts", Uh-huh (yes) and Uh-uh (no)? And for that matter, how
do you do the glottal stop in the negative?<<

BR: This "marginal phoneme" problem is a very odd one. My linguistics
professor (Charles A. Ferguson, whose most important later work was diglossia. Spoke
Bengali, Farsi, Arabic, Japanese, and I don't know what else) noted - and I've
never encountered this statement again - that uh-huh and uh-uh occurred in
many unrelated languages all over the world, and might well be language
universals. The sounds in them occur nowhere else in English, not even as marginal
phonemes. Ferguson analyzed huh-uh as a voiced h followed by a nasalized
mid-central vowel followed by a voiced nasalized glottal stop followed by another
nasalized mid-central vowel. (Three different marginal phonemes. What's the
Shavian for Whew!?)

I don't think these marginal phonemes require special symbols. I think they
require orthographic conventions, like the other marginal phonemes we've talked
about.

Bob Richmond
Knoxville TN and Gastonia NC

From: stbetta@... [mailto:stbetta@...]
Sent: 22 January 2005 17:20
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Cc: saundspel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [shawalphabet] the spelling of interjections



Marginal phonemes require conventions - Bob Richmond

SB: an-han I agree but what kind of convention?
an-han with a conventionalized nasal

uh-huh (yes) a n-ha n uh-uh (no) a n-a n whew hwM



I hope you’re not suggesting we write them like that in general usage.



When I say them, there’s no ‘nasal’ sound in ‘uh-huh’ or ‘uh-uh’. I’d
probably write them u-hu and u-u.



uh-huh <javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?uhhuh008.wav=uh-huh')> from
www.m-w.com
Pronunciation: two m's or two n's separated by the voiceless sound h;
'&n-(")h&n, or '&n-(")&n-'



uh-uh <javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?uhuh001w.wav=uh-uh')>
Pronunciation: two m's or two n's preceded by glottal stops; '&n-"&n
interjection
-- used to indicate negation



whew 'hwü, 'wü, 'hyü



-Steve


>>Ethan notes: But what about our own nasal phoneme? How do you spell the
common yes and no "grunts", Uh-huh (yes) and Uh-uh (no)? And for that
matter, how do you do the glottal stop in the negative?<<

BR: This "marginal phoneme" problem is a very odd one. My linguistics
professor (Charles A. Ferguson, whose most important later work was
diglossia. Spoke Bengali, Farsi, Arabic, Japanese, and I don't know what
else) noted - and I've never encountered this statement again - that uh-huh
and uh-uh occurred in many unrelated languages all over the world, and might
well be language universals. The sounds in them occur nowhere else in
English, not even as marginal phonemes. Ferguson analyzed huh-uh as a voiced
h followed by a nasalized mid-central vowel followed by a voiced nasalized
glottal stop followed by another nasalized mid-central vowel. (Three
different marginal phonemes. What's the Shavian for Whew!?)

I don't think these marginal phonemes require special symbols. I think they
require orthographic conventions, like the other marginal phonemes we've
talked about.

Bob Richmond
Knoxville TN and Gastonia NC



_____

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 Hugh

Thanks for your comments.
I checked the American Heritage Dictionary for an approved
pronunciation.
It had vq-iJ. Go figure. Vowels vary with accents in English, so I
can definately see the point of having a Vowel Variable.
As for using the closest Consonant sound, I can see drawbacks with
that
based on my experiance with English T. O.
ch can represent the Glottal K sound or the tsh sound
and as we were recently discussing the "ll" sound is quite different,
if you are trying to represent a Welsh or a Spanish/Portuguese word.
We don't to fall into the traps that made English T.O. such a
Hodgepodge.
I'd rather just know that I am dealing with a foreign sound up front,
rather than try and wing it.
Indeterminacies need to be marked one way or another.
Maybe we can just put the approximants into quotes.

Regards, Paul Vandenbrink
___________________attached_________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead"
<mixsynth@f...> wrote:
> > For example, in English, a candy can be called
>
> > a Bon Bon. Pronounced and spelt byn byn in Shaw.
>
> > And voyage is vqeJ.
>
>
>
> I'd pronounce those two bon bon and vqaJ.
>
> > I suppose we could add a letter to represent any unpronouncable or
>
> > foreign sound. Say for example x for any odd non-english vowel
>
> > and X for any odd non-english Consonant
>
> > So you could say it is pronounced "lYX"
>
> > or "vqxZ"
>
> > But I wouldn't go beyond that. That's what IPA is for.
>
> > Regards, PAul V.

> Having one character for any one of hundreds of possible foreign
sounds is a
> lot worse than just using the nearest possible match.
>
> Hugh B

Hi Hugh

You have got me in a quandary with Pervert.
Probably, because there are 2 ways to pronounce it.
Verb Per-vert with stress on vert isn't a problem.
I'd spell it pD-vxt, just like avert (a-vxt)
but as for the noun Perv-ert or Perv for short, I am torn.
I guess I'd spell it pxv-Dt, even though I feel it sounds closer to
pxv-xt especially in word like per-vert-ed pD-vxt-ad.
This alternating syllabic stress in English really throws you some
times.
And changing syllable bouandaries!

Regards, Paul V.
___________________attached


--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Hugh wrote:
> If you can tell where the primary accent is, there's no need for
any of these
> rules. 'Err' is where the stress is, 'array' is where it aint.
>
> Hugh, What about secondary stress?
> according to your rule, syllables with secondary stress get err/urge

> Pervert noun
> Pronunciation: Webster:'p&r-"v&rt Shavian: pxvxt or pxvDt?
>
> PV wrote: What about "pervert" (noun)? Both are 'err'/'urge'.
>
> The primary stress is on the first syllable on most nouns.
> The issue is which err/urge option do you use when the syllable has
secondary
> stress.
>
> If there is a verb form, then the primary stress moves to the 2nd
syllable.
>
> Pervert verb
> Pronunciation: p&r-'v&rt
> Function: transitive verb
> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French pervertir, from Latin
> pervertere to overturn, corrupt, pervert, from per- thoroughly +
vertere to turn --
> more at PER-, WORTH
> 1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or
morally
> right :
> corrupt, mislead
>
> > > > It is much easier to follow this rule than to try and figure
> > > > out the intonation or stress of each "er" syllable in multiple
> > > > syllable words, such as "wanderer" and "furniture".

> I guess I'd spell it pxv-Dt, even though I feel it sounds closer to

> pxv-xt



Your instincts are correct! The stress is on both syllables, hence you spell
it pxvxt.



Hugh B

Hi Philip

I agree with Joe.
My expectation is that we will fall back on the Roman Alphabet,
for foreign words, that do not have a standard English pronunciation.

If there does not happen to be a accepted English spelling in Roman
for a specific Foreign Word, or the the Language itself does not
support transcription into the Roman Alphabet, we might consider
whether it I.P.A. be better to write it in I.P.A. That's what it was
designed for.

I don't think this problem will come up that often in any case.
It is not surprising. Many languages including Chinese, Polish and
Turkish although not orginally written in the Roman Alphabet, allow
for its use. It is considered universally recognizable.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. We need not require Phonetic accuracy from foreign words written
in the Roman Alphabet. Obviously, they are external to the Shavian
system.
___________________attached _______________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton
<philip.newton@g...> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:03:30 -0500, Joe <wurdbendur@g...> wrote:
> >
> > I would simply write them in Roman, since these expressions are
purely
> > French, even if they have been assimilated.
>
> On the other hand, you don't spell "tsunami" in Japanese kanji or
> "perestroika" in Cyrillic, do you? You transcribe them into the
> alphabet you use to write English.
>
> I'd say that's an argument for writing them in Shavian when that's
the
> alphabet you use to write English. Unless you consider Roman to be a
> "privileged" foreign alphabet -- in the sense that if a non-English
> word is originally written in the Roman alphabet, you'll write it in
> that alphabet, while if it's originally written in another writing
> system, you'll write it in Shavian.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>

> I agree with Joe.
> My expectation is that we will fall back on the Roman Alphabet,
> for foreign words, that do not have a standard English pronunciation.

Paul,

This is just an aside - completely unrelated to Shavian...

I've always noticed your use of commas. You use them in sentences like this:
"He thought it was bigger, than the other one.", or "there were many things,
that weren't right." I've never seen this kind of use before.

Are you consciously aware you do it? :)

Just commenting, not criticising!
Hugh B

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:56:40 -0000, paul vandenbrink
<pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
>
> Many languages including Chinese, Polish and
> Turkish although not orginally written in the Roman Alphabet, allow
> for its use. It is considered universally recognizable.

Hm, there is that, yes.

And it saves having to come up with transcription schemes for Chinese,
Japanese, Russian, Greek, ... when there are already standards (some
more standard, some more ad-hoc) for most of those languages into the
Roman alphabet.

And you have to learn those standards, anyway (e.g. how many English
speakers, or German or Albanian or Croatian speakers, for that matter)
would know how "q" or "x" is pronounced in Pinyin? It's similar for
how "bon" is pronounced in French: those who know will be able to make
a better-informed pronunciation, while those that don't will be able
to muddle through. And Shavian is kept phonemic for the English
language.

I see that this idea -- representing all non-English words in the
Roman alphabet -- has some merits.

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

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:12:01 -0000, Hugh Birkenhead
<mixsynth@...> wrote:
>
> > My expectation is that we will fall back on the Roman Alphabet,
> > for foreign words, that do not have a standard English pronunciation.
>
> I've always noticed your use of commas. You use them in sentences like this:
> "He thought it was bigger, than the other one.", or "there were many things,
> that weren't right." I've never seen this kind of use before.

Maybe Paul is a German in disguise? "There were many things, that
weren't right" would be perfectly correct German comma usage, and
there is also a pause in speaking at that point in German. (This also
means that "The students, who are bright, will be successful" and "The
students who are bright will be successful" cannot be distinguished
easily in German.)

:)

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