|
|
|
| 3013 |
From: j_brg <stetsdigs@h...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: Re: standardization
|
| |
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> Hi T
...
> The Shaw spelling is phonetic......
No, it isn't, Shavian is phonemic.
I think this basic misunderstanding causes all of those
comments, "...but I pronounce 'cot' and 'caught' the same! Shavian
doesn't work for me."
Why is this so hard to grasp? I pronounce 'paw', 'pore' and 'poor'
the same and also 'book' and 'buck' the same, but I understand that
there must be different spellings. When I come across phonemes which
have phonetically merged in my accent _they cause me no problem
whatsoever_.
The only thing I can sympathise with is people who can not easily
distinguish stress. This is a symptom of Webster's dictionary which
gave a pronunciation guide which ignored stress. Stress is natural in
english and Webster did a great disservice.
> Regards, Paul V.
Midthanks
Joseph
|
|
| 3014 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 6:05am
Subject: Re: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
paul vandenbrink wrote:
> It is likely to perpetuate mistakes, such a pronoucing the "t" in
> often.
Is it a mistake that I pronounce the "t" in often?
ð‘žð‘¦ð‘• ð‘¢ð‘«ð‘› ð‘ ð‘’ð‘¹ð‘• ð‘šð‘°
ð‘®ð‘¦ð‘‘ð‘©ð‘¯ "ð‘ªð‘“ð‘‘ð‘©ð‘¯" ð‘¦ð‘¯
·ð‘–ð‘±ð‘ð‘¾ð‘¯.
For those of you who haven't the benefit of Unicode support,
His wUd v kPs bI ritan "oftan" in GSEvWn.
The only time I don't say the "t" is when I'm being lazy in my speech.
--
·ð‘°ð‘”ð‘©ð‘¯ - Ethan
|
|
| 3015 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:36am
Subject: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
Hi John
It appears that we are in close enough agreement, so as to consider
your concern to be more in the style than in the substance.
I don't believe one dictionary will suffice for all English speakers,
although it might suffice for our small group. As for the extent of
the speech variations or ranges of accents, that the Shaw Alphabet
must encompass, I beleive that can be minimzed. Most educated or
literate speakers of English, have a local standard accent in their
repertoire.
Hopefully, they would make use of that local standard, when
communicating internationally.
Regards, Paul V.
_________attached________________________________
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, John Warner <john.warner@l...> wrote:
> In message <c52lsa+lqbt@e...>, paul vandenbrink
> <pvandenbrink@s...> writes
> >Hi John
> >
> >We are not talking about cultural imperialism in Shavian
> >script here. We are simply trying to give some non-native speaker a
> >hand-up. To write Shavian, you need to know how to say it in
English.
> >If you don't know the exact pronunciation in your accent group then
> >you look it up in the Dictionary and you will find a nice safe
> >neutral pronunciation.
> >
> >I would never suggest that anyone writing a note check all the
words
> >first in the dictionary.
> >That negates the main benefit of the Shavian Alphabet.
> >You just write it how it sounds.
> >Shaw is a shortcut to literacy.
> >
> >Regards, Paul V.
> >
> >P.S. AHD is a good dictionary, but no one said it is the be all and
> >end all.
> >P.P.S. Oh, and we could never be a regulating body. We have too
many
> >dissenting opinions.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I agree that a quick note should be written as anyone feels as long
as
> it is understandable to the person expected to read it. I used to
teach
> and getting people to record information that I could read (or
sometimes
> that they could read back to me) was always a fun thing to work on.
>
> I have to say that I feel that picking a single dictionary is
limiting -
> limiting to one language user group. There are I feel about four
broad
> categories of accent in the USA and an awful lot more in the UK -
my
> specific dialect / accent is a Yorkshire one with a close affinity
to
> the nearby Lancastrian dialects / accents and can thus be
distinguished
> clearly from accents / dialects within 20 km.
>
> I often think of the song - a Harry Connick Junior one, I think,
called
> "Let's call the whole thing off"
>
> With in OT the fabulous text:
> You say "either" and I say "either"
> You say "neither" I say "neither"
> "either" "either", "neither" "neither"
> Let's call the whole thing off
>
> Which unless you knew the song is nonsensical and in Shavian would
be
> explicit.
>
> I think that the best forms of cultural imperialism are those that
are
> not recognized as such. I had a wonderful experience of this
recently
> when at a club I belong to there was a discussion about retaining
grace
> and the loyal toast at the club dinners. One person, talking to me,
said
> "But the club has a history of being non-political and non-
religious so
> that is why I am for keeping the grace and loyal toast" - He didn't
see
> the illogical nature of his statement because to him having a
religious
> grace was not religious and having a loyal toast to the Queen was
not
> political.
>
> So the fact that I feel that to choose the American Heritage
Dictionary
> is a manifestation of cultural imperialism, as would any dictionary
> incidentally, is not addressed by denying it.
>
> I don't doubt that the American Heritage Dictionary is a good
> dictionary. It is not it that I query but the practice of picking
one
> dictionary that concerns me.
>
> Maybe I am very biased by my own experience but my experience is
that to
> open my mouth and utter words is to be political - at least to
position
> me in the world of English speakers. In the US, I either have a
quaint
> British accent or more often with people in shops a slightly
bizarre
> incomprehensible accent.
>
> Speakers of various forms of British English can understand several
> accents (and dialects) including generally T.V. American (I call it
that
> as not everyone speaks it in the US and I certainly learnt it from
the
> T.V.) I do not pretend to speak successfully with these accents but
I do
> understand them.
>
> So my vote is for no dictionary as a standard - it should be our
own
> pronunciations that count.
>
> John Warner
> --
> John Warner
>
> john.warner@l...
|
|
| 3016 |
From:  Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 1:01am
Subject: Re: American Heritage Dictionary - Question?
|
| |
Paul V wrote:
> Hi Hugh
> Looks Good. Almost complete too. You've covered all the Shaw Letters
> except "Ian".
It is complete. 'Ian' represents a pronunciation that isn't used anywhere in
the AHD - a long non-rhotic 'if' sound. IMHO it's a superfluous letter as
'eat'+'ado' or 'yea'+'ado' will do for all circumstances I can think of, and
very few people seem to utter a long 'if' sound in any words any more (try
to find 'ian' anywhere in the text of Androcles and you won't see it very
many times).
Of course people can treat 'ian' as if it were 'eat'+'ado' if they want, as
I've noticed, but personally I really would advise against that. It's not
the sound it's supposed to represent.
> Also, in the copy of AHD, I have it indicates the vowel
> sound of "father" and "got" are the same. Does that show up in your
> edition?
> Regards, Paul V.
No, it shows them as different sounds, as the pronunciation key I linked to
shows. I don't have a copy of the AHD - it's freely and easily available at
www.dictionary.com.
Hugh B
|
|
| 3017 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:48am
Subject: Decision by dictionary?
|
| |
Hi Ethan
I think you are just little behind the times to retain the
pronounciation of the 't' in often. My understanding is that most
people do not pronounce the "t" unless they are enunciating it.
The AHD has 2 acceptable pronunciations for often, but neither
includes the t sound.
Does anyone else still say the "t" in "often" in normal conversation?
Regards, Paul V.
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> paul vandenbrink wrote:
> > It is likely to perpetuate mistakes, such a pronoucing the "t" in
> > often.
>
> Is it a mistake that I pronounce the "t" in often?
> ð`žð`¦ð`• ð`¢ð`«ð`› ð` ð`'ð`¹ð`• ð`šð`°
ð`®ð`¦ð``ð`©ð`¯ "ð`ªð`"ð``ð`©ð`¯" ð`¦ð`¯ ·ð`–
ð`±ð`ð`¾ð`¯.
> For those of you who haven't the benefit of Unicode support,
> His wUd v kPs bI ritan "oftan" in GSEvWn.
>
> The only time I don't say the "t" is when I'm being lazy in my
speech.
> --
> ·ð`°ð`"ð`©ð`¯ - Ethan
|
|
| 3018 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:48am
Subject: Decision by dictionary?
|
| |
Hi Ethan
I think you are just little behind the times to retain the
pronounciation of the 't' in often. My understanding is that most
people do not pronounce the "t" unless they are enunciating it.
The AHD has 2 acceptable pronunciations for often, but neither
includes the t sound.
Does anyone else still say the "t" in "often" in normal conversation?
Regards, Paul V.
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> paul vandenbrink wrote:
> > It is likely to perpetuate mistakes, such a pronoucing the "t" in
> > often.
>
> Is it a mistake that I pronounce the "t" in often?
> ð`žð`¦ð`• ð`¢ð`«ð`› ð` ð`'ð`¹ð`• ð`šð`°
ð`®ð`¦ð``ð`©ð`¯ "ð`ªð`"ð``ð`©ð`¯" ð`¦ð`¯ ·ð`–
ð`±ð`ð`¾ð`¯.
> For those of you who haven't the benefit of Unicode support,
> His wUd v kPs bI ritan "oftan" in GSEvWn.
>
> The only time I don't say the "t" is when I'm being lazy in my
speech.
> --
> ·ð`°ð`"ð`©ð`¯ - Ethan
|
|
| 3019 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:58am
Subject: Re: American Heritage Dictionary - Question?
|
| |
Hi Hugh
Thanks for confirming the Ian was more useful such as it is, in Non-
Rhotic versionx of English. That confirms my original suspicions.
that it would probably be the sound (extended soft i) of "ea" at the
end of the word "idea". Perhaps you can thin of some other sample
words?
Regards, Paul V.
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@f...>
wrote:
> Paul V wrote:
> > Hi Hugh
> > Looks Good. Almost complete too. You've covered all the Shaw
Letters
> > except "Ian".
>
> It is complete. 'Ian' represents a pronunciation that isn't used
anywhere in
> the AHD - a long non-rhotic 'if' sound. IMHO it's a superfluous
letter as
> 'eat'+'ado' or 'yea'+'ado' will do for all circumstances I can
think of, and
> very few people seem to utter a long 'if' sound in any words any
more (try
> to find 'ian' anywhere in the text of Androcles and you won't see
it very
> many times).
>
> Of course people can treat 'ian' as if it were 'eat'+'ado' if they
want, as
> I've noticed, but personally I really would advise against that.
It's not
> the sound it's supposed to represent.
>
> > Also, in the copy of AHD, I have it indicates the vowel
> > sound of "father" and "got" are the same. Does that show up in
your
> > edition?
> > Regards, Paul V.
>
> No, it shows them as different sounds, as the pronunciation key I
linked to
> shows. I don't have a copy of the AHD - it's freely and easily
available at
> www.dictionary.com.
>
> Hugh B
|
|
| 3020 |
From: Scott Harrison <scott@m...>
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 2:14pm
Subject: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
On Apr 7, 2004, at 08:58, John Warner wrote:
> It would be interesting to see how the Shavian letters pan out in
> frequency.
>
> I have a copy of Finnish scrabble and it has an interesting
> distribution
> of letters.
>
> I will have to do an analysis with a portion of Androcles and the Lion.
>
>
I have a web page that details the frequency count for all the
documents I have transcribed (yes, transcribed and not transliterated).
This may be of some use assuming my transcriptions are acceptable.
:-)
http://www.mithrandir.com/Shavian/Shavian.html
--
Scott Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
|
|
| 3021 |
From: Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 1:23pm
Subject: Re: analysis of a small portion of Androcles and the Lion
|
| |
> It is amazing what a bored ill person (i.e. me) can do to avoid
> daytime
> television!
Wow, John, that's great and informative. As we transliterate more and
more, we find out what letters we use. Measure is a difficult word as
the zh sound is not very common. The letter z itself is more common in
American rather than British as we use it in words like realize,
harmonize ect, where, it is changed to realise and harmonise (?) in the
Queen's English.
At this point I would also like to wiggle in with my own opinion on
spelling standards. The AHD is a good choice, and I think that as
Shavian becomes more and more international and all, that an
interesting thing will happen. I can see people of differing accent
groups moving towards common spellings rather than away from them. I
may say ash one way, but someone from England or India or Australia,
might say it completely differently, but how ever you say it, it
represents the short /a/ sound. How many of us are familliar with the
great vowel shift that occured (correct me if I'm wrong) in the middle
ages, at the time we changed from middle english to modern english. Yet
upon reading middle english documents (the few that are written in
english) you can muddle through them somewhat easily. Of course,
devil's advocate against myself, there was also a shift between old and
middle english, which makes old english difficult to read.
My two-bits,
--Star
=====
Why is it always me and the burning death?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
|
|
| 3022 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 1:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: standardization
|
| |
Joseph wrote:
> No, it isn't, Shavian is phonemic.
>
> I think this basic misunderstanding causes all of those
> comments, "...but I pronounce 'cot' and 'caught' the same! Shavian
> doesn't work for me."
>
> Why is this so hard to grasp? I pronounce 'paw', 'pore' and 'poor'
> the same and also 'book' and 'buck' the same, but I understand that
> there must be different spellings. When I come across phonemes which
> have phonetically merged in my accent _they cause me no problem
> whatsoever_.
Agree wholeheartedly. Hence the fact that I use the rhotic vowel letters
even though my spoken dialect doesn't feature them at all. To me it's about
comprehensibility and I'll do all I can to get into the habit of spelling
for comprehensibility's sake. Sod my accent.
> The only thing I can sympathise with is people who can not easily
> distinguish stress. This is a symptom of Webster's dictionary which
> gave a pronunciation guide which ignored stress. Stress is natural in
> english and Webster did a great disservice.
Indeed. That's why I never mention its pronunciation guide examples -
they're pretty limited and make too many simplifications of phonemes.
> Midthanks
> Joseph
Hugh B
|
|
| 3023 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 1:35pm
Subject: Re: Decision by dictionary?
|
| |
Paul V wrote:
> Hi Ethan
>
> I think you are just little behind the times to retain the
> pronounciation of the 't' in often. My understanding is that most
> people do not pronounce the "t" unless they are enunciating it.
> The AHD has 2 acceptable pronunciations for often, but neither
> includes the t sound.
> Does anyone else still say the "t" in "often" in normal conversation?
I don't, but I'm aware that some dialects do. It's up to individuals to
write that way. Obviously if the AHD and other dictionaries don't include
it, it won't be apeparing in any standard international pronunciation.
Hugh B
|
|
| 3024 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 1:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: American Heritage Dictionary - Question?
|
| |
Paul V wrote:
> Hi Hugh
> Thanks for confirming the Ian was more useful such as it is, in Non-
> Rhotic versionx of English. That confirms my original suspicions.
> that it would probably be the sound (extended soft i) of "ea" at the
> end of the word "idea". Perhaps you can thin of some other sample
> words?
>
> Regards, Paul V.
"Really" - some British dialects, such as my own in fact, pronounce it as
[rWlI] - i.e. one clear long 'if' sound, not eat+ado.
"Vehement" - [vWmant] - as above
"Vehicle" - [vWkal] - ditto
Can't really think of any more at the moment...
I am quite happy to use eat+ado. There are so few instances of it to warrant
its use at all.
Hugh B
|
|
| 3025 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 3:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
John Warner wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I agree that a quick note should be written as anyone feels as long as
> it is understandable to the person expected to read it. I used to teach
> and getting people to record information that I could read (or sometimes
> that they could read back to me) was always a fun thing to work on.
>
> I have to say that I feel that picking a single dictionary is limiting -
> limiting to one language user group. There are I feel about four broad
> categories of accent in the USA and an awful lot more in the UK - my
> specific dialect / accent is a Yorkshire one with a close affinity to
> the nearby Lancastrian dialects / accents and can thus be distinguished
> clearly from accents / dialects within 20 km.
It's not about limiting to one accent group - it's just picking a standard
that represents the majority of speakers worldwide. The American Heritage
dictionary is an American Dictionary, sure, but its pronunciation guide is
by far the closest to British English speech of all of them.
One way or another, picking a British dictionary wouldn't wash, as there are
vastly more speakers of American English in the world than there are of
British English. And none of our dictionaries have pronunciation guides that
include rhotic vowels. The AHD shows rhoticisms AND it displays differences
between ah/on, ado/up, yadda yadda...
> I often think of the song - a Harry Connick Junior one, I think, called
> "Let's call the whole thing off"
>
> With in OT the fabulous text:
> You say "either" and I say "either"
> You say "neither" I say "neither"
> "either" "either", "neither" "neither"
> Let's call the whole thing off
>
> Which unless you knew the song is nonsensical and in Shavian would be
> explicit.
It's funny you mention this song - it's one of the cases that either (hehe)
pronunciation is acceptable, whether you're in left- or rightpondia, or
anywhere in the world I'm sure. The AHD lists both pronunciations as equally
acceptable.
> I think that the best forms of cultural imperialism are those that are
> not recognized as such. I had a wonderful experience of this recently
> when at a club I belong to there was a discussion about retaining grace
> and the loyal toast at the club dinners. One person, talking to me, said
> "But the club has a history of being non-political and non-religious so
> that is why I am for keeping the grace and loyal toast" - He didn't see
> the illogical nature of his statement because to him having a religious
> grace was not religious and having a loyal toast to the Queen was not
> political.
>
> So the fact that I feel that to choose the American Heritage Dictionary
> is a manifestation of cultural imperialism, as would any dictionary
> incidentally, is not addressed by denying it.
See it as cultural imperialism if you will. But just because it has the word
'American' in the name shouldn't dissuade you. Would you rather have the OED
as the standard, without any rhoticisms whatsoever, or the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, with its lack of stress and distinction between vowel phonemes,
as the standard? The AHD is a COMPROMISE.
And about the whole question of forming a standard - it's been debated so
many times in this group it's easier to just look back through previous
postings to see what it's all about. Selecting a standard dictionary isn't
about forcing everybody in the world regardless of dialect to write the same
at all times. It's merely for official, international (and even national)
purposes, if people wish to use it. But this standard MUST be the same.
> I don't doubt that the American Heritage Dictionary is a good
> dictionary. It is not it that I query but the practice of picking one
> dictionary that concerns me.
As mentioned above you have to pick one dictionary at the end of the day in
order to form a STANDARD. Otherwise there could be several 'standards'
floating the globe, all purporting to be the 'true standard', which will
help no one and keep Shavian a hobbyists' plaything.
> Maybe I am very biased by my own experience but my experience is that to
> open my mouth and utter words is to be political - at least to position
> me in the world of English speakers. In the US, I either have a quaint
> British accent or more often with people in shops a slightly bizarre
> incomprehensible accent.
>
> Speakers of various forms of British English can understand several
> accents (and dialects) including generally T.V. American (I call it that
> as not everyone speaks it in the US and I certainly learnt it from the
> T.V.) I do not pretend to speak successfully with these accents but I do
> understand them.
>
> So my vote is for no dictionary as a standard - it should be our own
> pronunciations that count.
You're welcome to your opinion. But if we're being realistic and not
idealistic, a standard simply MUST come into existence one way or another
for broader communication purposes. Otherwise, the current roman alphabet
system will always have the edge, because right now people don't have to
wade through accents to read books, websites, etc. - why introduce this
element of confusion into what is currently an internationally unified and
(almost) borderless system? No writing system in the modern world can
function that way, especially not English.
Hugh B
|
|
| 3026 |
From: j_brg <stetsdigs@h...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 6:00pm
Subject: Re: great vowel shift
|
| |
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
wrote:
...
> At this point I would also like to wiggle in with my own opinion on
> spelling standards. The AHD is a good choice, and I think that as
> Shavian becomes more and more international and all, that an
> interesting thing will happen. I can see people of differing accent
> groups moving towards common spellings rather than away from them. I
> may say ash one way, but someone from England or India or Australia,
> might say it completely differently, but how ever you say it, it
> represents the short /a/ sound. How many of us are familliar with
the
> great vowel shift that occured (correct me if I'm wrong) in the
middle
> ages, at the time we changed from middle english to modern english.
Yet
> upon reading middle english documents (the few that are written in
> english) you can muddle through them somewhat easily. Of course,
> devil's advocate against myself, there was also a shift between old
and
> middle english, which makes old english difficult to read.
That is a really good point and quite illustrative of how shavian
works! Even though the phonemes changed sound, we can still
understand the word as the phonemes themselves stayed the same.
Like might, right and light changed their vowel from 'ee' to 'eye'
but can yet be undertstood when heard spoken in the old way. I really
think with shavian we are looking for a spelling which covers this
whole idea.
> My two-bits,
> --Star
God be
Joseph
|
|
| 3027 |
From: tithhmi <tithhmi@y...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 6:44pm
Subject: Re: The Periodic Table
|
| |
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
wrote:
>
> > Dear Joe and others,
> >
> > On the following website there is a periodic table in Shavian
script.
> >
> > http://www.mithrandir.com/Shavian/Shavian.html
> >
> > John Warner
>
> But this still brings up the point of how to tell one element from
> another? They are two symbol groups, which works, but having just
> glanced at it, it might be easier to have sort of a "chemistry"
> shavian. After all, it would not be the first time that science has
> altered the alphabet to their own use... can you say mathematics?
sure,
> I knew you could.
>
> --Star
>
but, we can tell two elements apart from the symbol, which is the
purpose of said symbols. Can you tell the difference between, say,
He and Li? You can, because you know the difference. For further
diferentiation, this periodic table isn't a complete periodic table.
Two numbers are missing in each cell, which provide information about
the element, one of them being an atomic mass, and the other, i'm not
sure about.
>
> =====
> Why is it always me and the burning death?
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
|
|
| 3028 |
From: tithhmi <tithhmi@y...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 6:49pm
Subject: Re: The Periodic Table
|
| |
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
wrote:
> Perhaps there could be a slight alteration of the first letter,
such as
> a line or cross or something as part of the first letter to
say "this
> is the first part of a symbol" so that you could use single symbols
for
> common elements such as oxygen and carbon.
>
> --Star
>
or, we could follow the standard method of abbreviation in the ROman
orthography, placing a period at the end of each symbol. By
following this, we would have a standard symbol recognised by all
English speakers, and we would not need any new symbols, and IO would
strongly emphasize our lacking new symbols.
-tithhmi
> --- Joe <allegrox_2000@y...> wrote:
> > As I was sitting in chemistry class today, I looked up at the
> > periodic table and
> > wondered what it would look like in Shavian. I thought it would
be
> > rather interesting
> > to see all the elements marked with Shavian letters. That's when
I
> > decided I have to
> > make one.
>
>
> =====
> Why is it always me and the burning death?
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
|
|
| 3029 |
From: tithhmi <tithhmi@y...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 6:56pm
Subject: Re: Revised Shaw Abjad
|
| |
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
wrote:
> Further confusion on my part... this does not actually answer the
> question, IMHO. And to me it is just confusing shaw with
squiggles...
> and complicated lines... the reason I was drawn to shavian to begin
> with was it's simplicity, and the fact that, no matter how bad my
> handwriting gets sometimes, I can still tell letters apart.
>
> --Star
>
After seeing the new orthography for myself, I agree. The letters
seem to be a completely now orthography based on the shavian. I
think it may be best to take the shavian alphabet, keep the
consonants, and consider the vowels to be diacritics, and, there you
have it! a shavian abjad that looks exactly like its predecessor
alphabet! I would probably prefer to teach my kids an abjad like
that than yours, no offence, because all I have to do is say, 'okay,
the vowels are no longer letters.'
> --- Joe <allegrox_2000@y...> wrote:
> > --- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@f...>
> > wrote:
> > > What's this "Abjad"? What does it mean, and why does it not
appear
> > anywhere on
> > www.shawalphabet.com?
> >
> >
> > An abjad is like an alphabet, but it doesn't explicitly indicate
> > vowels with their own
> > letters. They may use place holders or diacritics, but not
separate
> > vowel letters.
> >
> > Of course, some abjads are also written as alphabets by adding
extra
> > letters.
> >
> > Some good examples of abjads are Hebrew and Arabic. Tolkien's
> > tengwar and sarati
> > (elvish scripts) are, as well.
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> Why is it always me and the burning death?
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
|
|
| 3030 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:09pm
Subject: Dictionary choice
|
| |
Hi Hugh
I just saw your response (attached below) where you make an
impassioned and reasoned plea for some kind of a standard English
pronunciation for writing Shaw. As you can see from my responses
below I am in the middle on this question, and do not see the
necessity at this time for anything more than a loose standard that
preserves and encourages consistency within each particular accent
group.
I believe that in the long run a standard will develop that will be
accepted as the International Standard,and that people will use it
for writing books, and international correspondence. Much in the way
Latin became a vehicle for all serious writing in the Romance
Countries during the middle ages. But I don't believe we can force a
standard on people learning the Shaw Alphabet, It has to develop.
If people don't know the words pronunciation, they should use the
AHD Dictionary. Eventually, I hope that a Shaw Standard Dictionary
will be accumulated from Shaw writings. In the meantime, the AHD is
quite an effective stopgap.
And as I said before about the ranges of accents that the Shaw
Alphabet must encompass, I believe that we should all try and
minimze regional variations.
Most educated or literate speakers of English, have a local standard
accent in their repertoire and so can choose to use the more
international acceptable pronunciation.
Regards, Paul V.
________________________attached ___________________________________
According to Hugh.
You're welcome to your opinion. But if we're being realistic and not
idealistic, a standard simply MUST come into existence one way or
another
for broader communication purposes. Otherwise, the current roman
alphabet
system will always have the edge, because right now people don't
have to
wade through accents to read books, websites, etc. - why introduce
this
element of confusion into what is currently an internationally
unified and
(almost) borderless system? No writing system in the modern world can
function that way, especially not English.
_____________________________________________________________________
__
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> Hi John
> It appears that we are in close enough agreement, so as to
consider
> your concern to be more in the style than in the substance.
> I don't believe one dictionary will suffice for all English
speakers,
> although it might suffice for our small group. As for the extent
of
> the speech variations or ranges of accents, that the Shaw Alphabet
> must encompass, I beleive that can be minimzed. Most educated or
> literate speakers of English, have a local standard accent in
their
> repertoire.
> Hopefully, they would make use of that local standard, when
> communicating internationally.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> _________attached________________________________
>
> --- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, John Warner <john.warner@l...>
wrote:
> > In message <c52lsa+lqbt@e...>, paul vandenbrink
> > <pvandenbrink@s...> writes
> > >Hi John
> > >
> > >We are not talking about cultural imperialism in Shavian
> > >script here. We are simply trying to give some non-native
speaker a
> > >hand-up. To write Shavian, you need to know how to say it in
> English.
> > >If you don't know the exact pronunciation in your accent group
then
> > >you look it up in the Dictionary and you will find a nice safe
> > >neutral pronunciation.
> > >
> > >I would never suggest that anyone writing a note check all the
> words
> > >first in the dictionary.
> > >That negates the main benefit of the Shavian Alphabet.
> > >You just write it how it sounds.
> > >Shaw is a shortcut to literacy.
> > >
> > >Regards, Paul V.
> > >
> > >P.S. AHD is a good dictionary, but no one said it is the be all
and
> > >end all.
> > >P.P.S. Oh, and we could never be a regulating body. We have too
> many
> > >dissenting opinions.
|
|
| 3031 |
From: tithhmi <tithhmi@y...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Revised Shaw Abjad
|
| |
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> Hi Star & Joe
>
> Thanks Star for your vote of confidence. It is one of my my
favorite
> activities to participate in this roundtable discussion. Nice to
feel
> welcome.
>
> Let me try to answer your concern about the New Shaw Abjad.
>
> An Abjad is quite similar to an Alphabet in function, but has quite
> different strengths and weaknesses. You are correct that an Abjad
> does not provide much information about the pronunciation of the
> Vowel sounds. It is not as exact as an Alphabet in this regard,
which
> is a weakness, but the Shaw Abjad has some compensating strengths.
>
> For example, It indicates the Exact vowel sounds for the crucial
> vowel sounds in a word. It has letters for all the vowel sounds.
> It just doesn't use them for the inconsequential vowel sounds in a
> word. It uses a Vowel Variable insted. For example, in an Abjad a
> Schwa vowel sound is always represented by single dot (vowel marker)
> unless it is a stand-alone vowel syllable, when it is represented
by
> the letter Adu. (i.e. alone, away, initi-a-tive)
>
> And for the noncrucial vowel sounds, these Vowel markers also
> indicate whether the vowel ends a word or syllable, or is embedded
in
> the middle of the syllable.
> Other types of vowels are indicated by Vowel letter, not Vowel
> markers.
> So to get a sense of the rythmn of the word, vowel markers actually
> give just as much or more information on how to pronounce the
overall
> word, by showing us the syllable boundaries. Let me know if you
need
> some examples to see how this works?
>
> And in reality, our children learn the language first, and then
learn
> to read by recognizing the written form of words in process more
like
> puzzle solving, than actual sounding out all the letters. Sad to
say,
> the T.O. and our Education system have not encouraged the phonetic
> approach to reading. It requires too much work for the teacher.
> If only the Shaw Alphabet were already in use, they could attempt
it.
>
> For the New Revised Shaw Abjad, I do provide a system to annotate
the
> vowel markers of Newly coined words with an exact vowel
> pronunciation. There are 9 of these Mazor signs, which are written
> right under the Vowel Variable.
> These Mazor signs could be used in Children's books, dictionaries
and
> Newspapers or any other book where an exact pronunciation is
required.
>
> Conceivably, for normal writing this annotation could be toggled on
> and off inside your word processor. It's easy to let the computer
do
> the Mazor Annotation.
>
How would this work, as I have not seen any word processors with
Mazor toggling ability lately.
another hint: most of the abjads I've studied use a silent consonant
to indicate what we alphabetics consider to be a lone vowel.
> But you are right. Because of the initial complexity of system of
> Vowel markers, it is more suited to adults. Children should
probably
> learn the original Shavian Alphabet in their local accent, and then
> graduate to the Shaw Abjad, with one standard spelling for
everybody.
>
> The main advantage of Abjad, besides the words being more concise,
is
> that some sometimes indeterminant English sounds, (i.e. a/u, e/i,
> ei/ai) would be represented by a single Vowel marker, producing one
> unified Shaw spelling. Hopefully, recognition of words would be
> enhanced, when these less precisely pronounced sounds would be
> devalued right in the writing system.
>
> Children learning to read Hebrew, usually use dots to indicate
vowels
> until the fifth grade. And there after most of them get by without
> explicit vowel markers except at the beginning and end of the word.
> Especially the ones with strong parental input and reinforcement.
>
> So there are number of possible solutions to your concerns.
>
> It would be nice if someone actually did a study on the benefits of
> learning English Phonetically using the Shaw Alphabet.
> I believe would find learning to read much less tedious and
> frustrating.
>
> Kids don't really have a choice, they can't effectively rebel or go
> on strike, because of poor teaching strategies.
>
> Anyway I probably overdid it.
> Talk later.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
>
> > --- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
> <celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
> > > I think we may be approaching this
> > > like adults, who already know how to read and speak english. If
I
> run into the word "Holmium" (the name of a chemical element) and
I've
> never
> > > seen it before. How do I know what is supposed to go into the
> place of
> > > the vowel place holders?
>
> Joe wrote:
> > There are a lot of writing systems that represent words without
> clearly indicating
> > pronunciation. Usually, different or modified spelling is used
for
> teaching children.
> > In Hebrew, short vowels are not usually written except in
> children's books and certain
> > texts of special significance. >
> >
|
|
| 3032 |
From: tithhmi <tithhmi@y...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:11pm
Subject: Re: Excuse our Quantification of Number of American speakers vs. British Speakers
|
| |
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Paul Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
wrote:
> Hi Joseph
>
> I think Carl in his enthusiasm to spread the word on the benefits
the Shaw
> Alphabet has jumped in with a naive attempt to correct the Achilles
Heel of
> the Shavian Alphabet.
> The problem with Shaw as an Alphabet for English, is that first,
English is
> nowadays becoming the pre-eminent World language. But Secondly,
that
> English is spoken very differently, sometimes so differently that
it is not
> understandable.
> I can correspond exactly with a Newfoundlander or Cockney, but
still be at
> a total loss over the phone.
> Carl, like most American's, has a tendency to want to go with the
majority.
> If you have to make a decision, why not make the most people happy.
>
> Fortunately, like yourself, I believe there is a better solution to
this
> problem.
> Why not make computers do all the work, eh.
> I am not sure what that solution will be, but I agree with you that
you
> will not convince the majority of the world to use a Phonetic
Alphabet
> according to some other countries standard of pronunciation. Just
not a go.
>
> Still I think there is place in Shavian for dictionaries and a
strategy of
> writing English words in Shaw that minimizes variation. At least
enough so
> that the computers can get a handle on it anyway, eh.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> P.S. We used to have a situation in Quebec where the English
business
> community required French speaker's to speak English if they wanted
a job.
> Canada is still suffering over that one.
>
>
> > You are Right. I responded to Ethan on this. I agree that there
> should be a standard of spelling for each English-speaking Nation.
> >
>
> At 09:14 AM 4/5/04, you wrote:
> >Hello
> >
> >Do you not think this argument is spurious? How far can one go in
> >totting up numbers and dividing them into "national dialects"? Will
> >it ever produce anything either usable or desirable?
> >
> >First you ignore that in most countries there is no standard over
all
> >the population, and that so-called "national dictionaries" cover
only
> >a blessed and chosen few. The rest of us must make do with the
> >dubious title "non-standard".
> >
> >If you divide people into nations and then proclaim upon each a
> >national spelling for shavian then I dare say that many will tell
you
> >to sit on it.
> >
> >Next we must understand that shavian is meant to facilitate
> >communication in English and manifold spellings will not do this.
At
> >the moment there is very little difference between English
spelling.
> >To have any success we need to make sure that gap shrinks and not
> >grow.
> >
> >An acceptable spelling for all English speakers must be found, with
> >differences _only_ where there is a real phonemic difference in
> >pronunciation. Also it must be made clear to a learner who comes
> >across an unfamiliar word (that is, spelt how they would not say
it)
> >that all English speakers have made a few concessions to reach a
> >standard. Otherwise, like above, people will think you are trying
to
> >make them speak British/American/Australian/Indian and tell you to
go
> >play in the road.
> >
> >I hate to sound like I'm coining a bloody motto, but here is the
crux
> >of my point: without unity there is no point, and without
concession
> >there can be no agreement.
> >
> >Thanks for listening
> >Joseph
I think that this probelm could be avoided by realizing that Shavian
is not, never was, and never will be a phonetic alphabet. It is
phonemic. That means that we have not to represent every sound with
a different symbol, but we can represent those sounds that mean the
same with one symbol (is that clear enough, or do you need
examples?). So, when we go to standardize the spelling, we look at
the various dialects in English, but, we recognize that can is always
can, no matter how it differs in prononciation due to accent or
assimilation. Shavian has not to represent all these differences,
nor can it. We have not sufficient characters for every phone in
every dialect in ENglish. Just trying to write American English, I'm
lost already with ear, because it's not pronounce y-u, it's pronounce
i:r. No shavian symbol represents that. But, I can recognize that
i:r is a phoneme of I:u, and use the latter. When we standardize,
then, we can approach the job with the idea that any diferences in
pronunciation has the same phoneme, and so we only need one standard
spelling for everything. I think that the Northern English dialect,
which is the pronunciation in the standard dictionary of the English
language, the Oxford English Dictionary, is good enough.
|
|
| 3033 |
From: carl easton <shavintel16@y...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Excuse our Quantification of Number of American speakers vs. British Speakers
|
| |
|
Hi Paul,
To me Shavian is new and wonderful. I don't mind your
Revised Shavian. It's just I'm having trouble understanding its
mechanics. The Shaw alphabet that I understand is the first
one. I'm by no means a traditional person. It's just I can
understand it better than Quikscript and Revised Shaw. And like
one of my first posts to this group the first Shavian has a certain
aesthetic beauty to it that best represents English. I guess my
way of regulating spelling for formal or International uses of Shaw - I
would look to find a dictionary compatible with Shavian. As a way to
come to agreement. And I wouldn't like to fiddle with the
letters. (sorry guys I'm just a regular Shavian kind of guy).
Anyways more to say in the future,
best of regards,
Carl paul vandenbrink wrote: Hi Carl
Sorry if I offended you. Your input is welcome. Our group sad to say,
is composed of too many people (myself included) who want to fiddle
with the Shavian Alphabet and not enough who simply wish to enjoy an
incrediably well thought out tool.
Nothing wrong with Democracy. I am a Democrat myself. And as a Shaw
Enthusiast, yourself, would your Conscience allow you to participate
in the development of guidelines (not a standard) that will minimize
the number of variant spellings to a managable number.
I am less worried about relatively minor accent differences than the
fact that say for example an American would not what sound is
represented by "Err" and what sound is represented by "Array" and his
spelling suffers. Same problem with "On" and "Ah".
I notice the American Heritage Dictionary for Learners represents
both these
sounds (On, Ah) with same I.P.A. letter.
Best of Regards,
Paul V.
_______________________attached__________________
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, carl easton wrote:
> Hi Paul and Folks,
>
> I sorry for my democratic ways. Trouble is I admire the Shavian
Alphabet and want to see it in common use. Plus, I also have the
talent of understanding most if not all accents and dialects. Due to
my Universal Understanding of all spoken English I was shocked by the
need to select a common accent and dialect for Shavian spelling.
However, I will politely allow Shaw Enthusiasts to do with Shavian as
their Conscience dictates.
>
> best of regards,
>
> Carl
>
> Paul Vandenbrink wrote:
> Hi Joseph
>
> I think Carl in his enthusiasm to spread the word on the benefits
the Shaw
> Alphabet has jumped in with a naive attempt to correct the Achilles
Heel of
> the Shavian Alphabet.
> The problem with Shaw as an Alphabet for English, is that first,
English is
> nowadays becoming the pre-eminent World language. But Secondly,
that
> English is spoken very differently, sometimes so differently that
it is not
> understandable.
> I can correspond exactly with a Newfoundlander or Cockney, but
still be at
> a total loss over the phone.
> Carl, like most American's, has a tendency to want to go with the
majority.
> If you have to make a decision, why not make the most people happy.
>
> Fortunately, like yourself, I believe there is a better solution to
this
> problem.
> Why not make computers do all the work, eh.
> I am not sure what that solution will be, but I agree with you that
you
> will not convince the majority of the world to
use a Phonetic
Alphabet
> according to some other countries standard of pronunciation. Just
not a go.
>
> Still I think there is place in Shavian for dictionaries and a
strategy of
> writing English words in Shaw that minimizes variation. At least
enough so
> that the computers can get a handle on it anyway, eh.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> P.S. We used to have a situation in Quebec where the English
business
> community required French speaker's to speak English if they wanted
a job.
> Canada is still suffering over that one.
>
>
> > You are Right. I responded to Ethan on this. I agree that there
> should be a standard of spelling for each English-speaking Nation.
> >
>
> At 09:14 AM 4/5/04, you wrote:
> >Hello
> >
> >Do you not think this argument is spurious? How far can one go in
> >totting up
numbers and dividing them into "national dialects"? Will
> >it ever produce anything either usable or desirable?
> >
> >First you ignore that in most countries there is no standard over
all
> >the population, and that so-called "national dictionaries" cover
only
> >a blessed and chosen few. The rest of us must make do with the
> >dubious title "non-standard".
> >
> >If you divide people into nations and then proclaim upon each a
> >national spelling for shavian then I dare say that many will tell
you
> >to sit on it.
> >
> >Next we must understand that shavian is meant to facilitate
> >communication in English and manifold spellings will not do this.
At
> >the moment there is very little difference between English
spelling.
> >To have any success we need to make sure that gap shrinks and not
> >grow.
> >
>
>An acceptable spelling for all English speakers must be found, with
> >differences _only_ where there is a real phonemic difference in
> >pronunciation. Also it must be made clear to a learner who comes
> >across an unfamiliar word (that is, spelt how they would not say
it)
> >that all English speakers have made a few concessions to reach a
> >standard. Otherwise, like above, people will think you are trying
to
> >make them speak British/American/Australian/Indian and tell you to
go
> >play in the road.
> >
> >I hate to sound like I'm coining a bloody motto, but here is the
crux
> >of my point: without unity there is no point, and without
concession
> >there can be no agreement.
> >
> >Thanks for listening
> >Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups
Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> shavian-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
|
|
| 3034 |
From: tithhmi <tithhmi@y...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:41pm
Subject: Re: standardization
|
| |
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "j_brg" <stetsdigs@h...> wrote:
> --- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
> <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> > Hi T
> ...
> > The Shaw spelling is phonetic......
>
> No, it isn't, Shavian is phonemic.
>
> I think this basic misunderstanding causes all of those
> comments, "...but I pronounce 'cot' and 'caught' the same! Shavian
> doesn't work for me."
>
> Why is this so hard to grasp? I pronounce 'paw', 'pore' and 'poor'
> the same and also 'book' and 'buck' the same, but I understand that
> there must be different spellings. When I come across phonemes
which
> have phonetically merged in my accent _they cause me no problem
> whatsoever_.
>
> The only thing I can sympathise with is people who can not easily
> distinguish stress. This is a symptom of Webster's dictionary which
> gave a pronunciation guide which ignored stress. Stress is natural
in
> english and Webster did a great disservice.
>
just like the Shavian alphabet indicates stress with the little green
dots?
->what dots?
my point exactly.
I ask this question because I have a hope to, in years to come,
establish a press that would print books entirely in shavian (and
quikscript?), and I defintely need to see some standards develope (or
develope them myself) before I can start work.
if anyone can tell me anything besides phonemic v. phonetic (which I
already know, from studying linguistics 'for the kicks',) it would be
greatly appreciated.
and for those of you who can't grasp the phoneme idea,
the phonetic alphabet represents phones. Phones are the basic sounds
in a language. Sometimes, these phones varry in the use, so a basic
collection of phones become equivalent, and are understood as the
same phone. These phones are known as phonemes. A phoneme is a
phone understood.
> > Regards, Paul V.
>
> Midthanks
> Joseph
|
|
| 3035 |
From: carl easton <shavintel16@y...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:47pm
Subject: Re: Decision by dictionary?
|
| |
|
Hi Paul,
I'm guilty of saying the "t" in often when I'm not paying attention to what I'm saying.
cheers,
Carl paul vandenbrink wrote: Hi Ethan
I think you are just little behind the times to retain the
pronounciation of the 't' in often. My understanding is that most
people do not pronounce the "t" unless they are enunciating it.
The AHD has 2 acceptable pronunciations for often, but neither
includes the t sound.
Does anyone else still say the "t" in "often" in normal conversation?
Regards, Paul V.
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Ethan wrote:
> paul vandenbrink wrote:
> > It is likely to perpetuate mistakes, such a pronoucing the "t" in
> > often.
>
> Is it a mistake that I pronounce the "t" in often?
> ð`žð`¦ð`• ð`¢ð`«ð`› ð` ð`'ð`¹ð`• ð`šð`°
ð`®ð`¦ð``ð`©ð`¯ "ð`ªð`"ð``ð`©ð`¯" ð`¦ð`¯ ·ð`–
ð`±ð`ð`¾ð`¯.
> For those of you who haven't the benefit of Unicode
support,
> His wUd v kPs bI ritan "oftan" in GSEvWn.
>
> The only time I don't say the "t" is when I'm being lazy in my
speech.
> --
> ·ð`°ð`"ð`©ð`¯ - Ethan
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
|
|
| 3036 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Excuse our Quantification of Number of American speakers vs. British Speakers
|
| |
tithhmi wrote:
> I think that this probelm could be avoided by realizing that Shavian
> is not, never was, and never will be a phonetic alphabet. It is
> phonemic. That means that we have not to represent every sound with
> a different symbol, but we can represent those sounds that mean the
> same with one symbol (is that clear enough, or do you need
> examples?). So, when we go to standardize the spelling, we look at
> the various dialects in English, but, we recognize that can is always
> can, no matter how it differs in prononciation due to accent or
> assimilation. Shavian has not to represent all these differences,
> nor can it. We have not sufficient characters for every phone in
> every dialect in ENglish.
The fact that Shavian is phonemic and not phonetic must be recognised. It's
fundamental. I think if we clear this up now, we save any future
misunderstandings, and never have to discuss it again in this group. And
it'll be a good thing if we never again have to.
> Just trying to write American English, I'm
> lost already with ear, because it's not pronounce y-u, it's pronounce
> i:r. No shavian symbol represents that. But, I can recognize that
> i:r is a phoneme of I:u, and use the latter.
Hear hear. Shavian characters weren't designed for our individual dialects -
we must recognise that there are millions upon millions of other speakers it
is supposed to work for too.
> When we standardize,
> then, we can approach the job with the idea that any diferences in
> pronunciation has the same phoneme, and so we only need one standard
> spelling for everything. I think that the Northern English dialect,
> which is the pronunciation in the standard dictionary of the English
> language, the Oxford English Dictionary, is good enough.
But the OED doesn't include rhoticisms (err, array, air, are, or, ear).
Also, I'm not sure that what the OED uses for pronunciation guides is really
Northern English - surely it spells words like "grass", "can't" etc. as
[grys], [kynt], and words like "but", "stuff" as [but], [stuf]? That isn't
Northern English I don't think, it's Received Pronunciation. (I might be
wrong on all of this, I haven't got an OED to hand, and they require you to
pay to use their online service, which I don't feel like doing just to check
a couple of words!)
Hugh B
|
|
| 3037 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 9:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: standardization
|
| |
tithhmi wrote:
> just like the Shavian alphabet indicates stress with the little green
> dots?
> ->what dots?
> my point exactly.
Look back through the archive about this one. Stress is only implied in
Shavian - but it is marked; this is why there is a difference between 'ado'
and 'up'. You can tell 98% of the time where stress ISN'T by the use of
'ado'. The remaining vowel sounds that aren't 'ado' (or 'eat' at ends of
most words) are going to have stress.
> I ask this question because I have a hope to, in years to come,
> establish a press that would print books entirely in shavian (and
> quikscript?), and I defintely need to see some standards develope (or
> develope them myself) before I can start work.
That would be good. I'd like to help you on that.
Let's keep USING the alphabet then, because as Paul V said, standards more
often DEVELOP than are imposed. Try out the forums at www.shavian.org (I'm
just trying to get back into them myself, and make them a little more
user-friendly, but right now they function which is good enough for jazz).
Hugh B
|
|
| 3038 |
From: j_brg <stetsdigs@h...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 9:29pm
Subject: Re: standardization
|
| |
...
> > The only thing I can sympathise with is people who can not easily
> > distinguish stress. This is a symptom of Webster's dictionary
which
> > gave a pronunciation guide which ignored stress. Stress is
natural
> in
> > english and Webster did a great disservice.
> >
>
> just like the Shavian alphabet indicates stress with the little
green
> dots?
> ->what dots?
> my point exactly.
>
Is your question as to how shavian represents the stress in english?
It does so not with any markers or dots, but merely by reflecting the
actual sound changes that take place within an unstressed syllable.
When a vowel is unstressed it 'reduces' to one of two sounds: either
the schwa sound or the short 'i'.
This is to what my comment was referring. Webster had published in
his dictionary a pronunciation guide that gave each syllable equal
weight. Children who were taught how to pronounce from this
dictionary learnt a 'levelled' version of english with little stress.
Even today in the USA many people yet speak with levelled stress, and
this is mainly down to Webster (it must be true coz Bragg said so).
Thanks
Joseph
|
|
| 3039 |
From: j_brg <stetsdigs@h...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 9:45pm
Subject: Re: standardization
|
| |
> Let's keep USING the alphabet then, because as Paul V said,
standards more
> often DEVELOP than are imposed. Try out the forums at
www.shavian.org (I'm
> just trying to get back into them myself, and make them a little
more
> user-friendly, but right now they function which is good enough for
jazz).
They don't seem to be functioning right now, the message:
Can't open file
(/your/path/to/hugh/ikonboard/Database/active_sessions/active_sessions
.db) for reading. Permission denied
Comes up.
> Hugh B
Joseph
|
|
| 3040 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 1:50am
Subject: Re: Re: standardization
|
| |
Joseph wrote:
> They don't seem to be functioning right now, the message:
>
> Can't open file
> (/your/path/to/hugh/ikonboard/Database/active_sessions/active_sessions
> .db) for reading. Permission denied
>
> Comes up.
Umm... weird. Doesn't happen from here.
Can anyone else test this please?
Hugh B
|
|
| 3041 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 4:02am
Subject: Re: Re: standardization
|
| |
Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
> Joseph wrote:
>
>
>>They don't seem to be functioning right now, the message:
>>
>>Can't open file
>>(/your/path/to/hugh/ikonboard/Database/active_sessions/active_sessions
>>.db) for reading. Permission denied
>>
>>Comes up.
>
>
> Umm... weird. Doesn't happen from here.
>
> Can anyone else test this please?
>
> Hugh B
Sure thing. Here's what I got:
***Begin Error Message***
Ikonboard CGI Error Ikonboard has exited with the following error:
Can't open file
(/your/path/to/hugh/ikonboard/Database/active_sessions/active_sessions.db)
for reading. Permission denied
This error was reported at: Sources/iDatabase/Driver/DBM.pm line 246.
Please note that your 'real' paths have been removed to protect your
information.
***End Error Message***
Hugh, try reloading the page. It may be you're getting a working page
out of your cache, rather than the current page, which appears to have a
problem.
--
·ð‘°ð‘”ð‘©ð‘¯ - Ethan
|
|
| 3042 |
From: Joe <allegrox_2000@y...>
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 8:31am
Subject: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@f...> wrote:
[snip]
> It's not about limiting to one accent group - it's just picking a standard
> that represents the majority of speakers worldwide. The American Heritage
> dictionary is an American Dictionary, sure, but its pronunciation guide is
> by far the closest to British English speech of all of them.
[snip]
I just want to clarify something: I don't think it's about representing the majority or
anybody else. It's about choosing the accent that is most comprehensible. It doesn't
have to be anybody's accent, as long as the majority (or preferably everybody) can
understand it.
Widely understandable, not widely representative.
Regards,
Joe
|
|
|
|
Yahoo! Sponsored Links
|
Acclaimed Writing Classes:
NYC's renowned Gotham Writers' Workshop offers classes online and in
NYC in writing fiction, screenplays, memoir, poetry, nonfiction, and
more. Selected "Best of the Web" by Forbes.
www.writingclasses.com
Brainco Writing School:
Getting a career in the advertising industry? Brainco offers programs
in art direction, branding, account management, interactive writing and
other subject areas. Located in Minneapolis, MN.
www.brainco.org
Story Development Software:
Wide selection of products for novelists and screenwriters. Download demos. Free bonuses with any order.
storymind.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
= Owner
= Moderator
= Online