Paul,
 
Please make the note shorter if you do copy it.
The moderator probably thinks that this discussion is off topic.
 
Phonemic Alphabets:
 
Roman based       Historical         Non Roman
--------------------       -------------         -----------------
IPA                                            Shavian
Webster                                     Tengwar
i/t/a                       PMF - PMF uses Shavian shapes but calls them streamlined Roman.
New Spelling
Sound Spel [fonetic]
Truespel [marks stress with dbl letters]
Spanglish [there are a 100 others]
 
 
PV:  It all depends on you point of view.

If you want a phonetic Alphabet based on the Roman Alphabet
you should used Pitman's I.T.A.
If you want a replacement Phonetic Alphabet for English, that is
completely divorced from the Traditional Orthography
then you use the Shavian Alphabet.

Which one do you want.
There are more options than that and it does depend on what you want.
If you want something that can be rapidly written, then Shavian is a good choice.
If you want something that can be rapidly typed or email compatible, then you probably want something else.
 
Both IPA and Shavian contain special characters that are generally not supported with Web fonts.  IPA can be written in Unicode.  Shavian will eventually have this option.
 
As you mentioned earlier, the i/t/a lacks a unique schwa symbol.
There are other similar schemes that do so why wouldn't you consider
these instead of the i/t/a?
 
--Steve
 
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you want to understand the problem that people have with
> Shavian, take a look at Tengwar....an equally opaque phonemic
> representation of English.
> The problem is that there is little connection between a string of tengwar
> symbols
> and a string of Roman symbols.  One has to learn the symbol-sound
> correpondences
> and then identify the pronunciation with ones ear vocabulary. 

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here


Yahoo! Groups Links

Reply via email to