|
dshep,
I presume that you are talking about ENgliS notation:
Using @ for the schwa was in lieu of not thinking of anything better; q and
Q look like a pretty good choice for ash and alms. But if you use 'v' for
the vowel of 'book' and V for the vowel of 'boot', what do you use for v
itself? Are you aware that some dictionaries have skipped the schwa
altogether and simply use the 'u' for both functions?
q for ash,
Q for the SAMPA Q sound or short o sound in English speech.
The general American pronunciation /Ã/ would be assigned to c
in a unigraphic ASCII system.
There is little reason not to use à since it is on the international keyboard and much less disruptive than c.
SAMPA is not made to be looked at all, I don't think, not when it uses
brackets and suchlike to indicate letters â but then I don't think it was
intended to be visual.
SAMPA was a way to represent the IPA in ASCII.
I am not sure why { was chosen for Ã, the ash sound.
How do you pronounce "cost?". I'm afraid I use an older pronunciation, once
standard I believe, or at least widely heard, in fact still heard today,
that has cost as "cawst", the 'dawg' vowel that modern dictionary notations
prefer to ignore. But that isn't what you meant, I don't think.
Rather, the short o-sound of box, I suspect. Well, no you don't on second
look, box/ox is 'ah' for you. Then you must mean 'o' as any low-back vowel.
I pronounce cost as kOst. kawst
In Spanglish the o is said to be ambiguous so anything between caast and caust will be accepted.
I too would prefer to keep owl and oil as unobscure.
There is a reason why people in general do not take kindly to these
alternative spelling systems; they all look like some new national alphabet
of a central Asian country that has just abandoned Arabic or Cyrillic for
Roman.
This is the first time I have heard this explanation.
I think the reaction to new spelling is that it is just uneducated spelling.
Uneducated spelling is phonemic in the sense that sounds are spelled by analogy to similar spellings in rhyming words.
I personally liked Pitman's Augmented Roman very much. Given the choice
between strange letter-choices, diacritics, or digraphs, I think the latter
to be preferable for English. The Danes manage perfectly well with à and Ã.
I've always wondered if, in his heart of hearts, he had hoped that his
alphabet would be more than just an Initial Training Alphabet.
Oh by the way, I believe I have been banished from ever again trying the
patience of the tender souls at shavian.org. I tried twice this evening to
post a message without success. Oh well.
Did you use Web mail?
You can always post on the old Shavian site.
regards,
dshep
Fun is a better motivator than idealism.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
ADVERTISEMENT
![click here]() |
|
![]() |
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
