Hi Steve I am very pragmatic in my choice of Pitman's I.T.A. It maps nicely onto both the Roman Alphabet and the Shavian Alphabet, yet makes a clear distinction between a letter from Roman and one of its extended set of letters. It is easy to teach. The lack of one letter, albeit a very useful letter, does not change my opinion that it is close to what I want.
When I was a programmer, i had to program in whatever language had the facilities and interfaces I needed. But when it came to writing out the algorithim, I always used Pascal. When it comes to encoding a spoken utterance into letters, I use a the American subset of Shavian. Regards, Paul V. --- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. > 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 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers. At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/S.QlOD/3MnJAA/Zx0JAA/mx3olB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
