Hi Steve
The Oxford English Dictionary, that I have, uses Standard or Received Pronunciation, which is definately, non-Rhotic. The American Heritage Dictionary, provides a nice clear Rhotic pronunciation, but it tends to be full of Americanisms. Can you suggest another Generally Available British Dictionary? Regards, Paul V. P.S. Until quite recently Oxford RP pronunciation was the High status pronunciation in England. Dictionaries by definition are a little bit behind the Times. __________________________attached__________________ --- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Richard, > > There was an issue as to what pronunciation should be represented in Shavian. > I think it has been discussed and resolved. > > The speech represented is what we find in Androcles and the Lion dual reader. > > > (insert a page graphic here) > > This appears to be a rhotic version of UK English. I presume that this is > also the same dialect that is represented in the OED. > > --Steve > > > > Why did you post it as a Word file? There were no special characters in the > message. (I have reposted it as a text file below) > > --Steve > > RC: There is much discussion about which English is the “correct” English. > Many object to the English pronunciation that is not their own. But those who > advocate allowing the language to flow in any direction it chooses in the name > of development, change and picturesqueness, should be reminded that in 1635 > that great intellectual, Le Cardinal de Richelieu, formed l’Académie Française > to standardize French. > > SB: I applaud the work of the French academy. There is an article on recent > work at http://www.spellingsociety.org/ by a member of the academy who died a > couple of years ago. > > It saved the language. Before this institution existed, a Bordelais spelled > and spoke differently from a Normand, a Gascon could not understand an > Alsacien, and a Parisien could understand neither. > > Richelieu gathered representatives from different regions under one dome and > had them establish a standard, thus creating a proper language for > communication. Those who argue against this policing will tell you that this is why > French lost some of its global status and ceased, 40 years ago, to be the lingua > franca of diplomacy et cetera. > > I remind them that French would never have become a world language in the > first place if it had not been for Richelieu who got rid of all its > ramifications. As the chief purpose of a global language is to communicate, it must be > easy for all people to understand. > > Pronunciation seems to be more important than grammar; we know what “Me want > cigarette” and “Passport, she lost,” mean, but ill- articulated, > badly-pronounced speech is like illegible handwriting ... slow to communicate, difficult to > understand, wastes time and can cause dangerous confusion. > > SB: I think you are mixing together several points. What is generally > represented in a dictionary pronunciation guide is broadcast English. Shaw had a > secondary motive in developing a new notation for a pronuinciation guide. That > of representing the King's English - a northern UK dialect. > > Who is advocating simplified grammar? This is something we find on the > conlang websites. Shavian, Saundspel, and Euro-English do not touch grammar. > > RC: The English of Indians who use standard pronunciation are easier to > follow than many of the British who speak with unfamiliar accents. > > When I lived in France, I noted that foreigners studying English took most > easily to American usage and pronunciation, but further research persuades me > that the pronunciation demonstrated in the Oxford English Dictionary is the best > standard for universal comprehension. > > SB: This is a rather minor point. Most people can understand broadcast > English in either its NBC or BBC variety. There is no particular advantage to one > dialect over the other. I don't know what the World preference would be. I > imagine that they would prefer what they find familiar. > > I should appreciate your comments. > Richard Cutler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ 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/
