Vwl Rfrm

For the discussion of language mechanics, grammar, vocabulary, trends, and other such linguistic topics, in english and other languages.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:10 am UTC

weewooweewoo is four syllables, with the consonant /w/ breaking them up. yo-yo is two, with /j/ beginning both of them.

They're both semivowels, but they can still break syllables up and therefore differ significantly from pure vowels.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

n7a7v7i
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:50 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby n7a7v7i » Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:03 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:weewooweewoo is four syllables, with the consonant /w/ breaking them up. yo-yo is two, with /j/ beginning both of them.

They're both semivowels, but they can still break syllables up and therefore differ significantly from pure vowels.


Ah... That actually makes sense.

So then is "wow" one or two syllables?

User avatar
BrainMagMo
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:22 am UTC
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby BrainMagMo » Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:17 am UTC

n7a7v7i wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:weewooweewoo is four syllables, with the consonant /w/ breaking them up. yo-yo is two, with /j/ beginning both of them.

They're both semivowels, but they can still break syllables up and therefore differ significantly from pure vowels.


Ah... That actually makes sense.

So then is "wow" one or two syllables?

syllables are counted by their vowels.
So 1.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:49 am UTC

Yep. Just like how pop is one sillable.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

n7a7v7i
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:50 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby n7a7v7i » Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:52 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yep. Just like how pop is one sillable.


But that's really awkward...

I can kinda understand "wow" as a single syllable.

But what if you use two semivowels? Like.... "yoo-ee". Or /juj/, I guess. I don't think I could possibly imagine that as one syllable.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:45 pm UTC

n7a7v7i wrote:But what if you use two semivowels? Like.... "yoo-ee". Or /juj/, I guess. I don't think I could possibly imagine that as one syllable.

/juj/ is one syllable, but it's not how anyone I know would pronounce "yoo-ee" upon seeing it written.

Personally, I'd pronounce that more as /juwi/, which is clearly two syllables.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
mrbaggins
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:23 am UTC
Location: Wagga, Australia

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby mrbaggins » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:08 am UTC

m gng t s mv 2nt r n?
wll m n frnd r gnn b lt fr th mv t 6 hw abt th n t 8?
k t'll b gd t s y 2nt.

What was that you ask?
I took text messaging and applied your silly new system. Thus combining two of the most obnoxious methods of communciation ever into a monstrosity of misunderstanding. And it wasn't even using a lot of stupid text speak. And you KNOW it would happen.

If you want to read it, you'll have to quote me.
This post had objectionable content. << You bet your sweet ass it did.

On the topic of useless letters... What about 'c'?
If it's hard, replace it with k, if it's soft, replace it with s. If it's in ch, replace it with kh, with currently occasionally has the wrong sound, but over time would work.
Why is it that 4chan is either infinitely awesome, infinitely bad, or "lolwut", but never any intermediary level?

User avatar
run.dll
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:54 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby run.dll » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:49 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yep. Just like how pop is one sillable.


At first I thought the spelling glitch was a deliberate double entendre, this being a relatively silly thread :)

You might be interested in the fact that there are languages which have no real need for vowels in the written form, one example being Nuxálk, which is a nearly dead language spoken up the Canadian We(s)t Coast. All vowels are more or less a slight variation of "a", so the language could be fairly easily understood if spelled with only consonants. The problem with English is that we have a fairly rich selection of vowel sounds (several for each of the 7 formal vowels), and therefore deleting them can result in considerable information loss.
Spoiler:
I find it odd that one can have a spoiler for a sig, and moderately disappointing that spoilers can't be nested.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby goofy » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:23 am UTC

run.dll wrote:You might be interested in the fact that there are languages which have no real need for vowels in the written form, one example being Nuxálk, which is a nearly dead language spoken up the Canadian We(s)t Coast. All vowels are more or less a slight variation of "a", so the language could be fairly easily understood if spelled with only consonants.


I really don't think so. Nuxálk has 3 vowels and I can hear them all in this recording and see them in the subtitles. And even if Nuxálk did have 1 vowel, that wouldn't mean that it could be spelled with only consonant letters.

User avatar
steewi
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:38 am UTC
Location: Tropical Nowhere

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby steewi » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:18 pm UTC

goofy wrote:
run.dll wrote:You might be interested in the fact that there are languages which have no real need for vowels in the written form, one example being Nuxálk, which is a nearly dead language spoken up the Canadian We(s)t Coast. All vowels are more or less a slight variation of "a", so the language could be fairly easily understood if spelled with only consonants.


I really don't think so. Nuxálk has 3 vowels and I can hear them all in this recording and see them in the subtitles. And even if Nuxálk did have 1 vowel, that wouldn't mean that it could be spelled with only consonant letters.

The deal there is that Nuxalk has (controversially) one vowel phoneme which is realised as [o/u] next to a rounded consonant, as [i/e] next to a palatal consonant and [a/@] in other positions. It's more complex than that, but that's the basic idea. It's not universally accepted. Nuxalk and Salish type languages are a little odd anyway, in that they don't really have anything really syllable-like, which kind of throws a big spanner in the phonological works.

To write English a bit like Hebrew/Arabic
T's pssbl t hndrsthnd, f y wrt lng vwls, ysng 'h' t wrt /a:/, 'y' t wrt /i:/ and 'w' t wrt /o:/ nd /u:/. Y wslw nd t wrt sm shrt vwls yn, nd thn tht cryhts hmbgwty btwyn h bnch f wrds. Yf yr gng t wrt Nglsh n h sstm lk ths, yw hlsw mght s wll chng th cnsnnts t rmv wll th slnt lttrs. Bt thn yw cn't ryd yt ht wll.
That was near impossible to do. What I say is that if you're going to go this far, you might as well just reform the whole writing system with one of the myriad spelling reforms you've seen in so many places on the net, starting with Shavian.

goofy
Posts: 911
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:32 pm UTC

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby goofy » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:28 pm UTC

steewi wrote:The deal there is that Nuxalk has (controversially) one vowel phoneme which is realised as [o/u] next to a rounded consonant, as [i/e] next to a palatal consonant and [a/@] in other positions. It's more complex than that, but that's the basic idea. It's not universally accepted. Nuxalk and Salish type languages are a little odd anyway, in that they don't really have anything really syllable-like, which kind of throws a big spanner in the phonological works.


OK, thanks.

n7a7v7i
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:50 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby n7a7v7i » Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:34 pm UTC

steewi wrote:To write English a bit like Hebrew/Arabic
T's pssbl t hndrsthnd, f y wrt lng vwls, ysng 'h' t wrt /a:/, 'y' t wrt /i:/ and 'w' t wrt /o:/ nd /u:/. Y wslw nd t wrt sm shrt vwls yn, nd thn tht cryhts hmbgwty btwyn h bnch f wrds. Yf yr gng t wrt Nglsh n h sstm lk ths, yw hlsw mght s wll chng th cnsnnts t rmv wll th slnt lttrs. Bt thn yw cn't ryd yt ht wll.
That was near impossible to do. What I say is that if you're going to go this far, you might as well just reform the whole writing system with one of the myriad spelling reforms you've seen in so many places on the net, starting with Shavian.

Y'know, that last part is a really good point.

What good would removing vowels do? Wouldn't reforming the use of consonants to eliminate silent letters and confusing pronunciation be a better goal?
I just don't see the point of this kind of reform at all.
Last edited by gmalivuk on Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:36 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed quote tags

yukijin
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby yukijin » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:57 pm UTC

Sorry to revive an old post, however, I just want to note that this is called speed writing and there are many algorithms for writing very fast. How do you think secretaries that record entire meeting while writing? I know now they can record sound and come back to it later, but think of how many years before this kind of technology.

Also, this is used in courts for transcribing what everyone is saying. You can well do over 200+ words per minute hand writing and way over that typing on specialized machines. As I said, there are many different algorithms, some date back to 1800s.

Links: http://www.alysion.org/handy/althandwriting.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyScript_Speed_Writing

my fav is short hand writing, but thats on another different level to learn... and dates back to 1500s...

I am a project manager, and I use speed writing in taking my notes in meetings then I convert it back as soon as I get to the office.

Anastasia
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:39 am UTC

Re: Vwl Rfrm

Postby Anastasia » Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:07 pm UTC

The Arabic language, when written, usually excludes the vowels unless the context of a sentence can confuse the correct interpretation of a word (or if it's written with vowels in the Qu'ran.)
However, the Arabic language is more rigid in it's word structure- most native words have a 3 consonant or 4 consonant root word that is easily identifiable when written without vowels.
We'd do ok with words that have a distinct root-
wndw, lphnt, prhps, tbl, spn, pjms, frnt, etc.
But there are alot of three and four letter words in English that would be difficult to discern.


Whn, fr nstnc, wrds lk nt nd nt r rnt nd rnt or lck nd lck cm nt ply.
Wrds cnnt b rd t f cntxt-

sd, ct, ht, bfr, bnn, cr, hbtt, bnd, bd, etc.

W wr bndng vr t.
Spoiler:
We were bonding over tea, or We were bending over it.


And in order for any of it to work, you still have to teach children to read the full word before you can teach them to recognize what is being left out, so you end up having to learn how to read and write twice.
Not to mention,there is far too much room for misinterpretation, and you'd spend quite a bit of time crafting sentences that could be readily understood within context. It makes a fun game, but again, highly impractical. UNLESS you're a politician, in which case it makes perfect sense- room for misrepresentation is always a plus there.

Wordnavigator.com has a cool feature that would make writing easier- if you type in a string of letters that appear in a word, it gives you a list of every English word that contains those letters in that order.
So c?r? gave me core, care, card, cart, etc.

Also, this system works well for waiting tables- (best if certain words are written phonetically)
CHX or CHKN
BRGR
CHZ or CHS
PNX (or PANX)
etc.

Th whl thng rqrs mr ffrt t rd nd lvs qt a bt f rm fr rrr nd mnpltn. Nt t mntn, dsn't nyn ls fl ll skvd t whn smn snds a txt tht sys "O rly? K. CU ltr!"

Spoiler:
The whole thing requires more effort to read and leaves quite a bit of room for error and manipulation. Not to mention, doesn't anyone else feel all skeeved out when someone sends a text that says

BLECH. Some people read caps and hear yelling in their heads. I read this and hear an obnoxious 8 -year-old pretending to be 4 and talking like a baby to get attention.

I move to begin a "Preservation of Vowel Accountability" movement.
Your exclusionary tactics are Anti-American, and promote a loose interpretation and application of language.


Return to “Language/Linguistics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests