Re: NBC use of Ig sounding

Use of the Ig Sounding System for Common American English

9 October 2004

 

In this essay, sounds must be contrasted to the spelling of traditional orthography (TO). To do this, sounds must be enclosed: <Ig> or /s{mpA/. Everything else is spelling. Ig is a subset of TO with exceptions: thin = /TIn/ = <thhin> from Truespel, measure = /mE,Z3`/ = <me-zhq>, <aic%uqxeyow> = <AIC8UQXEIOW> = /{IOUV3`AEiou/ = Fat is all good; but sir, not yet, eat no food. (The contest is yet to begin.) Symbols % and 8 can be vertical representations of <oo> as in the word good. These vertical symbols are easily improvised in longhand. They are not necessary. One has a choice. A set of rules for Ig can be found at http://www.lafn.org/~bj957/rules.htm.

 

Ig works because a syllable has only one major vowel be it a monothong, diphthong (or triphthong?). In addition to this major vowel there can be semivowels, also known as approximants. They are /r/ /j/ /w/ and /ww/, <r> <iy> <w> and <w%>: roy, yes, when, and woo <roy, iyes, wen, w%w>. They come immediately before the syllable’s major vowel. They are limited, and they can be looked for. Only the semivowel /r/ comes at the end also, and is special for other dialects and Spanish, but is not really used with our NBC dialect.

 

Common American English, as spoken by newscasters and the like, is also known as NBC in contrast to BBC. The NBC dialect of English is special because the semivowel /r/ almost always increases its duration at the end of the syllable to become /3`/. The one possible exception is after the sound of /A/ <x> as in the word harvest <hxr-vist> /hAr,vIst/. The increased voice of /r/ at the end of a syllable can technically require the addition of a syllable as explained below for the word very. This increased voice of /r/ at the end of a syllable is one main reason for the NBC dialect is so soft and flowing, and should be spotted easily when its sounds are recorded on paper with Ig.

 

I have changed my mind about the word harvest in the above paragraph. I want to make the ar a diphthong /A3`/ <xq>, and sound the word <hxq-vist>. The idea is to give less voice to /3`/ with the diphthong, and to avoid the indication of checked pronunciation if <r> were to be used as a coda in sounding. Syllables: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllable.

 

The Ig system has only 11 vowel elements for sounding words of the USA common dialect, and these eleven include the elements of the semivowels. The sound elements of <r> <iy>, <w>, and <w%>, /r/ /I/ /i/ /u/ /wU/, are used as stressed vowels, unstressed vowels, and as semivowels when Ig has been used to sound words. When the Ig <w> sound element is placed in a word, how do we know which way it is used? Ig uses the syllable to know the timing of its vowels and semivowels. The syllable has one major vowel called the nucleus, but can have any of the semivowels before (called the syllable’s onset), and at least one of the semivowels <r> after the nucleus in other dialects, called the syllable’s coda. Thus, if the Ig symbol for a vowel element used as a semivowel is not alone in a syllable, there could be a semivowel before in all dialects and /r/ after the main vowel in other dialects. As semivowels, they have less voice and stress even in a stressed syllable. Can we have two major vowels in a syllable of equal stress forming a diphthong? I said no with two exceptions. The vowels /e/ <ey> and /Ai/ <xy> were tentatively the only two exceptions. Now I add the third, /A3`/ <xq>. The Ig semivowel for /j/ is the meaningful digraph <iy>: <i> and <y> are the sound elements of /j/. The semivowel /j/ is found in words like yellow <iye-lo> /'jE,lo/, fuse <fiywz> /fjuz/, beyond <by+iycnd> /bi'jOnd/, onion <un-iyun> /'Vn,j@n/. The Ig sound elements <i> and <y> alone are not semivowels. The union of <i> and <y> in -<iyng> for the suffix -ing can be considered a diphthong because the special glide /j/ is not present. The word out <xwt> gives more stress to <x> than <w>. We can say <-x-wt> trying to make the two vowels equal; but when we say them this way, it carries emotion. So the word out is a diphthong that uses /u/ with less stress. For now, I leave open the possibility that the major vowel of a syllable can even be a triphthong without semivowels, but the vowel elements of semivowels as semivowels will always be at the beginning (onset) of the syllable’s major vowel, and /r/ is an exception at the syllable’s end (coda) other dialects that is handled by <q> with our dialect as /3`/ that can add to the major vowel (nucleus) or require a separate syllable. You must decide by sounding.

 

The first word I would sound for a child would be yes <iyes>. Then, I would spell yes to show how spelling can leave sounds out. The sound <y> /i/ is very high, and we must glide up to it with <i> /I/. In contrast when we end high with the <y> sound, we do not have to glide down. This is why we can use the letter y <wxy> for both sounds of the semivowel /j/ when we begin to spell a syllable, but when we end a syllable with <y> /i/, we can always remain high when the NBC dialect is used. This is the position rule for y <wxy> in spelling. The child rapidly learns that spelling leaves sounds out to save time writing, and we must build a path from sounds to spelling to be able to spell with understanding. These paths are the rules we must learn to spell well. In contrast, when we sound, we have only one serious rule: a syllable has only one vowel of major voice, and that vowel can be a diphthong (or even a triphthong?). With the Ig system, we have all the sounds, but need this position rule for the identification of semivowels.

 

 

The semivowel /r/ is the consonant /r/. In the Ig system, the consonant element <r> must stand alone to be the vowel /3`/. I have experimented with the use of <q> as the r vowel, because it is so important to the NBC dialect of Ig. Now I want to consider <r> alone in a syllable as discussed above for other semivowels. I thought this would allow the letter q <kiyw> to be used for other sound elements in other dialects. The goal is to give our little ones the sounds of their dialect in only their lowercase (or only their uppercase) alphabet. They can use these sounds to spell only when traditional orthography has not yet been learned. They could use their simple alphabet (like we use SAMPA) for their dialect. Beyond this, they would know the vowel elements of their sounds. They could understand the word phoneme, and know that a given dialect has only so many seats at the table. To define the dialect's system, a given seat seats the sound of its phoneme. There can be wiggle room to allow other sounds called allophones to substitute at the seat for a given word. Allophones are not necessary to define the dialect's number of seats at the table of our brain's separation of words. The allophone can be another phoneme borrowed from another seat or something new. Another dialect may have more seats at the table. If we understand, we define phonemes one dialect at a time. The dialect's phonemes constitute the dialect's system. The system is unique to the dialect as are the use of the system’s terms phoneme and allophone that build the system. When two similarly constructed words occur that have only one sound different at the same position in both words, we have a minimal pair that can define the two phonemes (sounds) that are different. The question has been whether we can use the fewer vowel elements as the "phonemes" for our system with the added higher structures such as syllablization, position, and marked stress that could build the more numerous established phonemes such as the semivowels. The path to TO using fewer phonemes would require more understanding, but would give a firm basis upon which understanding can be taught.

 

Consider the following as an experiment to test the use of <r> for both /r/ and /3`/: Secure <se+kiy%-r> /sE'kjU,3`/, securer <se+kiy%r-r> /sE'kjU3`,3`/, throw <thhro> /Tro/, thorough <thhr-o> /T3`,o/.

 

My conclusion from the experiment above, is to use <q> as the r vowel and keep <r> as the semivowel /r/ as a separate syllable coda for British English and Spanish. This helps me with the word secure <se+kiy%q> versus securer <se+ki%q-q>. When you say <%q> in the word secure, are they equally balanced?  Is the onset of the last syllable <kiy%>?

 

I do not have one Ig system for NBC, BBC, and American Spanish; but I tried until an understanding of phoneme systems set in. Sounding is a very personal thing; one examines how he or she communicates by sounds. For example, the phoneme <o> /o/ in the word “or” has an NBC allophone I am told; it is <c> /O/. If this is true, the word or can be <oq> or <cq> in the NBC dialect.  Let every dialect build their own Ig system or better. Moreover, let every dialect map their sounding system into traditional orthography with rules. Let us also negociate word by word with officials of other English dialects to change traditional orthography for the better. One word at a time, like the respel systems of Allen. They may be best. Has Allen already anticipated the future changes?

 

The NBC dialect is a simplification built on the r vowel /3`/, but the symbol is yet r <xq> even though it is no longer a semivowel. The /r/ semivowel, more often than not, extends its duration to change from semivowel /r/ to the full vowel /3`/ and can add a syllable to the word. Consider the word very <ve-q-y> not <ver-y> or <ve-ry> which sound like a foreign words to the NBCer, because r is used as a semivowel distinct from q which is used as the vowel /3`/ in the Ig system. If we say the syllables slowly, the word in all its beauty should surface correctly. Once this concept is grasped, we can build a path into traditional orthography with NBC sounds. We must build these paths with all the mnemonics and stories that children need. Within a syllable we can have many vowels, and our tongue moves through them rapidly to give them proper timing and duration (voice). This can be done without consonants, except for semivowels. Semivowels are officially considered consonants, but we consider them the vowels of very short duration, because we have the complete power to separate syllables without the use of consonants in the Ig system for sounding. These semivowels classified as different phonemes, but they are made up of common elements. Publications of the past in linguistics are great monuments to our progress at that time. We must move on, thinking as much or more than they did. Where phonemes are formed in the mouth may not be as important as what the brain thinks it hears, and we should not mind if accepted phonemes are built with vowel elements.

 

Teachers and students can define their own Ig systems depending upon the dialects spoken in class. Moreover, we can always fall back on a simple SAMPA system where a difference between dialects is important. Ig should be at least phonemic, while SAMPA is phonetic, and can cover the phonemes and allophones of many dialects. The following site is the best I know for common American English IPA: http://www.tulane.edu/~ling/IPA_for_Teens/consonants.html. Check out approximants.

 

If all our children feel they understand, instead of being told that the concepts are too difficult to understand, they will feel and see the real thing: their sounds accurately on paper before them. When we say all our children, we should emphasize the word all. Such children as linguists of their own dialect, will in time evolve their dialect and language to perfection - there will be no one else to stop them.

 

Our highest goal must be to give our little ones ability with traditional orthography. Their lives depend upon it. Can we do better than SAMPA using just the elements to give them the comfort of just the lowercase of their alphabet? Immagine the excitement when a child places the sounds for his alphabet on paper as names (words) for the letters. The real thing! Our children need an early space in which to play using their new power. Ig or better can be that place as TO is learned.

 

This essay is a work in progress. Corrections can be found at http:\\www.lafn.org/~bj957/use.htm.

This essay is free to all without restrictions. You can improve upon what has been said and the way it is said - you can make it your own and better. In this way, the concepts can be viewed from every angle.

 

Updated 8 March 2005: http://www.lafn.org/~bj957/use.htm.