@mwgamera.name
𐑞𐑺 𐑸 43 𐑤𐑧𐑑𐑼𐑟 𐑦𐑯 𐑞 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑. ·𐑿𐑯𐑦𐑒𐑴𐑛 𐑦𐑟 𐑮𐑪𐑙. 𐑳≠𐑩, 𐑳=𐑨. /u/Prize-Golf-3215 𐑪𐑯 ·𐑮𐑧𐑛𐑦𐑑. 𐑒𐑨𐑑𐑜𐑻𐑤𐑟 𐑦𐑯𐑔𐑿𐑟𐑦𐑨𐑕𐑑 𐑳𐑞𐑼𐑢𐑲𐑟. 𐑛𐑵 𐑯𐑪𐑑 𐑓𐑪𐑤𐑴 𐑥𐑰. #𐑣𐑬𐑟𐑥𐑲𐑕𐑐𐑧𐑤𐑦𐑙
𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑼𐑕𐑑𐑨𐑯𐑛𐑩𐑚𐑩𐑤. 𐑦𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑖 𐑤𐑨𐑑𐑦𐑯 𐑛𐑳𐑟𐑩𐑯𐑑 𐑕𐑬𐑯𐑛 𐑜𐑫𐑛 𐑨𐑑 𐑷𐑤!
January 14, 2026 at 8:14 PM
𐑳𐑯𐑛𐑼𐑕𐑑𐑨𐑯𐑛𐑩𐑚𐑩𐑤. 𐑦𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑖 𐑤𐑨𐑑𐑦𐑯 𐑛𐑳𐑟𐑩𐑯𐑑 𐑕𐑬𐑯𐑛 𐑜𐑫𐑛 𐑨𐑑 𐑷𐑤!
𐑢𐑦𐑗 𐑤𐑨𐑑𐑦𐑯 𐑛𐑲𐑩𐑤𐑧𐑒𐑑 𐑦𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑑? 𐑦𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑖 𐑤𐑨𐑑𐑦𐑯 𐑛𐑦𐑮𐑧𐑒𐑑𐑤𐑦 𐑮𐑲𐑑𐑩𐑚𐑩𐑤 𐑦𐑯 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑦𐑜𐑟𐑦𐑕𐑑𐑕, 𐑚𐑳𐑑 𐑞𐑦𐑕 𐑛𐑳𐑟𐑩𐑯𐑑 𐑕𐑰𐑥 𐑑 𐑚𐑰 𐑦𐑑. 𐑦𐑑𐑨𐑤𐑾𐑯?
January 14, 2026 at 6:55 PM
𐑢𐑦𐑗 𐑤𐑨𐑑𐑦𐑯 𐑛𐑲𐑩𐑤𐑧𐑒𐑑 𐑦𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑑? 𐑦𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑖 𐑤𐑨𐑑𐑦𐑯 𐑛𐑦𐑮𐑧𐑒𐑑𐑤𐑦 𐑮𐑲𐑑𐑩𐑚𐑩𐑤 𐑦𐑯 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑦𐑜𐑟𐑦𐑕𐑑𐑕, 𐑚𐑳𐑑 𐑞𐑦𐑕 𐑛𐑳𐑟𐑩𐑯𐑑 𐑕𐑰𐑥 𐑑 𐑚𐑰 𐑦𐑑. 𐑦𐑑𐑨𐑤𐑾𐑯?
𐑯 𐑢𐑦𐑗 𐑝 𐑞𐑴𐑟 𐑢𐑻𐑛𐑟 𐑨𐑒𐑗𐑫𐑩𐑤𐑦 𐑛𐑴𐑯𐑑 𐑤𐑫𐑒 𐑤𐑲𐑒 𐑒𐑮𐑨𐑐? 𐑞 𐑓𐑪𐑯𐑑𐑕 𐑪𐑚𐑝𐑾𐑕𐑤𐑦 𐑯𐑪𐑑 𐑥𐑪𐑯𐑴𐑕𐑐𐑱𐑕, 𐑚𐑳𐑑 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑩𐑯 𐑴𐑝𐑼𐑷𐑤 𐑝𐑧𐑮𐑦 𐑚𐑨𐑛 𐑓𐑪𐑯𐑑 𐑦𐑯 𐑞 𐑓𐑻𐑕𐑑 𐑐𐑤𐑱𐑕. (𐑷𐑤𐑕𐑴: ‘𐑣𐑰’)
January 12, 2026 at 11:34 PM
𐑯 𐑢𐑦𐑗 𐑝 𐑞𐑴𐑟 𐑢𐑻𐑛𐑟 𐑨𐑒𐑗𐑫𐑩𐑤𐑦 𐑛𐑴𐑯𐑑 𐑤𐑫𐑒 𐑤𐑲𐑒 𐑒𐑮𐑨𐑐? 𐑞 𐑓𐑪𐑯𐑑𐑕 𐑪𐑚𐑝𐑾𐑕𐑤𐑦 𐑯𐑪𐑑 𐑥𐑪𐑯𐑴𐑕𐑐𐑱𐑕, 𐑚𐑳𐑑 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑩𐑯 𐑴𐑝𐑼𐑷𐑤 𐑝𐑧𐑮𐑦 𐑚𐑨𐑛 𐑓𐑪𐑯𐑑 𐑦𐑯 𐑞 𐑓𐑻𐑕𐑑 𐑐𐑤𐑱𐑕. (𐑷𐑤𐑕𐑴: ‘𐑣𐑰’)
What's the word closest to raw centroid of slur words without subtracting anything?
January 10, 2026 at 12:25 AM
What's the word closest to raw centroid of slur words without subtracting anything?
Shwis can be confusing. We often spell them with 𐑦, but it can be a plain 𐑩 in some accents even without weak vowel merger. And we have suffix convention that can obscure it further: it's 𐑮𐑴𐑟’𐑩𐑟 𐑮𐑴𐑟𐑩𐑟 ‘Rosa’s roses’. It helps differentiating 𐑑𐑨𐑒𐑕𐑩𐑟 ‘taxes’ from 𐑑𐑨𐑒𐑕𐑦𐑟 ‘taxis’, though.
January 9, 2026 at 11:00 PM
Shwis can be confusing. We often spell them with 𐑦, but it can be a plain 𐑩 in some accents even without weak vowel merger. And we have suffix convention that can obscure it further: it's 𐑮𐑴𐑟’𐑩𐑟 𐑮𐑴𐑟𐑩𐑟 ‘Rosa’s roses’. It helps differentiating 𐑑𐑨𐑒𐑕𐑩𐑟 ‘taxes’ from 𐑑𐑨𐑒𐑕𐑦𐑟 ‘taxis’, though.
I think it should use the 𐑻︀ without 𐑮 by the ‘closest to GenAm’ rule. That would match the second pronunciation Cambridge gives for both varieties. (Or is it like in the 𐑖𐑧𐑡𐑵𐑤 vs 𐑕𐑒- case?) At least it switched away from ‘𐑮𐑪𐑯𐑑𐑘𐑩𐑯’ it listed first in 17th ed.!
January 8, 2026 at 3:21 PM
I think it should use the 𐑻︀ without 𐑮 by the ‘closest to GenAm’ rule. That would match the second pronunciation Cambridge gives for both varieties. (Or is it like in the 𐑖𐑧𐑡𐑵𐑤 vs 𐑕𐑒- case?) At least it switched away from ‘𐑮𐑪𐑯𐑑𐑘𐑩𐑯’ it listed first in 17th ed.!
Look at Youglish, both under Roentgen and Röntgen. Though, it does feel like a mistaken spelling pronunciation to me too.
January 8, 2026 at 3:12 PM
Look at Youglish, both under Roentgen and Röntgen. Though, it does feel like a mistaken spelling pronunciation to me too.
It’s nice because it makes visual recognition of constituent parts easier/faster. Boundary affects pronunciation, but the sequence of phonemes is the same, and so I still maintain it’s purely typographic, visual distinction with no chance of misreading. It’s the same as in Fraktur writing.
January 8, 2026 at 12:41 PM
It’s nice because it makes visual recognition of constituent parts easier/faster. Boundary affects pronunciation, but the sequence of phonemes is the same, and so I still maintain it’s purely typographic, visual distinction with no chance of misreading. It’s the same as in Fraktur writing.
𐑰 is allowed in unstressed syllables, just very rare. The real rule is simply that 𐑰 is for the ꜰʟᴇᴇᴄᴇ vowel while 𐑦 for ᴋɪᴛ and happʏ. Yes, it confuses newcomers, but it was the most obvious thing to do few decades ago and it still preserves more information about pronunciation on average.
January 7, 2026 at 10:06 PM
𐑰 is allowed in unstressed syllables, just very rare. The real rule is simply that 𐑰 is for the ꜰʟᴇᴇᴄᴇ vowel while 𐑦 for ᴋɪᴛ and happʏ. Yes, it confuses newcomers, but it was the most obvious thing to do few decades ago and it still preserves more information about pronunciation on average.
You know, the difference between /ɜː/ and /ə/ was absolutely never about vowel quality, only stress and length. I think it’s good Shavian kept these distinctions (and ‘𐑦’ for happʏ, etc) because stress is phonemic and Shaw’s rules made it otherwise impossible to add any suprasegmental marks.
January 7, 2026 at 9:43 PM
You know, the difference between /ɜː/ and /ə/ was absolutely never about vowel quality, only stress and length. I think it’s good Shavian kept these distinctions (and ‘𐑦’ for happʏ, etc) because stress is phonemic and Shaw’s rules made it otherwise impossible to add any suprasegmental marks.
Otoh, we had someone at Reddit asking why there is no Shavian letter for the vowel in ‘fire’. Obviously a monosyllable, right? It was already varisyllabic in RP, and yet we spell it 𐑓𐑲𐑼.
January 7, 2026 at 9:06 PM
Otoh, we had someone at Reddit asking why there is no Shavian letter for the vowel in ‘fire’. Obviously a monosyllable, right? It was already varisyllabic in RP, and yet we spell it 𐑓𐑲𐑼.
Yes, but ‘Theodore’ has /ɪə/ and Gimson described [ɪːə] and [ɪə] as its allophones. Rare minimal pairs involve fun words like 𐑚𐑰𐑼 (one who ‘is’) vs 𐑚𐑽 (beer).
January 7, 2026 at 9:05 PM
Yes, but ‘Theodore’ has /ɪə/ and Gimson described [ɪːə] and [ɪə] as its allophones. Rare minimal pairs involve fun words like 𐑚𐑰𐑼 (one who ‘is’) vs 𐑚𐑽 (beer).
Contrastive? Not determined contextually? Can you give an example?
January 7, 2026 at 8:31 PM
Contrastive? Not determined contextually? Can you give an example?
Of course, 𐑳𐑮 (Us+Ray) is different than 𐑻 (Urge+Ray). There is disagreement about 𐑼 et al’s status, but I think everyone agrees that sequences like 𐑩𐑮 or 𐑷𐑮 always need to be ligated when physically possible possible (there was no 𐑼 at all on the typewriter), just like they were in Androcles.
January 7, 2026 at 5:06 PM
Of course, 𐑳𐑮 (Us+Ray) is different than 𐑻 (Urge+Ray). There is disagreement about 𐑼 et al’s status, but I think everyone agrees that sequences like 𐑩𐑮 or 𐑷𐑮 always need to be ligated when physically possible possible (there was no 𐑼 at all on the typewriter), just like they were in Androcles.
RP 𐑢𐑪𐑟 ‘𐑮𐑧𐑤𐑩𐑑𐑦𐑝𐑤𐑦 𐑑𐑪𐑤𐑼𐑩𐑯𐑑’ 𐑝 𐑤𐑪𐑙 𐑕𐑰𐑒𐑢𐑩𐑯𐑕𐑩𐑟 𐑝 𐑢𐑰𐑒 𐑕𐑦𐑤𐑩𐑚𐑩𐑤𐑟 𐑤𐑲𐑒 𐑦𐑯 ‘𐑦𐑒𐑕𐑑𐑮𐑹𐑛𐑩𐑯𐑼𐑩𐑤𐑦’. ·𐑤𐑦𐑯𐑟𐑦 𐑮𐑴𐑑 𐑩𐑚𐑬𐑑 𐑦𐑑 𐑗𐑱𐑯𐑡𐑦𐑙 𐑦𐑯 𐑣𐑦𐑟 ‘𐑦𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑖 𐑭𐑓𐑑𐑼 RP’. 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑛𐑧𐑓𐑦𐑯𐑦𐑑𐑤𐑦 𐑳𐑯𐑿𐑠𐑫𐑩𐑤 𐑦𐑯 𐑐𐑮𐑧𐑟𐑩𐑯𐑑-𐑛𐑱 𐑕𐑐𐑰𐑗.
January 7, 2026 at 4:49 PM
RP 𐑢𐑪𐑟 ‘𐑮𐑧𐑤𐑩𐑑𐑦𐑝𐑤𐑦 𐑑𐑪𐑤𐑼𐑩𐑯𐑑’ 𐑝 𐑤𐑪𐑙 𐑕𐑰𐑒𐑢𐑩𐑯𐑕𐑩𐑟 𐑝 𐑢𐑰𐑒 𐑕𐑦𐑤𐑩𐑚𐑩𐑤𐑟 𐑤𐑲𐑒 𐑦𐑯 ‘𐑦𐑒𐑕𐑑𐑮𐑹𐑛𐑩𐑯𐑼𐑩𐑤𐑦’. ·𐑤𐑦𐑯𐑟𐑦 𐑮𐑴𐑑 𐑩𐑚𐑬𐑑 𐑦𐑑 𐑗𐑱𐑯𐑡𐑦𐑙 𐑦𐑯 𐑣𐑦𐑟 ‘𐑦𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑖 𐑭𐑓𐑑𐑼 RP’. 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑛𐑧𐑓𐑦𐑯𐑦𐑑𐑤𐑦 𐑳𐑯𐑿𐑠𐑫𐑩𐑤 𐑦𐑯 𐑐𐑮𐑧𐑟𐑩𐑯𐑑-𐑛𐑱 𐑕𐑐𐑰𐑗.
I don’t agree with your conclusions what it ‘should’ be, but 𐑾 is definitely the weirdest and not very intuitive part of Shavian. The ɴᴇᴀʀ vowel could have just been always analysed as 𐑰𐑩(𐑮) as it is in Quickscript and most other reform proposals. Merging it with 𐑦𐑩 didn’t help anyone.
January 7, 2026 at 4:33 PM
I don’t agree with your conclusions what it ‘should’ be, but 𐑾 is definitely the weirdest and not very intuitive part of Shavian. The ɴᴇᴀʀ vowel could have just been always analysed as 𐑰𐑩(𐑮) as it is in Quickscript and most other reform proposals. Merging it with 𐑦𐑩 didn’t help anyone.
Read’s notes in Androcles say that joined-up writing is unambiguous. (Save for stressed ‘𐑾’, it indeed is.)
The community is currently divided about that, but ‘𐑻’ also comprises two letters to me. See the description and the alphabet table in Shaw-script.
The community is currently divided about that, but ‘𐑻’ also comprises two letters to me. See the description and the alphabet table in Shaw-script.
January 7, 2026 at 4:19 PM
Read’s notes in Androcles say that joined-up writing is unambiguous. (Save for stressed ‘𐑾’, it indeed is.)
The community is currently divided about that, but ‘𐑻’ also comprises two letters to me. See the description and the alphabet table in Shaw-script.
The community is currently divided about that, but ‘𐑻’ also comprises two letters to me. See the description and the alphabet table in Shaw-script.
That's Unicode's defect, not alphabet's. There is no orthographic difference between 𐑩𐑮𐑱 and 𐑼𐑱. It's only typographic like between, say, difference and difference, or maybe onomatopoeia and onomatopœia.
January 7, 2026 at 8:07 AM
That's Unicode's defect, not alphabet's. There is no orthographic difference between 𐑩𐑮𐑱 and 𐑼𐑱. It's only typographic like between, say, difference and difference, or maybe onomatopoeia and onomatopœia.
.𐑟𐑛𐑮𐑩𐑢𐑒𐑨𐑚 𐑕𐑒𐑫𐑤 𐑝 𐑛𐑯𐑲𐑒 𐑑𐑦 ,𐑤𐑩𐑓𐑷
.𐑤𐑩𐑚𐑩𐑕𐑯𐑬𐑯𐑼𐑐𐑯𐑳 𐑑𐑐𐑧𐑕𐑒𐑦 ,𐑮𐑩𐑓𐑲𐑕 𐑤𐑩𐑝𐑧𐑤-𐑯𐑦𐑑𐑨𐑤 𐑜𐑦𐑐 𐑩
.𐑤𐑩𐑚𐑩𐑕𐑯𐑬𐑯𐑼𐑐𐑯𐑳 𐑑𐑐𐑧𐑕𐑒𐑦 ,𐑮𐑩𐑓𐑲𐑕 𐑤𐑩𐑝𐑧𐑤-𐑯𐑦𐑑𐑨𐑤 𐑜𐑦𐑐 𐑩
January 5, 2026 at 11:23 PM
.𐑟𐑛𐑮𐑩𐑢𐑒𐑨𐑚 𐑕𐑒𐑫𐑤 𐑝 𐑛𐑯𐑲𐑒 𐑑𐑦 ,𐑤𐑩𐑓𐑷
.𐑤𐑩𐑚𐑩𐑕𐑯𐑬𐑯𐑼𐑐𐑯𐑳 𐑑𐑐𐑧𐑕𐑒𐑦 ,𐑮𐑩𐑓𐑲𐑕 𐑤𐑩𐑝𐑧𐑤-𐑯𐑦𐑑𐑨𐑤 𐑜𐑦𐑐 𐑩
.𐑤𐑩𐑚𐑩𐑕𐑯𐑬𐑯𐑼𐑐𐑯𐑳 𐑑𐑐𐑧𐑕𐑒𐑦 ,𐑮𐑩𐑓𐑲𐑕 𐑤𐑩𐑝𐑧𐑤-𐑯𐑦𐑑𐑨𐑤 𐑜𐑦𐑐 𐑩
1. 𐑢𐑦𐑗𐑧𐑝𐑼 𐑢𐑱 𐑿 𐑓𐑰𐑤 𐑤𐑲𐑒! 𐑷𐑤 3 𐑪𐑐𐑖𐑩𐑯𐑟 𐑢𐑻𐑒.
2. 𐑞𐑺 𐑸 𐑯𐑴 𐑤𐑧𐑑𐑼𐑟 𐑓 𐑥𐑸𐑡𐑦𐑯𐑩𐑤 𐑓𐑴𐑯𐑰𐑥𐑟, 𐑕𐑴 𐑿 𐑮𐑲𐑑 𐑩𐑒𐑹𐑛𐑦𐑙 𐑑 𐑞 𐑓𐑫𐑤𐑦 𐑨𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑕𐑲𐑟𐑛 𐑐𐑮𐑩𐑯𐑳𐑯𐑕𐑦𐑱𐑖𐑩𐑯: /x/ 𐑿𐑠𐑫𐑩𐑤𐑦 𐑑𐑻𐑯𐑟 𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑵 ·𐑒 𐑹 ·𐑣;
𐑲𐑛 𐑮𐑲𐑑 𐑣𐑨𐑯𐑩𐑒𐑩, 𐑣𐑭𐑤𐑩, ·𐑕𐑧𐑒𐑥𐑧𐑑.
2. 𐑞𐑺 𐑸 𐑯𐑴 𐑤𐑧𐑑𐑼𐑟 𐑓 𐑥𐑸𐑡𐑦𐑯𐑩𐑤 𐑓𐑴𐑯𐑰𐑥𐑟, 𐑕𐑴 𐑿 𐑮𐑲𐑑 𐑩𐑒𐑹𐑛𐑦𐑙 𐑑 𐑞 𐑓𐑫𐑤𐑦 𐑨𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑕𐑲𐑟𐑛 𐑐𐑮𐑩𐑯𐑳𐑯𐑕𐑦𐑱𐑖𐑩𐑯: /x/ 𐑿𐑠𐑫𐑩𐑤𐑦 𐑑𐑻𐑯𐑟 𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑵 ·𐑒 𐑹 ·𐑣;
𐑲𐑛 𐑮𐑲𐑑 𐑣𐑨𐑯𐑩𐑒𐑩, 𐑣𐑭𐑤𐑩, ·𐑕𐑧𐑒𐑥𐑧𐑑.
January 5, 2026 at 6:41 AM
1. 𐑢𐑦𐑗𐑧𐑝𐑼 𐑢𐑱 𐑿 𐑓𐑰𐑤 𐑤𐑲𐑒! 𐑷𐑤 3 𐑪𐑐𐑖𐑩𐑯𐑟 𐑢𐑻𐑒.
2. 𐑞𐑺 𐑸 𐑯𐑴 𐑤𐑧𐑑𐑼𐑟 𐑓 𐑥𐑸𐑡𐑦𐑯𐑩𐑤 𐑓𐑴𐑯𐑰𐑥𐑟, 𐑕𐑴 𐑿 𐑮𐑲𐑑 𐑩𐑒𐑹𐑛𐑦𐑙 𐑑 𐑞 𐑓𐑫𐑤𐑦 𐑨𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑕𐑲𐑟𐑛 𐑐𐑮𐑩𐑯𐑳𐑯𐑕𐑦𐑱𐑖𐑩𐑯: /x/ 𐑿𐑠𐑫𐑩𐑤𐑦 𐑑𐑻𐑯𐑟 𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑵 ·𐑒 𐑹 ·𐑣;
𐑲𐑛 𐑮𐑲𐑑 𐑣𐑨𐑯𐑩𐑒𐑩, 𐑣𐑭𐑤𐑩, ·𐑕𐑧𐑒𐑥𐑧𐑑.
2. 𐑞𐑺 𐑸 𐑯𐑴 𐑤𐑧𐑑𐑼𐑟 𐑓 𐑥𐑸𐑡𐑦𐑯𐑩𐑤 𐑓𐑴𐑯𐑰𐑥𐑟, 𐑕𐑴 𐑿 𐑮𐑲𐑑 𐑩𐑒𐑹𐑛𐑦𐑙 𐑑 𐑞 𐑓𐑫𐑤𐑦 𐑨𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑕𐑲𐑟𐑛 𐑐𐑮𐑩𐑯𐑳𐑯𐑕𐑦𐑱𐑖𐑩𐑯: /x/ 𐑿𐑠𐑫𐑩𐑤𐑦 𐑑𐑻𐑯𐑟 𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑵 ·𐑒 𐑹 ·𐑣;
𐑲𐑛 𐑮𐑲𐑑 𐑣𐑨𐑯𐑩𐑒𐑩, 𐑣𐑭𐑤𐑩, ·𐑕𐑧𐑒𐑥𐑧𐑑.