Talk:Deseret alphabet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the "Writing systems" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project’s importance scale.

Is there anyone who is able to replace the HTML alphabet table with a graphic version instead? -- Stephen Gilbert 20:39 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Let's add this, when someone does it, as a link rather than inline. It's kinder on slow modems. --Spikey 18:34, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It would be helpful to include a graphical table for those who can't view Unicode, but the HTML table is also a useful reference. I think we should have both. I'll see about making that table, though. --WurdBendur 03:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

Could someone fix my awful attempt at transliterating the first three words of the illustration? I think I've got the right phonemes, but I can't make out the actual English words (excempt for 'thee' -> 'the'). --Spikey 18:34, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My first published paper was in regard to the Deseret Alphabet, and I have copies of each of the books published in the Deseret Alphabet. If you are from New England the phonemes make much more sense as to how the symbols sound - especially if you speak the traditional English dialect spoken in Toronto or Vermont/New Hampshire, Boston, or Upstate New York. I've made the translation of the first few words and incorporated them into the entry. -Visorstuff 00:06, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Phonemic vs. Phonetic 2 Cherokee 3 Graphics 4 IPA???

[edit] Phonemic vs. Phonetic

Why the change back? If you'd read the phoneme article, you'd see that it's the right word. Phonetics is too specific and includes distinctions that aren't necessary and thus not phonemic. Is there an article on the contrast between these concepts? --WurdBendur 01:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, if you're going to be so persistent in using the wrong word, go ahead. I've fixed the link format for you, as well. --WurdBendur 01:41, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Phonemes are the sounds that make up a word. Phonetics are how the sounds make up the word. When you look at a Phonetic alphabet (the English Alphabet is not one) each letter has a specific sound. When you look at a phoenemics, such as the sounds used in English, the change of a sound can alter the word. Make sense? A Phoneme is "the smallest phonetic unit in a language that is capable of conveying a distinction in meaning, as the [sound] m of mat and the [sound] b of bat in English." Phonetic is "representing the sounds of speech with a set of distinct symbols, each designating a single sound: phonetic spelling"

Thus the Deseret Alphabet is an alternative spelling to English - different characters, NOT different sounds. The sound does not change, but rather the letters. To me this is a clear difference. It is not the wrong word at all. -Visorstuff 16:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now you're only contradicting yourself. I admit, you have correctly defined the word phoneme. And I'd like to point out that any alphabet in which letters represent phonemes is, indeed, phonemic. A phonetic alphabet, like the IPA writes phones, which are not all distinguished as phonemes and not important to meaning. Deseret does not do this. You seem to believe that there is a one-to-one correspondence between Deseret letters and Roman ones--there is not. Rather, Deseret letters represent one phoneme, though sometimes more than one phone (which are the realm of the phonetic, not phonemic). Granted, some of the spellings I've seen in Deseret are not perfectly phonemic, but they certainly aren't phonetic.

And if you'll allow me to quote from the phone article, "In phonetics and phonology, a phone is a speech sound considered as a physical event without regard to its place in the sound system of a language [this is what is meant by phonetic -WurdBendur]. Compare with phoneme, a set of phones that carry the same meaning [in that they are treated as the same sound and can thus contrast not with each other, but only with other phonemes]." --WurdBendur 18:34, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see a contridiction - second "I" didn't define the terms - that is taken from a dictionary. Rather than quote from Wikipedia, try a dictionary - this is one of the perceived "credibility" problems Jimbo and others have been discussing - when people mis-define details causing a drop in credibility. But this is another point for discussion elsewhere...

Simply put, a Phoneme is the sound. Phonetics are the symbols of the sound (if symbols are not used for multiple sounds). Words are made of phonemes, but many alphabets are represented phonetically (english use of the alphabet is not one)

I know that the Deseret and English alphabets don't match one-to one as you suggest I believe above - and having done extensive research on the alphabet, having access to primary sources, and having been academically published on the topic, I think I have a good understanding of its history and how the alphabet works - even when it had 43 letters, it was an alternative to the Latin or Romanic alphabet currently employed in most English-writing countries. I agree that every letter represents a sound or a phoneme. However, a Phonetic alphabet is an alphabet whose symbols represent one distinct sound (hence the Romanic/Latin characters used by Enlish are not phonetic, but Spanish' use of the letters are).

You should re-read the IPA article you suggested I read above. "a phonetic alphabet...accurately and uniquely represent each of the wide variety of sounds (phones or phonemes)"

You mention - "Granted, some of the spellings I've seen in Deseret are not perfectly phonemic, but they certainly aren't phonetic." If you live in the Northeastern United States, the Deseret Alphabet would seem much more "perfect" as you can hear the accent (the use of phonemes) they used to create the phonetic alphabet. Each carachter represents one sound or phoneme (which constitutes a phonetic representation of speech). It is the right word. -Visorstuff 19:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW - it is interesting to note how peoples use of Phonemes change and deteriorate within a language over time. This is one reason why English's use of the Latin alphabet is no longer phonetic (and why most say the "e" at the end of Cake is silent, when indeed it is often spoken, but only as a accented emphasis (KAK-uh), and why many people in the western US say mau'un instead of mountain. Gosh, I miss studying sounds that humans make and how languages have changed over time. But again, this is probably anothe point for another place. -Visorstuff 19:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You assume I don't know anything about this. I've done quite a lot of research outside of Wikipedia; i just thought an internal page would be easier incase you wanted to see it for yourself. But where are you getting that phonetics are symbols? Phonetics is the study of speech sounds, and a phonetic alphabet records those sounds--specifically the sounds that are spoken, not necessarily as they're understood. If you're writing phonemes, that's phonemic. What's so confusing about that? But perhaps this issue should be brought to another talk page for verification. It's looking like we could probably throw examples around here endlessly and never agree. --WurdBendur 22:47, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't assume anything about you, except you are quick to respond. I do understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree with your conclusion. I agree that we should let others decide this matter - let's see if we can get others to weigh in. I do appreciate the dialogue, but I've had this discussion with linguist professors and historians who've pointed me to use the words "phonetic alphabet." In any case, the board of regents and the deseret news articles introducing the alphabet used the words "phonetic." I'll post a request for comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#For_Peer_Review for other Latter Day Saint editors familiar with the alphabet to comment on. -Visorstuff 01:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"I don't assume anything about you, except you are quick to respond."

Less an assumption than an observation, I would say. :) Anyway, I do respect your authority--a glimpse at your user page reveals your experience with LDS--and you have an air of credibility that makes it hard to disagree with you. I'm willing to accept that you may be right, though I don't believe you are. But I fail to see how LDS relates to linguistics. I've mentioned this issue at the talk page for WikiProject_Phonetics for verification.

Thanks for being patient with me and willing to seek another point-of-view. --WurdBendur 14:25, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if the LDSM project seems like a stretch - but the DA is so intertwined into the administration of Brigham Young as Church President (much more than people realize), that it seemed a logical place to start - plus I was unaware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Phonetics (I'll definitely check it out), and I believe that would be the other logical place to post the comment. Very good. I appreciate your patience. We'll get it figured out. -Visorstuff 15:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Tom Haws here. You guys are doing a good job of discussing this civilly, though I agree you aren't making progress. I do believe that whatever the outcome of the discussion, we probably ought to state that the alphabet "was intended to be phonetic". In fact, we might say for the intro until we can come to better agreement, "The Deseret alphabet was developed as a phonetic alphabet in the mid-19th century by the board of regents of the University of Deseret" That embodies our non-bias policy. Tom Haws 19:16, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, to say that it "was developed as a phonetic alphabet" still favors the one word over the other. Perhaps a direct quote could move this favor away from us Wikipedians and onto, say, someone involved in the making of the alphabet like Bringam Young--not to offend, but only considering that the usage might have been different. I do recall the word phonetic being used in such a quote I read somewhere.

In any case, I've been thinking of a way around this entirely. We both acknowledge phonemes, correct? Rather than tacking on one word or another as in "phonetic alphabet" or "phonemic alphabet", isn't there a way we can split these up? We could simply state that it's an alphabet in which each letter represents a phoneme, or a unique sound, or whatever we can agree on. Where we can't come to an agreement on a specific word, a paraphrase may be in order. --WurdBendur 23:47, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cherokee

Why is the Cherokee syllabary mentioned here? It's not an attempt to give English a new alphabet like Shavian and Pitman Shorthand. It's not even an alphabet, strictly speaking. They weren't even developed at the same time, Pitman was made in the 1830s and Deseret and Shavian in the 50s. Cherokee syllabary was introduced in 1819. --Tydaj 14:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the Cherokee alphabet was an 19th century alphabet "experiment." Between 1750 and 1900, dozens of new writing systems and or alphabets, etc. were invented, starting with Ben Franklin, culminating in Braille and ASL. Widespread literacy in the United States contributed to this, which seems to be very concentrated effort focused on writing in the history of mankind. -Visorstuff 00:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It was not a 19th century alphabet "experiment" intended for the English language, as the text explicitly states. It was designed for the Cherokee language. (And if you really want to be picky, it's not an alphabet, but a syllabary.) I've removed it. EldKatt (Talk) 18:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we are missing each other's point. The point is that there are more new writing/communication methods developed between 1750 and 1900 than at any other time period in recorded history. The examples originally listed are some. That was the intent of the inclusion. -Visorstuff 22:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

They both look remarkably similar at first glance. Is it possible that the developers of the Deseret alphabet were influenced by Sequoyah's syllabary? --Krsont 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics

Aside from the unicode version of the letters we need "images" of them. basicaly a screen cap of the working version of the table. Just get me the screen cap and Ill take care of the rest --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA???

Where are the equivalents to the International Phonetic Alphabet? We have them for about every other writing system on Wikipedia. I can try to add some of the IPA letters to the table, the description of the letters is somewhat ambiguous (i.e. is "Wu" like wood (wʊ), what (wʌ), or woot (wu)?).--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 03:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The language sounds are the same as 19th-century new england phonetics - hense the sound for "the" was an enongated "th" sound, Wu for example would be a short "W" sound. more of a Wh or a Hw shound (the "wa" in "was" is a good example. only 38 of the 44 sounds are represented in the alphabet. Its been too long since I really looked at the IPA - and this would be a good addition to the article. -Visorstuff 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)