Talk:Deseret alphabet

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * *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)
Simply put, that is not correct. Neither are these:
* *I admit, you have correctly defined the word phoneme.
* *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. 
"You could look it up."
;phoneme
:[A] phoneme is generally regarded as an abstraction of a set (or equivalence class) of speech sounds (phones) which are perceived as equivalent to each other in a given language. For example, in English, the k sounds in the words kit and skill are not identical (as described below), but they are distributional variants of a single phoneme /k/. Different speech sounds that are realizations of the same phoneme are known as allophones. Allophonic variation may be conditioned, in which case a certain phoneme is realized as a certain allophone in particular phonological environments, or it may be free in which case it may vary randomly. In this way, phonemes are often considered to constitute an abstract underlying representation for segments of words, while speech sounds make up the corresponding phonetic realization, or surface form.
;phone
:In phonetics and linguistics, a phone is any distinct speech sound or gesture, regardless of whether the exact sound is critical to the meanings of words. In contrast, a phoneme is a speech sound that, in a given language, if it were swapped with another phoneme, would change the meaning of the word. Phones are absolute, not specific to any language, but phonemes can be discussed only in reference to specific languages.
--Thnidu, Ph.D. Linguistics (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's get a few things straight

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  ASL is not an alphabet or a writing system, and it was not invented. It is a language, not an invention, and it developed (and continues to develop) — naturally, as all living languages do — in communities of Deaf people. Please see the article. --Thnidu (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Cherokee

message: 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 CatTalk|@ 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too right. I can't see ANY of these "unicode" characters. --MacRusgail 04:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see them either and I have several Deseret fonts installed.  Curious. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  They're in an upper band and are not very widely supported at all.  They're legal but most implementations do not bother to implement them.  It's lonely above U+FFFF.  Xihr  20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information.  So this is something at the OS level?  I can't speak for the other posters, but I'm running WindowsXP Pro on this particular box.  Haven't tried it on the Sun machine yet. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You'll need a Unicode system and font that supports it.  Very few do.  Xihr  00:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What type of Unicode system is needed?  I too have a number of Deseret fonts installed on this PC, but they don't show in the Wiki article.  They do show in other apps (e.g. Word, OpenOffice, Acrobat, etc.). Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphics

message: Publishing this puerile disinformational doggerel is an act of vandalism.
Wikipedia is meant to inform, not deceive or engage in pre-pubescent jokery.
I'll delete it.  DON'T revert it back or you're intentionally breaking Wikipedia rules, good God!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mare Nostrum (talk • contribs) 10:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The alphabet continues to be used, however, by a micronation[4] called the Republic of Molossia found near Dayton, Nevada." 

message: WP:ELNO:12 specifically states "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." Wikia certainly qualifies as stable, it's has a huge number of editors, and is not a mirror or fork of WP. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikia link

message: About your , where your summary was
: Remove. Sorry Thnidu, this really seems like cruft to me. I don't understand why Wikipedia should document a third party converter. Why this one over 2deseret? We should explain the alphabet, not document third party software.
Yes, you're basically right. I went into far too much detail there. I still think, though, that we should at least mention the conversion programs.
But in the same edit I also corrected a number of reference titles, unrelated to the converters, and you reverted those corrections as well. I am going to restore my corrections. Here are my reasons, item by item:
*http://www.deseretalphabet.org/ : The page's HTML title is capitalized: "Deseret Alphabet Portal". The page also uses name-case when referring to the alphabet itself, not as part of the name of the page or anything else: 
**Four books were published in the late 1860s using the Deseret Alphabet ...
**The Deseret Alphabet came about
**the Deseret Alphabet never gained wide acceptance ...
**The Deseret Alphabet is now used mostly by hobbyists and studied by historians ...
**the 1869 Deseret Alphabet edition of the Book of Mormon ...
**The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Perl of Great Price (Triple Combination) in the Deseret Alphabet ...
** A lot of us that are interested in the Deseret Alphabet ...
*http://copper.chem.ucla.edu/~jericks/index.html : Likewise, this is the website's name: 
** Joshua Erickson'sDeseret Alphabet Pages
* http://2deseret.com/ Page is named Deseret Alphabet Translator. I agree, though, that it needs a description. Since it's bidirectional, how about
*: Converts standard orthography to Deseret alphabet and vice versa
*  https://zaphod.neocities.org/deseretipa.html also needs a description. Even with proper spaces inserted, the URL is not too clear. 
*: Converts Deseret input to International Phonetic Alphabet
===Shavian===
The introductory section says (end of 2nd paragraph)
: Similar experiments were not uncommon during the period, the most well-known of which is the Shavian alphabet.
A century apart is hardly "the same period":
* The Deseret alphabet ... is a phonemic English-language spelling reform developed between 1847 and 1854...
vs.
* All of his [= Shaw's] reform was made clear in Shaw's will of June 1950, in which provision was made for (Isaac) James Pitman, with a grant in aid from the Public Trustee, to establish a Shaw Alphabet. (Shavian alphabet#History)
I'm changing it to
:Similar experiments have not been uncommon...
--Thnidu (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no problem, all of these changes are fine by me.  Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converters, etc. 

message: The introductory section says (end of 2nd paragraph)
: Similar experiments were not uncommon during the period, the most well-known of which is the Shavian alphabet.
A century apart is hardly "the same period":
* The Deseret alphabet ... is a phonemic English-language spelling reform developed between 1847 and 1854...
vs.
* All of his [= Shaw's] reform was made clear in Shaw's will of June 1950, in which provision was made for (Isaac) James Pitman, with a grant in aid from the Public Trustee, to establish a Shaw Alphabet. (Shavian alphabet#History)
I'm changing it to
:Similar experiments have not been uncommon...
--Thnidu (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no problem, all of these changes are fine by me.  Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Shavian

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The Deseret word 𐐔𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻 would be pronounced /dɛsˈiːrɛt/, according to the pronunciation keys shown in the primers. I'm adding that as the original pronunciation. ABehrens (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between z and s aside, this seem unlikely. Note that the Deseret alphabet doesn't denote stress or vowel reduction in any way, you pulled that information out of thin air, not from the spelling (or do you actually have a source for it?). That it uses  is in no way an indication that it needs to have  there and  or  seems more plausible. – MwGamera (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of the word Deseret