The name comes from the Hebrew point system devised to indicate vowels in a writing system that normally didn't use them. The phoneme and the associated grapheme - a turned e [] - were identified in the late 19th Century. It has been part of the IPA (International Phonetic Association) notation since it was first published in 1897.

The obscure vowel is the second most frequent sound in English speech.

Linguists recognize schwa as the second most frequent English speech sound [after i]. It is often called the obscure vowel - perhaps because it has no consistent representation. Dewey (1971) claims that the sound is spelled 42 different ways in an abridged dictionary. Other vowels are spelled about 20 different ways.

In IPA, the schwa is symbolized with a turned e []. In an ASCII notation, some other symbol has to be used. The leading candidates are @, ^, ['], a, a' and u. In TO and in German orthography, the // sound is often represented with an e or er as in better /bet/. Cut Speling consistently leaves it out of word endings [betr, litl, botm, butn]. In this sreamlined orthography, the obscure vowel becomes the undenoted vowel.

Why do we need a consistent way to denote this phoneme?

The chief reason for wanting to add the shwa grapheme is to simplify spelling. It far from simple in TO (the traditional orthography) where it can be represented 43 different ways.

10 spellings of shwa in TO reduces to 3 in Chekt Speling

In the terminal position with syllabic r l m n, the shwa is not denoted. With non-syllabic terminal consonants, [a'] or an apostrophe is used. In the initial position [a'] is used.

Choosing a grapheme or mark to denote shwa

There is much to be said for using the circumflex [^] as the symbol for the IPA /^/ (u in TO) and ^ for schwa. Both shwa // and /^/ (u in TO) are central vowels which sound about the same. The basic difference is that shwa is not stressed.

Another advantage for the circumflex is that it looks looks something like an [A] which is useful when the shwa symbol replaces the A as in ago and about. It also like a slightly turned r (a lazy r?) which might be useful it it replaced er.

The most frequent location of schwa is in er endings. In RP, father (cs fathr) would be spelled phonetically as faadh^. The er in her on the other hand is stressed. Sweet uses a double shwa [] to represent this vowel. Jones uses the yogh [3:]. Sweet uses the shwa notation to indicate both // and /^/

In Chekt Spelling the phonemes // and /^/ are indicated by a' and u'. The leading letters are not required except for easy reading and minimal visual disruption. Logically, the shwapostrophe would suffice.

Alternate Shwa Spellings

The schwa spelling column was mostly provided by Ron Footer. It gives several possible spellings. The 1st spelling is close to Cut Spelling.

The idea of this kind of representation came from Ron Footer who said:
Ie ^gree sumthing liek dhis kan bee weurkt out But how doo wee tel leurn^rz wich inish^l let^r too uez ? Faur igzaamp^l UPON and OPOEZ The inish^l let^rz hav igzakli the saem sound

(Steve) I am sure there are some amiguous examples but upon and oppose would be a'pon - a'po'z in CCS. Normally up is u'p but since the stress is on
the second syllable u' cannot be used.

^pon - ^poz would look OK if we wever got used to ^p.

If writers of English widely accepted any symbol for schwa, and it became seen as literate (or even superior) usage, while the 'respectable' members of the old guard continued to use TO (as many surely would), we would have alternative "correct" spellings, which would, without anything more (and particularly, without talking about undermining "correct spelling", which would needlessly arouse many opponents), discredit proponents of "correct spelling," and by doing so, speed reforming.

Reasons for marking the obscure central vowel which is not marked in any systematic way in TO.

I am not sure what orthographer noticed this first. It is not found in Pitman's early work. It is not included in ITA. We do find it emphasized in Harry Lindgren's SR1 in 1969 but he does not give any historical account as to what influenced him. It is of course found in the 1899 IPA and has been regularly recognized by linguists.

Reasons for using the apostrophe as the key marker for the obscure central vowel.

Strangely, there are not many common words with schwa except those with it in the last syllable. (what about a'bout, a'round, a'go, a'dept, etc.?) These, as I am sure you will agree, have immediately become easier. For example father faathr mother muthr. Then come the words with schwa in other syllables. For example together t'gethr today t'day. I think they could find this natural and easy. Easier than [to] not pronounced TOO.Then may come probably [ prob'bli.]

The schwa is becoming established. Are the SSS advocates of apostrophe for schwas throwing out the present uses of the apostrophe? Let me first copy a few lines from The Oxford Companion to the English Language 1992 P 76

Some observers consider that the general use of the apostrophe, especially for the possession and plurality, is in the decline, because it bears little relation to the spoken word and is a source of confusion in writing and print. Others urge that it is abandoned in some or all of its roles, a position that, if carried to the extreme would make homographs of HE'LL and HELL.

This makes sense. ITS and IT'S are pronounced identically. It is understood when speaking. Why have it in writing? This applies to its use for possession. For its other use, I think this can coexist with ['] for schwa. For example She'll become famous becomes Shee'l bikum faem's. (New Spelling) or shi'l bikm feima's (CCS). Hee'l goe tuu hel. Hi'l go' tu he.l.

Re perception of sounds and pronunciation: The SSS e-mailers are all literate and can perceive sounds (or we would not be discussing them in so much detail) and presumably we pronounce words in *correct* ways each for our own country. The general population does not think or speak in these ways. That sounds snobbish, but I do not mean to be snobbish.

Times Educational Supplement 19 Sept 97 report on theater studies students at university said *Use of the apostrophe 's' was a particular problem....... Confusion of one word for another was widespread: are/our, there/their, know/no, discuss/disgust, pitchers/pictures.* (the latter two illustrate the lack of perception of sounds or incorrect speech. If you do not say the word *correctly* it is of no use to perceive the sounds!

But we are talking about using ['] for one sound instead of using every vowel and combinations of vowels, not its complicated use for possession. (See page 172 of the 1996 2nd (revised and expanded) edition of Cut Spelling has some interesting and helpful references to the confusing use of the apostrophe.)

In TO (the traditional orthography) the schwa sound is represented in over 40 different ways (Dewey, 1971)

stages . Shwa.doc

(RON) ie think dhat ue kuud sae dhat thaer aar 3 maen katiguriz ov shwaa
There are three places where we find the schwa sound.

• At the beginning of a syllable a'go, a'stir
• At the end of a syllable area' (not eria')
• aktr, col'm, fashn, akta'r, cola'm, fasha'n

Simple 4x6 table Shwa in relation to other phonemes Vowel Trapazoid/Quadrilateral

Paul New On Schwa

References:
Wilde, Sandra. 1980. What's a Schwa Sound Anyway?A holistic guide to phonetics, phonics, and spelling. Heinemann.

Allan wrote

Just wat is th point of tryng to hav spelng exactly reflect pronunciation?
Just wat is th point of tryng to hav pronunciation exactly reflect spelng?
Just wat iz x point 'v pypdri'mz 'n no'te'5nz that ar dificult to ri'd & ryt?

Th formr is a pipedream, and we can se from our own histry we'r not havng much success in making it hapn. Th latr is even mor of a pipedream. Pronunciation chanjes - somtimes as a fad - from time to time, from place to place, from class to class. It canot be chaind, or even prescribed. (We thot we'd brot up our childrn propr like, but they aint speakng quite th same as us.) Spelng is a tool of riting and readng, not of speakng. It may or may not (eg, chinese) reflect pronunciation. It is desirebl, in an alfabeticl systm desynd for such a purpose, that ther be som link between speakng and riting, and hence between speakng and spelng.

But it is not necesary for it to be precise or absolute. Wat is necesary is that spelng becoms fairly consistnt and predictbl, and that Taam, Ian, Ron, John, Val, I, and al of us shud be able to read each othrs riting without our varius accents getng in th way. In th process th riting wil giv som idea of pronunciation, even tho this difrs from place to place, time to time, class to class.

I'm sory, but I find Taam, Ian, and Ron's posts · tryng to reflect pronunciation - DIFICLT TO READ (repeat: DIFICLT TO READ), and I somtimes giv up befor th end. (Maybe they find my CS riting also dificlt to read.) WE'R AL INTRESTD in simplifyng spelng. If we find it dificlt wat wud it al be like to those without such an intrest?

I wud sujest our time and enrjy cud be betr spent in devising ways of propagating SOM FORM OF MODRAT CHANJE rathr than pursuing pipedreams. Discussng and formulating pipedreams (in this case, spelng and pronunciation being tytly related) is fine as a mentl exercise (such as playng chess or solvng a cryptic crossword) but lets not se it as doing much for th cause, othr than perhaps as being a distnt but not criticl refrnce point. We'r in th busness of promoting chanje, and we shud be getng on with it!

I shal now retreat to th stokades to prepare for th onslaut. Cheers, anyway,

Allan

Although I agree in principle with the Allan's position, I don't think there would be much agreement in practice. I don't think that cut spelling is the end of the line.
I don't think that the broad romic that most of us pipedreamers are advocating is a case of exactly reflecting pronunciation. It is as close as divergent dialects will allow and would eventually be based on a new pronunciation dictionary for world english. I don't think it is so close that it will have to be revised every 50 years. It should last 200 years because it is not that exact. No phonemic notation is going to look like TO more than 40% of the time so the notation is going to take some getting used to.