Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

--- In shavian@y..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
>
> I have androlocles and ghoti on my computer, however, typing in
these
> fonts is atrocious. My feeling is that it should not be like typing
on
> a normal keyboard and not fitting the sounds to the letters as best
we
> can. IMHO, perhaps we could use the top 19 letters on the keyboard,
and
> one of the lower letters. Then use the shift key to flip them as the
> printed shaw is intended. If anyone knows of a font creator, I would
> like to try my hand at creating a better typing scheme.

Actually, I'm working on a new Shaw font myself, with a newer, far
more logical layout. I found the current standard set OK at first
glance, only to downgrade my opinion of it quite dramatically as I
continued to type in it. For starters, why should Judge be typed with
a capital J, and Yea be typed with a lower case j? I thought this
alphabet was for English, not Spanish. Or how about Ado being typed
a, and cAt being typed A, lAte being typed E, Eat being typed I, and
Ice being typed F? What the hey? As a preview of my new layout,
all "short" vowels (cAt, hEn, pIg, dOg, rUg) will be typed with lower
case a, e, i, o, u, and the "long" vowels (lAne, mEEt, mIght, lOne,
rUne) will be typed with upper case A, E, I, O, and U. Judge will be
typed j, and Yea will be typed y. I'm starting it from scratch and
will be attempting to design it at the same size as Times New Roman.
Since the current standard is the second layout for Shaw as far as I
know (the first being simply a direct map from the Androcles cheat
card over the standard keyboard), I'll simply be calling this
one "Shaw 3.0" for now, until I come up with a better name. Watch for
it in the file section within the next few weeks. L8r.
>
> > P.P.S. In fact I think we need to Simplify or create a subset of
the
> > Shaw
> > Alphabet for popular use.
> > My last Revision of the Shaw Alphabet like Quickscript also added
> > letters
> > for a couple of non English sounds. We need to come out with a
> > simpler and
> > clearly delineated subset of the Shaw Alphabet just for American
> > English
> > words with an accompanying teaching guide. Perhaps we could poll
the
> > members of the group for suggestions and then vote on them.
Anyone
> > else
> > interested in pursuing this? It should be a community Initiative.
>
> I am interested in persuing this. I believe that only wh is a sound
> that americans use more if at all that the British do not. If those
> across the pond could correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that
making
> it cursive has made it too much like secretarial shorthand, which
for
> me is very difficult to learn. Thus Shavian.
>
> I have however come to the conclusion that shavian *can* be
improved,
> not just as a typed language, but as a written language.
>
> Just thinking,
> Star
>
>
> =====
> "One ship goes east, another west,
> By the self same gale that blows.
> 'Tis not the gale, but set of sail
> That determines which way it goes."
>
> --Unknown
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.yahoo.com



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1155070/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

--- In shavian@y..., Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
wrote:
> There have always been Homonyms in English, where the meaning of
the word
> must be determined by context. Obviously, we wish to minimize those
> homonyms as well. Maybe that requires creating alternate letters
with the
> same pronunciation.
> We need to gauge the extent of the problem, first.

I'd suggest avoiding the creation of any new letters for Shaw.
Indeed, having multiple spellings for the same sound (something like
561 spellings to represent 41 basic sounds in TO) is one of the
problems that Shaw wanted to avoid. Purposely adding soundalikes puts
us right back where we started. Sure, we'll be getting a whole bunch
of words which will be spelled exactly the same where they didn't
before (eg. to, two, too, their, there, they're, main, mane, air,
ere, err, etc), but given that people have been using all of these in
spoken English for centuries with no or minimal problems, I can't see
any new ones cropping up simply because they're written down as they
sound. L8r.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

> Hi Craig
--- In shavian@y..., Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
wrote:
> Thanks for your insights and suggestions.
> Let me respond to them in a point format.
> 1. As a mid-western Canadian, I had the same difficulties
> distinguishing On/Ah/Awe.

Same with me, as a BCer. However, yesterday I heard my dad (an Irish
native) say something that really drove home the difference. Not
a "how to tell the difference" sort of comment, just something he
said naturally in conversation. Over here, most people pronounce on,
ah, and awe the same way, but he pronounced something that was about
half way between "ar" and "or", which leads me to believe that in
other countries all three of these phonetics are pronounced quite
differently, and such people probably have no idea how such a thing
could be so confusing.

> I believe, the Dutch just double a vowel letter when it is long,
but I
> prefer an intensifier.
> As well as "o" and "aw"
> there is another pair "i" and "ee" ("if" and "eat")
> and there is also "oo" and hard "u" ("wool" and "ooze")
> where the main difference between the pair of vowel sounds is
simple
> duration or length.

Not out this way. If and eat have radically different vowel sounds
out here, as do wool and ooze. I can't really describe the if and eat
difference, as those are words that I'd use to help explain it. :-)
The two "oo" sounds are a lot easir, though. Over here, at least,
the "wool" sound is basically a dipthong from the "ooze" sound to
the "up" sound (possible "ado"). L8r.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1155068/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-302>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

THANK YOU!! I have been trying to get at this
point for some time. We don't need any more new
symbols until we can learn to use the ones we
have. Ah Awe On and Ado may sound similar in SOME
dialects, but they do not sound similar in ALL
dialects. My Mason-Dixon (that's somewhere
between north- and south-eastern) american
dialect pronounces a difference in these. Though
this may not always be the case. We don not need
any more or less than the creaters of Shavian
intended.

Soapbox dismounted,
Star


--- rubik67 <rubik67@...> wrote:
> --- In shavian@y..., Paul Gershon Vandenbrink
> <pvandenbrink@s...>
> wrote:
> > There have always been Homonyms in English,
> where the meaning of
> the word
> > must be determined by context. Obviously, we
> wish to minimize those
> > homonyms as well. Maybe that requires
> creating alternate letters
> with the
> > same pronunciation.
> > We need to gauge the extent of the problem,
> first.
>
> I'd suggest avoiding the creation of any new
> letters for Shaw.
> Indeed, having multiple spellings for the same
> sound (something like
> 561 spellings to represent 41 basic sounds in
> TO) is one of the
> problems that Shaw wanted to avoid. Purposely
> adding soundalikes puts
> us right back where we started. Sure, we'll be
> getting a whole bunch
> of words which will be spelled exactly the same
> where they didn't
> before (eg. to, two, too, their, there,
> they're, main, mane, air,
> ere, err, etc), but given that people have been
> using all of these in
> spoken English for centuries with no or minimal
> problems, I can't see
> any new ones cropping up simply because they're
> written down as they
> sound. L8r.
>
>


=====
"One ship goes east, another west,
By the self same gale that blows.
'Tis not the gale, but set of sail
That determines which way it goes."

--Unknown

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>
Click here to find your contact lenses!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

I agree entirely. We have all the characters we will ever need in the alphabet as it is, and the point of having characters that don't make sense in some people's dialects is so that the large amount of people that DO make the distinction CAN write it down.

----- Original Message -----
From: Star Raven <mailto:celestraof12worlds@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Is there an Ideal way to type Shaw?

THANK YOU!! I have been trying to get at this
point for some time. We don't need any more new
symbols until we can learn to use the ones we
have. Ah Awe On and Ado may sound similar in SOME
dialects, but they do not sound similar in ALL
dialects. My Mason-Dixon (that's somewhere
between north- and south-eastern) american
dialect pronounces a difference in these. Though
this may not always be the case. We don not need
any more or less than the creaters of Shavian
intended.

Soapbox dismounted,
Star


--- rubik67 <rubik67@...> wrote:
> --- In shavian@y..., Paul Gershon Vandenbrink
> <pvandenbrink@s...>
> wrote:
> > There have always been Homonyms in English,
> where the meaning of
> the word
> > must be determined by context. Obviously, we
> wish to minimize those
> > homonyms as well. Maybe that requires
> creating alternate letters
> with the
> > same pronunciation.
> > We need to gauge the extent of the problem,
> first.
>
> I'd suggest avoiding the creation of any new
> letters for Shaw.
> Indeed, having multiple spellings for the same
> sound (something like
> 561 spellings to represent 41 basic sounds in
> TO) is one of the
> problems that Shaw wanted to avoid. Purposely
> adding soundalikes puts
> us right back where we started. Sure, we'll be
> getting a whole bunch
> of words which will be spelled exactly the same
> where they didn't
> before (eg. to, two, too, their, there,
> they're, main, mane, air,
> ere, err, etc), but given that people have been
> using all of these in
> spoken English for centuries with no or minimal
> problems, I can't see
> any new ones cropping up simply because they're
> written down as they
> sound. L8r.
>
>


=====
"One ship goes east, another west,
By the self same gale that blows.
'Tis not the gale, but set of sail
That determines which way it goes."

--Unknown

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>
Click here to find your contact lenses!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

In a previous episode, Star Raven said:

> Ah Awe On and Ado may sound similar in SOME
> dialects, but they do not sound similar in ALL
> dialects. My Mason-Dixon (that's somewhere
> between north- and south-eastern) american
> dialect pronounces a difference in these. Though
> this may not always be the case. We don not need
> any more or less than the creaters of Shavian
> intended.

Of course many dialects pronounce the sounds differently and should have the
letters to write them, but for those who do not distinguish the sounds, it
would be very un-phonetic to memorize where the letter AWE is "supposed" to
be used. Wouldn't it be sensible to say to new Shavian learners whose
dialect has fewer vowels than the dilect of the creators of the alphabet,
"the letter ___ represents a sound people from ___ don't make, and thus you
don't need to use it" right up front?

It's not that AH AWE and ON "sound similar in some dialects." In those
dialects, there is NO difference. Even if someone is aware of and can even
imitate the distinction others make between "cot" and "caught", "don" and
"dawn", or "calm" and ".com", if there dialect doesn't differentiate, they
cannot determine which homophone they are hearing without context.

The map at http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/Map1.html shows the
extensive geographic distribution of those who merge AH and ON, as well as
discussion of its spread.

I would suggest that these people be encouraged to simply use ON, as it is
closest to the sound they generlly use and is easiest to write. Naturally,
they should be aware that others will be using the additional letters to
represent their dialects.

Androcles and the Lion makes only very limited use of AWE, but I will read
some more and take notes before making any arguments about its application
to writing American.

The UPENN site also shows the distribution of the distinction between /w/
and /hw/ which was being talked about a bit ago:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/Map8.html

Craig



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/le/lensexpress/lensexpress_468x60b.gif>
Click here to find your contact lenses! <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153174/R=7/*http://www.lensexpress.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Ah, yes, that is true, they are the same in some
dialects... this is why there should be a subset... for
some dialects, choose the on, awe, ah, up, ado, that best
fits your dialect. Then throw out the others... thus you
have a dialectal subset. As long as you speak english, then
the 40 letters in shaw are enough. There are other
languages, of course, where those sounds are not
sufficient. African dialects that include clicking and
popping noises, french and spanish that include nasal
sounds. Then there are the long sounds or those times where
inflection matters. Those are better handled by those
written and spoken languages.

We use the most modern form of the roman alphabet. This is
a hybrid alphabet of phonetic and non-phonetic sounds. As I
have mentioned before, so many alphabets fit the language
that they were created for. Shavian was created for
english, as kanji was created for japanese or cyrillic was
for russian.

As for the \hw\ sound, I do believe that it should be
added, making the letter cound 41, however, that is the
only place I have found that we need a new letter, in that,
unlike \x\ or \qu\ it makes a different sound all
together...a sort of "voiceless W".

--Star

ps. Sorry so long, just thought I needed to clarify what I
meant. :)

--- Craig Butz <shavian@...> wrote:
> In a previous episode, Star Raven said:
>
> > Ah Awe On and Ado may sound similar in SOME
> > dialects, but they do not sound similar in ALL
> > dialects. My Mason-Dixon (that's somewhere
> > between north- and south-eastern) american
> > dialect pronounces a difference in these. Though
> > this may not always be the case. We don not need
> > any more or less than the creaters of Shavian
> > intended.
>
> Of course many dialects pronounce the sounds differently
> and should have the
> letters to write them, but for those who do not
> distinguish the sounds, it
> would be very un-phonetic to memorize where the letter
> AWE is "supposed" to
> be used. Wouldn't it be sensible to say to new Shavian
> learners whose
> dialect has fewer vowels than the dilect of the creators
> of the alphabet,
> "the letter ___ represents a sound people from ___ don't
> make, and thus you
> don't need to use it" right up front?
>
> It's not that AH AWE and ON "sound similar in some
> dialects." In those
> dialects, there is NO difference. Even if someone is
> aware of and can even
> imitate the distinction others make between "cot" and
> "caught", "don" and
> "dawn", or "calm" and ".com", if there dialect doesn't
> differentiate, they
> cannot determine which homophone they are hearing without
> context.
>
> The map at
> http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/Map1.html
> shows the
> extensive geographic distribution of those who merge AH
> and ON, as well as
> discussion of its spread.
>
> I would suggest that these people be encouraged to simply
> use ON, as it is
> closest to the sound they generlly use and is easiest to
> write. Naturally,
> they should be aware that others will be using the
> additional letters to
> represent their dialects.
>
> Androcles and the Lion makes only very limited use of
> AWE, but I will read
> some more and take notes before making any arguments
> about its application
> to writing American.
>
> The UPENN site also shows the distribution of the
> distinction between /w/
> and /hw/ which was being talked about a bit ago:
> http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/Map8.html
>
> Craig
>
>


=====
"One ship goes east, another west,
By the self same gale that blows.
'Tis not the gale, but set of sail
That determines which way it goes."

--Unknown

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/le/lensexpress/lensexpress_468x60b.gif>
Click here to find your contact lenses! <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153174/R=7/*http://www.lensexpress.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

In a previous episode, Craig Butz said:

> The map at http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/maps/Map1.html shows the
> extensive geographic distribution of those who merge AH and ON, as well as
> discussion of its spread.
>
> Androcles and the Lion makes only very limited use of AWE, but I will read
> some more and take notes before making any arguments about its application to
> writing American.

OK, I mixed the letter names up in my last post. The "cot/caught" merger
involves the letters ON and AWE, as attested by the pair "rot(ten)/wrought"
in Androcles.

I've read another 5 pages of Androcles paying careful attention to these
letters. Below is a list of the words on pages 60-68 that are spelled with
ON, AH, and AWE. I'm particularly interested in whether other Americans and
Canadians would spell the AH words with AH.

ON
62 dog
62 collaring
64 watching
66 hobbles
66 off
66 not
68 softened
68 scoffed
76 rotten

AH
56 calm
60 clasps
60 past
62 yah
62 gasping
64 rather
64 after
64 asked
66 last
66 commands
68 path

AWE
60 talk
62 assaults
62 haw
64 always
66 call
66 all
66 jaw
66 law
68 almost
68 already
68 fallen
68 falling
68 water
68 wrought

Except for "calm" I would use ASH for the A in every one of the AH words.
How do those of you who see a need for all three of these letters to
represent your idiolect use the letter AH? Are there Americans who
pronounce "past" and the first syllable of "pasta" the same way?

So as not to contribute to further confusion by trying to describe all these
sounds, I've recorded the above list. You can hear how I say these words at
http://frognet.net/~craig/on-ah-awe.mp3

After recording it, I realized that I say AH and AWE identically. Yeesh.

Craig



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/le/lensexpress/lensexpress_468x60b.gif>
Click here to find your contact lenses! <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153174/R=7/*http://www.lensexpress.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Craig Butz wrote:
> OK, I mixed the letter names up in my last post. The "cot/caught" merger
> involves the letters ON and AWE, as attested by the pair "rot(ten)/wrought"
> in Androcles.
>
> I've read another 5 pages of Androcles paying careful attention to these
> letters. Below is a list of the words on pages 60-68 that are spelled with
> ON, AH, and AWE. I'm particularly interested in whether other Americans and
> Canadians would spell the AH words with AH.
[..]
> Except for "calm" I would use ASH for the A in every one of the AH words.

As a west-coast American I've got the same set as of ASHes as you.
(Though for "yah" I'm assuming it's supposed to be what I would spell as
"yeah"; if I were to encounter the odd spelling "yah" in American
English I would pronounce it with AH/ON/AWE, not ASH.)

> How do those of you who see a need for all three of these letters to
> represent your idiolect use the letter AH? Are there Americans who
> pronounce "past" and the first syllable of "pasta" the same way?

Note that there do exist people who pronounce "pasta" with an ASH. From
what I hear this is more likely among Canadians, but there may be some
border-straddling dialects... I don't know if they would also pronounce
"past" with an ASH, though.

> So as not to contribute to further confusion by trying to describe all these
> sounds, I've recorded the above list. You can hear how I say these words at
> http://frognet.net/~craig/on-ah-awe.mp3
>
> After recording it, I realized that I say AH and AWE identically. Yeesh.

Yours sounds about like my pronunciation.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153156/R=0/*http://www.lensexpress.com/tracker/trackclick.aspx?Page=ACUVUE%202%20Colors&AffUrl=273&AffCode=14>
Click here to find your contact lenses!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

--- In shavian@y..., Brion VIBBER <brion@p...> wrote:
> Note that there do exist people who pronounce "pasta" with an ASH.
>From
> what I hear this is more likely among Canadians, but there may be
some
> border-straddling dialects... I don't know if they would also
pronounce
> "past" with an ASH, though.

As a west coast Canadian, I can confirm that. "Past" and "pasta" are
both definitely with an "Ash". I'm so happy for the recent threads.
I've been really stressed out trying to figure out when to use ah,
awe, and on. Now I've just said "screw it. I'm making
everything 'on'." :-) The only time I can think of myself
pronouncing "ah" differently than "awe" or "on" are in the
words "ah", and "aha" (perhaps the music group "A-Ha" also falls
under this category), or perhaps in transliterating Japanese text
(I'm guessing that "Ah" is supposed to be pronounced roughly the same
a a Japanese person pronounces "a"). L8r.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
<http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/le/lensexpress/lensexpress_468x60b.gif>
Click here to find your contact lenses! <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225674.2075964.3644785.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1153174/R=7/*http://www.lensexpress.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .