Paul,
Thanks for your comments on the new alphabet competition. I do need
some help in setting up the rules.
I didn't want to preclude a non-roman solution, I just did not want
to make this a requirement. I also wanted to emphasize the need for
a family of related notations.
I wanted a pronunciation guide system -- perhaps a different one for
every major dialect.
Perhaps the writing system could be something less than a phonemic
writing system.
Regards,
Steve
--- In shavian@y..., "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> Hi Steve
> An interesting Idea.
> But are you not unduly limiting potential contestants,
> when you say, "Instead of a new non-Roman phonemic alphabet,
> as in the Shaw competition, the contest would be for a
> series of inter-related quasi phonemic alphabets
> starting with an ASCII-bet and ending with an
> augmented alphabet. In between would be an alphabet
> that used characters and diacritics from available
> character sets such as Latin 1 and Unicode."
>
> For myself I would open up the contest to allow any proposed
> new Alphabet than could be mapped
> on to a modern Computer Keyboard. In Fact,
> I suspect most members of the Shavian Group, by the nature
> of their interest would prefer to see an updated version of
> the Shaw Alphabet win such a contest.
>
> As far as a plain old-fashioned Augmented Alphabets, you can't
> really do much better than the ITAwith a good Keyboard map.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> --- In shavian@y..., Steve Bett <stbett@y...> wrote:
> > Is it time for a 2nd Shaw Alphabet Competition?
> >
> > Sound Writers,
> >
> > After reading Barbara Smoker's article again, I was
> > struck by the amount of media coverage and interest
> > that was generated by the Shaw alphabet competition.
> >
> > I think it is time to stage a second Shaw alphabet
> > competition. A $500 price is a small price to pay for
> > the potential %50,000 worth of publicity such a
> > competition would generate.
> >
> > We could even call it the 2nd Shaw Alphabet
> > Competition or the Shaw Sound Writing Competition.
> >
> > Instead of a new non-Roman phonemic alphabet, as in
> > the Shaw competition, the contest would be for a
> > series of inter-related quasi phonemic alphabets
> > starting with an ASCII-bet and ending with an
> > augmented alphabet. In between would be an alphabet
> > that used characters and diacritics from available
> > character sets such as Latin 1 and Unicode.
> >
> > The everyday writing system would not have to be
> > identical to the dictionary pronunciation guide - but
> > it would have to be close.
> >
> > The everyday pan-dialect writing system might relate
> > to several pronunciation guides - one for every major
> > dialect.
> >
> > Efficiency, as with the Shaw competition, should be
> > one of the main objectives. The concept would be
> > expanded to include efficiency of teaching and
> > learning and transitioning.
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > From GBS and the ABCs
> > by Barbara Smoker
> >
> > # Shaw's contribution was not invention but propaganda
> >
> > In fact, Shaw's contribution to the cause of alphabet
> > reform was not invention but propaganda, plus the
> > indirect publicity gained from association with his
> > name, owing to his literary prestige and notoriety,
> > plus his much publicised monetary bequest.
> >
> >
> > # Alphabet reform received very little support from
> > Shaw
> >
> > Among other popular fallacies about Shaw and the
> > alphabet is the assumption that the Shaw
> > percentage from the fabulous profits made by My Fair
> > Lady (the musical based, appropriately
> > enough, on Shaw's only play with a phonetic theme) are
> > all available to finance an
> > alphabetic revolution. Sadly, it is not so.
> >
> > First, Estate Duty took ?24,000 , and the Shaw
> > estate did not get out of debt to the Estate Duty
> > Offices till about the beginning of 1957.
> >
> > in fact it would probably still have been in debt had
> > it not been for My Fair Lady coming to
> > the rescue. Since the last of the Estate Duty was paid
> > off, all royalties accruing to the
> > estate until November, 1971 should certainly have gone
> > to swell the alphabet trusts, if
> > Shaw's wishes were carried out - except, of course,
> > the Shaw would never have allowed My
> > Fair Lady to be born in the first place; but that is
> > another story.
> >
> > # No one can make a bequest for an Abstract Cause.
> >
> > What many people have forgotten, however is the
> > Chancery Court case of 1957 that set aside the Shaw
> > alphabet trusts.
> >
> > Under English Law, no one may make a bequest for an
> > abstract cause - that is, without a personal or
> > organisational beneficiary - unless the object of the
> > bequest is charitable. The reason for this is that a
> > legal bequest must be legally enforceable, and must
> > therefore have a beneficiary to take the executors of
> > the estate to court if necessary. In the case of a
> > charity, this function is fulfilled by the
> > Attorney-General, who officially represents all
> >
> > British charities. But the legal definition of a
> > charity depends, believe it or not, on the
> > categories laid down in the Preamble to the Statute of
> > Queen Elizabeth the First!
> >
> >
> > # Education and Public Benefit were possible charities
> >
> > Two of the categories were possibilities for Shaw's
> > alphabet trusts - education and Public Benefit. After
> > six days of argument by learned gentleman in white
> > wigs, it was decided by Mr. Justice Harman that the
> > alphabet trusts could not come under either of these
> > two categories of charity, and did not, therefore,
> > constitute a charity, in the legal sense, at all. So
> > they were invalid.
> >
> > Every effort was made by Shavians to persuade the
> > Attorney-General to appeal against this decision, but
> > he refused to do so. There was no one else in a
> > position to appeal on the charity issue, but on the
> > very last day of the period allowed for appeal, the
> > Public Trustee, as Shaw's executor, lodged an appeal
> > on the issue that altho he could not be forced
> > in law to administer the alphabet trusts, he should be
> > allowed to do so.
> >
> > Before this appeal was heard, a compromise settlement
> > was reached out of court between the Public Trustee on
> > the one hand and the three ultimate residuary legatees
> > - the British Museum, The Royal Academy of Dramatic
> > Art, and the National Gallery of Ireland - on the
> > other, by which some of ?,300 was allocated from the
> > estate to the alphabet project
> >
> > outlined in Shaw's will. This is a paltry sum in
> > comparison with the total amount that can be expected
> > to accrue to the estate before all the Shaw copyrights
> > have expired. But even
> > ?,300 is better than nothing.
> >
> > # ?00 prize
> >
> > Immediately after this settlement was reached, the
> > Public Trustee announced a ?00 prize competition for
> > a suitable alphabet of at least 40 letters, enabling
> > the English language to be written without indicating
> > single sounds by more than one letter. Competitors
> > were given a full year in which to design and polish
> > their alphabets, the closing date of the
> > competition being Jan. 1, 1959. More than 1000
> > applications for details were received, but
> > as was to be expected, less than half of the
> > applicants actually submitted entries. The total
> > number of entries received was in the region of 450,
> > and about 250 of them survived the first sifting, the
> > rest being either based partly on the present
> > alphabet, which was not allowed, all else containing
> > too few or far too many symbols. It took several
> > months to complete the examinations of all the
> > entries.
> >
> > It is not surprising that instead of nominating an
> > outright winner, the judges did adopt an eclectic
> > approach, choosing the best four entries of similar
> > design, and inviting their designers to form a
> > committee to produce a composite system embodying the
> > best features of each. Provided the alphabets chosen
> > were definitely similar to begin with, this method
> > would probably produce a better alphabet than any of
> > those actually submitted, and would thus better be
> > able to fulfil Shaw's wishes, would have a better
> > chance of becoming the alphabet of the future, and
> > would better serve the people who may use it. In
> > actuality, the four differed so much that Kingsley
> > Read was finally instructed to make a few improvements
> > to his alphabet and hence is responsible for the final
> > design.
> >
> >
> > One popular fallacy is that Shaw designed an alphabet
> > of his own and left money for its propagation. It is
> > an indication of his modesty (a trait with which he is
> > rarely credited) that he preferred to leave the
> > phonetic analysis and selection of symbols to experts,
> > though he had prepared a phonetic analysis for his
> > printed postcard on the alphabet question - one of his
> > famous printed postcards which enabled him to cope
> > with his huge daily correspondence.
> >
> > # # #
> >
> > Smoker's entire article will appear in an anthology of
> > spelling reform articles from the last 100 years
> > which is scheduled to be printed some time in 2003.
> >
> >
> >
> > =====
> >
> > To join SAUNDSPEL - The Phonology Forum
> > send a blank email to saundspel-subscribe@y...
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> > http://faith.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=810373/R=0/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=810373/R=1/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=810373/rand=178136004>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .