Hi Philip
I apologize for my ham handedness.Obviously the current Shavian letter
names work fairly well, or none of us would be able to transliterate, since
that is all that we have had to go on.
On the other hand, I think this forum is a good place to clear up confusion
on how to use the Shaw Alphabet.
Much as I would like to introduce refinements to the Shaw Alphabet based on
a slightly more modern view of English phonetics, I must bow to the wishes
of the community of users.
No-one is king of this Alphabet, and I don't think you *nor* I
should try to convince a bunch of people to switch to different names in
unison, for no reason.
Mistakenly, I looked at the current list of Shavian names
and "Ha-Ha", I thought it was either poorly and haphazardly thought out or
a joke.
Mistakenly, I thought there was room for improvement, if only to correct
"Err"-ors.
Unfortunately, the people having an appreciation of the Shavian Alphabet
are presently few in number, and so feel that they do not have the numbers
to popularize, anything note-worthy.
Still you never know what can evolve into viable alternative.
Anyway, even if these changes don't become popular, then
only a few people would be using it
-- and it won't be the end of the world, in any case.
At least where the changes are minor and upwardly compatible.
I don't believe anyone will have much trouble reading, the words "India" or
"idea", whether the last sound is spelt as "Ian" or "Eat" + "Ado".
I really don't want to try and push any additions to the Shavian Alphabet
on other people as a "better" or "obviously optimal" scheme.
Different people will have different opinions.
Unfortunately, I believe that the current Shavian Letter names are
"cumbersome" at best.
Still if this isn't a Forum for expressing different opinions and hammering
out a standard approach to teaching and using the Shavian Alphabet, what is it?
Regards, Paul Vandenbrink
P.S. Good to hear from you all. Hard to preserve a balanced point of view
in a vacumn.
At 09:41 PM 11/28/02 +0100, you wrote:
>On 28 Nov 02, at 19:51, paul vandenbrink wrote:
>
> > 1. Why fix something that is not broken?
> > The current names are inadequate. They would make the pronouncing of
> > acronyms clumbersome.
>
>OK, do you mean acronyms such as "laser" and "NATO" or what some people
>call "initialisms" such as "FBI" and "UCLA"? In the first case, it's
>pronounced like a word -- and you can do that with Shavian already. In
>the second case, each letter is named separately, and there the Shavian
>word would be longer. *shrug* Other languages have a similar problem.
>
> > I was unable to come up with ideal names for all these letter, which
> > is why I threw this topic open to the group.
>
>OK, fair enough. Let's have a show of hands -- who here supports Paul
>and thinks we need new names for Shavian letters? Who thinks that the
>names in _Androcles_ are sufficient?
>
>For that matter, how many people actively read the list? It seems to be
>fewer than half-a-dozen, by the looks of it recently. Maybe my memory
>deceives me.
>
> > Any other practical suggestions?
>
>Well, you could do as the Greeks do -- they still have multi-syllable
>letter names but sometimes abbreviate them, especially in pronouncing
>initialisms. For example, I heard that KKE (the abbreviation for
>Communist Party of Greece) could be either "kappa-kappa-epsilon" (the
>"proper" names) or "kou-kou-e" (with simplified names).
>
>But then I'd go all the way and use some scheme such as "consonant
>sound + 'oo'" or "'e' + consonant", similar to the way English has it
>(jay, kay / eff, en, em / cee, gee, tee, vee / etc.).
>
>On the other hand, I think such matters might best be decided through
>usage. No-one is king of the language, and I don't think you *nor* I
>(nor anyone else) can convince a bunch of people to switch to different
>names in unison. Just use whatever you like, and if it becomes popular,
>then it'll be viable alternative. If it doesn't become popular, then
>only a few people will be using it -- but it won't be the end of the
>world. What I don't really want is for three people to use a new scheme
>and constantly try to push it on other people as a "better" or
>"obviously optimal" scheme. Different people will have different
>opinions.
>
>And in general, I'd vote to keep things pretty much as they are now,
>without going too widely afield -- or at least not on a public list
>such as this. If I wanted to add a couple of letters (say, a "hw"
>sound, or a new vowel sound for those who distinguish between "horse"
>and "hoarse"), then I could do so but I think shavian@...
>would not be the appropriate venue, since it wouldn't be Shavian any
>more. Similarly with new letter names, deleted letters, changed
>letterforms such as Quikscript and what-have-you.
>
>Please, Paul, when you come up with a great new idea for Shavian to
>take it in a new direction, if you get some support on the group, then
>great, but if you don't, then please move it elsewhere. I keep getting
>the feeling that you're a bit of a troublemaker, trying to sow seeds of
>difference either just for the sake of it, to promote your own ideas,
>or whatever. I think Shavian works as it is.
>
>I hope that when I get ideas about changing the language, I'll move
>them elsewhere as well if I think people aren't interested.
>
> > 3. As for "Eat" and "Ian", I am treating the initial sound as being
> > the same while I try aand determine whether "Ian" is an actual
> > Dipthong. Any Linguists willing to venture an opinion?
>
>I don't know what to use "Ian" for, besides the name itself. On the
>other hand, I haven't read through _Androcles_ and don't see how it
>uses that letter.
>
>I don't think I'd use "Ian" in my writing, but I still consider it a
>part of the Shavian alphabet.
>
>(But I'd say that the initial sound if "Ian" is indeed a diphthong -- a
>falling diphthong, at that. It's a similar sound in "nearly", for a non-
>rhotic speaker.)
>
> > I thought that sound wound would be better represented by "eat"
> > + "ado".
>
>Possibly.
>
>Cheers,
>Philip
>--
>Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1328027/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870030;7586687;u?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1328027/rand=211379058>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .