Hi Philip
I agree that it would very useful to have a Shaw dictionary of at
least a couple of thousand words or so, written in TO along with the
equivalent original Shaw Orthology based on the current standard
British accent and a brief definition of the meaning using Androcles
as a starting point.
Unfortunately copies of Androcles are no longer in print, so I don't
think we can be bound to only the words which can be found in
Androcles.
The dictionary would represent preferably a Rhotic variant of the
British English.
I would be willing to work on compiling such a list.
May a recommend using Hugh's Ikonboard at www.shavian.org and
starting it off at as new topic.
It is a good place to accumulate the words and then it could be put
into a single file when completed and ready to be published.
I enjoyed reading your other points, and please forgive my over-
zealous attempts to discuss the warts and suggest improvements where
I feel there could be a better alternative. Warts and all the Shavian
Alphabet is miles ahead of any other othography for English.
Hammering out warts does not seem to be useful at this point.
We do need to conserve what we have.
Regards, Paul V.
_________________ attached _______________________________________
--- In shavian@y..., "Philip Newton" <philip.newton@g...> wrote:
> On 2 Dec 02, at 0:24, Paul Gershon Vandenbrink wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> I think I'd consider it a forum where people who are interested in
the
> Shaw alphabet talk about using it.
>
> I'm not sure whether "teaching" was part of the goal originally,
though
> it's an interesting thought and probably useful. I don't think
> "improving" or "changing" is part of the goal, nor should it be.
>
> As regards standardisation of the spelling, I think I pretty much
go
> with (my interpretation of) what Pitman said in the introduction to
> _Androcles_:
>
> "In personal and intimate writing the forty-eight (40 + 8)
characters
> of the Shaw alphabet may faithfully portray the pronunciation of
the
> individual; but, as Shaw pointed out, too eccentric a dialect may
> hamper, and even destroy, effective communication. He considered
that,
> though there was no need to standardize writing if not intended for
> publication, there was every need for conformity in print; standard
> spellings being particularly desirable when that print is intended
for
> circulation throughout the English-speaking world.
>
> "In his Will, Shaw specified just such a standardization for this
play.
> He laid down for it a 'pronunciation to resemble that recorded of
His
> Majesty our late King George V and sometimes described as Northern
> English'. [...]
>
> "But by all means _write_ as you think fit, and leave experts to
> standardize printers' spelling."
>
>
> My interpretation of this is that the "classical" standard
orthography
> is that of Shavian, which represents best what I'd described as a
> rhotic variant of "generic British English". That is, its vowel
> inventory is that of British, but with rhotics differentiated
(so "law"
> and "lore" are written differently, though they're pronounced the
same
> in "generic British" -- but "cot" and "caught" are pronounced and,
> hence, written differently).
>
> There may be a reason to develop an "American"-ish spelling for
> representing the speech of Americans, who lack some vowel
distinctions
> appearing in British English (though there one should probably pick
a
> certain dialect since which vowels merge will tend to change from
area
> to area).
>
> On the whole, though, I'd say that in writing "intended for
circulation
> throughout the English-speaking world" (such as Internet mailing
> lists), the standardised spelling of _Androcles_, based
on "Northern
> English" should be used.
>
> People who make fewer distinctions in their speech than the
orthography
> does will have to learn the differences, just as with traditional
> orthography. On the other hand, I wouldn't advocate
conflating "I'll",
> "aisle", and "isle" in TO just because they're pronounced the same
and
> one has to learn the difference by memory. People who make more
> distinctions in their speech (e.g. witch/which or horse/hoarse)
should
> ignore them when writing in the Shaw alphabet "for public
consumption";
> they may, of couse, use a more accurate transcription of their
speech
> on occasion when they wish to represent it, just as (say) New York,
> Bostonian, Canadian, or Irish speech is sometimes transcribed in TO.
>
> I'll admit freely that my view on standardised Shaw orthography is
> biassed by my native idiolect which is based on British (hence with
> vowel distinctions very close to those made in _Androcles_).
>
>
> I also think that the Shaw alphabet works pretty much as it stands.
> There may be a couple of glitches (such as the "ha-ha" vs "hung"
> assignment, which comes up on the list ocasionally, and which, I
seem
> to recall, Read changed in Quikskript(sp?)); the names of the
letters
> may not be perfect; or whatever. But on the whole I think it's
usable
> and no changes are necessary.
>
> If there are warts, then I believe they aren't big enough that we
can't
> live with them. For the sake of standardisation, I think we should
go
> with what we have and teach it that way -- or go off and create a
new
> script. Read went on to do so with Quikscript, which some consider
> superior; good for them: if they want Quikscript, they know where
to
> find it. But not have factions inside Shavian. Hence I see no need
to
> "hammer out a standard approach" since one has already been
designed
> for us, at least as regards naming, spelling conventions, etc.
>
> If there are other things you feel need to be changed, discussed,
> hammered out, standardised, or otherwise addressed, then by all
means
> point them out. But do not expect everyone else to see the need.
>
>
> One point which I think would be good is to produce a dictionary in
the
> Shaw alphabet, or at least a word-list, showing the proper spelling
for
> different words -- and either a key with the same word in TO or a
short
> gloss giving the meaning (either in Shaw or TO). This would help
people
> to pick the right vowel, for example, if their dialect makes
different
> uses than English does. I would expect such a dictionary/glossary
to be
> based on _Androcles_ spelling, though, which makes it difficult to
use
> existing pronouncing dictionaries such as the freely available Moby
> Pronunciator, which is based on a different dialect, without
extensive
> manual editing.
>
> A list of words used in _Androcles_ together with their spellings
in
> Shaw and TO would be a good start.
>
> Any volunteers?
>
>
> Finally, apologies for the length of this message.
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@g...>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687;x?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1327985/rand=236295375>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .