Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

Sid:

I am not sure what your alleged disagreement with me is. I did not hazard a guess as to why Mr. Read revised Shavian. Perhaps your surmise is correct. I did not use Shavian long enough (and never communicated with anyone with it) to reach a conclusion about the difficulties you mention regarding its vowels and various English dialects. When I wrote to Mr. Read about 1975, he sent me back a brief letter and a Quikscript manual in response. I immediately adopted Quikscript and have continued to use it ever since.

I corresponded with a New Zealander in Quikscript shortly after receiving my Quikscript manual, and I had little difficulty in understanding what he wrote although I was aware of his dialect. In fact, I actually enjoyed the flavor of his accent which came through as I read his letters. That relative ease in reading his Quikscript has led me to question the assumption that most on this site seem to share that mandatory spellings are a necessity. There seems a fear about letting individualism break out, as if we have to keep these subversive tendencies under control or who knows where it might lead. :).

Why are we concerned about this? It seems that people fear communication would suffer. I doubt that means that people would often be unable to decipher a word in context in the midst of an English sentence because it was spelled peculiarly to them. More likely, it would mean that reading speed might decrease, i.e. the alphabet would be less effective than it might be in some "ideal" setting where words have a "standard" spelling.

To continue this from a standpoint of what seems logical from one who has no training as a linguist (those of you who are better prepared in this matter, feel free to jump in and educate us), and as a further example of my point: if the variances in the spelling of words in Shavian or Quikscript between the two English dialects which are the farthest apart (assuming such a determination could be made)amounted to 20 percent, then it would seem that the variance between closer English dialects would necessarily be less, pehaps, 10 percent. I am unsure whether this would correspond to a decrease in reading speed of 10 percent. Perhaps reading speed would be affected more, perhaps less. Does anyone have any idea? For the sake of argument let us assume that the percentage of variant spellings would decrease reading speed by the same percentage. Thus, if I read a memo from the Wellington office of my company, and it took me two minutes to get through it with no unexpected spellings, it would take an extra twelve seconds to read if there were 10 percent variant spellings. Is this a big problem?

Most of what I read would probably not have that many variant spellings so the overall loss in speed should average less. Another point to remember is that most of us manage to read now with an atrocious alphabet system. How much faster would reading speeds be with Shavian or Quikscript? 20 - 30 percent? So a slight decrease due to some variant spellings seems something we could live with when we consider the alternative: imposing a standard pronunciation, such as King George's, as I believe was used in Androcles and the Lion. This puts us back into using a system which is not logical or intuitive, but must be learned, or superimposed upon the way we speak, and it is considerably less phonetic. Obviously, it would not take the time to learn that they current "system" requires, but it would still require rote memorization to some extent. And who determines the standard and how do they enforce it?

It strikes me as ironic that many people want to maintain standardized spellings in Shavian or Quikscript when many of the e-mails I receive on the internet in the roman alphabet are full of misspellings, i.e. non-standard. In other words, these adult writers of English, after years of public education at great expense to taxpayers, failed to master the current system of phonetic transcription which mandates standardized spellings. If a concept does not work, perhaps it should be abandoned!

I believe standardized spellings failed in the roman alphabet centuries ago because we had no mechanism to change spellings when pronunciation evolved. What mechanism exists now? What has changed that will enable us to keep a new alphabet up with the evolution of English? I remember reading somewhere not too long ago that the decades-long experiment of the Chicago Tribune (I believe), to simplify spelling on a number of common words was abandoned because so many of the readers continued to object vociferously. Many people are highly resistant to change. Do we want to struggle to encourage the adoption of a new, efficient alphabet and then readopt the same old concept of standardized spellings, which was a prime reason the roman alphabet got into trouble in the first place? (I know this is ignoring the fact that grafting the roman alphabet onto English was a poor fit from the outset.)

I hope I did not bore too many of you with the length of this e-mail.

Paige Gabhart


sidban2@... wrote:


I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Gabhart. I believe Mr .Read simplified Shaw's Alphabet because there was too much confusion over the differentiation of such sounds as array and err altho a thorough study of this would eliminate the confusion. It takes time and effort. In a sense, Quikskript is an attempt to create a more uniform way of using the vowels to lessen the confusion. Shaw's Alphabet was used in a number of countries that spoke English and the schwa vowel and sounding of various vowels made it difficult to read the letters unless a person was knowledgable about different dialects, etc. For a linguist this is quite an interesting subject but for the average person it merely confuses the attempt to communicate.
Sid

phno and a caused problealtho it does edr





--- On Tue 12/03, paul vandenbrink < pvandenbrink@... > wrote:


From: paul vandenbrink [mailto: pvandenbrink@...]
To: shavian@...
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:46:08 -0000
Subject: [shavian] Re: Name the Shavian Letter (Phoneme) Contest

Quikscript has one very nice advantage over Shavian.
It has merged the Shaw letters "err"/"urge" and "array" into just one
Quikscript symbol. Simplifies writing, as ther is no 100% consistent
way to differentiate these 2 sounds.
Regards, Paul V.

--- In shavian@y..., "Paige Gabhart" wrote:
> (snip)
> . Warts and all the Shavian Alphabet is miles ahead of any other
othography
> for English.
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> >
>
> Dear Paul:
>
> I appreciate your enthusiasm for Shavian. However, as Phillip
wrote, some
> of us find Quikscript superior to Shavian for a number of reasons.
I find
> it so, principally, for its ease of writing by hand and its
innovative use
> of half-letters which make its word-shapes more distinctive than
Shavian.
> Quikscript is, essentially, a cursive script, whereas Shavian
letters are
> detached from each other. Thus, unless you consider Quikscript to
be a form
> of Shavian, rather than the other way round, your statement quoted
above is
> not true. At the very least, both alphabets are equally adept in
> representing the sounds of English.
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
> Paige Gabhart



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




________________________________

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

To Everyone
I would like to say that this is not an insolvable problem, given
modern spell checking technology.
Regards, Paul V.


--- In shavian@..., "C. Paige Gabhart" <pgabhart@c...>
wrote:
A number of points regarding the the lack of standardization in an
English phonetic Alphabet, given the number of English accents.


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

In 1964, in my home town of Cresco, Iowa, USA, I ran across a Shaw
alphabet copy of Androcles & The Lion in the public library. After
reading it, I wrote to Sir James Pitman & he put me in touch with
Kingsley Read and others who wrote in Shavian. One was Henry
Kirchner, of Garland, Texas. Another was Bob McIvor, of 25 Woodridge
Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario. Another was Peter Oliver, of Salisbury,
Southern Rhodesia. Another was Bob Dick, of Australia. Another was
Evan Todd, of Dunedin, N.Z. There was a Mike Udy in the Yukon, of
Canada, and an Anglical priest named Porteus, of Durham, in England.
I live today in Cedar Falls, also in Iowa. Sometimes I wonder what
happened to some of these people. I do know that Peter Oliver had
moved to South Africa around the time Zimbabwe was established, but
in 1965 he wrote us that he'd been ordered to leave South Africa
within a month. I never heard from him again, and no one seemed to
know what happened. I remember he once told me his wife was
Norwegian. I did subscribe, in 1964 or 1965 and maybe later, to
Kingsley Read's little magazine which I think was named "Shaw Script"
and was able to get several university libraries to subscribe to it
also. Jerry Baker


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

On 10 Dec 02, at 3:20, glbaker50613 glbaker50613@... wrote:

> In 1964, in my home town of Cresco, Iowa, USA, I ran across a Shaw
> alphabet copy of Androcles & The Lion in the public library. After
> reading it, I wrote to Sir James Pitman & he put me in touch with
> Kingsley Read and others who wrote in Shavian.

Thank you for telling us about that! I, for one, found your message
very interesting.

I don't think I've come across someone before who encountered the Shaw
alphabet early enough to be able to write to Sir James Pitman to take
him up on the offer in _Androcles_.

> Another was Bob McIvor, of 25 Woodridge Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario.
[snip]
> Sometimes I wonder what happened to some of these people.

I wonder whether this is the same Bob McIvor who's involved in the
logical languages Loglan and Lojban. I believe he's the CEO of TLI (The
Loglan Institute? not sure). He posted to the Lojban mailing list a bit
recently. I believe he said he's now 78.

If you want I can try to find out his email address.

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>

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

Philip Newton wrote:
>
> I wonder whether this is the same Bob McIvor who's involved in the
> logical languages Loglan and Lojban.
>
> If you want I can try to find out his email address.

The address he used to post to lojban-list has username rmcivor and domain
macsrule.com and name "Robert McIvor".

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

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

I have no idea whether or not this is the same Bob
McIvor. Don't remember much about him except that he
lived in Ottawa and was of Scottish descent, from the
vicinity of Inverness. I think he also told me that
his parents attended Drake University, in Des Moines.
( I remember that because I live in Iowa.)

Thanks for offering to find his e-mail address, if the
one you sent to me doesn't work out. Jerry Baker


--- "Newton, Philip" <philip.newton@...>
wrote:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> >
> > I wonder whether this is the same Bob McIvor who's
> involved in the
> > logical languages Loglan and Lojban.
> >
> > If you want I can try to find out his email
> address.
>
> The address he used to post to lojban-list has
> username rmcivor and domain
> macsrule.com and name "Robert McIvor".
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
> All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
> If you're not part of the solution, you're part of
> the precipitate.
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

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

Hi Phil,

Since you mention Bob McIvor's age, 78, I think this
very well could be the same person.

It was either 1963 or 1964 when I read Androcles &
contacted Pitman at the House of Commons. He
introduced me to Kingsley Read, of Abbots Morton,
Worcester, UK. Read organized us into so-called "ever
circular" mail groups. I think we were implementing
the same method that was used to teach the
"phonographic" shorthand of Isaac Pitman, James'
great-grandfather, back in the (1840s ?)

Henry Kirchner told me that he learned of the Shaw
alphabet from an article in the New Yorker. I think he
also contacted Pitman in 1963 or 1964. I did meet Evan
Todd, the New Zealander, in 1968 in Chicago. He'd come
to the US to teach in Cincinnati and drove to Chicago
when he knew I'd be there for a meeting.

Jerry Baker

--- Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 02, at 3:20, glbaker50613
> glbaker50613@... wrote:
>
> > In 1964, in my home town of Cresco, Iowa, USA, I
> ran across a Shaw
> > alphabet copy of Androcles & The Lion in the
> public library. After
> > reading it, I wrote to Sir James Pitman & he put
> me in touch with
> > Kingsley Read and others who wrote in Shavian.
>
> Thank you for telling us about that! I, for one,
> found your message
> very interesting.
>
> I don't think I've come across someone before who
> encountered the Shaw
> alphabet early enough to be able to write to Sir
> James Pitman to take
> him up on the offer in _Androcles_.
>
> > Another was Bob McIvor, of 25 Woodridge Crescent,
> Ottawa, Ontario.
> [snip]
> > Sometimes I wonder what happened to some of these
> people.
>
> I wonder whether this is the same Bob McIvor who's
> involved in the
> logical languages Loglan and Lojban. I believe he's
> the CEO of TLI (The
> Loglan Institute? not sure). He posted to the Lojban
> mailing list a bit
> recently. I believe he said he's now 78.
>
> If you want I can try to find out his email address.
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

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

My introduction to Shavian was also through Androcles, and, although I had
not thought about it in years, I am fairly certain that it was Sir James
Pitman who steered me to Kingsley Read as well. I have not seen a copy of
Androcles in years, but I apparently also followed that path to Mr. Read.
This would have been about 1973 or 74, I believe.

Paige Gabhart

Philip Newton wrote:

> On 10 Dec 02, at 3:20, glbaker50613 glbaker50613@... wrote:
>
> > In 1964, in my home town of Cresco, Iowa, USA, I ran across a Shaw
> > alphabet copy of Androcles & The Lion in the public library. After
> > reading it, I wrote to Sir James Pitman & he put me in touch with
> > Kingsley Read and others who wrote in Shavian.
>
> Thank you for telling us about that! I, for one, found your message
> very interesting.
>
> I don't think I've come across someone before who encountered the Shaw
> alphabet early enough to be able to write to Sir James Pitman to take
> him up on the offer in _Androcles_.
>
> > Another was Bob McIvor, of 25 Woodridge Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario.
> [snip]
> > Sometimes I wonder what happened to some of these people.
>
> I wonder whether this is the same Bob McIvor who's involved in the
> logical languages Loglan and Lojban. I believe he's the CEO of TLI (The
> Loglan Institute? not sure). He posted to the Lojban mailing list a bit
> recently. I believe he said he's now 78.
>
> If you want I can try to find out his email address.
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

My introduction to Shavian was also through Androcles, and, although I had
not thought about it in years, I am fairly certain that it was Sir James
Pitman who steered me to Kingsley Read as well. I have not seen a copy of
Androcles in years, but I apparently also followed that path to Mr. Read.
This would have been about 1973 or 74, I believe.

Paige Gabhart

Philip Newton wrote:

> On 10 Dec 02, at 3:20, glbaker50613 glbaker50613@... wrote:
>
> > In 1964, in my home town of Cresco, Iowa, USA, I ran across a Shaw
> > alphabet copy of Androcles & The Lion in the public library. After
> > reading it, I wrote to Sir James Pitman & he put me in touch with
> > Kingsley Read and others who wrote in Shavian.
>
> Thank you for telling us about that! I, for one, found your message
> very interesting.
>
> I don't think I've come across someone before who encountered the Shaw
> alphabet early enough to be able to write to Sir James Pitman to take
> him up on the offer in _Androcles_.
>
> > Another was Bob McIvor, of 25 Woodridge Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario.
> [snip]
> > Sometimes I wonder what happened to some of these people.
>
> I wonder whether this is the same Bob McIvor who's involved in the
> logical languages Loglan and Lojban. I believe he's the CEO of TLI (The
> Loglan Institute? not sure). He posted to the Lojban mailing list a bit
> recently. I believe he said he's now 78.
>
> If you want I can try to find out his email address.
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

The new notation was developed after 6 years of correspondence with
a group similar to this one. It was clear to Read that some people
were having problems forming certain shapes and with differentiating
certain sounds. Quickscript represents the fix.

The easiest way to view this is to look at the symbols and sounds
side by side as in this graphic.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/files/grapheme-phoneme-key-
charts/readscripts.gif

Some of the problems could have been corrected by finding words that
were pronounced the same in all dialects of English. I presume that
this is the purpose of this thread.

Regards,

Steve

--- In shavian@..., "" <sidban2@e...> wrote:
I believe Mr .Read simplified Shaw's Alphabet because there was too
much confusion over the differentiation of such sounds as array and
err altho a thorough study of this would eliminate the confusion.
It takes time and effort.


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