Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

Paul wrote:

Quikscript has one very nice advantage over Shavian.
It has merged the Shaw letters "err"/"urge" and "array" into just
one Quikscript symbol.

As was probably mentioned there are two ways to pronounce err and
array. In NBC English they would be
eir [as in error and air], urj, and arei/@'rei.

It iz urjent that wi bild an arei of nu weiz tu diel with the
problam. Tu du utherwaiz wvd be an errer.

This is written in Spanglish
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saundspel/spanglish/sp-3.html

.it iz Rjent Dqt wE bild qn arA ov nu wAz tu dEl wiD Da problam.
tudu uDerwaiz wvd bE an eR. [ENgliS unigrafic notation].

Steve



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

I tried to go to this address on a University Library
computer:

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

I got only a message that said "This address is not
found on the server." So I was unable to find out
anything about it. Gerald Baker

--- "Steve Bett <stbett@...>" <stbett@...>
wrote:
> 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.
>
>


__________________________________________________
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, I'm Edward, and I'm just learning about Shavian and it's benefits. I
ran across it on a conlang page and now I'm hooked.

I have some questions before I really start delving into Shavian. I would
like to get off on the right foot, if there is a right foot to start on.
(No offense to the left foot, of course.)

1) Based on recent posts it looks like there's a bit of conflict as to which
alphabet is better or more correct. Is this forum only for discussing
Shavian, or is Quickscript welcome as well?

2) Is there any particular font that everyone on this forum has agreed to
use in order to exchange texts, or is everyone just doing their own thing?

3) Is there an FAQ for this forum?

4) Who owns the rights to Shavian? Rather, is there someone "in charge" who
can make final decisions about the script and its evolution?

5) Has anyone begun compiling a dictionary of Shavian spellings yet?


Any feedback is appreciated. I'm looking forward to learning more about
these scripts and their virtues.


Thanks,

Edward Boudreaux


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

Chanticrow wrote:
> 1) Based on recent posts it looks like there's a bit of
> conflict as to which alphabet is better or more correct.
> Is this forum only for discussing Shavian, or is Quickscript
> welcome as well?

I think Quikscript has its own mailing list... and I'd say this list is (or
should be) predominantly for Shavian.

> 2) Is there any particular font that everyone on this forum
> has agreed to use in order to exchange texts, or is everyone
> just doing their own thing?

Popular fonts are "Androcles" and "Lionspaw", but I don't think there's a
standard... those just happen to be the most common ones I've seen around
here. (I think "Jerome" is popular for Quikscript.)

> 3) Is there an FAQ for this forum?

Not that I know of... nor a charter.

> 4) Who owns the rights to Shavian? Rather, is there someone
> "in charge" who can make final decisions about the script and
> its evolution?

I don't think so. It was designed by a small group of people including
Kingsley Read but I don't think he guides the evolution of Shavian now. I
don't even know whether he's still alive.

> 5) Has anyone begun compiling a dictionary of Shavian spellings yet?

There have been small projects (e.g. Andy Callaway(?) in the context of his
TO-to-Shavian translator), but I don't know whether there's been a "real"
effort yet.

(Some people also take freely available pronouncing dictionaries such as the
Moby Pronunciator and translate them to Shavian, which works pretty well if
the phoneme inventory of the dictionary and of Shavian are similar. Moby, in
particular, does not work that well IMO since it reflects an American
pronunciation conflates some sounds which are separate in my way of writing
Shavian; IIRC it merges at least "are" and "or", and "up" and "ado".)

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.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1339748/R=0/*http://click.atdmt.com/COL/go/yhxxxchm00400063col/direct/01/&time=1040312737015399>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=228862.2128520.3581629.1925585/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1339748/rand=340542181>

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

You need to get the entire URL into your browser address box: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/files/grapheme-phoneme-key-charts/readscripts.gif Or try clicking here, (if they allow images/link HTML in these e-mail messages): <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/files/grapheme-phoneme-key-charts/readscripts.gif>



________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com> - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Hi Edward

I believe Philip is being unduly pessimistic in his responses.
We have just been doing a bit of soul-searching in the group on the
relatively slow growth of the Shaw Alphabet, and his answers probably
reflect that.

First, there is FAQS on the Shavian Alphabet at www.shawalphabet.com
in the questions section. The last Q&A refers to a proposed revision
but the other Q&A's refer to the Shavian, we use here.
There is also a wealth of information in the Group files.

Second, I will be building a glossary of Common Words written in Shaw
Letters at Hugh's Ikonboard at www.shavian.org.
Feel free to browse or add to it.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I hope you will proceed with your interest in the Shaw Alphabet.
I have foundit very rewarding myself. Please let me know, if you have
any questions?






--- In shavian@..., "Newton, Philip" <philip.newton@d...>
wrote:
> Chanticrow wrote:
> > 1) Based on recent posts it looks like there's a bit of
> > conflict as to which alphabet is better or more correct.
> > Is this forum only for discussing Shavian, or is Quickscript
> > welcome as well?
>
> I think Quikscript has its own mailing list... and I'd say this
list is (or
> should be) predominantly for Shavian.
>
> > 2) Is there any particular font that everyone on this forum
> > has agreed to use in order to exchange texts, or is everyone
> > just doing their own thing?
>
> Popular fonts are "Androcles" and "Lionspaw", but I don't think
there's a
> standard... those just happen to be the most common ones I've seen
around
> here. (I think "Jerome" is popular for Quikscript.)
>
> > 3) Is there an FAQ for this forum?
>
> Not that I know of... nor a charter.
>
> > 4) Who owns the rights to Shavian? Rather, is there someone
> > "in charge" who can make final decisions about the script and
> > its evolution?
>
> I don't think so. It was designed by a small group of people
including
> Kingsley Read but I don't think he guides the evolution of Shavian
now. I
> don't even know whether he's still alive.
>
> > 5) Has anyone begun compiling a dictionary of Shavian spellings
yet?
>
> There have been small projects (e.g. Andy Callaway(?) in the
context of his
> TO-to-Shavian translator), but I don't know whether there's been
a "real"
> effort yet.
>
> (Some people also take freely available pronouncing dictionaries
such as the
> Moby Pronunciator and translate them to Shavian, which works pretty
well if
> the phoneme inventory of the dictionary and of Shavian are similar.
Moby, in
> particular, does not work that well IMO since it reflects an
American
> pronunciation conflates some sounds which are separate in my way of
writing
> Shavian; IIRC it merges at least "are" and "or", and "up"
and "ado".)
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@d...>
> 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/> .

On 19 Dec 02, at 18:32, paul vandenbrink pvandenbrink@... wrote:

> I believe Philip is being unduly pessimistic in his responses.

Possibly :) I'm a bit of a curmudgeon on some issues. Which is why it's
a good idea to ask several people and then form your own opinion.

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/> .

--- In shavian@..., "paul vandenbrink
<pvandenbrink@s...>" <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> Hi Edward
>
> First, there is FAQS on the Shavian Alphabet at
www.shawalphabet.com
> in the questions section. The last Q&A refers to a proposed
revision
> but the other Q&A's refer to the Shavian, we use here.

I'm curious. Quoting from a non-last-question entry, " Shaw Alphabet
has 53 letters, each with only one pronunciation. It also has 8 vowel
markers." Since when? Last I checked, it had 48 letters, 18 (?) of
which are vowels, not vowel markers. L8r.


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

>I believe Philip is being unduly pessimistic in his responses.

We all have our opinions. Both of your answers are helping me form mine.
Thank you very much for the information.

So far, despite the various sites about the alphabet (thanks for the links,
Paul!), it seems that the potential "Shavian movement" is rather
disorganized. Right now Shavian appears to me to be a tinkertoy for people
interested in languages and such rather than a valid replacement for the
Roman alphabet.

Paul, your site is very interesting. Are your revisions to Shavian a solo
effort or are you collaborating with like minded people to generate new
ideas?

I have read in a few places that there were errors in Androcles and the Lion
(which I was fortunate enough to find a hardback copy of), and that
Quickscript corrects these errors. Is there a version of Shavian that takes
these corrections into account?

>P.S. I hope you will proceed with your interest in the Shaw Alphabet.
>I have foundit very rewarding myself. Please let me know, if you have
>any questions?

I would like to keep looking into it. It's an interesting subject and
possibly something worthwhile to share with others. I'm still at the "sound
it out" phase of learning/reading it, but this is after only a few hours of
looking at it. So far it's a great system.

Based on the websites there are a few people who really love this alphabet
and they have obviously put a lot of work into getting more material out and
available. Unfortunately, I can't see Shavian becoming anything more than a
hobby until there are more useful resources (such as a dictionary and an
agreed upon glyph/phonetic standard) available. Then it has to be
advertised to people who might find it useful (people teaching English as a
second language, perhaps?). There are some very compelling arguments on the
web in Shavian's favor, but unless people know it's there no one will ever
see it.

Again, thanks for the info. I look forward to learning and discussing with
you.

Edward




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

Chanticrow wrote:
> it seems that the potential "Shavian movement" is rather
> disorganized. Right now Shavian appears to me to be a
> tinkertoy for people interested in languages and such rather
> than a valid replacement for the Roman alphabet.

Heh :) If you replace "valid" with "viable", I think I could agree with you.
Perhaps I'm a bit pessimistic, but I don't think Shavian will catch on in a
big way any time soon. So it's a valid replacement (it works for me), but I
don't think it's going to happen. Especially since it's not the only
proposal. But I still like it and I think it'll keep its place in a small,
"hobbyist" if you like, niche.

I did hear of someone who used to be on this list who used it in teaching
children to read who had problems. I don't remember whether they were
dyslexic or what the nature of their difficulty was, but he said that the
regularity helped them to learn to read, and once they had the idea of
reading going it was easier to introduce them to TO than if they were thrown
straight into it.

> I have read in a few places that there were errors in
> Androcles and the Lion (which I was fortunate enough to find
> a hardback copy of), and that Quickscript corrects these errors.
> Is there a version of Shavian that takes these corrections into
> account?

Yes: it's called "Quickscript" :P

Seriously, though: I don't know of any other version of Shavian.
Occasionally, changes are proposed (such as the hang/haha thing that came up
quite a while back), but so far (in my experience), Shavianists as a whole
have tended to be conservative and to stick with the original form.

Of course, this may be partly due to the fact that some who would favour a
change or correction simply change over to Quickscript if they find it
better. (I have no experience with it, though, so I can't really comment on
it.)

> an agreed upon glyph/phonetic standard

Heh :)

> Then it has to be advertised to people who might find it useful
> (people teaching English as a second language, perhaps?).
> There are some very compelling arguments on the web in Shavian's
> favor, but unless people know it's there no one will ever see it.

Undoubtedly true.

Not sure what the best way is to spread the word, however.

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/> .