Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Butz <mailto:shavian@...>

</lurk>

In a previous episode, shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...> said:

> 'Ah' or 'on'? = 'Ah'.
> 'Array' or 'err'? = 'Ado' + 'roll'.
> 'Up'+'roll' or 'err' or 'array'? = 'Ado' + 'roll', as above.
> 'Egg'+'roll' or 'air'? = 'Egg' + 'roll'.

My only quarrel here is that AH is more complicated to write than ON. Keep
the four one-stroke simple vowels intact, please.

Craig

Quote from the Shavian forum (where this is all being discussed, in detail, right now):-

"2) Merging of 'on' and 'ah' into the 'ah' phoneme

In British dialects, the only major thing that differentiates these two sounds is vowel length. If spoken out loud with the same length, the actual sound is often virtually indistinguishable. The Merriam-Webster dictionary makes no distinction between them - American dialects don't seem to utilise vowel length at all - all vowel sounds can be the same length.

The reason to use 'ah' instead of 'on' is that 'ah' and 'awe' are phonetically close together ("cot"/"caught"), just like 'egg' and 'ash' are close together ("merry"/"marry"). There is quite a phonetic gap between 'ah' and 'ash'; 'ah' and 'awe' are both 'back' vowels, whereas 'egg' and 'ash' are 'front' vowels. Having 'ah' looking similar to 'awe' is just the same as having 'egg' looking similar to 'ash'. Because of the visual similarity between 'ah' and 'awe', if anyone does use one symbol instead of the other (such as in some American dialects that barely distinguish), the words will appear very similar anyway, so shouldn't be that difficult to read at speed. If two sounds are similar, they should APPEAR similar, wherever possible; the difference between 'ah' and 'awe' is therefore only a simple glyph reversal, and quite appropriately so. It is also easy to join 'ah' to 'roll' in handwriting, whereas such a join is impossible with 'on'.

While this would leave 'ado' standing on its own without a reversed counterpart, I believe this is appropriate, as the schwa sound is a unique NEUTRAL vowel (i.e. smack in the middle of the IPA vowel chart), and therefore different from all other pure vowels in the first place.

Look at the progression of pure vowels my cut version leaves:

FRONT VOWELS: (close) --> 'eat' 'if' 'egg' 'ash' --> (open)
BACK VOWELS: (open) --> 'ah' 'awe' 'wool' 'ooze' --> (close)

In between the front and back vowels, the letter 'ado' occurs, in between the close-mid and open-mid positions - this is why it's different from the rest."

[For the full posting, visit:]
http://www.shavian.org/hugh/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3e3eaac01411ffff;act=ST;f=4;t=17;st=20

Hugh B

You probably would have done quite well in Chinese
schools. The less legible the writing, the better ...
it becomes a piece of art to hang up in the house ...
as long as the character has the right weight and
bearing. There are some interesting features of
Chinese, too. I once read an example where someone
who speaks only Spanish can pick up a German newspaper
and kind of figure out how to pronounce the words, but
not what it means. A person who speaks one Chinese
dialect, can understand the meaning of another
dialect's newspaper, but not how to pronounce it,
except in their own dialect.

I mention this because I think that is where this
Shavian American vs. British debate is going. Letters
have to be able to merge phonetics so that either side
can read each other's writing in their own dialect,
even if the pronunciation is different. I don't think
Shavian will be usable unless it can standardize it's
spelling. There should be no complaints about not
being able to read something written by another
culture unless you want to create a true linguistic
rift in an age when English dialects were just
starting to merge again.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=111130816>

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

I havesaid it once, and i will say it again, if you want to change the
set for amenricans, DON'T ASSUME THAT WE ARE SIMPLETONS!!! I can
understand the vowels as well as anyone else, and there is no reason
not to include all of the letters. If someone does not understand why
in their pronunciation that there are two symbols for what is to them
the same sound, then they are going to use the symbol that they prefer.

As for the differences, it's like in QS, where there is a symbol for x,
but only where an x would appear in TO. If we are going to IMPROVE on
the TO, we are going to have to separate ourselves from it. For
Americans, Shavian should appear in its entirety with all symbols in
place, with only the addidion of the white-wheat sound, a sound that
did not apparently occur to the original designers of the alphabet.

--"Simple Simone" Star

--- "paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...>"
<pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
> Hi Star and other people in Lurk mode
> I was wondering if we could re-visit the question of having an
> American subset of the Shaw Alphabet. I have had a discussion with
> Hugh, and we thought to get things going in the U,S,A and abroad
> and create more interest, we should make a small subset of the Shaw
> Alphabet. Less than 40 letters. It would exclude all the Rhotic
> letters and the Diagraphs (Ian, Yew) and put into practice some vowel
>
> simplifications that I already discussed, as being insignificant in
> American pronunciation.
> I would like to call it the Concise American Shaw Alphabet or the
> Introductory American Shaw Alphabet.
> Any Objections or comments. I really would like to get some feedback.
> It's your Alphabet too.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> --- In shavian@..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
> wrote:
> > Thanks, paul, I've been lurking.
> >
> > No, I've found that if we are going to try to eliminate the ackward
>
> use
> > of the roman alphabet for TO, then we should completely separate
> the
> > alphabet, I do have one proposed, and if I had the knack for
> alphabet
> > design, then i would implement it. In practice with substitution (i
>
> e,
> > typing as if the letters were by my keyboard layout) I found that
> the
> > learning curve was much faster for me, and I am not the fastest
> typest.
> >
> > --Star
> >
> > P.S. I'll try to post my layout later.
> >
> > --- "paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>"
> > <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> > > Hi Star
> > >
> > > Glad to see you back.
> > > While you right that the Shaw keyboard mapping does perpetuate
> the
> > > randomness
> > > of a normal QWERTYUIOP keyboard, I still have to say that to
> someone
> > > already familar with the QWERTYUIOP keyboard, it is a simple
> > > logically sound extension of the Roman Alphabet keyboard.
> > > For them, it is an easy way to get started writing Shaw letters.
> > >
> > > Regards, Paul V.
> > > --- In shavian@..., Star Raven
> <celestraof12worlds@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I hate to seem a malcontent here, but NOT! The keyboard layout
> is
> > > > strange and badly "related" to TO.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO there are better ways to do this, but that's just me...
> > > >
> > > > --Star
> >
> >
> > =====
> > "Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster
>
> killing...Hello!"
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>


=====
"Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster killing...Hello!"

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=393100763>

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

Simple Simone strikes again I see. Why must you insist that Americans
are stupid? It is true, my bothers across the pond, that americans
enter school when they will turn six through the course of the school
year. It is also true that most americans, when relying on the public
schools, will not learn to read until they are in second or third grade
(eight or nine years old), but does that mean that we are stupid? It is
true that americans have no "entry exam" for high school or much of the
other academic advantages as do schools in other countries, but there
does NOT, I repeat, there does NOT have to be an "introductory sub-set"
just for Americans.

Furthermore, there are several American dialects that are non-rhotic.

--Star

ps. I have not been available as my internet is down. I hope that it
will be up again sometime tomorrow.

--- Paul Gershon Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
> Hi Philip
>
> Thank-you for your prompt feedback.
> Let me respond to 2 of your points, for the moment.
> First, as for the 6 Rhotic letters, I chose to bypass in the
> Introductory
> subset of Shaw letters for American English Speakers. I like to use
> them,
> myself, but it took me couple of years to sort out how to use them in
> a
> consistent and logical fashion according to my own pronunciation.
> Perhaps,
> as you don't make use of them yourself, it is not a problem.
> So I'd like to leave the use of the Rhotics until after the American
> student has mastered the basic simple letters of the Shavian
> Alphabet.
>
> Secondly, your misapprehension that teaching a subset for writing
> Shaw
> would create difficulties for the student when they have to learn the
> full
> Shavian alphabet to read printed material.
> My experience is that the most difficult task to learn is how to
> write in
> the "standard" spelling of the Shaw Alphabet, when there are
> multiple spellings with acceptable pronunciations. Which one is
> right?
> I would consult a dictionary, if there was one and it had a
> recognized
> Alphabetic order. But there is not. Essentially, I had to work out
> my own
> spelling standard for writing.
> But when I am reading I need only process enough of the letters to
> recognize the word. I don't have to sound it out in mind and assign
> appropriate letters.
> Variations in spelling or a relatively few additional letters (10 or
> less)
> should not interfere with that essential word recognition.
> I am certain we can set up a few tests and time the reading times to
> demonstrate that those additional letters are inconsequential.
> If we have enough variation in our speech community, we could also
> test
> your other hypothesis that people from other English-speaking
> countries,
> would have difficulties interpreting a local accent at variance from
> their own.
> Say a Non-Rhotic English speaker writes to a Rhotic English Speaker.
> I would be interested in the actual results.
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> At 06:45 PM 2/2/03 +0100, you wrote:
> >One of the advantages of the Shaw alphabet is supposed to be ease of
> >reading. In that case, people learning such a subset would have to
> >learn the full alphabet as well if they wish to read material
> printed
> >in the "standard" spelling (which is called "particularly desirable
> >when that print is intended for circulation throughout the English-
> >speaking world"). I'm not sure whether it's worth learning two
> >alphabets: one for private use among friends to represent one's own
> >accent, and one for reading widely-published materials or the speech
> of
> >people from other English-speaking countries.
>
>
>
>


=====
"Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster killing...Hello!"

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=648070107>

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

I saw the cut version and found it TOO limiting. Seing as how english
is 13% irregular spellings as is, with hundreds of combinations to make
about fifty different sounds, why do we have to limit it at all?
Spelling standardization is fine and dandy, but only after the spelling
has been in use for a time. There was no standard of spelling until
some wiseguy decided that he'd print a dictionary. And with that came
our multitude of odd spellings. Should we not think of ways by which to
publish more books in shavian or about it than to keep trying to
"improve it" There is little to say that others, traditionallists like
myself, will not see the original version of shavian + white-wheat for
americans as perfect.

--Star

ps: I live in Bount County. Blount, in this case is pronounced as in
"blunt trauma." How is that for irregular?

--- Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Newton, Philip
>
>
> Someone knowing the current version of Shavian and speaking
> (non-rhotic)
> Brit-Eng might be inclined to read the "ah" version of the first
> word as
> "tarp" (short for "tarpaulin").
>
> But if rhotics are always indicated in writing, then that
> possibility of
> reading would be taken away; only "top" remains.
> That's right. Given that rhotics are still always included (and the
> current orthography unambiguously indicates where to include the r
> sound), the comprehensibility is maintained. And what Brit-Eng and
> US-Eng speakers both write appears identical.
> I concur that it would probably indeed be comprehensible.
>
> That doesn't mean I have to like it :). Maybe I'll change my mind
> later,
> though.
> Have a go at it! See if you can limit yourself to the cut set of
> phonemes described and still write in Shavian. I've found it to be
> really simple.
>
> If this allows us to sell Shavian to an International audience as
> being "newer", "easier", "tidier", it could give the alphabet the
> best chance yet to succeed. We have to think like businessmen. :)
>
> Hugh B


=====
"Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster killing...Hello!"

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=287810824>

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

Reccomended reading: Why johnny can't read. It opened my eyes.
Americans DO use a chinese-type system. That is why ALL of the shavian
needs to be taken as a whole. When i learned Shavian four years ago, I
looked at it as "learning to read all over again." But then again, I
learned to read TO properly. The question to those who drive for
standardization is, can you read medieval documents when printed with
their original spellings intact? could you read shakespeare in his
original klingon...um, that is, in his original spellings?

--Star

--- "C. Paige Gabhart" <pgabhart@...> wrote:
> Watching the discussions that take place on this site convinces me
> that
> the plight of English spelling is essentially hopeless. I read a
> report
> of a study last year which determined that the children in Italy
> suffer
> from dyslexia at the same rate as English-speaking children. The
> reason
> it was necessary to study this was that Italian children do not seem
> to
> suffer from it. The study concluded that the reason was that Italian
>
> had (if I remember correctly) 35 phonemes and only 38 different ways
> to
> spell them, whereas English had a total of divergent spellings up
> around
> 3,800. In other words, the Italian children with dyslexia are
> unaware
> of it because it does not affect their ability to read their native
> language.
>
> In the post below, Scott states our brains handle 10,000 rules just
> fine. Apparently, he believes that the millions of children in
> remedial
> reading classes are where they belong! "...the other half has to be
> memorized." Why don't we just go to a Chinese system and memorize
> all
> of the words since we are already half way there.
>
> Paige Gabhart
>
>
> Scott Stephens wrote:
>
> >I would have thought that rhotic forms would be an advantage to
> >rhotic groups rather than non-rhotic groups. When someone wanted to
>
> >write "bird", for example, rhotic groups would be tempted to write
> "b-
> >ih-r-d" while rhotic groups might write "b-uh-d". There would be a
> >strong divergance between rhotic and non-rhotic speakers. Keep the
> >rhotic forms, then bird could always be spelt "b-ih+r-d", but
> >pronounced with or without the "r" in speech, (but the subtle
> >understanding that the "r" is there and important to the word.
> >
> >Making the number of letters smaller isn't always good. The current
>
> >spelling list only has 26 letters, but ... (I'm currently digging
> >through some text-to-speech code to automate shavian spelling
> >decisions) ... requires some 10,000 rules that can be used to figure
>
> >out how to pronounce only half of our vocabulary, or unknown words,
> >the other half has to be memorized. Our brains apparently handle
> >these rules just fine. Being able to handle 40 letters is much
> >easier than having to remember rhotic and non-rhotic spelling in
> >order to read different texts.
> >
> >I guess I'm on the side of wanting the language to be somewhat
> >standardized.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


=====
"Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster killing...Hello!"

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=888830108>

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

--- "Mike <theomnis@...>" <theomnis@...> wrote:
> I am a high school student currently studying the Shavian alphabet,
> and I am currently having trouble finding the difference between the
> AIR, ERR, and ARRAY characters. Could someone please elaborate on
> the differences between them, because I have seen each character used
>
> different ways, and it is quite confusing.
>
>
Air= bare, hair
Err= learn, yearn, BRP AdVERtisment
Urge/Array= ARP adverTISement aberrAtion

Does this help?
--Star (who also learned in high school)

=====
"Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster killing...Hello!"

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=245627358>

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

Okay, now I agree. :)

--Star

--- "paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...>"
<pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
> Hi Stephen
> Please don't forget that the Alphabet has to be designed for the
> benefit of even those foreign or untutored readers/writers who do not
>
> have recourse to knowing the traditional orthography, and knowing
> that there used to be an R sound in the word before it evolved into
> its modern non-rhotic pronunciation. An alphabet needs to stand on
> its on eventually.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> ___________________attached_____________________________
>
>
> --- In shavian@..., "Scott Stephens <swstephe@y...>"
> <swstephe@y...> wrote:
> > I would have thought that rhotic forms would be an advantage to
> > rhotic groups rather than non-rhotic groups. When someone wanted
> to
> > write "bird", for example, rhotic groups would be tempted to
> write "b-
> > ih-r-d" while rhotic groups might write "b-uh-d". There would be a
>
> > strong divergance between rhotic and non-rhotic speakers. Keep the
>
> > rhotic forms, then bird could always be spelt "b-ih+r-d", but
> > pronounced with or without the "r" in speech, (but the subtle
> > understanding that the "r" is there and important to the word.
> >
> > Making the number of letters smaller isn't always good. The
> current
> > spelling list only has 26 letters, but ... (I'm currently digging
> > through some text-to-speech code to automate shavian spelling
> > decisions) ... requires some 10,000 rules that can be used to
> figure
> > out how to pronounce only half of our vocabulary, or unknown words,
>
> > the other half has to be memorized. Our brains apparently handle
> > these rules just fine. Being able to handle 40 letters is much
> > easier than having to remember rhotic and non-rhotic spelling in
> > order to read different texts.
> >
> > I guess I'm on the side of wanting the language to be somewhat
> > standardized.
>
>


=====
"Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster killing...Hello!"

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=351334772>

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

> Mike - the 'air', 'err' and 'array' characters are really optimized
> for writing dialects of British English. You shouldn't need them at
> all.

I BEG TO DIFFER!!! I use these three in their proper place all the
time. These are very important.

>
> I would advocate ignoring them and using combinations of vowel+r.
> Basically, 'air' is 'egg'+'roll', and both 'err' and 'array' are
> 'ado'+'roll'.

Pay no attention to the man behind the green curtain... those ARE the
vowel + r, only they are already combined to represent the different
sound that a vowel makes when followed by R

--Star

=====
"Alright, enough with the storyline, let's get back to the monster killing...Hello!"

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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=318521163>

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

This is exactly why you should take a look at the cut Shavian alphabet I devised.

It consolidates those characters that cause confusion between the two dialects.

Another quote from the Shavian forum:-

1. peep
2. bib
3. tot
4. dead
5. kick
6. gag
7. fee
8. vow
9. thigh
10. they
11. so
12. zoo
13. sure
14. measure
15. church
16. judge
17. yea - yonder, piano, million
18. woe - suede, suite
19. hung - think, linger, thankyou
20. ha-ha
21. loll
22. roar - car, traitor, marry, fervour
23. mime
24. nun
25. if
26. eat - queasy, sillier, seemly
27. egg
28. age
29. ash
30. eye
31. ado - us, murmurous, among, girder, offal, utter
32. oak
33. wool
34. ooze - superfluous
35. out
36. oil
37. ah - on, psalm, hot, part, palmolive
38. awe - paw, wrought, core, call, hawthorn

That's it. No confusion. Try it out.

Hugh B

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Stephens <mailto:swstephe@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Greetings to a fellow Shavian.

You probably would have done quite well in Chinese
schools. The less legible the writing, the better ...
it becomes a piece of art to hang up in the house ...
as long as the character has the right weight and
bearing. There are some interesting features of
Chinese, too. I once read an example where someone
who speaks only Spanish can pick up a German newspaper
and kind of figure out how to pronounce the words, but
not what it means. A person who speaks one Chinese
dialect, can understand the meaning of another
dialect's newspaper, but not how to pronounce it,
except in their own dialect.

I mention this because I think that is where this
Shavian American vs. British debate is going. Letters
have to be able to merge phonetics so that either side
can read each other's writing in their own dialect,
even if the pronunciation is different. I don't think
Shavian will be usable unless it can standardize it's
spelling. There should be no complaints about not
being able to read something written by another
culture unless you want to create a true linguistic
rift in an age when English dialects were just
starting to merge again.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.2891370.4259126.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=111130816>

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



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.747 / Virus Database: 499 - Release Date: 01/09/2004