Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

Hey, I use a Mac. Actually I've been building a Mac OS X app that converts roman into Shavian ( or anything else... ) as well. It's been a sort of hobby of mine and I'm just at the end stages of development on it. It doesn't use the CMU dictionary, but converts text based on how the mac speaks text. I made a quick webpage for it here: http://homepage.mac.com/poorant79/software If anyone wants to download it. It's about a 1MB download, oh the password for the .sit file is: 'eyesee'

P.S. "Gee, good job!" : )


On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 07:02 AM, George <pan@...> wrote:



To tell you the truth, I just had a rather disappoointing
experience.

A couple of days ago I uploaded - to the Read Alphabet group - a
MacIntosh app that will convert Roman spelled english test into
QuickScript. One might think that it would cause a stir or that
someone might say "Gee, good job!"

I guess they are are all on PC's and really don't give a ...

So, before I spend any time on adapting it to Shavian, is there
anyone on THIS group that uses a Mac?





<image.tiff>




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Hi Star

Oh no, not yet another subtle literary reference to sending innumerable
guinea pigs off into the great beyond. Or further.
Or perhaps, you are also referring to the clumsy cookbook Magician of the
C.S. Lewis book the Magican's Nephew.

I am pretty much middle of the road on the issue of standardized spelling
for the Shaw Alphabet. I would like to minimize spelling differences, while
recognising that many common words will have differently spelt variants
from the major accent groups. (American, British, Indian, Australian and
South African, East African)
Also, I see this issue as being pretty far down the road. Why
do we need to look at it, until we have a viable Alphabet with a sample
English dictionary.

I suggest that the Original Shaw Alphabet was designed to encompass English
R.P. and Northern English as spoken by King George. It is usable by most
English Speakers, but ideally it reflects the English of Great Britain and
the Colonies.
It is a version done by the British, for the British, and I suspect that
where-ever it works well for American English, it is because that for
what-ever reason, the local American Accent has retained some of older
British Pronunciations for some common words.
Would that the flowering of spoken language was under some human control.
But I think we can all agree, it goes where it wills.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. Star, I will have to hunt around for a real serious-minded,
well-qualified Magician, to undertake the job, of persuading people to
speak with a different accent, in order to create a standardized Shaw
Spelling. :>)

____________attached______________________
At 10:28 AM 2/8/03 -0800, you wrote:
>I must say first, "Does anyone else feel like C.S. Lewis?"
>
>I have a guinea pig, and I am frankly offended that so many have been
>put out of work as test subjects and as food... ;)
>
> > We need a few American and Australian Test subjects. (The word Guinea
>Pigs is
> > no longer P.C.)
>
>It was more of a 'thought at the moment. I see us all as "wiz's" of a
>sort, as we are working to create an alphabet from behind the scenes.
>The use of words is our theatrics. Now, I also feel I must defend my
>stance on standardization. Since the begining of language, the only way
>that progress has been made in evolving the language is by a lack of
>spelling rules. Up until the early to mid seventeeth centuries, thanks
>to men like Dr. Samuel Johnson, and Noah Webster (both dictionary
>makers) there was freedom in spelling and a clear evolution of english,
>from the great vouel change with the Norman Invasion to the slippage of
>R's that still persists to day in many english dialects, to the future
>changes seen in Oakland, CA, where you may or may not know, they have
>begun teaching English as a second language to those children who speak
>"ebonics."
>
>I feel that the only way that these changes can be truly reflected is
>to, as with the "great vowel slide,' use Shavian as a tool to allow for
>spellings the way people speak. Observe, for instance, Latin, and the
>word "reducio" that I heard the other day. Now, the ancient or
>"classical' latin pronunciation is ree-DUK-eeoh (quack quack) versus
>the modern latin and smoother italian pronunciation of ree-D(long
>oo)TCH-eeoh. So this begs the question, would this change have taken
>place if the spelling had been standardised as we wish to do with
>shavian?
>
> > P.S. Star, Much as I feel honored to be compared favorably to any
> > literary figure, I feel that the justly maligned Wizard of Oz, is
> > beyond my capacity, both in machination, and in shear theatrical
> > display. Beside have I ever asked you to change the Hugh you view, or
> >
> > put on blinders of any kind.
> > My Dear Lady. How Unfair. :)
>
>:) --Star, the wicked witch of the SE
>
>=====
>"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
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





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=694928991>

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

On 2/9/2003 at 11:50 PM Paul Gershon Vandenbrink wrote:

>I am pretty much middle of the road on the issue of standardized spelling
>for the Shaw Alphabet. I would like to minimize spelling differences,
>while
>recognising that many common words will have differently spelt variants
>from the major accent groups. (American, British, Indian, Australian and
>South African, East African)

Most accents and idiolects are pretty consistant across symbolic phonemic representations; that is, an "ey" may be pronounced "ai", "oi", "vi" (v, to borrow from romanised Cherokee, us "uh"; also think of it as "schwa"), in a rather consistant usage in that dialect.

This is a particular problem with Shavian and Quickscript and a key reason why it isn't accepted in a rather dynamic language like English, where the phonetic values vary greatly between accents and dialects (I'm not going to cover vocabulary- That is another issue altogether that is unimportant to Shavian/Quickscript) and even idiolects but are consistantly read in the Latin script with minimal variance (2 that I know of globally), that Shavian/Quickscript simply cannot address- and were never intended to.

>Also, I see this issue as being pretty far down the road. Why
>do we need to look at it, until we have a viable Alphabet with a sample
>English dictionary.

What could be put off today could be put off tomorrow?

As I stated, this is the very heart of the problem with Shavian/Quickscript, even with Shavian's simplistic beauty, which is unmatched by any writing system: There is no standardisation across symbolic phonemes between dialects implemented.

>I suggest that the Original Shaw Alphabet was designed to encompass
>English
>R.P. and Northern English as spoken by King George. It is usable by most
>English Speakers, but ideally it reflects the English of Great Britain and
>the Colonies.

Actually, just RP, as Shaw himself honestly believed, even though he himself was Irish, that all speakers of English should speak the "correct" "King's English", an assertion that is in itself class-born, an endemic problem with English culture -- which gives rise to so many English accents just in England alone (and 20 major accents in America as well). Shavian was intended to reflect this, since by its own definition, pronunciation of the phonemes is supposed to follow RP.

Totally ignoring the dynamics of widely divergent accents and dialects across England, Great Britain, the (former) British Empire, and other English-speaking countries and regions.

>It is a version done by the British, for the British, and I suspect that
>where-ever it works well for American English, it is because that for
>what-ever reason, the local American Accent has retained some of older
>British Pronunciations for some common words.

I'd chalk it up to perseverence.

>P.S. Star, I will have to hunt around for a real serious-minded,
>well-qualified Magician, to undertake the job, of persuading people to
>speak with a different accent, in order to create a standardized Shaw
>Spelling. :>)

No magic is needed- I recommend applying phonics (as in "Hooked On..") to work with common symbolic phonemes, and adjust Shavian/QS/Shaw2 accordingly.

Oh, and some might ask, what are symbolic phonemes? Well, think of the Latin letters and letter compounds you read, and how you pronounce them. The phonemes in romanised English (keep in mind, this isn't even English's _original_ script! Our ancestors wrote in rune alphabets!) are entirely symbolic, rather than truly phonetic- They don't necessarily reflect the exact sounds we speak, but are consistantly read across the many varied dialects and accents of English. To this, we must apply Shavian (etc.etc.) _symbolicly_ rather than a true phonetic system. A true phonetic system just doesn't work for mutual intelligability in a language like English, which is dynamicly pronounced.

Also, to address another comment here, if I may: as a moderator of various forums over the last 12 years (not of this or QS), I've found that commonly 10-25% of all subscribers will participate actively; most simply like to lurk for one reason or another. This is normal, so son't worry about it.

D.M.Falk





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=119589949>

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

--- In shavian@..., Jake Hickenlooper
<poorant79@m...> wrote:
> Hey, I use a Mac. Actually I've been building a Mac OS X app
that
> converts roman into Shavian ( or anything else... ) as well. It's
been
> a sort of hobby of mine and I'm just at the end stages of
development
> on it. It doesn't use the CMU dictionary, but converts text based
on
> how the mac speaks text.

OK. Let me undestand this. Mac speech is based on splitting the
phonemes in the middle and actually pronouncing the
transitions, Correct? So what you have is a translator that does
that for both a roman spelling and a shavian spelling and you do
the substitutions based on mac speech?





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=735639583>

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

--- In shavian@..., Jake Hickenlooper
<poorant79@m...> wrote:
> Hey, I use a Mac. Actually I've been building a Mac OS X app
that
> converts roman into Shavian ( or anything else... ) as well. It's
been
> a sort of hobby of mine and I'm just at the end stages of
development
> on it. It doesn't use the CMU dictionary, but converts text based
on
> how the mac speaks text.

OK. Let me undestand this. Mac speech is based on splitting the
phonemes in the middle and actually pronouncing the
transitions, Correct? So what you have is a translator that does
that for both a roman spelling and a shavian spelling and you do
the substitutions based on mac speech?





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=492603156>

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

I use a Mac!

Bob Richmond
Knoxville TN


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=915195837>

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

Hi Dennis

Thanks for re-assurance on the disturbing question of lurkers.
We all go through silent periods, as a result of hectic schedules and
other demands on our time. I had thought that everyone had left on
vacation.

In response to your other answers below, I went back and looked on
the "Notes on spelling" document provided by the original Shaw
translator of Androcles. You can see it yourself in the Text files
folder for this group. Just click on Files. He seems to suggest that
he considers Shaw to be a generic based English alphabet that in one
case isolates the phonemes that have variant pronunciations. In
particular the 6 letters, Are, Or, Air, Err, Array and Ear, that have
both a Rhotic and Non-Rhotic pronunciation.
Would that be what you mean by a symbolic phonene?

He also notes possible difficulties using the Shaw Alphabet for
people with a pronounced American accent. (Here again, let me exempt
Star Raven from this base canard.)

And I do agree strongly that as you say, this is the very heart of
the problem with Shavian/Quickscript, even with Shavian's simplistic
beauty, which is unmatched by any writing system:
There is no standardisation of pronunciation at the word level
between the dialects implemented.

I suggest we recognise that this a problem with English and not the
Shaw Alphabet, and that between speakers of the same Dialect, the
Shaw Alphabet is close to ideal.

I strongly suggest again that the problem of the syncronization of
spelling between two variant dialect groups to left to the future.
There may very well be a technolgical solution. For example, a spell
checker that analyzes the written Dialect and converts it to the
target dialect of the Reader.

Regards, Paul V.


--- In shavian@..., "Dennis Falk" <quozl1@e...> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/9/2003 at 11:50 PM Paul Gershon Vandenbrink wrote:
>
> >I am pretty much middle of the road on the issue of standardized
spelling
> >for the Shaw Alphabet. I would like to minimize spelling
differences,
> >while
> >recognising that many common words will have differently spelt
variants
> >from the major accent groups. (American, British, Indian,
Australian and
> >South African, East African)
>
> Most accents and idiolects are pretty consistant across symbolic
phonemic representations; that is, an "ey" may be
pronounced "ai", "oi", "vi" (v, to borrow from romanised Cherokee,
us "uh"; also think of it as "schwa"), in a rather consistant usage
in that dialect.
>
> This is a particular problem with Shavian and Quickscript and a key
reason why it isn't accepted in a rather dynamic language like
English, where the phonetic values vary greatly between accents and
dialects (I'm not going to cover vocabulary- That is another issue
altogether that is unimportant to Shavian/Quickscript) and even
idiolects but are consistantly read in the Latin script with minimal
variance (2 that I know of globally), that Shavian/Quickscript simply
cannot address- and were never intended to.
>
> >Also, I see this issue as being pretty far down the road. Why
> >do we need to look at it, until we have a viable Alphabet with a
sample
> >English dictionary.
>
> What could be put off today could be put off tomorrow?
>
> As I stated, this is the very heart of the problem with
Shavian/Quickscript, even with Shavian's simplistic beauty, which is
unmatched by any writing system: There is no standardisation across
symbolic phonemes between dialects implemented.
>
> >I suggest that the Original Shaw Alphabet was designed to encompass
> >English
> >R.P. and Northern English as spoken by King George. It is usable
by most
> >English Speakers, but ideally it reflects the English of Great
Britain and
> >the Colonies.
>
> Actually, just RP, as Shaw himself honestly believed, even though
he himself was Irish, that all speakers of English should speak
the "correct" "King's English", an assertion that is in itself class-
born, an endemic problem with English culture -- which gives rise to
so many English accents just in England alone (and 20 major accents
in America as well). Shavian was intended to reflect this, since by
its own definition, pronunciation of the phonemes is supposed to
follow RP.
>
> Totally ignoring the dynamics of widely divergent accents and
dialects across England, Great Britain, the (former) British Empire,
and other English-speaking countries and regions.
>
> >It is a version done by the British, for the British, and I
suspect that
> >where-ever it works well for American English, it is because that
for
> >what-ever reason, the local American Accent has retained some of
older
> >British Pronunciations for some common words.
>
> I'd chalk it up to perseverence.
>
> >P.S. Star, I will have to hunt around for a real serious-minded,
> >well-qualified Magician, to undertake the job, of persuading
people to
> >speak with a different accent, in order to create a standardized
Shaw
> >Spelling. :>)
>
> No magic is needed- I recommend applying phonics (as in "Hooked
On..") to work with common symbolic phonemes, and adjust
Shavian/QS/Shaw2 accordingly.
>
> Oh, and some might ask, what are symbolic phonemes? Well, think of
the Latin letters and letter compounds you read, and how you
pronounce them. The phonemes in romanised English (keep in mind, this
isn't even English's _original_ script! Our ancestors wrote in rune
alphabets!) are entirely symbolic, rather than truly phonetic- They
don't necessarily reflect the exact sounds we speak, but are
consistantly read across the many varied dialects and accents of
English. To this, we must apply Shavian (etc.etc.) _symbolicly_
rather than a true phonetic system. A true phonetic system just
doesn't work for mutual intelligability in a language like English,
which is dynamicly pronounced.
>
> Also, to address another comment here, if I may: as a moderator of
various forums over the last 12 years (not of this or QS), I've found
that commonly 10-25% of all subscribers will participate actively;
most simply like to lurk for one reason or another. This is normal,
so son't worry about it.
>
> D.M.Falk



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=923620271>

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

That is correct, but after converting a word it is then put in a lookup table to be accessed later. This way the words can be customized and further corrected if needed.

On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 07:47 AM, George <pan@...> wrote:



OK. Let me undestand this. Mac speech is based on splitting the
phonemes in the middle and actually pronouncing the
transitions, Correct? So what you have is a translator that does
that for both a roman spelling and a shavian spelling and you do
the substitutions based on mac speech?

--- In shavian@..., Jake Hickenlooper
<poorant79@m...> wrote:
This way the words can be customized and
> further corrected if needed.

Oh! This sounds good! I was never able to get any solid info on
Mac Speech and this sounds *very* promising.

Hang tough. keep moving.



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=783946833>

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

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the shavian
group.

File : /fonts/macintosh/Shaw Roman No. 1
Uploaded by : columbellidae <columbellidae@...>
Description :

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/files/fonts/macintosh/Shaw%20Roman%20No.%201

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

columbellidae <columbellidae@...>







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=752249343>

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