Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paige Gabhart" <pgabhart@...>
>To: <shavian@...>
>
>It's interesting that one could read so much into only three (and a half)
>sentences and find several paragraphs' worth of response to write.
>
There is no necessary correlation between the length of what I wrote and
what Star wrote.
>>Star:
>>
>>1) Carl did not say that Quikscript looks like shorthand so your
>>statement that you "agree" with him that QS looks like "sloppy
>>shorthand" seems imprecise and sloppy.
>>
Let me preface this by saying my profession requires precise writing so
I tend to think that words mean what they say rather than claiming they
mean what the author wants them to mean as if we are in Wonderland. It
seems many people are uncomfortable if someone else disagrees with their
opinion. When I tried to discuss one of Star's posts with her in the
past, she reacted in the same manner -- as if I had made a personal
attack upon her. Nothing in my response was intended as a personal
attack on her. How could it be, I don't know her.
In my response, I parroted the word she used -- "sloppy" -- in a joking
manner.
>I'm sure you understood perfectly well that she was "agreeing" that QS was
>"sloppier than the original". You seem to have taken some sort of offence
>though.
>
My dictionary defines "sloppy" as slovenly or careless. I object to the
characterization that QS is slovenly or careless. After all, Kindgley
Read produced QS after extensive testing of Shavian by English speakers
around the globe over a period of several years convinced him the
alphabet needed revision.
It so happens that I prefer QS over Shavian. Star prefers Shavian.
Both opinions are our prerogatives. But I do not denigrate Shavian. I
agree it makes an attractive appearance on the page. On the other hand,
Star does denigrate QS, and that is what I found unfortunate. If she
believes QS has design flaws, then tell us what they are. If she is
just expressing her personal preference for one alphabet over the other,
then just say so and be done with it.
>>2) I am curious whether you have studied any form of shorthand. QS is
>>not a shorthand and does not pretend to be one. The symbols used in a
>>shorthand, whether Gregg, Pitman or some other system, were designed for
>>taking dictation of a person speaking. Therefore, they had to be pared
>>down to a minimum to enable the writer to keep up with the speaker.
>> This has nothing to do with QS, which is a complete, well-designed
>>alphabet.
>>
>>
>
>OK, OK! Of course she probably hasn't studied Shorthand. So what? She's
>probably seen it - I certainly have. In my *opinion* QS looks more like
>shorthand than Shavian does. It is definitely more cursive, with more
>'curls' and 'ticks', if you get me.
>
My understanding is that fast shorthand writers tend to develop their
own abbreviations so that their output is not that readable from one
person to another. QS is an alphabet intended for writing out the
sounds of a language in full. A superficial similarity to shorthand is
not the same as being one and both of you know that, I am sure.
>>3) your use of the words "neat," "readable" and "concise" appear to mean
>>very little. Both alphabets have the number of symbols needed to enable
>>one to write English efficiently. Both are readable. In fonts of the
>>same height, QS probably takes up more horizontal space than Shavian due
>>to the differences between the two alphabets. On the other hand QS also
>>uses half-letters, which create more distinctive word-shapes than appear
>>in Shavian. As far as I know, no study has ever been done on the
>>relative ease of attaining reading proficiency in QS versus Shavian.
>> However, since many teachers believe distinctive word-shapes are quite
>>important for reading and, especially, for attaining high reading
>>speeds, it is possible that an individual may attain fluency easier or
>>attain higher reading speeds in QS than in Shavian. Of course, until
>>such a study is done, no one will know the answer to that question.
>>
>>
>
>By 'neat', 'readable' and 'concise' she probably means that the letter pairs
>are neat, logical flips/reversals of each other. QS letter pairs are mostly
>NOT so, e.g. pea/bay, tea/day, she/j'ai, may/no, low/row...
>
The fact that the letter pairs are mirror images does not make them more
readable. It may seem more logical. The letter pairs may mean
something to the people on this website, but I doubt most English
speakers, have a clue that "d" and "t" or "b" and "p" are related or
care. And the lack of this knowledge does not impede their reading. I
believe Read realized this, and did not go overboard to continue the
flipped pairs in QS where they got in the way of making letters easier
to connect.
>>In my opinion, the design of Shavian appears more vertical, whereas, QS
>>is more horizontal. QS works very well for handwriting. Due to the
>>frequency with which letters can join, I can write QS faster than
>>Shavian, which requires a pen lift between each symbol.
>>
>>
>
>Funny. I can write Shavian faster than Quikscript. Maybe it's because I've
>written more Shavian than Quikscript. Maybe the reverse situation applies to
>you?
>
Do you really believe you can lift the pen from the paper between every
symbol and still write as fast as someone making very few pen lifts?
Time yourself printing a paragraph in Roman versus the same paragraph
in cursive. There are many people who print rather than write in
cursive, but I've never heard anyone claim it was because they could do
it faster.
>>4) Do you have a cite for what characteristics Shaw felt to be most
>>important in a new English alphabet or is this speculation on your part?
>>
>>
>
>Anyone can speculate, because Shaw never gave an account of what
>characteristics he felt most important in a new English alphabet. Therefore
>it is perfectly OK to speculate, after all, he's dead.
>
>
My point was not that she was not entitled to speculate, but that she
should not post her speculations as if they were based on something Shaw
wrote.
>>Carl:
>>
>>I've been writing QS for about 27 years. I do not agree with your
>>statment that Shavian is more fun to write in than QS.
>>
>>
>
>Everyone's entitled to their own view. I've learned both and used them lots
>and still prefer Shavian, not just for its appearance and ease of writing,
>but also for the sheer amazing appearance it takes on in print. Quikscript
>just looks darned ugly no matter how neatly you write it. But that's just my
>opinion.
>
That is a question of esthetics. And I can appreciate that. I don't
agree with you, but I don't have to. It is the smugness with which so
many Shavianphiles express their opinion that I find disagreeable. I
also find it interesting that so many people dismiss Read's later work
out of hand as if the darned "Androcles and the Lion" was the last word.
Paige Gabhart
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Coral Calcium for Greater Health. 1 month supply - $23.95
(1 bottle, 90 tablets, 400mg each with Magnesium & Vitamin D)
http://www.challengerone.com/t/l.asp?cid=2805&lp=calcium2.asp
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mcIe3D/v9VGAA/ySSFAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/