Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

--- Ethan <ethanl@...> wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying. I have looked at a number of
> these "reformed spelling"
> systems, and my big gripe about them all is
> something like this:
>
> They almost all use some system of digraphs to
> replace the missing letters. A
> few use diacritics. English has many more sounds
> than there are letters in the
> Roman alphabet, so to substitute for extra letters,
> these writing systems use
> multiple letters. Often they are used in strange
> combinations, which have to be
> memorized. Some of the systems have more than one
> way to spell a sound, and/or
> more than one sound per spelling. For the most
> part, they look really bad, if
> you ask me! They seem overly simplistic a solution.
> They do look uneducated,
> because they are using the same letters as TO, but
> in wierd ways. As far as I
> know, they all (except perhaps some of the diacritic
> based systems) increase the
> length of many words, making writing more difficult
> and tiresome. This increase
> of word length through the use of so many digraphs
> makes reading harder, too.

I saw at least one reformed spelling system that used
accent marks, and re-introduced "eth" and "theta" and
avoided multiple letters for a single, pure, sound
completely and used existing character sets and fonts.
At first, I didn't pay much attention to it, but now
that I think about it, it makes more sense. That is
how many foreign languages, (especially
non-Indo-European), adopted the Latin alphabet. I was
concerned about how non-English speakers would react
to English speakers somehow uniting and adopting
Shavian. Would they adopt some extended form of
Shavian for their own languages? If that was the
trend, why not use a Shavian style method on the IPA,
instead of just English sounds? Then ask every
language to use the same phonetic system.

>
> "Global English" sounds to me like the English
> equivalent to the French DGLF,
> «Délégation générale à la langue française», the
> organization which standardizes
> the French language. Thanks for explaining it. I
> don't know that I could get
> enthusiastic about reformed roman spelling or
> International English, but it is
> an interesting study, nonetheless. Still, for now,
> I think I'll stick with
> Shavian, the only completely non-roman English
> alphabet I know of. Why should
> English be forced to conform to a roman alphabet?
>

What about non-roman phonetic universal alphabets?
Why should English change its writing system, leaving
all the other languages behind. How would a Shavian
writer write foreign words in French or German? I've
mentioned abbreviations here, too. I'm also concerned
about abreviations, which I've written about here
before too.

> You mention efforts to remove gender and grammatical
> cases. I thought that
> English was perhaps the least gender-oriented and
> case-oriented language in the
> indo-european language family. What more needs to
> be done, and why? For
> instance, as far as cases go, we have singular,
> plural, and possessive cases.
> How would you remove them? Our use of gender is
> much simpler than in most
> languages. We use neuter for almost everything,
> except where the real gender of
> the object referred to is known, such as a person or
> animal. Why is this too
> complicated, and how is it proposed to change it?
>

I was thinking back to a proposal I read to add an
additional pronoun "e" to represent a person without
resepect to gender, (I forgot the objective case). As
it is in English, especially legal documents, there is
a tendency to complicate documents because English
lacks the gender-neutral pronoun: "he/she started
his/her letter with 'Dear Mr./Ms.'", or the formal,
"one started ones letter with 'Dear Reader'". That's
just one. Some people have suggested getting rid of
agreement of plurals, ("he says", "I say"), and
irregular verb conjugation. I've travelled around
Asia quite a bit and have taught English as a second
language. I've heard the statement that English is
supposed to be the "global language of business", but
it is interesting to see how English develops out
there, and is even somewhat standardized.

Anyway, this is the Shavian group, so I'll resign
myself to finding solutions to the problems with the
realm of Shavian. I'm only "disenchanted" about it
ever becoming more than a hobby unless the entire
world is taken over by an English-speaking
dictatorship.

> --
> Ethan


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/sOykFB/k9VGAA/ySSFAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- Ethan <ethanl@...> wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying. I have looked at a number of
> these "reformed spelling"
> systems, and my big gripe about them all is
> something like this:
>
> They almost all use some system of digraphs to
> replace the missing letters. A
> few use diacritics. English has many more sounds
> than there are letters in the
> Roman alphabet, so to substitute for extra letters,
> these writing systems use
> multiple letters. Often they are used in strange
> combinations, which have to be
> memorized. Some of the systems have more than one
> way to spell a sound, and/or
> more than one sound per spelling. For the most
> part, they look really bad, if
> you ask me! They seem overly simplistic a solution.
> They do look uneducated,
> because they are using the same letters as TO, but
> in wierd ways. As far as I
> know, they all (except perhaps some of the diacritic
> based systems) increase the
> length of many words, making writing more difficult
> and tiresome. This increase
> of word length through the use of so many digraphs
> makes reading harder, too.

I saw at least one reformed spelling system that used
accent marks, and re-introduced "eth" and "theta" and
avoided multiple letters for a single, pure, sound
completely and used existing character sets and fonts.
At first, I didn't pay much attention to it, but now
that I think about it, it makes more sense. That is
how many foreign languages, (especially
non-Indo-European), adopted the Latin alphabet. I was
concerned about how non-English speakers would react
to English speakers somehow uniting and adopting
Shavian. Would they adopt some extended form of
Shavian for their own languages? If that was the
trend, why not use a Shavian style method on the IPA,
instead of just English sounds? Then ask every
language to use the same phonetic system.

>
> "Global English" sounds to me like the English
> equivalent to the French DGLF,
> +Diligation ginirale ` la langue frangaise;, the
> organization which standardizes
> the French language. Thanks for explaining it. I
> don't know that I could get
> enthusiastic about reformed roman spelling or
> International English, but it is
> an interesting study, nonetheless. Still, for now,
> I think I'll stick with
> Shavian, the only completely non-roman English
> alphabet I know of. Why should
> English be forced to conform to a roman alphabet?
>

What about non-roman phonetic universal alphabets?
Why should English change its writing system, leaving
all the other languages behind. How would a Shavian
writer write foreign words in French or German? I've
mentioned abbreviations here, too. I'm also concerned
about abreviations, which I've written about here
before too.

> You mention efforts to remove gender and grammatical
> cases. I thought that
> English was perhaps the least gender-oriented and
> case-oriented language in the
> indo-european language family. What more needs to
> be done, and why? For
> instance, as far as cases go, we have singular,
> plural, and possessive cases.
> How would you remove them? Our use of gender is
> much simpler than in most
> languages. We use neuter for almost everything,
> except where the real gender of
> the object referred to is known, such as a person or
> animal. Why is this too
> complicated, and how is it proposed to change it?
>

I was thinking back to a proposal I read to add an
additional pronoun "e" to represent a person without
resepect to gender, (I forgot the objective case). As
it is in English, especially legal documents, there is
a tendency to complicate documents because English
lacks the gender-neutral pronoun: "he/she started
his/her letter with 'Dear Mr./Ms.'", or the formal,
"one started ones letter with 'Dear Reader'". That's
just one. Some people have suggested getting rid of
agreement of plurals, ("he says", "I say"), and
irregular verb conjugation. I've travelled around
Asia quite a bit and have taught English as a second
language. I've heard the statement that English is
supposed to be the "global language of business", but
it is interesting to see how English develops out
there, and is even somewhat standardized.

Anyway, this is the Shavian group, so I'll resign
myself to finding solutions to the problems with the
realm of Shavian. I'm only "disenchanted" about it
ever becoming more than a hobby unless the entire
world is taken over by an English-speaking
dictatorship.

> --
> Ethan


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/sOykFB/k9VGAA/ySSFAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Speaking of Lionel Ghoti, his name was supposed to be something punny or thought-provoking. I know Ghoti spells "fish," but I never figured out if Lionel meant anything. Did I miss something?

Troy, the Lurker.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.3551198.4824677.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1663535/R=0/SIG=11ps6rfef/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30504&media=atkins>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.3551198.4824677.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1663535/rand=729816230>

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

Looks like it's going to be difficult.


----- Original Message -----
From: "texascritter" <texascritter@...>
To: <EmailList-Managers@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [EL-M] Moderator no longer present - transfer moderatorship?


> On Saturday, July 19, 2003 7:57 AM, Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
>
> > My question: seeing that the moderator is clearly no longer around,
> > how do I go about getting YahooGroups to transfer the moderatorship
> > to me? I have asked the group and they support my proposed action.
> > Who do I have to talk to to arrange this?
>
> You don't. Other people have tried and Yahoo has responded to all
requests
> with a flat "we don't transfer ownership of groups".
>
> Your only option is to start a new group with a similar name and post a
> message on the old group about the new one, inviting everyone to join.
>
> hth,
> texas critter



----- Original Message -----
From: "texascritter" <texascritter@...>
To: <EmailList-Managers@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [EL-M] Moderator no longer present - transfer moderatorship?


> On Saturday, July 19, 2003 11:56 AM, Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
>
> > I see no reason to make it difficult for the group's members just to
> > change moderator. It should be a simple case of "press button X = new
> > moderator created".
>
> But from Yahoogroups' viewpoint, a group is not owned by the members, it's
> owned by the listowner. And if the listowner chooses to retain ownership
> but never have anything to do with it again, that's the owner's perogative
> and the members have no say in that.
>
> Now, a listowner may choose to run a group as if the members owned it,
> abiding by the members' wishes, but again, that is the listowner's choice,
> Yahoo recognizes the listowner as the absolute owner of a group, not the
> members.
>
> That viewpoint has been consistently reiterated by Yahoogroups over the
> last couple years, both in their repeated refusals to transfer group
> ownerships even when the listowner is dead and in their replies to
> complaints about spam posted to groups, it's always that it's up to the
> listowner, not the members.
>
> You are, of course, free to petition them to do what you want and if you
> are successful, I and other listowners would be interested in that, as
> there are other listowners who have tried to get ownership of abandoned
> groups, so if you can get it done, please share any tips with the group.
>
> hth,
> texas critter


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sue in NJ" <susang@...>
To: <EmailList-Managers@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [EL-M] Moderator no longer present - transfer moderatorship?


> > I'm sure YahooGroups will listen to reason. I have nothing to lose in
> > asking.
>
> On one group I belong to where the owner has been dead and buried for a
few
> years, one member offered to send Yahoo a copy of the death certificate of
> the owner so he could take over ownership, and Yahoo still refused.
>
> Good luck in your quest.
>
>
> Sue in NJ

Looks like it's going to be difficult.


----- Original Message -----
From: "texascritter" <texascritter@...>
To: <EmailList-Managers@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [EL-M] Moderator no longer present - transfer moderatorship?


> On Saturday, July 19, 2003 7:57 AM, Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
>
> > My question: seeing that the moderator is clearly no longer around,
> > how do I go about getting YahooGroups to transfer the moderatorship
> > to me? I have asked the group and they support my proposed action.
> > Who do I have to talk to to arrange this?
>
> You don't. Other people have tried and Yahoo has responded to all
requests
> with a flat "we don't transfer ownership of groups".
>
> Your only option is to start a new group with a similar name and post a
> message on the old group about the new one, inviting everyone to join.
>
> hth,
> texas critter



----- Original Message -----
From: "texascritter" <texascritter@...>
To: <EmailList-Managers@...>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: [EL-M] Moderator no longer present - transfer moderatorship?


> On Saturday, July 19, 2003 11:56 AM, Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
>
> > I see no reason to make it difficult for the group's members just to
> > change moderator. It should be a simple case of "press button X = new
> > moderator created".
>
> But from Yahoogroups' viewpoint, a group is not owned by the members, it's
> owned by the listowner. And if the listowner chooses to retain ownership
> but never have anything to do with it again, that's the owner's perogative
> and the members have no say in that.
>
> Now, a listowner may choose to run a group as if the members owned it,
> abiding by the members' wishes, but again, that is the listowner's choice,
> Yahoo recognizes the listowner as the absolute owner of a group, not the
> members.
>
> That viewpoint has been consistently reiterated by Yahoogroups over the
> last couple years, both in their repeated refusals to transfer group
> ownerships even when the listowner is dead and in their replies to
> complaints about spam posted to groups, it's always that it's up to the
> listowner, not the members.
>
> You are, of course, free to petition them to do what you want and if you
> are successful, I and other listowners would be interested in that, as
> there are other listowners who have tried to get ownership of abandoned
> groups, so if you can get it done, please share any tips with the group.
>
> hth,
> texas critter


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sue in NJ" <susang@...>
To: <EmailList-Managers@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [EL-M] Moderator no longer present - transfer moderatorship?


> > I'm sure YahooGroups will listen to reason. I have nothing to lose in
> > asking.
>
> On one group I belong to where the owner has been dead and buried for a
few
> years, one member offered to send Yahoo a copy of the death certificate of
> the owner so he could take over ownership, and Yahoo still refused.
>
> Good luck in your quest.
>
>
> Sue in NJ



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Well Lionel was a reference to "Androcles and the Lion"...

His real name is Leon Robbins. Or so he said. How are we ever to know for sure?

Hugh B

----- Original Message -----
From: Troy Eckhardt <mailto:SpamFilter@BizTaxPros.com>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 11:46 PM
Subject: [shavian] Lionel Ghoti

Speaking of Lionel Ghoti, his name was supposed to be something punny or thought-provoking. I know Ghoti spells "fish," but I never figured out if Lionel meant anything. Did I miss something?

Troy, the Lurker.


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



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3512152.4794593.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1595053/R=0/SIG=1245der9k/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=3512152&yhad=1595053>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3512152.4794593.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1595053/rand=254130588>

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

The biggest problem with reforming religions, languages, cultures, etc., is that there has to be a crying need for it by a large number of people who feel the pain of keeping things the way they are. How many people feel the pain of a lack of a phonetic English alphabet? And, surely a universal language such as Esperanto could not make it even with all of its linguists and comprehensive dictionaries. The question of the hour is not how to create a phonetic alphabet but rather how to interest a larger population of English speakers in the crucial need for it.





--- On Sun 07/20, Ethan < ethanl@... > wrote:


From: Ethan [mailto: ethanl@...]
To: shavian@...
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:34:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [shavian] Disenchanted?

07/20/03 1:25:30 AM, Scott Stephens wrote:

>There are hundreds of alternatives besides TO and
>Shavian. I've done a lot of research lately while
>tinkering with a Shavian automated translation engine.
> There are ITA, Spanglish, Fonetik, and many others
>that use roman alphabets. The point made by the
>request for an alphabet like Shavian was that reading
>text written phonetically looked unintelligent or
>heavily accented compared to TO, (to someone used to
>reading TO, of course -- I don't think it would look
>this way to someone who grew up reading it). It looks
>cool, so I like learning to read it and it would be< BR>>interesting in a game, too.

Thanks for clarifying. I have looked at a number of these "reformed spelling"
systems, and my big gripe about them all is something like this:

They almost all use some system of digraphs to replace the missing letters. A
few use diacritics. English has many more sounds than there are letters in the
Roman alphabet, so to substitute for extra letters, these writing systems use
multiple letters. Often they are used in strange combinations, which have to be
memorized. Some of the systems have more than one way to spell a sound, and/or
more than one sound per spelling. For the most part, they look really bad, if
you ask me! They seem overly simplistic a solution. They do look uneducated,
because they are using the same letters as TO, but in wierd ways. As far as I
know, they all (except perhaps some of the diacritic based systems) increase the
length of many words, making writing more difficu lt and tiresome. This increase
of word length through the use of so many digraphs makes reading harder, too.

>
>"Global English" refers to a group of people who are
>trying to standardize spoken English. It is the
>intermediate between our current spoken language,
>(with 600,000 word vocabulary and a lot of divergent
>grammar systems, ("boot"->"boots","foot"->"feets").
>It can mean different things to different people.
>English grows by about 3,000 words a year and just
>about as many or more words fall out of usage. Some
>people are worried about regional differences in
>spoken English, ("I mended my motor with a spanner
>under the bonnet next to the motorway" vs. "I fixed my
>engine with a wrench under the hood next to the
>highway"). I've been interested in some movements to
>remove gender and certain gramatical cases from the
>English language. Someone from 100 years ago in the
>past would find much of our English dialect strange,
>so I was suggesting that a society of the future would
>have many variations from present English.

"Global English" sounds to me like the English equivalent to the French DGLF,
«Délégation générale à la langue française», the organization which standardizes
the French language. Thanks for explaining it. I don't know that I could get
enthusiastic about reformed roman spelling or International English, but it is
an interesting study, nonetheless. Still, for now, I think I'll stick with
Shavian, the only completely non-roman English alphabet I know of. Why should
English be forced to conform to a roman alphabet?

You mention efforts to remove gender and grammatical cases. I thought that
English was perhaps the least gender-oriented and case-oriented language in the
indo-european language family. What more needs to be done, and why? For
inst ance, as far as cases go, we have singular, plural, and possessive cases.
How would you remove them? Our use of gender is much simpler than in most
languages. We use neuter for almost everything, except where the real gender of
the object referred to is known, such as a person or animal. Why is this too
complicated, and how is it proposed to change it?

--
Ethan




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/nHYuCC/ca0FAA/ySSFAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





________________________________

<http://imgfarm.com/images/webm> <http://imgfarm.com/images/webmail/spacer.gif> Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails!
Visit www.SmileyCentral.com <http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSeef001> - the happiest place on the Web. <http://imgfarm.com/images/webmail/spacer.gif>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3512152.4794593.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1595053/R=0/SIG=1245der9k/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=3512152&yhad=1595053>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3512152.4794593.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1595053/rand=849112063>

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

The biggest problem with reforming religions, languages, cultures, etc., is that there has to be a crying need for it by a large number of people who feel the pain of keeping things the way they are. How many people feel the pain of a lack of a phonetic English alphabet? And, surely a universal language such as Esperanto could not make it even with all of its linguists and comprehensive dictionaries. The question of the hour is not how to create a phonetic alphabet but rather how to interest a larger population of English speakers in the crucial need for it.





--- On Sun 07/20, Ethan < ethanl@... > wrote:


From: Ethan [mailto: ethanl@...]
To: shavian@...
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:34:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [shavian] Disenchanted?

07/20/03 1:25:30 AM, Scott Stephens wrote:

>There are hundreds of alternatives besides TO and
>Shavian. I've done a lot of research lately while
>tinkering with a Shavian automated translation engine.
> There are ITA, Spanglish, Fonetik, and many others
>that use roman alphabets. The point made by the
>request for an alphabet like Shavian was that reading
>text written phonetically looked unintelligent or
>heavily accented compared to TO, (to someone used to
>reading TO, of course -- I don't think it would look
>this way to someone who grew up reading it). It looks
>cool, so I like learning to read it and it would be< BR>>interesting in a game, too.

Thanks for clarifying. I have looked at a number of these "reformed spelling"
systems, and my big gripe about them all is something like this:

They almost all use some system of digraphs to replace the missing letters. A
few use diacritics. English has many more sounds than there are letters in the
Roman alphabet, so to substitute for extra letters, these writing systems use
multiple letters. Often they are used in strange combinations, which have to be
memorized. Some of the systems have more than one way to spell a sound, and/or
more than one sound per spelling. For the most part, they look really bad, if
you ask me! They seem overly simplistic a solution. They do look uneducated,
because they are using the same letters as TO, but in wierd ways. As far as I
know, they all (except perhaps some of the diacritic based systems) increase the
length of many words, making writing more difficu lt and tiresome. This increase
of word length through the use of so many digraphs makes reading harder, too.

>
>"Global English" refers to a group of people who are
>trying to standardize spoken English. It is the
>intermediate between our current spoken language,
>(with 600,000 word vocabulary and a lot of divergent
>grammar systems, ("boot"->"boots","foot"->"feets").
>It can mean different things to different people.
>English grows by about 3,000 words a year and just
>about as many or more words fall out of usage. Some
>people are worried about regional differences in
>spoken English, ("I mended my motor with a spanner
>under the bonnet next to the motorway" vs. "I fixed my
>engine with a wrench under the hood next to the
>highway"). I've been interested in some movements to
>remove gender and certain gramatical cases from the
>English language. Someone from 100 years ago in the
>past would find much of our English dialect strange,
>so I was suggesting that a society of the future would
>have many variations from present English.

"Global English" sounds to me like the English equivalent to the French DGLF,
«Délégation générale à la langue française», the organization which standardizes
the French language. Thanks for explaining it. I don't know that I could get
enthusiastic about reformed roman spelling or International English, but it is
an interesting study, nonetheless. Still, for now, I think I'll stick with
Shavian, the only completely non-roman English alphabet I know of. Why should
English be forced to conform to a roman alphabet?

You mention efforts to remove gender and grammatical cases. I thought that
English was perhaps the least gender-oriented and case-oriented language in the
indo-european language family. What more needs to be done, and why? For
inst ance, as far as cases go, we have singular, plural, and possessive cases.
How would you remove them? Our use of gender is much simpler than in most
languages. We use neuter for almost everything, except where the real gender of
the object referred to is known, such as a person or animal. Why is this too
complicated, and how is it proposed to change it?

--
Ethan




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/nHYuCC/ca0FAA/ySSFAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





________________________________

<http://imgfarm.com/images/webm> <http://imgfarm.com/images/webmail/spacer.gif> Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails!
Visit www.SmileyCentral.com <http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSeef001> - the happiest place on the Web. <http://imgfarm.com/images/webmail/spacer.gif>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3512152.4794593.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1595053/R=0/SIG=1245der9k/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=3512152&yhad=1595053>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3512152.4794593.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1595053/rand=849112063>

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

Esperanto has a rather sizable following. No, it did not become the universal language that Zamenhof thought it might, but still, the congresses are always well populated.

Troy

----- Original Message -----
From: sidban2@... <mailto:sidban2@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [shavian] Disenchanted?

The biggest problem with reforming religions, languages, cultures, etc., is that there has to be a crying need for it by a large number of people who feel the pain of keeping things the way they are. How many people feel the pain of a lack of a phonetic English alphabet? And, surely a universal language such as Esperanto could not make it even with all of its linguists and comprehensive dictionaries. The question of the hour is not how to create a phonetic alphabet but rather how to interest a larger population of English speakers in the crucial need for it.






________________________________

<http://imgfarm.com/images/webm> <http://imgfarm.com/images/webmail/spacer.gif>
Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails!
Visit www.SmileyCentral.com <http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSeef001> - the happiest place on the Web. <http://imgfarm.com/images/webmail/spacer.gif>


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



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.3551198.4824677.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1663535/R=0/SIG=11ps6rfef/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30504&media=atkins>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.3551198.4824677.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1663535/rand=789086006>

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

Yeah! Esperanto. I learned it way back in high school
about 20 years ago. I thought it was great. Just
recently, though, I've picked up on Ido, which is even
better, (doesn't have case agreement, has genderless
pronouns, no accented letters). But apparently there
is quite a flame war between the two groups because of
the way Ido was introduced.

I saw someone who had applied Shavian to Esperanto and
it seemed to have worked quite well. Currently Ido
uses only the unaccented roman alphabet, and yet is
able to achieve an excelent phonetic mapping.

--- Troy Eckhardt <SpamFilter@BizTaxPros.com> wrote:
> Esperanto has a rather sizable following. No, it did
> not become the universal language that Zamenhof
> thought it might, but still, the congresses are
> always well populated.
>
> Troy


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Natural Vitamins for Good Prostate & Male Health. $28.97
http://www.challengerone.com/t/l.asp?cid=2865&lp=prosta2.html
http://us.click.yahoo.com/qJIe0D/89VGAA/ySSFAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/