Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

11/21/03 4:34:45 PM, stbett@... wrote:

>
> Tricodal key: Shavian - IPA - ASCII or keyboard Shavian
> The IPA is red on a yellow background, The keyboard is yellow on green
> No key words here - you have to know IPA to make sense of this. Later
> I will add ENgliS and SAMPA transcriptions.
> Image
> http://www.unifon.org/shavian-ipa-keybd16.gif
>
> This is a kind of Rosetta stone providing access to three different scripts.
> It is not trilingual: there is only one language represented. It is
> tricodal with the ASCII code only being used to access the keyboard.
>
> I tried to interest someone in reworking the keyboard positions on the
> Shavian fonts but the feeling was that once a code is established everyone
> should fall in line.

My opinion is that we should not have to continue to rely on these makeshift
fonts for Shavian. This is why we have Unicode - so we can encode our fonts
with the letters in standard positions, and then use whatever keyboard input
method we wish. Personally I think that a Dvorak-type layout would be best.
This could be done by figuring out which of the letters are used the most, and
then assigning them to keys which are easiest to reach.

As far as the current layout goes, it does have the advantage of being rather
easy to learn for a beginner. I personally have little trouble typing using
this method, though I do get tired of having to hit the shift key combos so
much. A better layout would eliminate the frequent use of the shift key.

> I think the same situation prevailed with respect to
> the Urgaritic code. It was shorter and simpler than the ancient Akkadian
> cuneiform but no one wanted to make the switch. The Amarna tablets, writen
> after the invention of the new cuneiform script, are still written in
> Akkadian cuneiform.

The Koreans successfully switched to an alphabetic script many years ago. They
had no problem with it. Yet to this day the Chinese and Japanese insist on
using logograms, ideograms, and syllabaries rather than an alphabet.

>
> Given the resistance to code switching, it is amazing how many times we have
> switched computer codes during the last two decades. Initially there is
> some attempt at backward compatibility but then a time comes when someone
> thinks this is more trouble than it is worth and the new code is cut off
> from the past.

I'm not sure what computer codes you are referring to. During the last two
decades, ASCII has pretty much been the rule. The code has been extended, first
by adding an extra bit and putting accented latin characters in the upper 128
characters, and then by adding another byte for Unicode and assigning more
characters above the original 8 bit codes. Now it's been extended again, and
the Shavian characters are above the earlier Unicode characters. But if you
look at the Unicode standard, you will see that the bottom 128 characters are
still identical to the original ASCII character set, which had its origins more
than 20 years ago.

>
> It is interesting that even in a small community, no one wants to reform
> spelling.
> The same community of radical spellers was not interested in correcting an
> error
> in Androcles and the Lion where air and error were mixed up. This doesn't
> seem like an important screw up until you remember that /aIr/ is a
> pronunciation of ire, not aero. The error is corrected above but if you
> want to be true to the classic form, switch them back.
>
> The mistake was caught by Read and McCarthy and then covered up because the
> book was almost ready to be published and no one wanted to go back and make
> all of the corrections. Besides being a lot of work, it might delay
> publication.

I'm not at all concerned over whether "Err" and "Air" are reversed from the way
someone originally conceived of them. What's the difference? Is it a fact that
they got reversed? And if so, does it matter? One is facing one way, the other
the other way. Why does it matter which way the letters face? If you reverse
them, wouldn't you simply cause confusion? And what would be the advantage?>

Speaking of reversed letters, I always thought that voiceless consonants were
supposed to be tall, and voiced were supposed to be deep. Yet Ha-ha is deep,
and Hung is tall. Should those two be reversed as well?

> The most troublesome part of Shavian is the use of arbitrary letters for
> Read's ligatures.
> D = @r. P=or, M=u:. It would be much easier to leave these typesetting
> conventions
> out of the code that people used. They could be added with a converter just
> before the
> draft was to be printed.

I'm not sure what you mean. Shavian does not use any of these letters; D, P,
and M are all latin characters. If you had a Shavian keyboard, these keys would
be labeled with the letter forms for Dead/Array, Peep/Or, and Mime/Ooze. Yet
even this isn't a part of the Shavian alphabet, but is merely a convention used
for typing in Shavian. It can easily be changed, if one so wishes, and without
changing the encodings of the fonts. In fact, with the new Unicode font
standard, the letters are in a particular order and cannot be moved. It is the
familiar order as seen in Androcles and the Lion, in the letter key.

Ethan
The chicken came first.



------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 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 : /4/4-21KEZ.WRI
Uploaded by : kfs111 <kfs111@...>
Description :

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/files/4/4-21KEZ.WRI

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

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

Regards,

kfs111 <kfs111@...>






------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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

--- In shavian@..., Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:

>I'm not at all concerned over whether "Err" and "Air" are
>reversed from the way someone originally conceived of them.
>What's the difference? Is it a fact that they got reversed? And if
>so, does it matter? One is facing one way, the other the other
>way. Why does it matter which way the letters face? If you
>reverse them, wouldn't you simply cause confusion? And what
>would be the advantage?

Logical consistency would be the advantage. The shavian
ligatures for `are/or/array/ear' all begin with their initial sound:
`ah/awe/ado/if' plus the r-hook. This uniformity however is lost in
the other compound vowels which are taken to be the initial
vowel plus the `array' sign (poor, your, our, etc.).

`Err' (pronounced to rhyme with burr) should begin with the
upward-rising stroke of `ado' and `up'. However, as many people
in America pronounce this keyword to rhyme with French père or
the archaic and poetic `ere', as in `ere the tide doth fall', this
connection is lost, or never seen, something reinforced by the
similarity of the latter pronunciation to `egg'.

`Air' too is not all that simple, as it may be pronounced either as
`père' or `pear', with a more open sound, that is, with the initial
sound of `egg' respectively `ash' (which may be the more
common pronunciation). But if the former, then it should begin
with the downward-sloping slant of `egg' as the nearest initial
sound. This probably was the original intention, and the signs for
`air' and `err' were probably transposed. I think someone earlier
proposed that this problem could be avoided by not using those
signs at all, but instead 'ur' and 'Ar'.

Kingsley Read chose his keywords as far as possible so as to
have the initial sound indicate the Shavian letter sound:
if/eat/egg/age etc. But it was not always possible, i.e. `wool', and
some of the other choices, such as `on' or, as mentioned above,
`err', have not had general agreement as to their pronunciation.
Perhaps it would have been better, and confusion avoided, had
another series of keywords been chosen instead for the vowels,
ones with less chance of being disputed or misunderstood.

For example, an (extensive) set I've seen somewhere was, if
memory serves me, as follows:

bit/beat, bet/bait, bat/bite;
abut/but; bout/boil, calm/call;
box/boat, book/boot, cute;

here/where/there; far/for/four/fur;
poor/pure; fire/flour.

Not everyone will agree with or use all these vowel contrasts,
several sound mergers have taken place in the last half-century
(the cot/caught assimilation and unrounding in midwest
America, the horse/hoarse merger also in many places, etc.).
But I believe this was an attempt to render into roman letters the
sound system devised by James Murray, father of the OED, who
had invented his own set of phonetic signs to depict the sounds
of English for its first edition. This, it is perhaps of interest to
note, would have reflected the speech pattern of, among others
at the time, George V, who Shaw expressly designated as the
model for his new alphabet. Read did not always comply with
these intentions.

Another alternative, arranged in a more traditional pattern and
therefore less easily adaptable to Read's pairing system, was
that of H. W. Fowler, in his immortal "Fowler's English Usage"
(again, if I remember correctly):

rack, reck, rick, rock, rook, ruck;
mate, mete, mite, mote, moot, mute;
balm, bawl; bout, boil;
mare, mere, mire, more, moor, mure;
farm, firm, form; sour,
plus the general unaccented vowel, or schwa.


> Speaking of reversed letters, I always thought that
> voiceless consonants were supposed to be tall, and
> voiced were supposed to be deep. Yet Ha-ha is deep,
> and Hung is tall. Should those two be reversed as well?

> Ethan

You are so right. In the early days of this group this was pointed
out by someone who claimed to have been present at the birth
and subsequent development of the Shaw alphabet (see
messages 27 and 38), but this attempt at correction of an
obvious error was greeted with protest and even a bit of hostility,
so much so that neither he nor Ross DeMeyere, creator of the
Androcles and Ghoti fonts for Shawscript, have let themselves
be heard of again, this group thus losing two people who could
have been valuable members.

And yet the observation was correct. Whenever I show the Shaw
alphabet to anyone with any linguistic training they notice this
straight away. The aspirate 'h' is incontrovertibly unvoiced, how
could it be otherwise, and the nasal 'ng' can only be voiced.
Moreover, the upward loop of what should have been the 'ha'
sign reproduces the the ascender of the script lower-case 'h' that
children were once taught, and perhaps still are, just as the
downward pointing loop mimics the descender of the script
lower-case 'g'.

The principal objection to making any corrections or
adjustments, at the time, was that "Androcles", printed in dual
texts, had been published, and was therefore to be considered
the movement's inerrant Bible, even though the founder of this
group (message 59) reported several instances of
inconsistencies and/or typographical errors in the text.

There will be objections to this issue being raised again, but
surely, simple errors should be put right.

regards,
dshep






------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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

Ey up!

Ow am a spozd t'know ow a speek wen a cant eer mesen ey?

Laak askin yuhsen wot yuh luk laak wi yuh aaz clozd.

Ta
Jo

(Faithfully rendered from the speech of a yokel about 2003.)

(Not ever going to repeat this experiment, one example is enough. I
made a mistake, no need to dwell on it.)

--- In shavian@..., "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@f...>
wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Smith" <stetsdigs@h...>
>
> > will have putten
>
> Sorry - I just thought this construction was cute - bit like Old
English!
> Never come across it before (always "have put" instead) - is that
really
> what you say?
>
> Hugh B


------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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

Hi Ethan

In answer to you embedded question below. I would like to say.
As I pointed out before the sounds represented by Ha-Ha (h) and the
reversed letter Hung (Ng), have nothing to do with each other. They
are only paired together, because they are leftovers. Hung should
probably be grouped with Mem and Nun, which are neither Tall or Deep.
As for Ha-Ha it is an Aspirate, which as a Non-consonant, I don't
believe fits into the voiced or voiced categories? Anyone care to
clarify, whether Ha-Ha is officially a consonant, other than by
default?


>Speaking of reversed letters, I always thought that voiceless
>consonants were supposed to be tall, and voiced were supposed to be
>deep. Yet Ha-ha is deep,
>and Hung is tall. Should those two be reversed as well?

Regards, Paul V.

____________________________attached__________________________

--- In shavian@..., Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> 11/21/03 4:34:45 PM, stbett@y... wrote:
>
> >
> > Tricodal key: Shavian - IPA - ASCII or keyboard Shavian
> > The IPA is red on a yellow background, The keyboard is yellow
on green
> > No key words here - you have to know IPA to make sense of
this. Later
> > I will add ENgliS and SAMPA transcriptions.
> > Image
> > http://www.unifon.org/shavian-ipa-keybd16.gif
> >
> > This is a kind of Rosetta stone providing access to three
different scripts.
> > It is not trilingual: there is only one language represented.
It is
> > tricodal with the ASCII code only being used to access the
keyboard.
> >
> > I tried to interest someone in reworking the keyboard positions
on the
> > Shavian fonts but the feeling was that once a code is
established everyone
> > should fall in line.
>
> My opinion is that we should not have to continue to rely on these
makeshift
> fonts for Shavian. This is why we have Unicode - so we can encode
our fonts
> with the letters in standard positions, and then use whatever
keyboard input
> method we wish. Personally I think that a Dvorak-type layout
would be best.
> This could be done by figuring out which of the letters are used
the most, and
> then assigning them to keys which are easiest to reach.
>
> As far as the current layout goes, it does have the advantage of
being rather
> easy to learn for a beginner. I personally have little trouble
typing using
> this method, though I do get tired of having to hit the shift key
combos so
> much. A better layout would eliminate the frequent use of the
shift key.
>
> > I think the same situation prevailed with respect to
> > the Urgaritic code. It was shorter and simpler than the
ancient Akkadian
> > cuneiform but no one wanted to make the switch. The Amarna
tablets, writen
> > after the invention of the new cuneiform script, are still
written in
> > Akkadian cuneiform.
>
> The Koreans successfully switched to an alphabetic script many
years ago. They
> had no problem with it. Yet to this day the Chinese and Japanese
insist on
> using logograms, ideograms, and syllabaries rather than an
alphabet.
>
> >
> > Given the resistance to code switching, it is amazing how many
times we have
> > switched computer codes during the last two decades. Initially
there is
> > some attempt at backward compatibility but then a time comes
when someone
> > thinks this is more trouble than it is worth and the new code
is cut off
> > from the past.
>
> I'm not sure what computer codes you are referring to. During the
last two
> decades, ASCII has pretty much been the rule. The code has been
extended, first
> by adding an extra bit and putting accented latin characters in
the upper 128
> characters, and then by adding another byte for Unicode and
assigning more
> characters above the original 8 bit codes. Now it's been extended
again, and
> the Shavian characters are above the earlier Unicode characters.
But if you
> look at the Unicode standard, you will see that the bottom 128
characters are
> still identical to the original ASCII character set, which had its
origins more
> than 20 years ago.
>
> >
> > It is interesting that even in a small community, no one wants
to reform
> > spelling.
> > The same community of radical spellers was not interested in
correcting an
> > error
> > in Androcles and the Lion where air and error were mixed up.
This doesn't
> > seem like an important screw up until you remember that /aIr/
is a
> > pronunciation of ire, not aero. The error is corrected above
but if you
> > want to be true to the classic form, switch them back.
> >
> > The mistake was caught by Read and McCarthy and then covered up
because the
> > book was almost ready to be published and no one wanted to go
back and make
> > all of the corrections. Besides being a lot of work, it might
delay
> > publication.
>
> I'm not at all concerned over whether "Err" and "Air" are reversed
from the way
> someone originally conceived of them. What's the difference? Is
it a fact that
> they got reversed? And if so, does it matter? One is facing one
way, the other
> the other way. Why does it matter which way the letters face? If
you reverse
> them, wouldn't you simply cause confusion? And what would be the
advantage?>
>
> Speaking of reversed letters, I always thought that voiceless
consonants were
> supposed to be tall, and voiced were supposed to be deep. Yet Ha-
ha is deep,
> and Hung is tall. Should those two be reversed as well?
>
> > The most troublesome part of Shavian is the use of arbitrary
letters for
> > Read's ligatures.
> > D = @r. P=or, M=u:. It would be much easier to leave these
typesetting
> > conventions
> > out of the code that people used. They could be added with a
converter just
> > before the
> > draft was to be printed.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. Shavian does not use any of these
letters; D, P,
> and M are all latin characters. If you had a Shavian keyboard,
these keys would
> be labeled with the letter forms for Dead/Array, Peep/Or, and
Mime/Ooze. Yet
> even this isn't a part of the Shavian alphabet, but is merely a
convention used
> for typing in Shavian. It can easily be changed, if one so
wishes, and without
> changing the encodings of the fonts. In fact, with the new
Unicode font
> standard, the letters are in a particular order and cannot be
moved. It is the
> familiar order as seen in Androcles and the Lion, in the letter
key.
>
> Ethan
> The chicken came first.


------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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

On 24 Nov 2003 at 18:53, paul vandenbrink wrote:

> As I pointed out before the sounds represented by Ha-Ha (h) and the
> reversed letter Hung (Ng), have nothing to do with each other. They
> are only paired together, because they are leftovers.

Interestingly enough, they are also in complementary distribution in
English (that is, they cannot occur at the same position in a syllable
the way that, for example, "p" and "t" can -- pin vs tin, tip vs tit):
h can only begin a syllable, and ng can only end it. So they are kind
of paired up in English.

But you are correct that they are not related to each other
phonetically.

> As for Ha-Ha it is an Aspirate, which as a Non-consonant, I don't
> believe fits into the voiced or voiced categories? Anyone care to
> clarify, whether Ha-Ha is officially a consonant, other than by
> default?

[h] (voiceless glottal fricative) is a consonant as much as the glottal
stop is. See, for example, the chart of the International Phonetic
Association, which puts [h] with the pulmonic consonants:
http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/pulmonic.html .

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>


------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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

Hi Paul and Ethan,

I agree with Paul, that 'ha-ha' and 'hung' are leftovers. But there is something special about these two phonemes. 1. 'ha-ha' always starts a syllable. a. you never hear it at the end of a syllable. b. and it can always be used to digraph difficult consonants (i.e. 'wh' and 'kh') [though it starts the digraph too]
2. 'hung' always ends a syllable -- you never hear it at start of a syllable in English.
3. The deep of 'ha-ha' looks sharp at the beginning and the tall of 'hung' finishes off nicely
the syllable.

case and point :)

Best regards,

Carl
paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:

Hi Ethan

In answer to you embedded question below. I would like to say.
As I pointed out before the sounds represented by Ha-Ha (h) and the
reversed letter Hung (Ng), have nothing to do with each other. They
are only paired together, because they are leftovers. Hung should
probably be grouped with Mem and Nun, which are neither Tall or Deep.
As for Ha-Ha it is an Aspirate, which as a Non-consonant, I don't
believe fits into the voiced or voiced categories? Anyone care to
clarify, whether Ha-Ha is officially a consonant, other than by
default?


>Speaking of reversed letters, I always thought that voiceless
>consonants were supposed to be tall, and voiced were supposed to be
>deep. Yet Ha-ha is deep,
>and Hung is tall. Should those two be reversed as well?

Regards, Paul V.

____________________________attached__________________________

--- In shavian@..., Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> 11/21/03 4:34:45 PM, stbett@y... wrote:
>
> >
> > Tricodal key: Shavian - IPA - ASCII or keyboard Shavian
> > The IPA is red on a yellow background, The keyboard is yellow
on green
> > No key words here - you have to know IPA to make sense of
this. Later
> > I will add ENgliS and SAMPA transcriptions.
> > Image
> > http://www.unifon.org/shavian-ipa-keybd16.gif
> >
> > This is a kind of Rosetta stone providing access to three
different scripts.
> > It is not trilingual: there is only one language represented.
It is
> > tricodal with the ASCII code only being used to access the
keyboard.
> >
> > I tried to interest someone in reworking the keyboard positions
on the
> > Shavian fonts but the feeling was that once a code is
established everyone
> > should fall in line.
>
> My opinion is that we should not have to continue to rely on these
makeshift
> fonts for Shavian. This is why we have Unicode - so we can encode
our fonts
> with the letters in standard positions, and then use whatever
keyboard input
> method we wish. Personally I think that a Dvorak-type layout
would be best.
> This could be done by figuring out which of the letters are used
the most, and
> then assigning them to keys which are easiest to reach.
>
> As far as the current layout goes, it does have the advantage of
being rather
> easy to learn for a beginner. I personally have little trouble
typing using
> this method, though I do get tired of having to hit the shift key
combos so
> much. A better layout would eliminate the frequent use of the
shift key.
>
> > I think the same situation prevailed with respect to
> > the Urgaritic code. It was shorter and simpler than the
ancient Akkadian
> > cuneiform but no one wanted to make the switch. The Amarna
tablets, writen
> > after the invention of the new cuneiform script, are still
written in
> > Akkadian cuneiform.
>
> The Koreans successfully switched to an alphabetic script many
years ago. They
> had no problem with it. Yet to this day the Chinese and Japanese
insist on
> using logograms, ideograms, and syllabaries rather than an
alphabet.
>
> >
> > Given the resistance to code switching, it is amazing how many
times we have
> > switched computer codes during the last two decades. Initially
there is
> > some attempt at backward compatibility but then a time comes
when someone
> > thinks this is more trouble than it is worth and the new code
is cut off
> > from the past.
>
> I'm not sure what computer codes you are referring to. During the
last two
> decades, ASCII has pretty much been the rule. The code has been
extended, first
> by adding an extra bit and putting accented latin characters in
the upper 128
> characters, and then by adding another byte for Unicode and
assigning more
> characters above the original 8 bit codes. Now it's been extended
again, and
> the Shavian characters are above the earlier Unicode characters.
But if you
> look at the Unicode standard, you will see that the bottom 128
characters are
> still identical to the original ASCII character set, which had its
origins more
> than 20 years ago.
>
> >
> > It is interesting that even in a small community, no one wants
to reform
> > spelling.
> > The same community of radical spellers was not interested in
correcting an
> > error
> > in Androcles and the Lion where air and error were mixed up.
This doesn't
> > seem like an important screw up until you remember that /aIr/
is a
> > pronunciation of ire, not aero. The error is corrected above
but if you
> > want to be true to the classic form, switch them back.
> >
> > The mistake was caught by Read and McCarthy and then covered up
because the
> > book was almost ready to be published and no one wanted to go
back and make
> > all of the corrections. Besides being a lot of work, it might
delay
> > publication.
>
> I'm not at all concerned over whether "Err" and "Air" are reversed
from the way
> someone originally conceived of them. What's the difference? Is
it a fact that
> they got reversed? And if so, does it matter? One is facing one
way, the other
> the other way. Why does it matter which way the letters face? If
you reverse
> them, wouldn't you simply cause confusion? And what would be the
advantage?>
>
> Speaking of reversed letters, I always thought that voiceless
consonants were
> supposed to be tall, and voiced were supposed to be deep. Yet Ha-
ha is deep,
> and Hung is tall. Should those two be reversed as well?
>
> > The most troublesome part of Shavian is the use of arbitrary
letters for
> > Read's ligatures.
> > D = @r. P=or, M=u:. It would be much easier to leave these
typesetting
> > conventions
> > out of the code that people used. They could be added with a
converter just
> > before the
> > draft was to be printed.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. Shavian does not use any of these
letters; D, P,
> and M are all latin characters. If you had a Shavian keyboard,
these keys would
> be labeled with the letter forms for Dead/Array, Peep/Or, and
Mime/Ooze. Yet
> even this isn't a part of the Shavian alphabet, but is merely a
convention used
> for typing in Shavian. It can easily be changed, if one so
wishes, and without
> changing the encodings of the fonts. In fact, with the new
Unicode font
> standard, the letters are in a particular order and cannot be
moved. It is the
> familiar order as seen in Androcles and the Lion, in the letter
key.
>
> Ethan
> The chicken came first.



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


________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/slv/mailtag/*http://companion.yahoo.com/>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cajujlj/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/EXP=1069867677/A=1853618/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60178338&partid=4116732>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1853618/rand=215539240>

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

?? lIbrArEz in england ??

...in wot sistem v Order yr bUks plEsd on H publik lFbrEri Selvz in /london? dM koleJ lFbrErIz jMz H sEm sistem?

""""""""""" 800 literacur """""""""""

801 filosofi

802 miselEni abQt literacur

803 dikSunarIz n ensFklopIdiaz

804 Jeneral speSul

805 sIrial publikESunz

806 OrgAnizESonz

807 studi n tIciN

808 retorik (kompoziSun) n kolekSunz

809 histori, deskripSun, kritikal aprEzal

""""""""""" 810 amerikAn literacUr in eNgliS """""""""""

811 pOetri

812 dryma

813 fikSun

814 esEz

815 spIcez

816 leterz

817 sAtFr n hjMmor

818 miselEnius rFtiNz

819 revjM

""""""""""" 820 eNgliS n ANglO-sAkson literacUrz """""""""""

821 eNgliS pOetri

822 - 828 HIz sekSonz yr in H sEm Order Az /amerikAn

829 ANglO-sAkson (Old eNgliS)

""""""""""" 830 literacUrz v JermAnik lANgwaJez """""""""""

831 - 838 sEm Order Az amerikAn

839 oHer JermAnik lANgwaJez

""""""""""" 840 literacUrz v rOmAns lANgwaJez """"""""""" 841 frenc pOetri

842 - 848 sEm Az prIsIdiN Orderz

849 provensal n kAtalAn

""""""""""" 850 itAlian, rOmEnian, rEtO-rOmAnik """""""""""

851 itAlian pOetri

852 - 858 ....sEm Az prIvius Orderz

859 rOmEnian n rEtO-rOmAnik

""""""""""" 860 spAniS """""""""""

869 pOrtjMgIs

""""""""""" 870 itAlik lANgwaJez literacUrz, lAtin """"""""""

""""""""""" 880 helenik lANgwaJez literacUrz """""""""""

881 - 888 klAsikal grIk

889 modern grIk

""""""""""" literacUrz v oHer lANgwaJez """""""""""

891 Ist indO-jUropIan n keltik

892 AfrO EZiAtik (hAmitO-semitik)

893 hAmitik n cAd

894 jUral-AltEik, pEleOsFberian, drAvidik

895 v Ist n sQTIst EZia

896 AfrikAn

897 amerikAn AbOriJinal

898 sQT amerikAn AbOriJinal

899 oHer lANgwaJez

evf 025lit***********************************************



I.F.E. internashunal fonetik english

t = to e = the v = of n = and

AEIOU az in Age Eat Ice Oak yoU

digrafs: ah au ch oo ou oi/oy sh th zh.

http://groups.msn.com/konsosiashunforspiritualiti

________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/slv/mailtag/*http://companion.yahoo.com/>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cjc8so8/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/EXP=1069885477/A=1853619/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60178356&partid=4116732>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1853619/rand=118692213>

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

In a previous episode, paul said:

> Anyone care to
> clarify, whether Ha-Ha is officially a consonant, other than by
> default?

I have a feeling linguists somewhere have argued this to death, but it seems
to me that the [h] sound could be described as a glottal fricative. The
glottis restricts air analogously to how the tongue and alveolar ridge do
with an [s]. Just as there is a alveolar stop, [t], there is a glottal stop
[?], which is unrepresented in Shavian, because, in English, it is an
allophone of the /t/ phoneme. The only way [h] is unlike a consonant is
that it can have no voiced versions, since the glottis cannot simultaneously
vocalize and fricate (or stop) the vocalized air flow. But we have several
consonants that are just the opposite: the nasals, [m], [n], and [N], which
cannot be unvoiced.

Regardless of its phonetic classification, /h/ certainly behaves
phonemically as a consonant in English. For an illustration, or at least as
fodder for thought, whisper the word "he". The mind processes two phonemes,
even though vocally, the whispered /e/ is pronounced exactly the same as an
e-colored /h/, and there is nothing dividing their articulation. If you do
articulate the two sounds differently while whispering, I'll bet your /h/ is
getting shifted up to a [C], which is indisputably a consonant.

Craig

ASCII IPA: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/faq.html


------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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

Thanks, Carl, Craig and Phil
You all provided useful information pertinent to my question.
You have really clarified how these 2 idiosyncratic consonants work.
We just have to accept that the consonant phonemes of English can not
always be paired up logically by the Shaw Alphabet.
Regards, Paul V.


--- In shavian@..., Craig Butz <shavian@w...> wrote:
> In a previous episode, paul said:
>
> > Anyone care to
> > clarify, whether Ha-Ha is officially a consonant, other than by
> > default?
>
> I have a feeling linguists somewhere have argued this to death, but
it seems
> to me that the [h] sound could be described as a glottal
fricative. The
> glottis restricts air analogously to how the tongue and alveolar
ridge do
> with an [s]. Just as there is a alveolar stop, [t], there is a
glottal stop
> [?], which is unrepresented in Shavian, because, in English, it is
an
> allophone of the /t/ phoneme. The only way [h] is unlike a
consonant is
> that it can have no voiced versions, since the glottis cannot
simultaneously
> vocalize and fricate (or stop) the vocalized air flow. But we have
several
> consonants that are just the opposite: the nasals, [m], [n], and
[N], which
> cannot be unvoiced.
>
> Regardless of its phonetic classification, /h/ certainly behaves
> phonemically as a consonant in English. For an illustration, or at
least as
> fodder for thought, whisper the word "he". The mind processes two
phonemes,
> even though vocally, the whispered /e/ is pronounced exactly the
same as an
> e-colored /h/, and there is nothing dividing their articulation.
If you do
> articulate the two sounds differently while whispering, I'll bet
your /h/ is
> getting shifted up to a [C], which is indisputably a consonant.
>
> Craig
>
> ASCII IPA:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/faq.html


------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/mx3olB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->



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