Hi Paul,
I agree that we should keep the Original Shavian intact.
best regards,
Carl
paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
Hi Shep
I agree with most of what you say. I take exception with your
statement that your changes to ha-ha and huNG would make Shaw closer
to the original intended by the inventor.
I consider that revision. A revision that improves the Shaw
Alphabets internal consistency and makes it easier to remember and
learn. All well and good.
But in getting rid of an inconsistency, you create a different
version of the Shaw alphabet, that is difficult to read by someone
unaware of your reasoning. You have a communication breakdown.
I have suggested more than 10 recommended changes to the Shaw
Alphabet to improve its consistency and I am aware of 5 others over
the years. Take a look at my notes posted 6 months ago.
Let's make a revised version, but leave the Original Shaw Alphabet
alone. It is an essential starting point, as a Rosetta stone for
newcumers to understand a Phonetic Alphabet. We could use IPA, but
the original Shavian is better, even with its failings.
Newcomers need to have a widespread, well published starting point.
The Original Shaw Alphabet is referred to and even presented as an
illustration in Linguistic texts, Encylopedias, even a few ahead of
their time English Textbooks.
We need to respect that.
Doesn't mean we can't create an improved version geared toward
American English Pronunciation.
We have the means. Interested?
Regards, Paul V.
__________________attached________________________________
--- In shavian@..., "dshepx" <dshep@g...> wrote:
> --- In shavian@..., Star Raven
<celestraof12worlds@y...>
> wrote:
>
> > I am yet another of the staunch supporters of the original form
with
> > the addition of the /hw/ sound in a form already described.
>
> > --Star
>
>
> The point I am trying to make is that the original form of the
Shaw
> alphabet would have had /h/ among the voiceless consonants
> [p, t, k, f, th(in), s, sh(op), ch(op)] where it belongs, look at
> your Shaw Alphabet Reading Key, where these letters uniformly
> rise above the vowels, and /ng/, whether or not it should be
> paired with the aspirate, together with the voiced consonants
> (or other nasals), where it belongs, and that somehow, someway,
> the keywords hung and ha-ha were transposed in the (as I
> understand, rushed) preparation for publication of Androcles. This
> was a simple typographical error and as such is easily corrected;
> it is not a major alteration, it would only be a return to the
> "original" original form.
>
> Is this, a minor flaw, really important? No. Not if the Shaw
> alphabet is to be just another Captain Midnight code for the
> exchange of secret messages. But if, and I believe you have
> expressed such a desire, this alphabet could someday serve
> as an alternative to the standard alphabet, then any obvious
> error should be remedied in order to make the best case
> possible to a wider world — a wider world, after all, composed
> of people who most likely are going to view such an undertaking
> as a weird waste of time. If for no other reason then to avoid
> gratuitous criticism, and anyone who doesn't believe this hasn't
> had to fight for something in committee, where the slightest
> weakness or inconsistency in one's position will be ruthlessly
> exploited.
>
>
> Plus, you are right to request the addition of /hw/ which, though
> some consider it antiquated, is spoken by tens of millions of
people,
> easily. Shaw used it, George V used it, theatre English uses it,
and
> by not following his instructions to emulate such speech Kingsley
> Read was remiss. It would have made a perfect pair with /w/:
> which/witch, whine/wine, what/watt, why/wye, etc. Probably he
> just did not hear the distinction, which is often the case when
the
> sound in question is not part of the listener's mental make-up. Do
> you, living where Southern in one of its varieties is spoken hear
(or
> notice) the differences there in pronunciation? Grice for grass,
for
> example, once common. Other Americans and especially people from
> the Midwest have in my experience particular difficulty in simply
not
> hearing the full range of Southern speech, or if they do, suppress
> it, and perhaps some similar inability could explain Read's
> oversight.
>
> with regards,
> ds
________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shavian-unsubscribe@... <mailto:shavian-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21260/*http://photos.yahoo.com>
________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shavian-unsubscribe@... <mailto:shavian-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .