Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

*scribble scribble* Hey guess what? I just found another topic for us
to write about for the handbook!

--Star

--- Ethan <ethanl@...> wrote:
> 12/23/03 1:04:39 PM, "j_brg" <stetsdigs@...> wrote:
>
> >'A phonetic Alphabet such as Shavian,...'
> >
> >Shavian is _not_ a phonetic alphabet.
> >
> >Shavian _is_ a phonemic alphabet.
> >
> >Thanks
> >Joseph
>
> Absolutely. A phonetic alphabet is only good for one accent group,
> and is
> overly difficult for that matter. It would have to have many more
> letters than
> a phonemic alphabet, and people would have trouble thinking of all
> the rules of
> English phonetics, which they would have to know in order to write.
> Phonetic
> alphabets (such as the IPA) are mostly useful to linguists and for
> dictionary
> pronunciation guides.
>
> Ethan
>
>
>
>


=====
Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people have.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
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@...

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

Hi Star & Gentlemen
I understand the distinction between phonetic and phonemic,
and agree Phonemic is the more precise term.

However, I don't think the average person can even understand the
idea of a PHONEMIC alphabet without the benefit of first year
University Lingustics course on Phonetics. I used the word phonetic
in its generally understood meaning. See www.dictionary,com.
I think the Shavian Alphabet is a more phonetically based alphabet
than the Roman Alphabet. Everything is relative.

pho·net·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ntk)
adj.
1. Of or relating to phonetics.
2. Representing the sounds of speech with a set of distinct symbols,
each designating a single sound: phonetic spelling.
3. Of, relating to, or being features of pronunciation that are not
phonemically distinctive in a language, as aspiration of consonants
or vowel length in English.

Regards, Paul V.

__________________________attached__________________

--- In shavian@..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
wrote:
> *scribble scribble* Hey guess what? I just found another topic for
us
> to write about for the handbook!
>
> --Star
>
> --- Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> > 12/23/03 1:04:39 PM, "j_brg" <stetsdigs@h...> wrote:
> >
> > >'A phonetic Alphabet such as Shavian,...'
> > >
> > >Shavian is _not_ a phonetic alphabet.
> > >
> > >Shavian _is_ a phonemic alphabet.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >Joseph
> >
> > Absolutely. A phonetic alphabet is only good for one accent
group,
> > and is
> > overly difficult for that matter. It would have to have many
more
> > letters than
> > a phonemic alphabet, and people would have trouble thinking of
all
> > the rules of
> > English phonetics, which they would have to know in order to
write.
> > Phonetic
> > alphabets (such as the IPA) are mostly useful to linguists and
for
> > dictionary
> > pronunciation guides.
> >
> > Ethan
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people have.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> 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@...

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

--- In shavian@..., "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@f...>
wrote:


>Forgive me... but why "must" it have been a typographical error?<

What else could it posssibly be? Why would Read go out of his
way to place a voiced consonant at the end of a string of voiceless
consonants (I assume he designed the reading key as well) and
the voiceless consonant at the end of a string of voiced? Or, if the
reading key is incidental, why make a point of having one, just one,
voiceless consonant grouped among the voiced?

p(op), t(ot), k(ick), f(ief), th(in), s(auce), sh(op), ch(op), plus
(h)ang?
b(ob), d(ad), g(ag), v(alve), th(en), z(oos), (a)z(ure), j(udge),
plus h(igh)?

It makes no sense. Reverse them and it does. The Shaw alphabet
has an internal beauty that makes sense. Defending the nonsensical
is a curious thing to do.

>It's nothing to do with 'voiced'/'unvoiced' <

How can you say that? The whole point of going to the trouble of
devising the three-tiered structure was to have it mean something.

Voiceless tall; voiced deep; vowels (and odd letters) short.

This is a device to facilitate instruction and understanding,
especially I would think for the benefit of children as it groups
letters into related sets and thus imparts structure. Did you
think it was mere aesthetics?

> why did he (Read) not make the QS 'hung' letter a deep letter ?

After abandoning the tiered structure in QuickScript, there was
no need to reverse ha/hang as their relative positions no longer
mattered, nor did it matter what the letters looked like. Read also
appears to have swapped around several letters, so continuity
was apparently not a concern either. QuickScript is a kind of
shorthand and may well be easier and quicker to write by hand,
but the internal consistency was lost (though some of you oddly
don't think that especially important anyway). Read could not
have foreseen however that everyone in the future would be
armed with laptops and thus equipped to easily work with a
visually distinct and structured set of letters.

>Until such evidence (of an error) is produced, reversal of
'hung' and 'haha' would be nothing short of a revision.<

Some evidence at least was produced; you chose to regard
it as irrelevant.

> (then) a reversal of 'hung' and 'haha' would be nothing short
> of a revision.<

Well so what. I can understand that no one wishes to
contemplate change. It is inconvenient and tiresome, as
can be the person urging it. But I really do not understand
this insistence upon maintaining that no error could possibly
have been involved or Read would have corrected it, that
there is surely some unknown but unclear reason why one
voiceless consonant was placed among the voiced because,
well, there just must be a reason because, well, structure
doesn't really matter all that much, nor does some pedantic
concept such as logical consistency, or, it just looks nice the
way it is. This latter objection mystifies me — as they are
reflected images of each other, if one way of writing them
looks nice the reversal would look equally nice.

Nor do I understand this regard for the sanctity of the Shaw
alphabet. After all, Kingsley Read, its creator, had little
compunction about moving on and recommending the use
of QuickScript instead. I've always thought this strange.
Had I put together something as intriguing as the Shaw
alphabet I would have been loathe to give it up. However,
I recall reading somewhere that Read was not the sole winner
of Shaw's contest, but had to share this distinction with three
others, and that they were all instructed to produce a final
version (involving compromise?), although on the basis of Read's
design. Perhaps QuickScript was a return to his ur-original
conception, one less structured but easier to use.

I also remember reading (again, somewhere) that there was
both money problems and a great deal of confusion and even
animosity in getting Androcles in print, just the right conditions
for allowing mistakes to slip through. So I see no reason, in order
to better fulfil its promise, why the Shaw alphabet should not be
made as rational as it was I believe intended to be, as Read and
Shaw would have wanted (why wouldn't they have?) which to me
is a return to its pre-error state. If this use of terminolgy
horrifies everyone then call it something else, what does it matter?







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@...

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

--- In shavian@..., "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@s...>
wrote:
> Hi Shep
> As computer programmer, a correction is the problem and a revision
> is the solution.
> Also, 50 years is way too late to deal with a major correction in
> the way that you suggest.
> Regards, Paul V.


Why?




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@...

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

Paul, I was thinking about the same thing... I believe Shaw himself
would have called it a phonetic alphabet. Or am I jumping to
conclusions again? What we need first and formost is an in-depth
introduction on the history of shavian, including GBS, the contest,
androlocles, the e-mail list and shaw in the 21st century. Aside from
writing practices, as I write rather well in shaw, but cannot type
therein, perhaps a final non-romanji font should be considered and
decided upon.

So, your mission, should you choose to accept it is as follows: If
anyone has a history already written or anything else they are willing
to add to the cause, this would be great, and I will begin work as soon
as these blasted holidays are over. Remember if you or any of your team
are captured or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of
your activities. This e-mail will self destruct in ten seconds. Good
luck team.

Gathering bits and bobs at central command,
--Star

--- paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
> Hi Star & Gentlemen
> I understand the distinction between phonetic and phonemic,
> and agree Phonemic is the more precise term.
>
> However, I don't think the average person can even understand the
> idea of a PHONEMIC alphabet without the benefit of first year
> University Lingustics course on Phonetics. I used the word phonetic
> in its generally understood meaning. See www.dictionary,com.
> I think the Shavian Alphabet is a more phonetically based alphabet
> than the Roman Alphabet. Everything is relative.
>
> pho·net·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ntk)
> adj.
> 1. Of or relating to phonetics.
> 2. Representing the sounds of speech with a set of distinct symbols,
> each designating a single sound: phonetic spelling.
> 3. Of, relating to, or being features of pronunciation that are not
> phonemically distinctive in a language, as aspiration of consonants
> or vowel length in English.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> __________________________attached__________________
>
> --- In shavian@..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
> wrote:
> > *scribble scribble* Hey guess what? I just found another topic for
> us
> > to write about for the handbook!
> >
> > --Star
> >
> > --- Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> > > 12/23/03 1:04:39 PM, "j_brg" <stetsdigs@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >'A phonetic Alphabet such as Shavian,...'
> > > >
> > > >Shavian is _not_ a phonetic alphabet.
> > > >
> > > >Shavian _is_ a phonemic alphabet.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks
> > > >Joseph
> > >
> > > Absolutely. A phonetic alphabet is only good for one accent
> group,
> > > and is
> > > overly difficult for that matter. It would have to have many
> more
> > > letters than
> > > a phonemic alphabet, and people would have trouble thinking of
> all
> > > the rules of
> > > English phonetics, which they would have to know in order to
> write.
> > > Phonetic
> > > alphabets (such as the IPA) are mostly useful to linguists and
> for
> > > dictionary
> > > pronunciation guides.
> > >
> > > Ethan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people have.
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
>


=====
Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people have.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
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@...

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

Paul, I was thinking about the same thing... I believe Shaw himself
would have called it a phonetic alphabet. Or am I jumping to
conclusions again? What we need first and formost is an in-depth
introduction on the history of shavian, including GBS, the contest,
androlocles, the e-mail list and shaw in the 21st century. Aside from
writing practices, as I write rather well in shaw, but cannot type
therein, perhaps a final non-romanji font should be considered and
decided upon.

So, your mission, should you choose to accept it is as follows: If
anyone has a history already written or anything else they are willing
to add to the cause, this would be great, and I will begin work as soon
as these blasted holidays are over. Remember if you or any of your team
are captured or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of
your activities. This e-mail will self destruct in ten seconds. Good
luck team.

Gathering bits and bobs at central command,
--Star

--- paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
> Hi Star & Gentlemen
> I understand the distinction between phonetic and phonemic,
> and agree Phonemic is the more precise term.
>
> However, I don't think the average person can even understand the
> idea of a PHONEMIC alphabet without the benefit of first year
> University Lingustics course on Phonetics. I used the word phonetic
> in its generally understood meaning. See www.dictionary,com.
> I think the Shavian Alphabet is a more phonetically based alphabet
> than the Roman Alphabet. Everything is relative.
>
> pho7net7ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ntk)
> adj.
> 1. Of or relating to phonetics.
> 2. Representing the sounds of speech with a set of distinct symbols,
> each designating a single sound: phonetic spelling.
> 3. Of, relating to, or being features of pronunciation that are not
> phonemically distinctive in a language, as aspiration of consonants
> or vowel length in English.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> __________________________attached__________________
>
> --- In shavian@..., Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
> wrote:
> > *scribble scribble* Hey guess what? I just found another topic for
> us
> > to write about for the handbook!
> >
> > --Star
> >
> > --- Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> > > 12/23/03 1:04:39 PM, "j_brg" <stetsdigs@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >'A phonetic Alphabet such as Shavian,...'
> > > >
> > > >Shavian is _not_ a phonetic alphabet.
> > > >
> > > >Shavian _is_ a phonemic alphabet.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks
> > > >Joseph
> > >
> > > Absolutely. A phonetic alphabet is only good for one accent
> group,
> > > and is
> > > overly difficult for that matter. It would have to have many
> more
> > > letters than
> > > a phonemic alphabet, and people would have trouble thinking of
> all
> > > the rules of
> > > English phonetics, which they would have to know in order to
> write.
> > > Phonetic
> > > alphabets (such as the IPA) are mostly useful to linguists and
> for
> > > dictionary
> > > pronunciation guides.
> > >
> > > Ethan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people have.
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
>


=====
Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people have.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
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@...

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

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

>We learn our current alphabet as children, and there's almost
> no structure whatsoever!

Isn't that the purpose of the Shaw alphabet, to improve upon
that situation?






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@...

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "j_brg" <stetsdigs@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 3:50 PM
Subject: [shavian] Re: Hello, not Goodbye

> > 10. Yew letter redundant ==> Yea + Ooze
> > 11. Missing letter for EU sound ==> Euchre, Beautiful, few, new,
> cute
>
> Don't the above two points contradict themselves? You say the 'yew'
> is redundant, then say it is missing.

Seconded. But explained perhaps by the below...

> The 'yew' sign is an attempt to bridge a pronunciation divide caused
> by phenomena known as 'later yod dropping'. This is where the 'y'
> sound between an initial consonant and the 'oo' vowel sound is lost.
> This causes new, duty and beauty to be pronounced 'noo', 'dooty'
> and 'booty'.

Wow! I'd never thought of it that way. But come to think of it that's
exactly how to explain the letter. If it's a separate letter then it's not
just a combination of 'yew'+'ooze' - just like 'array' to Americans isn't
just 'ado'+'roll' (that's reserved for words like 'arrange', 'arrive', etc.
where the phonemes are more clearly separated).

Well done for spotting this!

> As a person can only be on one side of the divide, it causes
> the 'yew' sign to be seen as redundant by all. Some would say that it
> is simply 'yea' + 'ooze' others say that 'yea' is intrusive and
> only 'ooze' should be present. Of course either of these spellings
> causes the word to become 'misspelt' to people who pronounce it
> differently.
>
> The 'yew' sign must be used in order to be inclusive of as many
> pronunciations as possible. Later yod dropping is more widespread in
> North America, especially with the young/urban. In Britain, Australia
> and South Africa the pronunciation is restricted almost entirely to
> the young, except the Norfolk dialect, which has been affected by
> later yod dropping for several hundred years.

Living in Norwich as I do, I can back up the above statement. All the
"loocals" I speak to will say "hew ya doin hoo?" <- all with virtually the
same vowel sound!

> You can use this as a combined answer to 10 and 11 if you want Star.
> Or just 10, and forget 11 altogether. You can jig it about as much as
> pleases you.
>
> By the way many of the questions give focus to stress, and the
> misunderstandings surrounding it. I would just like to lay claim,
> here and now, that shavian _is_ a stress representing script.

YES!

> Thanks
> Joseph

Hugh B

> p.s. run most of these questions bu Hugh, he'll be able to give you
> the best answers quickly.

(Cheers - I'll mail the bribe money to you later)

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.747 / Virus Database: 499 - Release Date: 01/09/2004

----- Original Message -----
From: "j_brg" <stetsdigs@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 3:50 PM
Subject: [shavian] Re: Hello, not Goodbye

> > 10. Yew letter redundant ==> Yea + Ooze
> > 11. Missing letter for EU sound ==> Euchre, Beautiful, few, new,
> cute
>
> Don't the above two points contradict themselves? You say the 'yew'
> is redundant, then say it is missing.

Seconded. But explained perhaps by the below...

> The 'yew' sign is an attempt to bridge a pronunciation divide caused
> by phenomena known as 'later yod dropping'. This is where the 'y'
> sound between an initial consonant and the 'oo' vowel sound is lost.
> This causes new, duty and beauty to be pronounced 'noo', 'dooty'
> and 'booty'.

Wow! I'd never thought of it that way. But come to think of it that's
exactly how to explain the letter. If it's a separate letter then it's not
just a combination of 'yew'+'ooze' - just like 'array' to Americans isn't
just 'ado'+'roll' (that's reserved for words like 'arrange', 'arrive', etc.
where the phonemes are more clearly separated).

Well done for spotting this!

> As a person can only be on one side of the divide, it causes
> the 'yew' sign to be seen as redundant by all. Some would say that it
> is simply 'yea' + 'ooze' others say that 'yea' is intrusive and
> only 'ooze' should be present. Of course either of these spellings
> causes the word to become 'misspelt' to people who pronounce it
> differently.
>
> The 'yew' sign must be used in order to be inclusive of as many
> pronunciations as possible. Later yod dropping is more widespread in
> North America, especially with the young/urban. In Britain, Australia
> and South Africa the pronunciation is restricted almost entirely to
> the young, except the Norfolk dialect, which has been affected by
> later yod dropping for several hundred years.

Living in Norwich as I do, I can back up the above statement. All the
"loocals" I speak to will say "hew ya doin hoo?" <- all with virtually the
same vowel sound!

> You can use this as a combined answer to 10 and 11 if you want Star.
> Or just 10, and forget 11 altogether. You can jig it about as much as
> pleases you.
>
> By the way many of the questions give focus to stress, and the
> misunderstandings surrounding it. I would just like to lay claim,
> here and now, that shavian _is_ a stress representing script.

YES!

> Thanks
> Joseph

Hugh B

> p.s. run most of these questions bu Hugh, he'll be able to give you
> the best answers quickly.

(Cheers - I'll mail the bribe money to you later)




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@...

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

--- In shavian@..., "j_brg" <stetsdigs@h...> wrote:

> On this point, is the word 'err' the wrong word to describe the
> sound?

Yes, most likely, as some have found it confusing.

> 'Err' and 'air' should rhyme with 'her' and 'hair', respectively.

They should, but don't in everyone's speech. So perhaps we
should use, why not? — her and hair instead, which could
be remembered by the previously suggested formula:
Two eggs on a roll, plus two hairs on a rug (or two hares in
a rush) — or something better

>
> I hope this does clear up a point. It would be funny if it was all
> just a big misunderstanding.
>
> Thanks
> Joseph




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@...

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