Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9146/11/_/54531/_/968543338/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Long ago in the past there was a discussion similar to this. I'm glad it has
returned, as I also believe there should be some degree of concensus in
spelling standard, if only for official publishing purposes. The way I see
it, the objections raised concerning creating a standard do not come about
because it would forseeably cause problems, but because of the fact that
standardization is even being mentioned at all. It is like the concept of
'standardization' is supposed to be 'anti-shavian', because the ideal of
individualism in Shavian is so appealing. It is quite clear to me - whether
or not there is a standard in existence, it would by no means 'force' me to
change my spelling habits. In fact, everyone about the globe could still
spell how the heck they wanted to, and if two people, one from Liverpool in
England, the other from Texas, USA, met on the internet, their informal
spelling could be quite noticeably different. But the point is, if
publishers are LOOKING to write their material (which would be viewed by
thousands, even millions of people, possibly from different places around
the world) in some form of 'standard' english, they need something to use.
Otherwise different publishers would all end up using inconsistent spellings
in each of their publications. At present, publishers have a choice of two
major sets of spellings - UK and USA english. This is simple - just two
choices, and it is easy to select which one to use depending on the country
of sale. There aren't even that many differences between the two sets
anyway. Why would publishers ever want to use Shavian if they could run the
risk of complaints from readers demanding to know why they used 'this
accent' or 'that accent' instead of their own accent? The 'print' standard
would stop this from happening, because it would end up being viewed as
'neutral' by all. BUT the point is it would *NOT* change anyone from writing
to each other in their own way, if they so desired!

There is also the case of if an Internet user were to type a word (which
could be spelt a number of different ways depending on their regional
dialect) into a search engine text box, it would be impossibly difficult for
the search engine to find what the user wanted, unless it had an enormous
library of variations on individual words. And I'm sure everybody must
agree, that is a ridiculous thing to require of search engines and other
similar utilities, especially when they see that at present, no such
nonsense is needed of them, and no one has cause to complain. There is also
potentially no limit to the number of spelling variations on a particular
word - the longer the word, the more variations there could be. They NEED to
know a STANDARD to use at such times or they will get NOWHERE.

I think maybe we have to accept that there is a line to be drawn between
personal ease of writing and ability of the writing to be read by others.
Shavian can sure make writing easier to learn and to create, but we CANNOT
just throw everything about the current spelling system out of the window,
including the standardization that exists in current English spelling. Sure,
you'll have to spend time teaching it to kids, but we do anyway at the
moment. Teaching the STANDARD to kids is not the thing that takes time and
causes grief, it's the fact that the standard uses the HOPELESS roman
alphabet and an outdated and stupidly inconsistent set of spellings so it is
impossible for any child to understand WHY the standard spelling is spelt
the way it is. At least with Shavian it will be FAR closer to any one
person's pronunciation than ever before. Let's face it - it's never going to
be dead right with everybody! But at least Shavian would enable the standard
to barely resemble speech, and not turn it into some impossibly illogical
'secret code' as the current alphabet does.

Hugh B
www.mixsynth.btinternet.co.uk

P.S. The essays from Androcles and the Lion (and in fact the book itself)
often seem to be treated as the 'mantra' by Shavia, particularly that of
Peter MacCarthy. Maybe it might be time to admit, these people weren't gods,
they hadn't had as much time when they published the book as we've had to
debate the practicalities of an alphabet such as Shavian - we are in the
here and now, we can decide the way the alphabet is going to go, we don't
have to abide religiously to the 'rules' laid down in that one book
(especially as they are only meant to be suggestions). I'm sure they would
have hated us turning the book into some sort of 'constitution' that we were
eternally forbidden to disobey...

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9146/11/_/54531/_/968549351/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

While Shavian was developed to work under Received Pronunciation, aka RP (aka BBC English, etc.), I've always worked on the notion of _Perceived_ Pronunciation, that is, how the phoneme is used locally, rather than intended pronunciation of said phoneme, this way to reduce (not quite eliminate) vast differences in the way each sound is pronounced... The US, like the UK, is mired in dramaticly-different accents, plus the individual accents used in such English-speaking countries as Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, each very different from one another, but all use perceived pronunciation to deal with the same basic vocabulary... I think Shavian should be applied according to this to minimise difference in spelling due to pronunciation differences... This may call for slight refinement of Shavian, but none so drastic as to make it unintelligable to those who read Shavian as originally intended....

Most accents I've dealt with use similar phonemes with different pronunciations, so this really is not that hard a stretch, IMO....

D.M.Falk

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9146/11/_/54531/_/968549712/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->




folks:

i think the spelling debate is useful in so far as it
reminds us about the difficulty of getting any
standard spelling scheme to work. the fact is that the
roman alphabet is only semi-phonetic (i.e., many
sounds have no letter equivalent and some letters do
double or triple duty for sounds). This encourages
standardized spellings because no one can claim that
their spelling most closely approximates the way the
word is spoken. In so far as shavian is much closer to
a fully phonetic alphabet, it invites even more
variation in spelling, as it permits regional
variations to be more easily reproduced via writing.
but this doesn't suggest to me that a standard needs
to be adopted; surely most people are capable of
recognizing multiple spellings (and some may even
enjoy inventive spellings). Of course we have
difficulties of representing words such as "hole" and
"whole." I can't see any easy way around this; to
carry on the present spelling distinction is in some
ways to defeat the purpose of Shavian. all that we
will be requiring of people by using identical
spellings for the two words is that they think a bit
more when they read.

eric quinn




--- Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@...> wrote:
> Long ago in the past there was a discussion similar
> to this. I'm glad it has
> returned, as I also believe there should be some
> degree of concensus in
> spelling standard, if only for official publishing
> purposes. The way I see
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9146/11/_/54531/_/968550973/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


folks:

part 2 of my missive @ getting shavian accepted.

the real problem with getting shavian accepted is not
whether we standardize spelling or not; it is the very
nature of the alphabet itself. Alphabets that attempt
to represent speech as accurately as possible are
unattractive to entrenched political/business systems
(and we are living in the midst of the biggest trench
ever). Why? Because fully phonetic alphabets 1) are
harder for worker bees to learn; 2) encourage the
music in language, which inevitably distracts from the
meaning of writing (communication vs. poetry; the
meaning is in the consonants, which is why there are
so many in the roman; the music is in the vowels,
which is why shavian has so many more vowels); 3) and
most importantly, over time, phonetic alphabets
encourage the mutation of a fixed, imperial language
like enlish into many descendent languages. The
classic examples in my mind are the chinese and roman
scripts. The chinese script, although it has, over a
very long period, changed its characters
significantly, is essentially the same system that was
in use 4,000 years ago. The chinese characters have
proved so stable that as the spoken language of
chinese has in effect changed into many descedent
languages (I was interested to learn, for instance,
that a mandarin speaker and a cantonese speaker cannot
understand each other today, and there are several
other mutually incomprehensible "dialects" in China),
the characters have become the very symbol of chinese
civilization, even though they no longer have ANY
connection to the spoken language of most/many
chinese. The chinese characters have become pure
meaning, a language for writers and readers alone. The
political result is easy to see: chinese civilization
(up to the 19th century, when europeanization began in
earnest) remained in many respects the same over this
vast stretch of history. The result is that many areas
that were originally non-chinese both ethnically and
linguistically have now been completely absorbed by
Han Chinese culture.

In contrast, latin, represented by the roman script,
has in a comperable period also died out, but more
completely than classic chinese. the alphabet allowed
the nascent romance languages to be more easily
represented in writing, and therefore to more easily
gain intellectual acceptance, and ultimately, to
replace the mother tongue. Shavian would only speed
this process up.

there it is. perhaps i will send a part 3.

eric quinn

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9146/11/_/54531/_/968553190/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->



folks:

part 3 (and last)


We might as well face it: for all its beauty, for all
its phonetic sense, shaw script would be a
pain-in-the-? to adopt. The enormous investment in
infrustructure that the english-speaking world has
made in the roman alphabet would require an equally
enormous investment to replace. Perhaps more
important, shaw script just looks weird. a friend of
mine saw some practice writing i had done in it and
gave me a look that suggested that this time i had
really gone around the bend. So the questions becomes:
what kinds of incentives can we offer to overcome such
massive objections?

My guess is that we need to wrap up spelling/alphabet
reform with language/communication reform. it has
become a commonplace to say that english has become
the de facto world language. I'm not so sure. it isn't
even the most widely spoken language (if you look at
native-tongue speakers). Chinese is the most widely
spoken by that standard, and i don't think the chinese
will be so easy to boss around on this question. Of
course written chinese is a bear to learn, but i think
that in any future language standardization scheme,
they (and others) may insist on the creation of a new
world language to facilitate communication and
commerce. THAT would be the moment to bring Shaw
Script to people's attention as a candidate for
representing english language speaking during the
creation process of the new world language. people
might think, if we're going to have to adjust to a new
world language for administration/business/commerce
anyway, why not go the extra mile and change over to
Shaw Script? This may be our best opportunity for
getting wide-spread use. eric

(ps. people never accused me of thinking small.)


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/11/_/54531/_/968589637/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Received Pronunciation is just one dialect of English. It is no better or
more "correct" than any other. For historical reasons it serves as a
national standard in the UK, although it is spoken by a minority of British
people.

I teach English in Indonesia with textbooks that use the International
Phonetic Alphabet to prescribe an American pronunciation. If this isn't some
sort of standard, what is it?

I am suggesting we choose a few dialects worldwide as the basis of
standardised spellings that will be acceptable to most people. These
spellings would be used in certain shared documents and computer programs.

My copy of Microsoft Word recognises 13 varieties of English: from
Australia, Belize, Canada, the Caribbean, Ireland, Jamaica, New Zealand, the
Philippines, South Africa, Trinidad, the UK, the US and Zimbabwe. Whether we
need as many is arguable.

I have been checking the transliteration of a document into Shavian. In
several cases the transliterators have used the Shavian "ado" letter where I
would use the "if" letter - for example, in words ending with "-ed", like
"bigoted". At first I thought it was a mistake, then I realised it was the
way they spoke. These words are to be used in a dictionary for a
transliteration program. Various people will contribute to this. If the
transliterations are to be consistent, there must be an agreed set of rules.
Similarly, if I were contributing to an American document in the Roman
alphabet, I would use spellings like "color" and "traveler", which to me
look wrong.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Make your high long distance bills a thing of the past.
Join beMANY! and get LOWER rates. Click for more.
http://click.egroups.com/1/8555/11/_/54531/_/968595803/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

If you think getting Shavian accepted is difficult, a world language is
significantly worse. In fact, there are so many different attempts to
develop a world language, but no world language will replace the value of
the mother tongue (whatever that may be to you). I seriously doubt that a
world language will actually make its way forward. Rather, it will be
multi-lingualism that will move international communication forward.

For example, I know smatterings of Spanish, German, Greek, and
Hebrew. Yet, even if I were to study them so that I was fluent in all,
they would not have the same impact on me as an English text
would. English is my mother tongue and will always have the most direct
route to my mind and heart. So ... If I had to pick one or the other, I
would guess Shavian would win out sooner than a world language (SMILE).

Stuart

At 19:33 09/09/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>My guess is that we need to wrap up spelling/alphabet
>reform with language/communication reform. it has
>become a commonplace to say that english has become
>the de facto world language. I'm not so sure. it isn't
>even the most widely spoken language (if you look at
>native-tongue speakers). Chinese is the most widely
>spoken by that standard, and i don't think the chinese
>will be so easy to boss around on this question. Of
>course written chinese is a bear to learn, but i think
>that in any future language standardization scheme,
>they (and others) may insist on the creation of a new
>world language to facilitate communication and
>commerce. THAT would be the moment to bring Shaw
>Script to people's attention as a candidate for
>representing english language speaking during the
>creation process of the new world language. people
>might think, if we're going to have to adjust to a new
>world language for administration/business/commerce
>anyway, why not go the extra mile and change over to
>Shaw Script? This may be our best opportunity for
>getting wide-spread use. eric


Stuart Thiessen
4616 Hickman
Des Moines, IA 50310
(515) 280-0005 Pager (2800005.beeper@...)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9146/11/_/54531/_/968597177/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Hard to decide which bits of Hugh's to keep; I'd like to talk about the
proposed standard spelling. I'll take the following paragraph.

On 10 Sep 00, at 0:48, Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

> I think maybe we have to accept that there is a line to be drawn between
> personal ease of writing and ability of the writing to be read by others.
> Shavian can sure make writing easier to learn and to create, but we CANNOT
> just throw everything about the current spelling system out of the window,
> including the standardization that exists in current English spelling. Sure,
> you'll have to spend time teaching it to kids, but we do anyway at the
> moment. Teaching the STANDARD to kids is not the thing that takes time and
> causes grief, it's the fact that the standard uses the HOPELESS roman
> alphabet and an outdated and stupidly inconsistent set of spellings so it is
> impossible for any child to understand WHY the standard spelling is spelt
> the way it is. At least with Shavian it will be FAR closer to any one
> person's pronunciation than ever before. Let's face it - it's never going to
> be dead right with everybody! But at least Shavian would enable the standard
> to barely resemble speech, and not turn it into some impossibly illogical
> 'secret code' as the current alphabet does.

I think one important question to ask ourselves is whether this
standard spelling will be an artificial one or whether it will
correspond to some existing one. And if it's an existing one, whether
it'll be a dialect with more or fewer phonemes.

My personal opinion is to take a dialect which distinguishes many
sounds, rather than one that merges some of them. This will make it
more difficult for "mergers" to learn the right standard spelling, but
that is a difficulty that exists already. However, using a merging
dialect would possibly annoy people who make a distinction.

To some extent, this has already been done -- from what I gather,
Shavian's initial standard was roughly RP (correct me, someone, if I'm
wrong -- I don't know what dialect King George V spoke), but there is
/or/ vs. /aw/, even though RP rhymes e.g. "more" and "maw".

One merger that appears fairly obvious is "ah" vs. "aw", which are
merged in some (many?) American dialects, leading to spellings such as
"father" with "aw" rather than "ah".

However, do we want to go to maximum number of distinctions? As an
example, some distinguish between "or" and "oar" and "ore", and between
"horse" and "hoarse". I don't, and I'd have to learn the difference
(let's set aside for a moment the fact that the present Shavian
alphabet cannot distinguish between those words). But I'd prefer that
to a big vowel-merging standard. (And maybe even consonants -- some
people pronounce "latter" and "ladder" very similarly, but I hope they
won't be spelled the same way in the standard!)

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

> If you think getting Shavian accepted is difficult, a world language is
> significantly worse. In fact, there are so many different attempts to
> develop a world language, but no world language will replace the value of
> the mother tongue (whatever that may be to you). I seriously doubt that a
> world language will actually make its way forward. Rather, it will be
> multi-lingualism that will move international communication forward.
[etc etc...]

Not to mention the small fact that Shavian was designed specifically to cope
with the English language. English is the language with the severe spelling
problems. You might as just well start from scratch if you wanted to replace
the roman alphabet in other languages (especially as there aren't many other
languages where the alphabet actually NEEDS replacing).

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/11/_/54531/_/968603716/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

> If you think getting Shavian accepted is difficult, a world language is
> significantly worse. In fact, there are so many different attempts to
> develop a world language, but no world language will replace the value of
> the mother tongue (whatever that may be to you). I seriously doubt that a
> world language will actually make its way forward. Rather, it will be
> multi-lingualism that will move international communication forward.
[etc etc...]

Not to mention the small fact that Shavian was designed specifically to cope
with the English language. English is the language with the severe spelling
problems. You might as just well start from scratch if you wanted to replace
the roman alphabet in other languages (especially as there aren't many other
languages where the alphabet actually NEEDS replacing).