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/_/968607904/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Stuart

You totally miss the point of the main conversation on a stardard--and this
is exactly the misleading tactic that the fanatical core of this group always
uses to side track the discussion whenever the issue of standards comes up.
Don't allow this side issue to mislead you, too. Let's press on with the
point.

The issue is an international standard -- not international language.

Forget Esperanto, Ido and all that BS. English is, like or not, a major
international language if not THE de facto international language. The
question is: Is Shavian going to advance a standard and gain serious
attention or is it going to remain a private hobby for members of this group.

Moreover, let's take a wild senario which I consider unlikely: Shavian is
adopted without a standard. Someone earlier mentioned that the book
publishers would press for a standard as would the computer industry. Exactly
right. A standard would be set up, and we might not like that standard. Let's
not forget that we got into this mess with our current spelling system in the
1500s when Dutch (Not British) book publishers chose a spelling standard for
our language!

Let's stay on track, okay? :-)

Bill

In a message dated 9/10/00 6:24:05 AM, sthiessen@... writes:

<< f 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
>>

-------------------------- 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/_/968609095/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Comments below ....

At 13:44 09/10/2000 -0400, you wrote:

>Stuart
>
>You totally miss the point of the main conversation on a stardard--and this
>is exactly the misleading tactic that the fanatical core of this group always
>uses to side track the discussion whenever the issue of standards comes up.
>Don't allow this side issue to mislead you, too. Let's press on with the
>point.

I agree. I just had to get my 2 cents in on that issue myself (SMILE).

>The issue is an international standard -- not international language.
>
>The question is: Is Shavian going to advance a standard and gain serious
>attention or is it going to remain a private hobby for members of this group.

In my opinion, the first challenge here is to advance enough reasons why
Shavian should have attention. Not our personal reasons, philosophical
reasons, academic reasons, but practical reasons. Reasons that a teacher,
a principal, a professor, a car mechanic, a hair dresser, a computer
programmer, a farmer would accept as valid reassons why all English writing
should switch to Shavian. Until those reasons are compelling,
standardization is just merely one of many hurdles to cross.

For the standardization hurdle, is there a way to adapt some of the ISO
standardization processes or whatever to develop a standard? What if
someone who is proficient in the phonetics of English (I'm deaf and have a
hard time telling the minute differences) were to draw up a chart showing
how various English dialects (England, American, New Zealand, Australia,
etc.) compare in their pronunciation of standard English phonemes. That
might be the best first steps to developing some standards. Perhaps there
are sufficient similarities between various dialects. Maybe there are more
similarities between certain American dialects and some other English
dialects that we wouldn't expect.

That might be the place to start. Perhaps unstandardized spellings could
be permitted in the actual transcription of conversation. If I am quoting
someone (and I can remember how they said it), maybe that would be
permissable use of individual spelling?

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/_/968610954/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To reiterate something I've said before: given the geographical diversity of
the English language and its varying vowel phonemes, it's impossible to
derive a wholly new standardized orthography that will not send some speakers
to the dictionary several times in a sentence.
The Received Pronunciation (Androcles) orthography has one more phoneme near
/a/ and /o/ than I do (I'm a western USA speaker). "Father" and "bother" rime
exactly in my usage, as do "dance" and "ants".
In order to write English in the Shaw Alphabet, I would have to order a
Received Pronunciation dictionary from the U.K., and I would have to look up
each word that contains a sound in this range to find out how to spell it.
And frankly, my dear, I'd rawther not bawther (or is that rother not bother?
or rather not bather?)

Bob Richmond
Knoxville, Tennessee USA

-------------------------- 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/_/968628166/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Granted there may not be a way to have one standardized system. However,
just as there are spelling and vocabulary conventions in the various
dialects of English, so we could possibly develop standards that match
geographic or phonemic similarities.

It seems to me without an accurate mapping of the phonemic usage of each
dialect, there is no way to determine how one might group various dialects
and develop appropriate standards. No matter what happens, no standard
will please everyone, but generally we ought to be able to find either
dialects that are representative (which has historically be used) or
dialects that can be grouped (which might be another approach to
take). Using your example, maybe that feature of /a/ and /o/ might be one
way to group dialects. The ones with that distinction have this spelling
and those without have this spelling. The key is to find where the
distinctions are, which are important, and then group accordingly.

It would take some research, but would certainly be in the realm of
possibility. Unless anyone can tell me it has been tried already and
declared a failure.

Stuart

At 14:35 09/10/2000 -0400, you wrote:

>To reiterate something I've said before: given the geographical diversity of
>the English language and its varying vowel phonemes, it's impossible to
>derive a wholly new standardized orthography that will not send some speakers
>to the dictionary several times in a sentence.
>The Received Pronunciation (Androcles) orthography has one more phoneme near
>/a/ and /o/ than I do (I'm a western USA speaker). "Father" and "bother" rime
>exactly in my usage, as do "dance" and "ants".
>In order to write English in the Shaw Alphabet, I would have to order a
>Received Pronunciation dictionary from the U.K., and I would have to look up
>each word that contains a sound in this range to find out how to spell it.
>And frankly, my dear, I'd rawther not bawther (or is that rother not bother?
>or rather not bather?)
>
>Bob Richmond
>Knoxville, Tennessee USA


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

(Hi Bob :-)

> To reiterate something I've said before: given the geographical diversity
of
> the English language and its varying vowel phonemes, it's impossible to
> derive a wholly new standardized orthography that will not send some
speakers
> to the dictionary several times in a sentence.

To reiterate something I've said before (in fact recently): A standard is
necessary in the end, no matter how unpleasant it is for the writer to have
to get to know it. I'm glad someone else noted my points on the Computer and
Printing industries, as they are the best examples of why the formation of a
standard is so essential. See my original posting for more, I see no reason
to repeat it all...

> The Received Pronunciation (Androcles) orthography has one more phoneme
near
> /a/ and /o/ than I do (I'm a western USA speaker). "Father" and "bother"
rime
> exactly in my usage, as do "dance" and "ants".

...But you still write the words differently, don't you? You don't spell
father and bother with the same vowel at present, do you? Why don't I spell
'better' as 'betta'? We make the difference, because we know the standard.
What is wrong with knowing a standard spelling, if only to write official
letters or publish material for a wide audience? I'd much rather spend time
learning a standard upon starting to learn the language than having to
decode the individual spelling of every single piece of published writing I
see. I want to see information, not an accent. However, having to write
'although' with all those useless characters is STUPID for both of us, don't
you agree? THAT'S where Shavian can help.

> In order to write English in the Shaw Alphabet, I would have to order a
> Received Pronunciation dictionary from the U.K., and I would have to look
up
> each word that contains a sound in this range to find out how to spell it.
> And frankly, my dear, I'd rawther not bawther (or is that rother not
bother?
> or rather not bather?)

Like I said, you know how to spell them already. You can spell rather, you
can spell bother. And I read them as father, bother, and can say them in my
own accent. Just like I write 'better' with the 'er' so you can understand
it. OK, they aren't exactly how we would write them if we were always
writing exactly as we spoke, but it means we can understand them without
having to work out what they mean on the spot. You can choose to spell
differently to whoever else you want to, but for wider communication
purposes, you KNOW a standard that is dead certain to be perfectly
understood by everyone who reads it, not just a percentage of them. Come on
now, that is not something about the current writing system that is a
problem. Far from it - it is a major plus.

> Bob Richmond
> Knoxville, Tennessee USA

Hugh B
www.mixsynth.btinternet.co.uk

-------------------------- 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/_/968631680/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

(Hi Bob :-)

> To reiterate something I've said before: given the geographical diversity
of
> the English language and its varying vowel phonemes, it's impossible to
> derive a wholly new standardized orthography that will not send some
speakers
> to the dictionary several times in a sentence.

To reiterate something I've said before (in fact recently): A standard is
necessary in the end, no matter how unpleasant it is for the writer to have
to get to know it. I'm glad someone else noted my points on the Computer and
Printing industries, as they are the best examples of why the formation of a
standard is so essential. See my original posting for more, I see no reason
to repeat it all...

> The Received Pronunciation (Androcles) orthography has one more phoneme
near
> /a/ and /o/ than I do (I'm a western USA speaker). "Father" and "bother"
rime
> exactly in my usage, as do "dance" and "ants".

...But you still write the words differently, don't you? You don't spell
father and bother with the same vowel at present, do you? Why don't I spell
'better' as 'betta'? We make the difference, because we know the standard.
What is wrong with knowing a standard spelling, if only to write official
letters or publish material for a wide audience? I'd much rather spend time
learning a standard upon starting to learn the language than having to
decode the individual spelling of every single piece of published writing I
see. I want to see information, not an accent. However, having to write
'although' with all those useless characters is STUPID for both of us, don't
you agree? THAT'S where Shavian can help.

> In order to write English in the Shaw Alphabet, I would have to order a
> Received Pronunciation dictionary from the U.K., and I would have to look
up
> each word that contains a sound in this range to find out how to spell it.
> And frankly, my dear, I'd rawther not bawther (or is that rother not
bother?
> or rather not bather?)

Like I said, you know how to spell them already. You can spell rather, you
can spell bother. And I read them as father, bother, and can say them in my
own accent. Just like I write 'better' with the 'er' so you can understand
it. OK, they aren't exactly how we would write them if we were always
writing exactly as we spoke, but it means we can understand them without
having to work out what they mean on the spot. You can choose to spell
differently to whoever else you want to, but for wider communication
purposes, you KNOW a standard that is dead certain to be perfectly
understood by everyone who reads it, not just a percentage of them. Come on
now, that is not something about the current writing system that is a
problem. Far from it - it is a major plus.

> Bob Richmond
> Knoxville, Tennessee USA

Hugh B
www.mixsynth.btinternet.co.uk

-------------------------- 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/_/968641172/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

I am NOT suggesting Americans should learn how to pronounce (British) RP, so
they won't have to rummage through an expensively-imported British
dictionary every time they want to write an email.

I propose they observe a standard AMERICAN spelling in certain shared
documents and computer programs. This would not be in an orthodoxy enforced
by a Shavian Inquisition, just an agreed set of spellings - or spelling
rules - for those documents where consistency is important.

There is already a standard American spelling in the Roman alphabet.

We are never going to persuade everybody of the merits of standardising
spelling. I suggest those of us who do accept it should agree on the
spelling conventions we will use when necessary.

For instance, in RP the word "bother" uses the Shavian "on" vowel, while
"father" uses the "ah" vowel. If most Americans do not distinguish between
these two sounds, should they be spelt using the same letter, and if so,
which?

-------------------------- 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/_/968642014/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

This response seems to show no knowledge of Esperanto, the most widely
disseminated "world language" at this time. Apparently there are several
million Esperanto speakers. The intent of L.L. Zamenhof, the inventor of
Esperanto, was not to develop a language that would in any way replace the
richness and significance of an individual's "mother tongue," but to
develop a logical, simple, yet rich, language that could serve as a "lingua
franca" for everyone around the world so that everyone can communicate with
people you come in contact with who did not learn your language at their
mother's knee. As most of us are not polyglots, learning another language
is a chore which takes significant time and effort. Learning Esperanto has
been estimated in a number of studies to be roughly 4-6 times easier than
learning a "natural," illogical "mother tongue." Esperanto has the further
advantage of being neutral, with no nationalistic overtones. As an aside,
Esperanto has been widely studied in China and other parts of Asia.



At 09:18 AM 9/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>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/_/968642482/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


In a message dated 9/10/00 10:37:13 AM, RSRICHMOND@aol.com writes:

<< To reiterate something I've said before: given the geographical diversity
of
the English language and its varying vowel phonemes, it's impossible to
derive a wholly new standardized orthography that will not send some speakers
to the dictionary several times in a sentence.
The Received Pronunciation (Androcles) orthography has one more phoneme near
/a/ and /o/ than I do (I'm a western USA speaker). "Father" and "bother" rime
exactly in my usage, as do "dance" and "ants".
In order to write English in the Shaw Alphabet, I would have to order a
Received Pronunciation dictionary from the U.K., and I would have to look up
each word that contains a sound in this range to find out how to spell it.
And frankly, my dear, I'd rawther not bawther (or is that rother not bother?
or rather not bather?) >>

Have fun with your toy. That's all it will ever be without a standard. We
speak the same Western USA dialect, but I don't agree with you. You are still
locked into the Roman alphabet. If you had been educated from early childhood
onwards using a standard Shavian, you would have no problems and you would be
free of the crazy spelling we suffer from now. Do you doubt that you lack the
intelligence to master a standardized form of Shavian? Or is it that you
simply can't be bothered to put out the effort?

-------------------------- 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/_/968643123/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


In a message dated 9/10/00 7:03:07 PM, sosostris@... writes:

<< I am NOT suggesting Americans should learn how to pronounce (British) RP,
so
they won't have to rummage through an expensively-imported British
dictionary every time they want to write an email. >>

Why not an international standard? Before all the naysayers jump up and shout
"impossible," I wish to point out the work has already been done for us.
There are an increasing number of Dictionaries of International English on
the market such as that put out by Encarta. A comparison of these
dictionaries reveals tremendous similarity with regard to the "preferred"
standard pronunciation. With television, movies, the Internet and whatnot
coming down the road, an international standard is going to be a reality
someday in the not too distant future. Will Shavian be part of that future or
shall we sit by the side of the road and play with our toes?

Bill