Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

-------------------------- 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/_/968686702/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Interesting, but then why are you associating with a group focused on
spelling reform? The more natural group for you would be the conlangers or an
anarchist discussion group.

In a message dated 9/11/00 5:26:47 AM, asmeva1@... writes:

<< folks:

wow, didn't know i would start such a rumpus! My
reasons for endorsing further alphabet/language reform
are:

1) because english is the de facto international koine
of modern life, it is being worn down, disintegrating
into a form that is hard for native speakers to enrich
with their own idioms/inventions. lovers of english
should prefer the creation of a new language that can
be beat up at will by linguophobes and other
troglodytes.

2) esperanto & other languages are inadequate. A new
world language & alphabet ideally should a) not be
unduly based on any existing language/family of
languages; b) have the full richness of a mother
tongue (though this may take time to acquire); c) be
easily written with a pen, brush, wordprocessor, and
lend themselves to use by blind and deaf people; d) be
beautiful to read (shavian at least meets this test,
whereas the IPA IMHO is ugly).

3) as a further guard against various
standardization/control schemes. a truely phonetic
alphabet would make it more difficult to specific
"correct" spellings and usages, thereby impeding
various government and business control freaks. It
would also help restore the importance of music to
language, an essential part of its "irrational"
dignity. (in the long run this would facilitate the
evolution of the world language into succesor tongues,
but this is the way of language creation, which goes
on all the time, anyway.)

Those are the reasons i can think of at the moment.
eric
>>

-------------------------- 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/_/968686542/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


In a message dated 9/11/00 4:20:19 AM, acal@... writes:

<< But the thing is, different spellings could be used to represent different
accents or dialects. After all, we hear these accents and dialects all the
time
and have no (well, very little) problem with them. Why not the same with
spelling? >>

But that's the rub, isn't it? This highly ethnocentric "we." How about people
who are learning the language or deaf children trying hard to master the
written language? A standard makes it easier for every one.

And dialect could be represented by Shavian, but just not as the standard. I
can imagine a transcription of Tom Sawyer with the main sections in "standard
Shavian" and the dialog in a dialectual transcription. That would actually be
more faithful to Mark Twain's intent that the present Roman alphabet version
is.

Bill

> > 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);
>
>
> Yes, but I don't think our day to day conversation is conducted in
> recitatives.
> Compare:
> You wanna coffee?
> with
> A coffee, a magnificent coffee! This cup! Were it worthy of such a bean!
[snip-ette]

Not the wording that's the issue.

1. "You wanna coffee?" said with overtones of sarcasm, as if it was not
intended to be a serious question to the other party.
2. "You wanna coffee?" said with menace, as if to say "you buy it yourself,
cheapskate".
3. "You wanna coffee?" said with surprise, as if the other party did not ask
that question often.
Etc...

What does "You wanna coffee?" mean?

Hugh

[snip]
> > 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.
>
>
> But the thing is, different spellings could be used to represent different
> accents or dialects. After all, we hear these accents and dialects all the
> time
> and have no (well, very little) problem with them. Why not the same with
> spelling?

Why not? Because writing is not exactly the same as speech - it has its own
seperate benefits. Speech has its own tones, emotions, feelings that it
conveys - writing hardly conveys any such things at all. So the two media
cannot be compared on exactly the same level. The great thing I find about
writing is that it is unbiased, untinted, unaccented, etc. etc., enabling me
to obtain information quickly and easily, no matter who it's from. I'm quite
sure it was the point of inventing writing systems in the first place - to
record information. I cannot believe that anyone should suggest that it
should be made less easy to obtain information quickly and easily in order
for the awful spelling and alphabet of English to be improved.

It is a personal opinion, I must make that clear so as not to sound
dictatorial, but I see Shavian as an improvement, not as a complete rethink
of writing practices at all. If writers of English all over the world have
to lose something as important as ease of communication amongst each other
in order to improve their orthography and spelling, don't bother with the
reform.

> > 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,
>
>
> No, I dont agree, actually. It is my opinion that computers are here to
help
> us, not the other way around. If a search engine cannot handle different
> pronunciations, then it clearly isn't doing its job. If it is forcing the
user
> to modify her/his behaviour, then it has lost the plot.

I've already said this really, but I'll say it again, for this context.
While you are of course right in that computers are here to help us, the
computer search engine is the thin end of the wedge, where this is all
concerned. As I suggested, writing is, by its very essence, a more efficient
information conveyer than speech. If you wanted to represent speech EXACTLY,
why not just write in waveforms? Or record it? Writing is only supposed to
be a rough representation of speech, not an exact duplicate. If you want an
exact duplicate, why bother with writing at all - why not just speak, and
record it all? We have the technology these days. But writing is faster than
speech, it can be fitted into smaller spaces, it conveys information that
cannot be 'mis-heard' or 'mis-spoken'. And it can be re-read by the eye as
many times as needed without having to 'rewind'. Writing is NOT speech, it
is merely based on it.

So why support Shavian then, many people would ask? Given that writing is
more an information-provider, quite obviously, the way of writing we use is
STUPID. I said that writing is based on speech, well with the English
writing system it is hardly so - the alphabet is ill-suited, the
history-entrenched spellings laughable (for any speaker of English), the
diphthongs unnecessary, the 'rules' regarding the use of letters too
numerous and inconsistent, the time taken teaching it to children
unreasonable. Shavian would cure all these problems, and most of the rest to
boot. Shavian shouldn't be (and IMO isn't) a complete revolution that
changes the nature of writing - it's just to the English language what the
Roman alphabet was to Latin.

> - .+'^'+. -- A.M.Callaway --------------------
> - A N D Y ------------------------------------
> - `+.,.+' -- www.ozemail.com.au/~acal --------

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/_/968701253/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

> > 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);
>
>
> Yes, but I don't think our day to day conversation is conducted in
> recitatives.
> Compare:
> You wanna coffee?
> with
> A coffee, a magnificent coffee! This cup! Were it worthy of such a bean!
[snip-ette]

Not the wording that's the issue.

1. "You wanna coffee?" said with overtones of sarcasm, as if it was not
intended to be a serious question to the other party.
2. "You wanna coffee?" said with menace, as if to say "you buy it yourself,
cheapskate".
3. "You wanna coffee?" said with surprise, as if the other party did not ask
that question often.
Etc...

What does "You wanna coffee?" mean?

Hugh

-------------------------- 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/_/968716177/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

[snip]
> > 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.
>
>
> But the thing is, different spellings could be used to represent different
> accents or dialects. After all, we hear these accents and dialects all the
> time
> and have no (well, very little) problem with them. Why not the same with
> spelling?

Why not? Because writing is not exactly the same as speech - it has its own
seperate benefits. Speech has its own tones, emotions, feelings that it
conveys - writing hardly conveys any such things at all. So the two media
cannot be compared on exactly the same level. The great thing I find about
writing is that it is unbiased, untinted, unaccented, etc. etc., enabling me
to obtain information quickly and easily, no matter who it's from. I'm quite
sure it was the point of inventing writing systems in the first place - to
record information. I cannot believe that anyone should suggest that it
should be made less easy to obtain information quickly and easily in order
for the awful spelling and alphabet of English to be improved.

It is a personal opinion, I must make that clear so as not to sound
dictatorial, but I see Shavian as an improvement, not as a complete rethink
of writing practices at all. If writers of English all over the world have
to lose something as important as ease of communication amongst each other
in order to improve their orthography and spelling, don't bother with the
reform.

> > 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,
>
>
> No, I dont agree, actually. It is my opinion that computers are here to
help
> us, not the other way around. If a search engine cannot handle different
> pronunciations, then it clearly isn't doing its job. If it is forcing the
user
> to modify her/his behaviour, then it has lost the plot.

I've already said this really, but I'll say it again, for this context.
While you are of course right in that computers are here to help us, the
computer search engine is the thin end of the wedge, where this is all
concerned. As I suggested, writing is, by its very essence, a more efficient
information conveyer than speech. If you wanted to represent speech EXACTLY,
why not just write in waveforms? Or record it? Writing is only supposed to
be a rough representation of speech, not an exact duplicate. If you want an
exact duplicate, why bother with writing at all - why not just speak, and
record it all? We have the technology these days. But writing is faster than
speech, it can be fitted into smaller spaces, it conveys information that
cannot be 'mis-heard' or 'mis-spoken'. And it can be re-read by the eye as
many times as needed without having to 'rewind'. Writing is NOT speech, it
is merely based on it.

So why support Shavian then, many people would ask? Given that writing is
more an information-provider, quite obviously, the way of writing we use is
STUPID. I said that writing is based on speech, well with the English
writing system it is hardly so - the alphabet is ill-suited, the
history-entrenched spellings laughable (for any speaker of English), the
diphthongs unnecessary, the 'rules' regarding the use of letters too
numerous and inconsistent, the time taken teaching it to children
unreasonable. Shavian would cure all these problems, and most of the rest to
boot. Shavian shouldn't be (and IMO isn't) a complete revolution that
changes the nature of writing - it's just to the English language what the
Roman alphabet was to Latin.

> - .+'^'+. -- A.M.Callaway --------------------
> - A N D Y ------------------------------------
> - `+.,.+' -- www.ozemail.com.au/~acal --------

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/_/968729919/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
To: 'shavian@...' <shavian@...>
Date: Monday, September 11, 2000 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: [shavian] lurker: et tu, brute?

>There's even an adaptation of the Shaw alphabet to Esperanto! Someone
(don't
>remember who, unfortunately) sent me a little booklet with a story in
>Esperanto that progressively introduces more and more Shaw alphabet
letters.
>There's also a little addendum which introduces some ligatures for such
>common combinations as -oj -aj, -is -as -os -us, etc.


The adaptation of Shaw to Esperanto was done by Gan Starling in
Kalamazoo, Michigan. (Formerly known as John Wesley Starling, he
had the spelling legally changed to Gan Uesli Starling to match Esperanto
orthography!)

We were at an Esperanto meeting several years ago, when the subject
of other writing systems came up. I mentioned Shaw, which no one else
there had ever heard of. Later Gan asked for more info on Shaw, so I
send him photocopies out of Androcles.

He took it upon himself to develop an entire system for Esperanto and
publish a booklet explaining how it works.

I have a few copies of the booklet, and I'll gladly send one to anyone
who is interested (it's all in Esperanto). Note that the sound values of
several letters are completely different than the English version of Shaw
(for good reasons).

--Phillip Driscoll

-------------------------- 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/_/968772265/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

On the contrary, I am familiar with it, having studied it, Interlingua, and
other lesser-known attempts. Without disparaging their good intentions, I
sincerely doubt it will become what it intends to become. I started to
learn it, but then quickly realized that I know nobody who actually uses
the language here in Des Moines, Iowa. I would happily learn it simply
because I enjoy language, but I have other priorities at the moment.

There have been many attempts at a world language. If it catches on,
great! I rather suspect it will be difficult for it or any "artificial"
language to take a universal place where I can go anywhere and be
understood in my mother tongue or Esperanto (or its equivalent).

Regardless of whether it succeeds or not, as it has been mentioned, it has
nothing to do with the question of standardization of Shavian (SMILE).

Stuart

At 23:16 09/10/2000 -0400, you wrote:

>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@...)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >


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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9068/11/_/54531/_/969314051/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

This may be a tad off-topic. I am curious as to whose dialects
include a certain set of sounds.

Of course, expressing these is problematic, but I'll try to describe
them instead of just giving sample words.

The reason I ask is, I think I remember reading that it was rare for
dialects to have all three sounds. Of course, I may have misunderstood
something, since I read it all instead of hearing it. But it sounded
fishy to me...

FWIW, my dialect is fairly neutral midwestern US, with traces of
Southern (like a midly Southernized Dan Rather).

The three sounds are:

1) ah -- Mouth and throat are totally open, tongue is flat. Sound a
doctor wants you to make so he can examine your throat. In my dialect:
father, hot, bah-humbug, ha-ha.

2) aw -- Throat still open, lips rounded a little, tongue raised a
little. In my dialect: Paw, raw, awwww, dawn, pawn, haughty, bought,
hee-haw.

3) o[r] -- Though I am rhotic, I don't consider the terminating "r"
relevant here. I have heard this sound with and without the r.
Throat a little more tight, lips even more closed in an O, tongue
somewhat arched. In my dialect: or, bore, dorm, torn, porn, etc.

Comments:

1. I sometimes hear (fellow) Americans speaking a dialect in which
"Don" and "dawn" are homonyms. Not mine!

2. Conversely, I own a piece of software, a card-playing program,
in which one of the characters is a cowboy-like person occasionally
emitting the cowboy's yell "Yee-ha!" through the sound card -- but
pronouncing it "Yee-haw!" as I have never heard it before.

3. I have heard people say "rahther" -- in most circles it is
considered affected. I have never heard anyone say "rawther." In
my dialect, it is usually pronounced as Dan Rather pronounces his
last name.

What say all of you? Does your dialect have three sounds here or
only two?

Hal

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9067/11/_/54531/_/969331339/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Please remove my E-Mail address from your mailing list since my daughter was
the one you wanted to reach & she is no longer at this address. She doesn't
as of yet have anew one.
----------
>From: "Hal Fulton" <hal9000@...>
>To: shavian@...
>Subject: [shavian] Questions concerning vowels, etc.
>Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2000, 1:54 PM
>

>
>This may be a tad off-topic. I am curious as to whose dialects
>include a certain set of sounds.
>
>Of course, expressing these is problematic, but I'll try to describe
>them instead of just giving sample words.
>
>The reason I ask is, I think I remember reading that it was rare for
>dialects to have all three sounds. Of course, I may have misunderstood
>something, since I read it all instead of hearing it. But it sounded
>fishy to me...
>
>FWIW, my dialect is fairly neutral midwestern US, with traces of
>Southern (like a midly Southernized Dan Rather).
>
>The three sounds are:
>
>1) ah -- Mouth and throat are totally open, tongue is flat. Sound a
>doctor wants you to make so he can examine your throat. In my dialect:
>father, hot, bah-humbug, ha-ha.
>
>2) aw -- Throat still open, lips rounded a little, tongue raised a
>little. In my dialect: Paw, raw, awwww, dawn, pawn, haughty, bought,
>hee-haw.
>
>3) o[r] -- Though I am rhotic, I don't consider the terminating "r"
>relevant here. I have heard this sound with and without the r.
>Throat a little more tight, lips even more closed in an O, tongue
>somewhat arched. In my dialect: or, bore, dorm, torn, porn, etc.
>
>Comments:
>
>1. I sometimes hear (fellow) Americans speaking a dialect in which
>"Don" and "dawn" are homonyms. Not mine!
>
>2. Conversely, I own a piece of software, a card-playing program,
>in which one of the characters is a cowboy-like person occasionally
>emitting the cowboy's yell "Yee-ha!" through the sound card -- but
>pronouncing it "Yee-haw!" as I have never heard it before.
>
>3. I have heard people say "rahther" -- in most circles it is
>considered affected. I have never heard anyone say "rawther." In
>my dialect, it is usually pronounced as Dan Rather pronounces his
>last name.
>
>What say all of you? Does your dialect have three sounds here or
>only two?
>
>Hal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>