Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shannon <reboot@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [shavian] "eat" and "if"--institutional mispellings?


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
> To: <shavian@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [shavian] "eat" and "if"--institutional mispellings?
>
> <snip>
> >
> > As we all know, in the character table there are two characters for what
> > might seem to be identical sounds: 'up' and 'ado'. Why are they there,
if
> > they are so similar that one character could suffice to represent them
> both?
> > To represent stress. I thought about this for ages, and the way I see
it,
> > the only way to avoid using an 'apostrophe' type character in every
single
> > multi-syllabic word to highlight stress (as dictionaries do) is to have
a
> > 'schwa' character that could be used to show where the *unstressed* part
> of
> > the word is.
> >
> > OK, the schwa thing is probably self-evident, that's why we all use it.
> But
> > what are not so self-evident are things like 'eat' vs. 'if' (at ends of
> > words),
>
> I have a problem with using "if" at the end of a word like "really". I
> supose I could simply adopt this deliberate misspelling and be done with
it,
> but at the present time I'm using my new translator program to translate
> Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. (The translation is proceeding at about one
> chapter per day.) Now to quote Mr. Twain from the introduction:
>
> ==
> In this book a number of dialects are used, to wit:
> the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the
> backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike
> County" dialect; and four modified varieties of this
> last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard
> fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly,
> and with the trustworthy guidance and support of
> personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.
>
> I make this explanation for the reason that without
> it many readers would suppose that all these characters
> were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.
> ==
>
> I am trying to preserve, as closely as possible, those dialects as
recorded
> my Mr. Twain.

OK...

> If I rendered "Missouri" with the "if" sound at the end readers accustomed
> to the conventional misuse of the final "if" would believe that it is
really
> pronounced "ee", and might pronounce the word "MiZOO ree", which is how it
> is commonly pronounced everywhere BUT Missouri. There, the "proper"
> pronunciation is "MiZOO rih", (The terminal sound is actually between "if"
> and "up", leaning more towards "if" in some parts of the state and more
> towards "up" in others.) in other words, it quite clearly terminates with
> the "if" sound, a nuance that is completely lost if "if" is to be used to
> represent two different sounds "ih" and "ee". It seems to me that Mr.
Shaw
> did not intend for any alphabet created in his name to perpetuate the same
> ambiguities as the Roman alphabet.

He also didn't intend for Shavian to be a tool to express nuances in
regional dialects. That is what the IPA is for.

> While the subject of stress has been mentioned, it should also be
mentioned
> that conventional Roman spelling does quite well without any stress
> indicators. We do, after all, know how to pronounce the words we use.
> Allowing alternate symbols for a vowel based on whether it is stressed or
> not seems redundant.

Though I understand that point, whether stress should feature in Shavian is
not really the issue, because it does. Why is there a 'schwa' character in
Shavian (and a complementary rhotic schwa) if its creators did not care for
stress? It could easily enough be replaced by the virtually identical 'up'
character (and the rhotic version by 'err'). Yet there is one, and its only
purpose can be that of showing at least roughly where the stress lies in a
word. In fact I can think of few examples of when the schwa character does
not help to show where the stress lies in words where that character is
used. Shavian attempts to show where stress lies, that IS a fact, so if we
don't like it we'd better either redesign the alphabet and call it something
else, or pick another. Also, we obviously don't necessarily know how to
pronounce a word, names being a prime example of this, and knowing where the
stress lies is just as important as knowing which sounds to speak.

> I understand that Androcles is taken to be the sacred gospel by which such
> disputes are resolved, however I find it hard to accept that the
> translator(s) of Androcles anticipated every possible problem and
objection
> that might be raised. Or that Shavian could be used not only to simplify
> English spelling, but also to capture and record nuances of dialect more
> acurately than the Roman alphabet. Assigning alternate sounds to a single
> letter effectively destroys Shavian's ability to record those nuances,
since
> we can no longer take it as given that a word is always pronounced as
> written. That, and given the fact that the copy of Androcles that I read
was
> checked out of the library 37 years ago, and I haven't seen another copy
> since, I have to rely on my own common sense to make such determinations.

If Androcles cannot be taken as the best guide to resolve disputes, what
can? OK, it's no sacred gospel, and it can't answer every question, but it's
the only piece of literature written by the same team who first brought the
alphabet to the world's attention, so if we can't even to a generous degree
trust their judgement, we are left only with the 'reading key', which goes
to no lengths to explain how certain characters should be used if anyone has
any doubts. Androcles displays clear conventions, and I myself see clear
logic behind many of them. One of these is the 'if' character at ends of
certain words. It is consistent, for a reason. As a small example, consider
two names, 'stonely' and 'stonelea'; if the 'eat' character were used at the
ends of both, there would be no difference in pronunciation when read, and
there would be no way in Shavian to distinguish between the two.

> Now if it is strongly felt by the Shavian community at large that "ih" is
> the proper way to terminate a word like "really" then I will bow to that
> convention and adjust my translation program accordingly, even though it
> would mean the loss of a certain degree of the unique flavor of many
> American authors. I would really appreciate seeing more opinions on the
> subject.

I find it hard to believe that that small detail would affect the recording
of pronunciation at all. In fact it might help place the stress in the right
part of certain words, thus avoiding confusion.

> BTW: Just how large IS the Shavian community anyway?

Good call. Everyone speak up! :) And on another note, has anyone done any
major transliterations recently?

> --gary

Hugh


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/54531/_/974851180/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shannon <reboot@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [shavian] "eat" and "if"--institutional mispellings?


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
> To: <shavian@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [shavian] "eat" and "if"--institutional mispellings?
>
> <snip>
> >
> > As we all know, in the character table there are two characters for what
> > might seem to be identical sounds: 'up' and 'ado'. Why are they there,
if
> > they are so similar that one character could suffice to represent them
> both?
> > To represent stress. I thought about this for ages, and the way I see
it,
> > the only way to avoid using an 'apostrophe' type character in every
single
> > multi-syllabic word to highlight stress (as dictionaries do) is to have
a
> > 'schwa' character that could be used to show where the *unstressed* part
> of
> > the word is.
> >
> > OK, the schwa thing is probably self-evident, that's why we all use it.
> But
> > what are not so self-evident are things like 'eat' vs. 'if' (at ends of
> > words),
>
> I have a problem with using "if" at the end of a word like "really". I
> supose I could simply adopt this deliberate misspelling and be done with
it,
> but at the present time I'm using my new translator program to translate
> Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. (The translation is proceeding at about one
> chapter per day.) Now to quote Mr. Twain from the introduction:
>
> ==
> In this book a number of dialects are used, to wit:
> the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the
> backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike
> County" dialect; and four modified varieties of this
> last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard
> fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly,
> and with the trustworthy guidance and support of
> personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.
>
> I make this explanation for the reason that without
> it many readers would suppose that all these characters
> were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.
> ==
>
> I am trying to preserve, as closely as possible, those dialects as
recorded
> my Mr. Twain.

OK...

> If I rendered "Missouri" with the "if" sound at the end readers accustomed
> to the conventional misuse of the final "if" would believe that it is
really
> pronounced "ee", and might pronounce the word "MiZOO ree", which is how it
> is commonly pronounced everywhere BUT Missouri. There, the "proper"
> pronunciation is "MiZOO rih", (The terminal sound is actually between "if"
> and "up", leaning more towards "if" in some parts of the state and more
> towards "up" in others.) in other words, it quite clearly terminates with
> the "if" sound, a nuance that is completely lost if "if" is to be used to
> represent two different sounds "ih" and "ee". It seems to me that Mr.
Shaw
> did not intend for any alphabet created in his name to perpetuate the same
> ambiguities as the Roman alphabet.

He also didn't intend for Shavian to be a tool to express nuances in
regional dialects. That is what the IPA is for.

> While the subject of stress has been mentioned, it should also be
mentioned
> that conventional Roman spelling does quite well without any stress
> indicators. We do, after all, know how to pronounce the words we use.
> Allowing alternate symbols for a vowel based on whether it is stressed or
> not seems redundant.

Though I understand that point, whether stress should feature in Shavian is
not really the issue, because it does. Why is there a 'schwa' character in
Shavian (and a complementary rhotic schwa) if its creators did not care for
stress? It could easily enough be replaced by the virtually identical 'up'
character (and the rhotic version by 'err'). Yet there is one, and its only
purpose can be that of showing at least roughly where the stress lies in a
word. In fact I can think of few examples of when the schwa character does
not help to show where the stress lies in words where that character is
used. Shavian attempts to show where stress lies, that IS a fact, so if we
don't like it we'd better either redesign the alphabet and call it something
else, or pick another. Also, we obviously don't necessarily know how to
pronounce a word, names being a prime example of this, and knowing where the
stress lies is just as important as knowing which sounds to speak.

> I understand that Androcles is taken to be the sacred gospel by which such
> disputes are resolved, however I find it hard to accept that the
> translator(s) of Androcles anticipated every possible problem and
objection
> that might be raised. Or that Shavian could be used not only to simplify
> English spelling, but also to capture and record nuances of dialect more
> acurately than the Roman alphabet. Assigning alternate sounds to a single
> letter effectively destroys Shavian's ability to record those nuances,
since
> we can no longer take it as given that a word is always pronounced as
> written. That, and given the fact that the copy of Androcles that I read
was
> checked out of the library 37 years ago, and I haven't seen another copy
> since, I have to rely on my own common sense to make such determinations.

If Androcles cannot be taken as the best guide to resolve disputes, what
can? OK, it's no sacred gospel, and it can't answer every question, but it's
the only piece of literature written by the same team who first brought the
alphabet to the world's attention, so if we can't even to a generous degree
trust their judgement, we are left only with the 'reading key', which goes
to no lengths to explain how certain characters should be used if anyone has
any doubts. Androcles displays clear conventions, and I myself see clear
logic behind many of them. One of these is the 'if' character at ends of
certain words. It is consistent, for a reason. As a small example, consider
two names, 'stonely' and 'stonelea'; if the 'eat' character were used at the
ends of both, there would be no difference in pronunciation when read, and
there would be no way in Shavian to distinguish between the two.

> Now if it is strongly felt by the Shavian community at large that "ih" is
> the proper way to terminate a word like "really" then I will bow to that
> convention and adjust my translation program accordingly, even though it
> would mean the loss of a certain degree of the unique flavor of many
> American authors. I would really appreciate seeing more opinions on the
> subject.

I find it hard to believe that that small detail would affect the recording
of pronunciation at all. In fact it might help place the stress in the right
part of certain words, thus avoiding confusion.

> BTW: Just how large IS the Shavian community anyway?

Good call. Everyone speak up! :) And on another note, has anyone done any
major transliterations recently?

> --gary

Hugh

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [shavian] "eat" and "if"--institutional mispellings?



<snip>
>
> > If I rendered "Missouri" with the "if" sound at the end readers
accustomed
> > to the conventional misuse of the final "if" would believe that it is
> really
> > pronounced "ee", and might pronounce the word "MiZOO ree", which is how
it
> > is commonly pronounced everywhere BUT Missouri. There, the "proper"
> > pronunciation is "MiZOO rih", (The terminal sound is actually between
"if"
> > and "up", leaning more towards "if" in some parts of the state and more
> > towards "up" in others.) in other words, it quite clearly terminates
with
> > the "if" sound, a nuance that is completely lost if "if" is to be used
to
> > represent two different sounds "ih" and "ee". It seems to me that Mr.
> Shaw
> > did not intend for any alphabet created in his name to perpetuate the
same
> > ambiguities as the Roman alphabet.
>
> He also didn't intend for Shavian to be a tool to express nuances in
> regional dialects. That is what the IPA is for.

Point well taken. However the general reading public has never heard of
IPA, yet Shavian has, in theory at least, the potential to capture those
nuances for the general Shavian-reading public.

>
> > While the subject of stress has been mentioned, it should also be
> mentioned
> > that conventional Roman spelling does quite well without any stress
> > indicators. We do, after all, know how to pronounce the words we use.
> > Allowing alternate symbols for a vowel based on whether it is stressed
or
> > not seems redundant.
>
> Though I understand that point, whether stress should feature in Shavian
is
> not really the issue, because it does. Why is there a 'schwa' character in
> Shavian (and a complementary rhotic schwa) if its creators did not care
for
> stress? It could easily enough be replaced by the virtually identical 'up'
> character (and the rhotic version by 'err'). Yet there is one, and its
only
> purpose can be that of showing at least roughly where the stress lies in a
> word. In fact I can think of few examples of when the schwa character does
> not help to show where the stress lies in words where that character is
> used. Shavian attempts to show where stress lies, that IS a fact, so if we
> don't like it we'd better either redesign the alphabet and call it
something
> else, or pick another. Also, we obviously don't necessarily know how to
> pronounce a word, names being a prime example of this, and knowing where
the
> stress lies is just as important as knowing which sounds to speak.
>

Good points, but entirely too academic for the general reading public. Were
Shavian ever to catch on big all these rules and conventions would quickly
be mutated by the larger Shavian reading and writing public anyway, with
such debates left to the academics. ;-)

> > I understand that Androcles is taken to be the sacred gospel by which
such
> > disputes are resolved, however I find it hard to accept that the
> > translator(s) of Androcles anticipated every possible problem and
> objection
> > that might be raised. Or that Shavian could be used not only to
simplify
> > English spelling, but also to capture and record nuances of dialect more
> > acurately than the Roman alphabet. Assigning alternate sounds to a
single
> > letter effectively destroys Shavian's ability to record those nuances,
> since
> > we can no longer take it as given that a word is always pronounced as
> > written. That, and given the fact that the copy of Androcles that I read
> was
> > checked out of the library 37 years ago, and I haven't seen another copy
> > since, I have to rely on my own common sense to make such
determinations.
>
> If Androcles cannot be taken as the best guide to resolve disputes, what
> can?

Ah, but do we refer to Chaucer to settle disputes about Roman spelling?
Surely not, because the English of Chaucer no longer exists in common
currency. The one thing we can be certain about with any language is that
it will evolve, and that each generation will be offended by the evolution
that takes place at the hands of the next younger generation.

>OK, it's no sacred gospel, and it can't answer every question, but it's
> the only piece of literature written by the same team who first brought
the
> alphabet to the world's attention, so if we can't even to a generous
degree
> trust their judgement, we are left only with the 'reading key', which goes
> to no lengths to explain how certain characters should be used if anyone
has
> any doubts. Androcles displays clear conventions, and I myself see clear
> logic behind many of them. One of these is the 'if' character at ends of
> certain words. It is consistent, for a reason. As a small example,
consider
> two names, 'stonely' and 'stonelea'; if the 'eat' character were used at
the
> ends of both, there would be no difference in pronunciation when read, and
> there would be no way in Shavian to distinguish between the two.
>

If the two are spoken alike (and as an American speaker I have to confess
I've never heard the word "stonelea" spoken) then how do we tell them apart
when we hear them spoken? By context. Now in Shavian we have "two", "to"
and "too" spelled the same, and how do we tell those apart? Again, by
context. (BTW: I would be inclined to render "stonely" as "stone-ih-lee")
Even so, phonetic spelling does have the disadvantage of sometimes hiding
information imbedded in the spelling. The New England town called "WOOster"
by the residents is spelled "Worchestershire". Which way would one render
that name?

> > Now if it is strongly felt by the Shavian community at large that "ih"
is
> > the proper way to terminate a word like "really" then I will bow to that
> > convention and adjust my translation program accordingly, even though it
> > would mean the loss of a certain degree of the unique flavor of many
> > American authors. I would really appreciate seeing more opinions on the
> > subject.
>
> I find it hard to believe that that small detail would affect the
recording
> of pronunciation at all. In fact it might help place the stress in the
right
> part of certain words, thus avoiding confusion.
>

I suppose that part of my objection is that not having Andorocles to refer
to, and having *only* the reading guide (as copied from one web page or
another) I really have no idea what the conventions are, and am forced into
the position of making up my own conventions as I go along.

> > BTW: Just how large IS the Shavian community anyway?
>
> Good call. Everyone speak up! :) And on another note, has anyone done any
> major transliterations recently?
>

I have the first four chapters of Twain's Huckleberry Finn done, but will
probably re-do them with what I'm learning about the conventions here. :-)
(Redoing is no big deal since I only need to edit the glossary file and then
re-run the tranlsation program)

One more question of convetion: In translating "Mississipi Valley" would it
be usual to place the namer dot in front of both words, or only in front of
"Mississippi"? ( and is e.e. cummings name rendered without the dots?)

And one more aside: I'm a newcomer to the group, and it is traditional in
any group that newcomers always stir up trouble, so I hope I'm fulfilling
that duty properly. ;-) I do, however, prefer that works I translate with
my new translation program be widely accepted, and I would prefer to abide
by the conventions currently in place. (While reserving the right to
question them from time to time.)

So, aside from refering to Androcles, is there any place on the web where
these conventions have been summarized? Or has the complete vocabulary of
Androcles been tabulated? That would be a valuable resource for resolving
such issues without having to wade through the entire text looking for
instances of a given word.

And failing that, is the text available other than in the out of print
hardcopy edition? If I could lay my hands on a copy I would be happy to
compile a complete glossary of all the spellings in the text.

--gary


> > --gary
>
> Hugh
>
>
>
>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/4/_/54531/_/974863563/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Dear Gary,
You missed a long discussion some time ago on whether we were going to
write in our own dialects or adopt a standard. As one who prefers to write
in his own dialect (Midwestern American English) and opposes the notion of
an imposed standard at this point, I did quite a bit of transliteration. You
are welcome to have copies of my transliterations, as well as the first
chapters of my text to learn Shavian, if you will e-mail me your address.
But the discussion discouraged me a lot, and I have not transcribed anything
recently.
I use Shavian to take notes personally, but the discussion pretty much
defeated me in this affair. If I feel some non-judgemental enthusiasm
welling again, I could get back into it.
Sincerely, Dan Szczurek
twojbrat@...

----------
>From: "Gary Shannon" <reboot@...>
>To: <shavian@...>
>Subject: Re: [shavian] "eat" and "if"--institutional mispellings?
>Date: Nov Tue, 2000, 19:24
>

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
> To: <shavian@...>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [shavian] "eat" and "if"--institutional mispellings?
>
>
>
> <snip>
>>
>> > If I rendered "Missouri" with the "if" sound at the end readers
> accustomed
>> > to the conventional misuse of the final "if" would believe that it is
>> really
>> > pronounced "ee", and might pronounce the word "MiZOO ree", which is how
> it
>> > is commonly pronounced everywhere BUT Missouri. There, the "proper"
>> > pronunciation is "MiZOO rih", (The terminal sound is actually between
> "if"
>> > and "up", leaning more towards "if" in some parts of the state and more
>> > towards "up" in others.) in other words, it quite clearly terminates
> with
>> > the "if" sound, a nuance that is completely lost if "if" is to be used
> to
>> > represent two different sounds "ih" and "ee". It seems to me that Mr.
>> Shaw
>> > did not intend for any alphabet created in his name to perpetuate the
> same
>> > ambiguities as the Roman alphabet.
>>
>> He also didn't intend for Shavian to be a tool to express nuances in
>> regional dialects. That is what the IPA is for.
>
> Point well taken. However the general reading public has never heard of
> IPA, yet Shavian has, in theory at least, the potential to capture those
> nuances for the general Shavian-reading public.
>
>>
>> > While the subject of stress has been mentioned, it should also be
>> mentioned
>> > that conventional Roman spelling does quite well without any stress
>> > indicators. We do, after all, know how to pronounce the words we use.
>> > Allowing alternate symbols for a vowel based on whether it is stressed
> or
>> > not seems redundant.
>>
>> Though I understand that point, whether stress should feature in Shavian
> is
>> not really the issue, because it does. Why is there a 'schwa' character in
>> Shavian (and a complementary rhotic schwa) if its creators did not care
> for
>> stress? It could easily enough be replaced by the virtually identical 'up'
>> character (and the rhotic version by 'err'). Yet there is one, and its
> only
>> purpose can be that of showing at least roughly where the stress lies in a
>> word. In fact I can think of few examples of when the schwa character does
>> not help to show where the stress lies in words where that character is
>> used. Shavian attempts to show where stress lies, that IS a fact, so if we
>> don't like it we'd better either redesign the alphabet and call it
> something
>> else, or pick another. Also, we obviously don't necessarily know how to
>> pronounce a word, names being a prime example of this, and knowing where
> the
>> stress lies is just as important as knowing which sounds to speak.
>>
>
> Good points, but entirely too academic for the general reading public. Were
> Shavian ever to catch on big all these rules and conventions would quickly
> be mutated by the larger Shavian reading and writing public anyway, with
> such debates left to the academics. ;-)
>
>> > I understand that Androcles is taken to be the sacred gospel by which
> such
>> > disputes are resolved, however I find it hard to accept that the
>> > translator(s) of Androcles anticipated every possible problem and
>> objection
>> > that might be raised. Or that Shavian could be used not only to
> simplify
>> > English spelling, but also to capture and record nuances of dialect more
>> > acurately than the Roman alphabet. Assigning alternate sounds to a
> single
>> > letter effectively destroys Shavian's ability to record those nuances,
>> since
>> > we can no longer take it as given that a word is always pronounced as
>> > written. That, and given the fact that the copy of Androcles that I read
>> was
>> > checked out of the library 37 years ago, and I haven't seen another copy
>> > since, I have to rely on my own common sense to make such
> determinations.
>>
>> If Androcles cannot be taken as the best guide to resolve disputes, what
>> can?
>
> Ah, but do we refer to Chaucer to settle disputes about Roman spelling?
> Surely not, because the English of Chaucer no longer exists in common
> currency. The one thing we can be certain about with any language is that
> it will evolve, and that each generation will be offended by the evolution
> that takes place at the hands of the next younger generation.
>
>>OK, it's no sacred gospel, and it can't answer every question, but it's
>> the only piece of literature written by the same team who first brought
> the
>> alphabet to the world's attention, so if we can't even to a generous
> degree
>> trust their judgement, we are left only with the 'reading key', which goes
>> to no lengths to explain how certain characters should be used if anyone
> has
>> any doubts. Androcles displays clear conventions, and I myself see clear
>> logic behind many of them. One of these is the 'if' character at ends of
>> certain words. It is consistent, for a reason. As a small example,
> consider
>> two names, 'stonely' and 'stonelea'; if the 'eat' character were used at
> the
>> ends of both, there would be no difference in pronunciation when read, and
>> there would be no way in Shavian to distinguish between the two.
>>
>
> If the two are spoken alike (and as an American speaker I have to confess
> I've never heard the word "stonelea" spoken) then how do we tell them apart
> when we hear them spoken? By context. Now in Shavian we have "two", "to"
> and "too" spelled the same, and how do we tell those apart? Again, by
> context. (BTW: I would be inclined to render "stonely" as "stone-ih-lee")
> Even so, phonetic spelling does have the disadvantage of sometimes hiding
> information imbedded in the spelling. The New England town called "WOOster"
> by the residents is spelled "Worchestershire". Which way would one render
> that name?
>
>> > Now if it is strongly felt by the Shavian community at large that "ih"
> is
>> > the proper way to terminate a word like "really" then I will bow to that
>> > convention and adjust my translation program accordingly, even though it
>> > would mean the loss of a certain degree of the unique flavor of many
>> > American authors. I would really appreciate seeing more opinions on the
>> > subject.
>>
>> I find it hard to believe that that small detail would affect the
> recording
>> of pronunciation at all. In fact it might help place the stress in the
> right
>> part of certain words, thus avoiding confusion.
>>
>
> I suppose that part of my objection is that not having Andorocles to refer
> to, and having *only* the reading guide (as copied from one web page or
> another) I really have no idea what the conventions are, and am forced into
> the position of making up my own conventions as I go along.
>
>> > BTW: Just how large IS the Shavian community anyway?
>>
>> Good call. Everyone speak up! :) And on another note, has anyone done any
>> major transliterations recently?
>>
>
> I have the first four chapters of Twain's Huckleberry Finn done, but will
> probably re-do them with what I'm learning about the conventions here. :-)
> (Redoing is no big deal since I only need to edit the glossary file and then
> re-run the tranlsation program)
>
> One more question of convetion: In translating "Mississipi Valley" would it
> be usual to place the namer dot in front of both words, or only in front of
> "Mississippi"? ( and is e.e. cummings name rendered without the dots?)
>
> And one more aside: I'm a newcomer to the group, and it is traditional in
> any group that newcomers always stir up trouble, so I hope I'm fulfilling
> that duty properly. ;-) I do, however, prefer that works I translate with
> my new translation program be widely accepted, and I would prefer to abide
> by the conventions currently in place. (While reserving the right to
> question them from time to time.)
>
> So, aside from refering to Androcles, is there any place on the web where
> these conventions have been summarized? Or has the complete vocabulary of
> Androcles been tabulated? That would be a valuable resource for resolving
> such issues without having to wade through the entire text looking for
> instances of a given word.
>
> And failing that, is the text available other than in the out of print
> hardcopy edition? If I could lay my hands on a copy I would be happy to
> compile a complete glossary of all the spellings in the text.
>
> --gary
>
>
>> > --gary
>>
>> Hugh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/4/_/54531/_/974870524/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Is Shavian a modern, living writing system for English or is it a fixed
standard? That is the question. Do you we use it for writing speech, or is
it a form of International English? Dan

----------

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/54531/_/974870797/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Gary Shannon wrote:
> And failing that, is the text available other than in the out of print
> hardcopy edition?

Well, there's also the out of print paperback edition, of which I managed to
get two copies....

Cheers,
Philip

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/4/_/54531/_/974873898/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

--- In shavian@..., "Gary Shannon" <reboot@r...> wrote:
> Just a quick note to introduce myself, since I'm new to the group.
Welcome aboard.

I have been working on a project which translates into Shavian (well,
any scheme actually), and there is a copy of a beta version in the
files area. However, I recommend you wait for a later version, (which
everyone seems to be doing... :-) as it is an early beta, and also
the file is nearly 5Mb :-0

I will be uploading a more robust version, probably by Friday.

Cheers,
Andy.



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/54531/_/974899755/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Welcome to the new people on the list. I've written the Shaw alphabet since
its publication nearly 40 years ago, and I have some Web pages about it -
which I've done a poor job of maintaining lately - at
http://members.aol.com/RSRICHMOND/shavian.html
I speak midwestern American English and write that way in the Shaw alphabet.

As several people have mentioned, this list tends to reach periodic impasses
as to whether writers are to write in their native English, or in the British
Received Pronunciation used in Androcles and the Lion. We North Americans
have had great difficulty understanding the idea of a received (standard)
pronunciation of English, and the Brits have had equally great difficulty
understanding that we Americans have no single pronunciation standard and are
quite clueless that anyone else does.

As to Androcles and the Lion: about 40,000 copies of the paperback and about
14,000 copies of a hardbound "presentation" edition were published, if I have
these figures right. Both editions are frequently available from online used
book dealers. I have both, and recommend getting the hardbound book, since
the paperback (at least my two copies) are printed on paper that has yellowed
badly with age.

About the word "Shavian": it was originally used in gentle derision of
Bernard Shaw. It was not used in the early years of the Shaw Alphabet, and I
usually avoid using it. It does have the advantage of being a good
search-engine search term.

Bob Richmond
Knoxville, Tennessee USA

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/4/_/54531/_/974906709/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

RSRICHMOND@aol.com wrote:
> I have some Web pages about it - which I've done a poor job
> of maintaining lately - at
> http://members.aol.com/RSRICHMOND/shavian.html

This is a good occasion to ask, I suppose.

Bob, do you want a link to that page added to http://www.shavian.org/ ?
Anyone else, do you want a link to your Shavian pages added? Hugh? Anyone?

Again, other contributions are also welcome :-)

Cheers,
Philip

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/54531/_/974907460/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

I'll have a look at it.

Mine is strictly Shavian, and written in C++ and is about 220K (100k
zipped). Although I suppose that with a different glossary and font it
could be used to transliterate into any spelling system. My version 0.0 has
a couple bugs that I plan to fix today and upload later as version 0.1.

Presently I'm using it to translate Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. It takes
about 15 minutes to interactively translate each chapter once the vocabulary
is in the glossary. Longer if it finds unlisted words because the user has
to type in the Shavian spelling for each one (which is then added to the
glossary.) Most of the time is spent in choosing between altenative
spellings ("I am going to READ the book he just READ.") or proper vs common
forms of words ("MARK Twain made his MARK in history.").

--gary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Callaway" <acal@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 5:28 AM
Subject: [shavian] Re: newcomer


> --- In shavian@..., "Gary Shannon" <reboot@r...> wrote:
> > Just a quick note to introduce myself, since I'm new to the group.
> Welcome aboard.
>
> I have been working on a project which translates into Shavian (well,
> any scheme actually), and there is a copy of a beta version in the
> files area. However, I recommend you wait for a later version, (which
> everyone seems to be doing... :-) as it is an early beta, and also
> the file is nearly 5Mb :-0
>
> I will be uploading a more robust version, probably by Friday.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy.
>
>
>
>
>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/54531/_/974914837/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->