Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

As I get closer to having a smooth enough version of my translation program
to start doing large-scale masses of translations I need to get
clarification on a couple points that have come up in the texts I'm working
with:

I've decided to go with the "standard" "if" at the end of words like "city"
just to keep in step with what seems to be the prevailing majority opinion.

When translating words like "don't" and "can't" are they transliterated with
our without the apostrophe?

With titles that preceed a person's name like "Judge Thatcher" is "Judge"
written with the namer dot or not?
Likewise with relationship specifiers like "Aunt Polly". Does "Aunt" receive
the dot or not?

With compound names where the second word is a common noun, like
"Mississippi Valley", does Valley use the namer dot or not?

Thanks in advance for any opinions, cannonical citations, etc.

Also, I would like to ask again if anyone has or knows of an Androcles
glossary?

--gary



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/54531/_/974915694/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

> Anyone else, do you want a link to your Shavian pages added? Hugh? Anyone?

Yes please Philip - that would be really great. Also, if you want any extra
content produced for it, perhaps, I'd be glad to contribute something. Just
say what you'd like.

Cheerio,
Hugh

> Anyone else, do you want a link to your Shavian pages added? Hugh? Anyone?

Yes please Philip - that would be really great. Also, if you want any extra
content produced for it, perhaps, I'd be glad to contribute something. Just
say what you'd like.

Cheerio,
Hugh


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/54531/_/974918353/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shannon <reboot@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 5:53 PM
Subject: [shavian] A Couple Questions for the Experts


> As I get closer to having a smooth enough version of my translation
program
> to start doing large-scale masses of translations I need to get
> clarification on a couple points that have come up in the texts I'm
working
> with:
>
> I've decided to go with the "standard" "if" at the end of words like
"city"
> just to keep in step with what seems to be the prevailing majority
opinion.

Erm, I think I must be one of the only people who support the use of the
character in this way. You will probably find that most other people will
use 'eat' instead. It's your choice really.

> When translating words like "don't" and "can't" are they transliterated
with
> our without the apostrophe?

Without, generally. It's only used in Shavian when showing posession, from
what I've seen.

> With titles that preceed a person's name like "Judge Thatcher" is "Judge"
> written with the namer dot or not?

Hmm... what I do myself is put the namer dot before both words, because it's
someone's title.

> Likewise with relationship specifiers like "Aunt Polly". Does "Aunt"
receive
> the dot or not?

I would think so, because it's also a sort of 'title', less of a literary
description such as 'polly, my aunt' or 'my aunt, polly'.

> With compound names where the second word is a common noun, like
> "Mississippi Valley", does Valley use the namer dot or not?

Again, I would think so. Both words are part of the name, so both would take
the dot.

> Thanks in advance for any opinions, cannonical citations, etc.

Heheee... (if you mean what I think you mean) sorry about the structure of
my last posts, I never mean to rant on, in fact I probably have a lot less
experience with the alphabet than most people here - I'm just outspoken. :)

> Also, I would like to ask again if anyone has or knows of an Androcles
> glossary?

I honestly believe that Androcles is the only real piece of literature that
describes the mechanics of the alphabet... if there is anything else written
about the same time by the same people, I'd like to know about it...

> --gary

Hugh

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shannon <reboot@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 5:53 PM
Subject: [shavian] A Couple Questions for the Experts


> As I get closer to having a smooth enough version of my translation
program
> to start doing large-scale masses of translations I need to get
> clarification on a couple points that have come up in the texts I'm
working
> with:
>
> I've decided to go with the "standard" "if" at the end of words like
"city"
> just to keep in step with what seems to be the prevailing majority
opinion.

Erm, I think I must be one of the only people who support the use of the
character in this way. You will probably find that most other people will
use 'eat' instead. It's your choice really.

> When translating words like "don't" and "can't" are they transliterated
with
> our without the apostrophe?

Without, generally. It's only used in Shavian when showing posession, from
what I've seen.

> With titles that preceed a person's name like "Judge Thatcher" is "Judge"
> written with the namer dot or not?

Hmm... what I do myself is put the namer dot before both words, because it's
someone's title.

> Likewise with relationship specifiers like "Aunt Polly". Does "Aunt"
receive
> the dot or not?

I would think so, because it's also a sort of 'title', less of a literary
description such as 'polly, my aunt' or 'my aunt, polly'.

> With compound names where the second word is a common noun, like
> "Mississippi Valley", does Valley use the namer dot or not?

Again, I would think so. Both words are part of the name, so both would take
the dot.

> Thanks in advance for any opinions, cannonical citations, etc.

Heheee... (if you mean what I think you mean) sorry about the structure of
my last posts, I never mean to rant on, in fact I probably have a lot less
experience with the alphabet than most people here - I'm just outspoken. :)

> Also, I would like to ask again if anyone has or knows of an Androcles
> glossary?

I honestly believe that Androcles is the only real piece of literature that
describes the mechanics of the alphabet... if there is anything else written
about the same time by the same people, I'd like to know about it...

> --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/_/974919701/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Gary,
I think it would be well for you to bear in mind that many of the
questions you ask here, and many of those you come up with (choosing Mark
Twain to transliterate was certainly a way to provoke questions!) can never
be answered from the limited amount of material in "Androcles and the Lion."
Examples of what you are asking about, simply don't occur.
But I am, as a professional Ph.D.-type linguist, in favor of letting
Shavian script evolve naturally anyway. All languages evolve, and writing
systems are one of the places where we can see their evolution most clearly.
I design writing systems for unwritten languages, or more accurately I adapt
them, and I let them change to meet people's needs after my part of the job
is finished.
I encourage you to do the same with your Shavian. Write as you speak, or
as you think is best. I would use the namer dot with the "Judge" in "Judge
Thatcher." I certainly do not use "if" as the last vowel in the word,
"city." To me, that destroys entirely the phonetic nature of the Shavian
script for English. And my father from Kansas City (I don't use his last
name) would roll over in his grave at 78 rpm, if I wrote "Missour-ih" or
"Missour-ee" for what was to him as an article of faith "Missour-uh."
If your writing of Shavian is not understandable to someone, especially
someone on this list, believe me--they will let you know!! This is not a shy
lot in my experience. At this point there are no "experts" in Shavian; there
are just "users" of Shavian. If anyone claims Shavian Infallibility, I would
like to know the basis for their claims.
On the other hand, I would like to suggest a weekly (?) element for the
Shavian e-group. I would like to see someone post a paragraph of Shavian
transliteration to all the members of the group every week or two. It should
be posted without a text in the accompanying "Standard English Spelling," in
order to maintain its value for intelligibility testing. After the posting,
I would like to see group members' comments on the spelling used in the
"Regular Paragraph." This would be, I think, a wonderful way to promote the
evolution of Shavian spelling. For me, a really valuable response to such a
posting would be from people who cannot understand a word in the posting.
That would provide me with really valuable information.
If we keep the regular postings relatively short, the members would not
be required to take a large amount of time out of their busy schedules in
order to comment on the text. All of us are pretty busy. This is the same
procedure that is commonly used to test the intelligibility of a script that
has been newly adapted for an previously unwritten language.
If no one else wants to start, I would be glad to post one of the poems
or a few Bible verses I have transliterated. I often have questions about
the spellings of some of the words in passages I have transliterated, and I
know I would appreciate feed back on what people think of my spellings. I
put out this idea about a regular paragraph for group comment.
I do not recommend "Huck Finn" as a sample for intelligibility testing,
Gary. It's a delightful book, but hard to understand for even Midwestern
English speakers, until we get used to the dialects represented.
Daniel Szczurek, Ph.D. (Anthropological Linguistics)

----------
>From: "Gary Shannon" <reboot@...>
>To: <shavian@...>
>Subject: [shavian] A Couple Questions for the Experts
>Date: Nov Wed, 2000, 09:53
>

> As I get closer to having a smooth enough version of my translation program
> to start doing large-scale masses of translations I need to get
> clarification on a couple points that have come up in the texts I'm working
> with:

>
> --gary

PS. I have a copy of "Androcles" somewhere in the house that I can xerox for
you, until you find a copy that you can buy. It is better ethically, I
think, to buy a copy if you can find one. I am aware, however, that this can
be difficult. My personal belief, however, is that it is best not to take a
small amount of writing as definitive for all writing in any spelling
system, especially one like English where the vowels are extremely variable.
The members of this group can provide a larger sample of written Shavian.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/54531/_/974921816/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

On 22 Nov 00, at 18:39, Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

> > Anyone else, do you want a link to your Shavian pages added? Hugh?
> > Anyone?
>
> Yes please Philip - that would be really great. Also, if you want any
> extra content produced for it, perhaps, I'd be glad to contribute
> something. Just say what you'd like.

Er, could any of you who are interested in being linked to please mail
me the URL or send it to the group? I don't remember all of them and
don't want to have to dig through 619 messages in my folder the find
them :-)

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

-------------------------- 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/_/974921862/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

The new version (0.1) of my Windows Shavian translator program has been
uploaded with all known bugs fixed. (125K including glossary and sample
text.)

Before I get too deeply into Huckleberry Finn I would really appreciate it
if anyone has the time to read the translation of Chapter One (it's fairly
short), which is posted on my web page. I'd like to correct any errors in
the glossary before I proceed with the translation.

The translaor program can be downloaded from
http://www.teleport.com/~fiziwig/xlate.html which has a link to the
Huckleberry Finn text, or you can go to the text directly at
http://www.teleport.com/~fiziwig/hfinn.html A Shavian font will be required
to read the translation, of course.

--gary


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/54531/_/974922047/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Okay, I'm going to stick my neck out here. I like the Shaw alphabet, but I don't consider it perfect. I believe ultimately, one of the reasons why it will never be widely adopted as a spelling reform is that it's TOO phonemic, especially where vowels are concerned.

It deals a little too deeply with the phonetic reality of sounds as opposed to the English speakers' conceptions of English sounds. I dislike having to pause for 10 seconds and pronounce a word a few times to decide for myself if it's an AH, ON, or an AWE.

Obviously, Read himself was uncomfortable with the extreme phonemicism and began making exceptions right away, viz. using ADO for both "a" and "an," for instance, as well as the abbreviations.
A further example of a desire to a conceptual phonemic alphabet was the combined forms with "r." Read recognized that it's important to communicate an "r" even when we don't pronounce it.

Personally, I really like the combined letters. I see no reason to limit IAN to stressed syllables, and I've noticed that "Shavian" usually seems to be spelled /SEvWn, not /SEvIan.

What seems to me to be a more sensible solution, and how I might use the alphabet, is to use long, short, and shwa letters as they are conceived, not necessarily as they sound.

For instance,
SHWA family
Pure vowel- use (as currently) short a,e,i,o,u.
Incidental sound between consonants (eg,"able")-- do not spell.
Incidental glide after vowels ("fire")--do not spell.
before R --use ARRAY

"A" family:
ASH- for the "flat" sound and those shwas spelled with an A currently. (This was Read's own practice re "a" and "an")
AH- for the broad "ah" sound in "father" and similar sounds conceived as broad a's
AGE-for the long "ay" sound.
ARE- for the ah+r sound
AIR-for the ay+r sound
ARRAY for the shwa+

"E" family:
EGG- for the short "eh" sound and shwas spelled with an E currently
EAT-for the long "ee" sound, and and similar sounds in common word endings (terminal y's, "-ing", etc.)
AIR-for the eh+r sound
ARRAY for the shwa+r
EAR for the ee+r sound

"I" Family
IF- for the short "ih" sound and shwas spelled with an I currently
ICE- for the long "i" sound
ARRAY for the if+r and shwa+r
ICE+ROAR for the sound in "fire" The shwa between the long I dipthong and the R is completely unavoidable, it occurs naturally, so why bother to note it when we all conceive of the sound as long i + r anyway? Perhaps a new letter could be created here.

"O" Family
ON-for the short o, shwas currently spelled with o, and similar sounds conceived as O. (This may take the place of AWE for many).
OAK- for the long O.
OR for sounds conceived as a non-shwa o+r

"U and OO" Family
ADO- for the short "uh" and shwas currently spelled as U. (Not UP, which I find too similar to ICE in shape, and illogically without a mirror variant)
WOOL- for the short 'oo'
OOZE- for the long 'oo'
YEW-for the long 'you"
OOZE+ROAR for sounds conceived as a non-shwa u+r or oo+r Again, an opportunity for a new letter.

IAN- for ih+shwa and ee+shwa wherever they occur, stressed or unstressed.

Personally, I'm more comfortable without OIL and OUT. These are conceived as diphthongs by us now, so why not continue to write them as diphthongs. It will be objected that ATE, YEW, OAK, and ICE are all also composite sounds, but the difference is that they are CONCEIVED currently as single sounds.
I'd prefer to omit UP, ERR, AWE, OIL and OUT. I think that omitting them make forgiving slight dialectical differences easier, and spelling more intuitive. Perhaps though, OOZE+R, ICE+R can get their own letters to preserve the symmetry.

Let the flames begin!
---
Shalom v'Tovah,
Jon Zuck
Web URL: http://surf.to/frimmin

It is more important to love much than to think much.
Always do that which most impels you to love.
--St. Teresa of Avila

eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=974923286?>

Ugh. Just realized how long-winded and awkward my previous post was. Let me try again, hopefully a little clearer:

I find a certain awkwardness of Shaw Alphabet is that is specifies more sounds than we generally think about, being non-linguists. (And that awkwardness is the fuel for a very good amount of the posts here.) Furthermore, anything awkward replacing something familiar is going to be a tough sell, so if the extreme phonemicism of Shaw can be relaxed slightly, I believe using it can be much more intuitive for newcomers (instead of having to consciously think about peculiarities of their pronunciation), dialectal differences can still be expressed, but needn't be quite so glaring, and at-sight reading/semi-standard spellings are more easily facilitated.

Read found it desirable for instance to "express" R's even when he didn't pronounce them, which like Bob Richmond, I consider a stroke of genius. It preserves a sense of the old spelling, and sensitivity to Rhoticists like moi (mwy). Similarly, he represented "a" and "an" both with an ADO, despite very different sounds. He felt that consistency to the concept "a short or schwa A is the vowel sound in the indefinite article" was more important than rigid phonetic representation.

I find the distinction between stressed and unstressed unnecessary. I think ARRAY can replace ERR with nothing lost (Read himself replaced ERR in Quikscript). Similarly, I think ADO can replace UP, since the only distinction is stress. UP also is a odd character with no mirror shape which has a terrible tendency to look like ICE.

This idea will be controversial, but I would be sparing in my use of ADO. I would use it when a Roman U has a schwa sound. When A, E, I, or O are schwa, I'd use ASH, EGG, IF, and ON, with that generous understanding that sometimes these letters are vague schwas, and sometimes clear "short" vowels.
I'd use IAN wherever there's an IAN sound, ShavIAn or fIAt. (which I pronounce fiyt.) When schwa isn't marked with a vowel, don't mark it with the Shaw Alphabet either. We're English speakers, not amateur linguists. Hence, let's let fire be fFr, and able be abl. However, I'd spell Huckleberry as /hakelbXI.
(an EGG representing the schwa E.)

AH, AWE, and ON seem problematic for many people. I simply don't understand AWE at all, and won't use it. I think most people will agree the sounds are close, even if they are distinct vowels, so why not let the concept rule over minor pronunication differences: If it's a Roman a, use AH, if it's a Roman O, or an AW, use ON. I'd dispense with AWE as splitting hairs. (No more would Robert be spelled /rybxt, but as /robDt.)

I prefer EAT to IF for word endings like terminal -Y, -LY or -ING. It seems closer to the actual pronunciation, but the same understood allowable variations are there just in case anyone actually does say "citih."

Not a major point, but I don't like OIL and OUT. Unlike our present long vowels, most of which are presently diphthongs, these are presently conceived by us a diphthongs. They're fussy to write, and they are a dyslexic's nightmare, and even though I'm not dyslexic, I can't keep them straight. I'd write Oil and yUt.

Now that I've pist of the whole Shavian community, go ahead and let me hear about it. :-)
---
Shalom v'Tovah,
Jon Zuck
Web URL: http://surf.to/frimmin

It is more important to love much than to think much.
Always do that which most impels you to love.
--St. Teresa of Avila



eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=150967.1016644.2717500.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700019510:N/A=468535/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N1198.egroups.com/B26105;sz=468x60;ord=974937674?>