Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

----------
>From: "Gary Shannon" <reboot@...>
>To: <shavian@...>
>Subject: [shavian] Translator Program v0.2
>Date: Nov Mon, 2000, 10:44
>

>
> [An aside from a letter to Dutton from Shaw regarding Speedwords:
> "Not only is the Speedwords ideography scientifically ingenious, but it is
> very strong on the economic point, so stupidly neglected by all your
> predecessors. What I am interested in is the enormous quantity of
> unnecessary manual labour wasted every day in writing, typing, and printing.
> When we are at peace and The Times is in full blast, it often contains a
> million words a day. A saving of even ten per cent, would leave 100,000
> fewer words to write and set up, to say nothing of a saving in paper." --
> G. Bernard Shaw]

My earlier suggestion to abbreviate more common words of English in the Shaw
Alphabet writing system, in line with this suggestion, was greeted with the
response that it would be too hard to learn, if we did this. It seems to me
that this is what is being suggested here again.
Dan Szczurek

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/54531/_/975371961/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

I do not know what to do to "sign in" to gain access to this file.
Dan Szczurek

----------
>From: <shavian@...>
>To: shavian@...
>Subject: [shavian] New file uploaded to shavian
>Date: Nov Sun, 2000, 18:56
>

>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the shavian
> group.
>
> File : /texts/second.pdf
> Uploaded by : jaysonb@...
> Description : Second Shaw - Comparison to Traditional Letters
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> http://www.egroups.com/files/shavian/texts/second%2Epdf
>
> To learn more about eGroups file sharing, please visit
>
> http://www.egroups.com/help/files.html
>
>
> Regards,
>
> jaysonb@...

-------------------------- 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/_/975375020/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

A clarification of my reply to Hugh:

The reading guiide is inadequate because to my ears, in my middle American dialect the initial vowels in "ado", "on", and "ah" are PRECISLEY identical sounds. Mr. Read clearly did not indent to create three different letter forms to represent a single sound. From the reading guide I have no way of deciding which sounds he meant to apply to those three letters. And since I think that "ah" is a fussy little widget that's hard to draw I don't use it at all. I also tend to use "ado" only as the initial sound of words that start with "a" in Roman. Not becuase I tthink it sounds any different than "on" but as a reminder of the word's Roman origin and an aid to quick recognition.

Using Andorcles as the source for deciding what the sounds are is also inadequate because Androcles was rendered into Shavian with a British accent. Seeing "father" spelled with one vowel, "on" with a second, and "ado" with a thrid brings me no closer to understanding what sound was indended for those three vowels. They still sound the same to me whether on the reading guide or in the context of Androcles.

The sound described by Hugh as the "on" sound is, as near as I can tell, a sound which does not even exist in Amercian English. Perhaps the whole idea of a phonetic alphabet is doomed by the existence of accents varrying from Cockney to Brooklyn, to Autralian, to New Delhi. Was Shaw's desire to have a truely phontenic alphabet, or merely one in which sounds were represented in one consistent manner, without fussing over the nuances of what they actually sounded like?

As long as there are disputes over "siti" vs "sitee", and fussing over which vowel or vowels are superfluous then clearly Shaw's intent of a simplified and consistent system has not be met by Shavian.

--gary

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=975375795?>

> > BTW: Second Shaw sounds derivative and "secondary," and
> > Quickscript sounds like a shorthand that would never be worthy
> > of print or typefaces. Would it be worth the trouble to
> > consider a new name for this alphabet, or should we leave well
> > enough alone. Roger, Paige, Jayson, anyone?
>
> Just a thought: How about Shaw - Millenial Edition? :-)
> Lux

We can follow Microsoft and abbreviate Millennial Edition to ME. Then we
can abbreviate Shaw to Sha. Let's call it ShaME! :-)

A couple of serious thoughts. I like the First Shaw script for its
angularity and strength. Second Shaw for just the opposite reason: its
soft, cursive approach.

so first suggestion: Soft Shaw
second suggestion: Since the (first) Shaw alphabet honors its commissioner,
why not
let the second alphabet honor its creator, and call it the Read alphabet?

---
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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lux Lucre" <luxlucre@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 2:42 PM
Subject: [shavian] Re: A Modest Proposal


> --- In shavian@..., "Jon Zuck" <frimmin@e...> wrote:

>
>
>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/54531/_/975376704/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Just uploaded this into the new Reference folder.

See the file for details.
Proposal for clarifying the Second Shaw alphabet letter names.

All proposed names are identical to First Shaw letter names when
their counterparts exist, except as indicated below:

* All and Ed are proposed over Awe and Egg, to make pronunciation
clearer. For instance, I pronounce "egg" like "Ayg."
Ed suggests the intended sound to me better. Is All more helpful than
Awe?
**Changed Dead and Gag because the names were just too negative.
Imagine a Shavian world where cheerleaders shout:
"Give me a Dead!"
"DEAD!"
"Give me a Gag!"
"GAG!"
Makes me want to gag :-). I favor Deed and Gig.

*** These were changed to complete a cool symmetry which Read
implied, but did not continue, namely that every consonant says it's
sound twice in the name, like the Hebrew letters Mem and Nun. It is
possible even if you have to use some repetitions like Ha-ha and Yo-
yo. With some of the letters, they even show alternate ways the
sound is spelled in Roman. Inkling, for instance, shows that the N
sound is spelled n in the first syllable, and NG in the second
syllable. . So I suggest Inkling, Sis, Shush, Thoth, Thither,
Valve, Win-win, Whitewheat, Yo-yo, Zoos, and Zsa-Zsa, to take the
place of Hung, So, Sure, Thigh, They, Vie, Woe (also a downer!), Why,
Zoo, and Measure. Also, now the key sound is ALWAYS the first
consonant in the name

Is there a better way to do it? Let me know your suggestions!


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/54531/_/975380954/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the shavian
group.

File : /Reference/Second Shaw.htm
Uploaded by : frimmin@...
Description : Proposal for clarifying Second Shaw Alphabet

You can access this file at the URL

http://www.egroups.com/files/shavian/Reference/Second+Shaw%2Ehtm

To learn more about eGroups file sharing, please visit

http://www.egroups.com/help/files.html


Regards,

frimmin@...





-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/54531/_/975381077/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

nOtis v rivOkESn v indipendans

[snip]

hI hI... F hAv red His bifP, but not in /SEvian! :) F wundD hM fxst rOt HAt...

/hV

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shannon <mailto:reboot@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [shavian] A Modest Proposal


[snip]

The problem as I see it is that you and I don't pronounce "on" the same way. That being the case how do we convey, in print, just what sound "on" is supposed to be? And if the sound that the letter stands for is different in different dialects then the alphabet isn't at all phonetic, since the letterform baers no relationship to the sound. Same letterform, two very different sounds depending on dialect. That's the problem with the reading guide.

I don't recall the alphabet ever claiming to be 'phonetic'. It's 'phonemic', not phonetic. If you want phoneticism, you have to use something like the IPA. You cannot expect readers from all over the world to pronounce one Shavian letter exactly as every other would, it's not only unreasonable but it's impossible. Also, if every Shavian character were made to represent ONE sound universally pronounced, spellings differences would INCREASE, rather than diminish. Shavian phonemes should be pronounced differently by readers depending on their own pronunciation.

I think if we each made an audio recording of what we believe each vowel sound to be we would find that we are not at all in agreement about some of the vowels, and I think THAT is the source of all, or at least most of the controversy about which letter to use in a given spelling.

Take the letter 'at'. Over here is closer to 'ah', over there it is closer to 'egg'. Who should get the 'right' to use the letter 'at' in words such as 'apple', 'sat', 'mat', 'lamb', etc. etc. etc.? It is your version or mine? That is why we use the same Shavian letter for what we both know is a different sound. What you are saying is that one particular dialect's own specification for that Shavian letter should be 'designated', which would of course mean that either one of us (or anyone else in the world with a differing pronunciation) would have to change the letter we use for the words such as those I mentioned, thus making reading anything written darned near impossible. Imagine this kind of scenario if ALL the Shavian letters were attached to a specific sound like this! Quite simply, chaos!!! The approach would simply not work.

I'm only trying to reach some sort of agreement, internationally so to speak, about what sound "on" is so we know where it is appropriate to use that letter in our writing. There are those who have posted in this group that the Shavian "awe" is superfluous because that sound is already covered by "on". Clearly we are not in agreement as to what "on" sounds like. If we can clear up these issues then most of the controversy goes away.

'On' is how YOU pronounce it. How do you pronounce 'on'? It's as simple as that. That is the same for me, the same for peeps in Australia, the same for everyone. If you don't have that phoneme, you have to leave it out or, alternatively, find out where it occurs in other dialects such as British English and include it that way (for optimum intelligibility's sake).

--gary

Hugh

On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, at 02:41 AM, Gary Shannon wrote:

A clarification of my reply to Hugh:

The reading guiide is inadequate because to my ears, in my middle American dialect the initial vowels in "ado", "on", and "ah" are PRECISLEY identical sounds. Mr. Read clearly did not indent to create three different letter forms to represent a single sound. From the reading guide I have no way of deciding which sounds he meant to apply to those three letters. And since I think that "ah" is a fussy little widget that's hard to draw I don't use it at all. I also tend to use "ado" only as the initial sound of words that start with "a" in Roman. Not becuase I tthink it sounds any different than "on" but as a reminder of the word's Roman origin and an aid to quick recognition.

Using Andorcles as the source for deciding what the sounds are is also inadequate because Androcles was rendered into Shavian with a British accent. Seeing "father" spelled with one vowel, "on" with a second, and "ado" with a thrid brings me no closer to understanding what sound was indended for those three vowels. They still sound the same to me whether on the reading guide or in the context of Androcles.

The sound described by Hugh as the "on" sound is, as near as I can tell, a sound which does not even exist in Amercian English. Perhaps the whole idea of a phonetic alphabet is doomed by the existence of accents varrying from Cockney to Brooklyn, to Autralian, to New Delhi. Was Shaw's desire to have a truely phontenic alphabet, or merely one in which sounds were represented in one consistent manner, without fussing over the nuances of what they actually sounded like?

As long as there are disputes over "siti" vs "sitee", and fussing over which vowel or vowels are superfluous then clearly Shaw's intent of a simplified and consistent system has not be met by Shavian.

--gary

I have noted in Shavian literature that there are assumptions used when spelling specific words. For example, we have a definite way to spell the word "a" and the word "an" even though I am sure this list of 50+ people will pronounce each in at least 10 different ways. Therefore, we see definite uses of Shavian where the word's orthography takes precedence over its pronunciation. Another simple example is the word "the" which has a specific Shavian orthography independent of its pronunciation.

On the other hand we have a lot of words that have different pronunciations but the same Roman spelling - e.g., "controversy", which I would transliterate into Shavian in a manner different that someone from England since I am attempting to use some sort of American English as my guide. Note that I actually pronounce "controversy" and "schedule" and a bunch of other words like a Brit because I spent quite a few years in England in my youth.

And the third case is where we actually have different spellings for the same word - e.g., "aluminum" and "aluminium". This I find to be the least problematic since they would be rendered differently in Shavian and a reader would just have to learn the two words and know they refer to the same thing. It is like reading Urdu and seeing a "Hindi" word versus a "Persian" word. They can mean the same thing, but which word being used gives the reader a different sense of the writer's intent, background, etc.

What I have chosen to do in my transliteration of words is to use my generic American pronunciation as a guide and attempt to follow standards that were set out in Androcles. However, I have no problem diverging from the Androcles words because of pronunciation differences. I do use the four abbreviations that are documented, but none of the others. Therefore, the word "to" differs in Shavian than "too" and "two" in my usage (the latter two being the same).

I propose that we document the definite conventions that we use when transliterating so we can come up with a core set of words whose orthography ignores the pronunciation used locally. At my current level of understanding it is quite small so should not be a problem. Note that an individual's pronunciation of the word will not necessarily match the orthography, but such is life.

The only problem I can see with making these assumptions is now people will say that this should be done for all words, and therefore we should adopt the Androcles spelling of all words and model others on it. This would give us the same problems we have with Roman spelling today. Therefore, I think we should not go down this path. However, why would one adopt a specific set of conventions for a small number of words that ignore pronunciation?

I hate problems like these because there are judgment calls involved and being a programmer I like things to be precise. Note that is why the version of my documents are all less than 1.0 because people may find issues with my transliteration of words and may be able to convince me that I should change something. Of course if we were to come up with some standards we can all use, then that may cause me to change my documents as well.

Sorry for rambling...

--Scott

<snip>

I hate problems like these because there are judgment calls involved and being a programmer I like things to be precise. Note that is why the version of my documents are all less than 1.0 because people may find issues with my transliteration of words and may be able to convince me that I should change something. Of course if we were to come up with some standards we can all use, then that may cause me to change my documents as well.

Sorry for rambling...

--Scott

I agree that when things are indefinite and up in the air I feel uncomfortable with it. I'm not sure whether to go ahead with more chapters from "The Land that Time Forgot" or whether my previous translations need to be revised or "fixed".

On the other hand, looking back over the posts here in Shavian, and perusing the available Shavian text on line I find that probably 90% of the spellings that differ from one writer to the next involve either a difference in the use of "ado", "on" and "ah", and a difference in the use of "or", "are", "array", and "er". Other minor differences seem related to stress. I've seen three different spelling of "forget", for example, using "or", "er" and "array".

On balance, those "controversies" seem pretty small compared to the vast number of words for which we seem to have all agreed on a single spelling. It hardly seems worth any kind of major revision of the system just to make these few ambiguities go away. I would, however, really like to know Mr. Read's intention for what "ado"/"on"/"ah" sound like and what ""are"/"array"/"er" sound like.

--gary


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=975429349?>