Shavian eGroup Archive Browser

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shannon <mailto:reboot@...>
To: shavian@... <mailto:shavian@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 7:51 PM
Subject: [shavian] Access to Androcles

it Okxd t mI t wundx if H kopIrFt hOldxz v /andrOklIz, nQ HAt it's lYN Qt v print, mFt bI Open t H FdW v pUtiN H /SEvIen tekst up on H intxnet, P At lIst alQiN sumwun els t pOst H tekst.

F'm SUD hMevD Onz it wil not mFnd enIwE. wot posibal problam kUd HE hAv wiH it, yftD Yl?

in an unrIlEtid lFn v TYt, wut dO V supOz mFt bI dun t inkrIs publik awXnes v /SEvIen? F dOn't prOpOz HAt wI Yl gO dP t dP proselitFziN, but F'm SMr HX R litl wEz in wic wI kAn "ekspOz" uHxz t it unobtrMsivlI. lFk haNiN a nFs pIs v /SEvIen kaligrAfI on H Yfis wYl, P bIiN sIn rIdiN a /SEvIen bUk on H bus to wxk. (grAntid HX'z a sevC SpteJ v /SEvEin bUks t bI hAd, but F'm tqiN wiT H FdW v rIvFviN H bUkbFndiN skilz F pikt up in skMl n mEkiN a kumpVtx-printid, hAnd-bQmd limitid ediSun v wun kopI v sum smYl bUk fP mF On amVzment. wiT a dIsent printX prOdMsiN a fV duzin stEpl-bQnd bUklets tO giv t frendz wUd bI cFld's plE. :-)

wun TiN F hAv nOtist iz His: wen pIpal kum rQnd t mFn, n sI mI rFtiN in His Alfabet, HE R verI intDestid indId. HE ysk mI Yl abQt it - hQ it wxks, wot H simbalz mIn, hQ difDant Aksents kAn bI undDstUd, ets. wen HE ysk if HX iz enI gUd litDacD publiSt in it, F hAv t SO Hem /AndraklIz - HE tEk a brIf lUk TrM it, n giv it bAk, sumwot unimprest. H OnlI pIs v publiSt litDacD F kAn rekanemd t Hem iz (1) Qt v print, (2) viZMalI unapIliN, n (3) Just unintDestiN in txmz v kontent.

F TiNk sumwun (pDhAps a fV v us) SUd TiNk abQt pradVsiN a nV '/AndraklIz' - a noval, P uHD loN-iS stPI, pradVst in a bF-Alfabetikal fPmAt. it wUdant dM Just t rI-rilIs H /AndraklIz stPI, bikoz not HAt menI pIpal wUd wont t pik it up n rId it. HAt wUd bI a gUd wE v stRtiN H 'rI-rilIs' v /SEvIan HAt iz loN OvDdV nQ.

Ivan if H Alfabet wuns agen fElz t kApcD wFdspred intDest, At lIst wI wil bI aSUDiN HAt anuHD JenDESan gets t nO HAt His Alfabet igzists, Hus kIpiN it alFv.

insidentlI, in prMfrIdiN H teksts F'v trAnslEtid wiT mF trAnslESun prOgrAm F'v fQnd n kPektid nMmxus tFpOz n speliN Xxz in H glYsxI, wic nQ kuntEnz abQt 5,000 wxdz. E wil bI pOstiN H kPektid trAnslESunz Az tFm alQz.

--gXI

/hV

Hello all,

The last message I sent was a message encoded using UTF-8, which of course contained Shavian (Shaw) letters at their current Unicode points. I take it people were not able to read it, otherwise they would have answered.

I am interested in discovering whether people are able to read and write UTF-8 mail messages because I imagine this is where we should be going with communications using Shavian. I have been a long proponent of Unicode and find that more and more people are switching over to it. I think it would be wise of us to adopt it as "our standard" as well, especially since it would allow us to mix alphabets in the same message without silly font changes.

As I have stated in the past, I am willing to help anyone I can to start using Unicode for Shavian. I am not really familiar with all the ins and outs of Windows, but have been able to image my Shavian web pages on both Netscape and Microsoft browsers on Windows.

I am writing this in Latin because for me to type in Shavian, my machine actually generates the Unicode characters and I would then have to switch them through a conversion process to get them into the characters most of you expect. Already I have to take your messages and pass them through a filter in order to read them because I have my machine deal only in Unicode.

--
Scott Harrison

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/54531/_/976788761/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

I am not able to read either your postings or your web page. Other web
pages that use one of the several common Shavian true type fonts I can read
just fine.

I think people will tend to use whichever requires the least special
gymnastics on their part to use. If one builds a web page that requires
some kind of unusual process be performed before it can be read then, IMHO,
people won't read it. Unicode may be better than ASCII, but Betamax was
better than VHS, and still lost out in the market,and for the same reason
that the superior Mac is losing out to the inferior Windows. I can't
support adopting as a standard something which most computer users are
unfamiliar with and son't know how to use.

This is certainly not the place for debates about how good products are
killed by poor marketing, so suffice it to say that in practical reality the
only "standard" will be the de facto standard adopted by default, and unless
Windows goes to Unicode users won't go to Unicode.

my 2 cents worth.

--gary


----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Harrison" <scott_harrison@...>
To: <shavian@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 2:12 AM
Subject: [shavian] UTF-8 mail messages


> Hello all,
>
> The last message I sent was a message encoded using UTF-8, which of course
contained Shavian (Shaw) letters at their current Unicode points. I take it
people were not able to read it, otherwise they would have answered.
>
> I am interested in discovering whether people are able to read and write
UTF-8 mail messages because I imagine this is where we should be going with
communications using Shavian. I have been a long proponent of Unicode and
find that more and more people are switching over to it. I think it would
be wise of us to adopt it as "our standard" as well, especially since it
would allow us to mix alphabets in the same message without silly font
changes.

<snip>



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Try "Tellme"! Call 1-800-555-TELL
News, weather, restaurants...& much more.
BONUS: make FREE long distance calls!
http://click.egroups.com/1/10796/1/_/54531/_/976810410/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Dear Scott,
Perhaps you didn't give people enough time to respond to your message. I
personally don't have time to respond to all messages in a short time.
Sincerely, Fr. Daniel Szczurek

----------
>From: Scott Harrison <scott_harrison@...>
>To: shavian@...
>Subject: [shavian] UTF-8 mail messages
>Date: Dec Thu, 2000, 02:12
>

> Hello all,
>
> The last message I sent was a message encoded using UTF-8, which of course
> contained Shavian (Shaw) letters at their current Unicode points. I take
> it people were not able to read it, otherwise they would have answered.
>
> I am interested in discovering whether people are able to read and write
> UTF-8 mail messages because I imagine this is where we should be going with
> communications using Shavian. I have been a long proponent of Unicode and
> find that more and more people are switching over to it. I think it would
> be wise of us to adopt it as "our standard" as well, especially since it
> would allow us to mix alphabets in the same message without silly font
changes.
>
> As I have stated in the past, I am willing to help anyone I can to start
> using Unicode for Shavian. I am not really familiar with all the ins and
> outs of Windows, but have been able to image my Shavian web pages on both
> Netscape and Microsoft browsers on Windows.
>
> I am writing this in Latin because for me to type in Shavian, my machine
> actually generates the Unicode characters and I would then have to switch
> them through a conversion process to get them into the characters most of
> you expect. Already I have to take your messages and pass them through a
> filter in order to read them because I have my machine deal only in Unicode.
>
> --
> Scott Harrison
>
>
>
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/54531/_/976823702/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Gary Shannon wrote:
> http://www.teleport.com/~fiziwig/shaw.html now contains the following
> Shavian texts:

I put up a link to it at shavian.org.

Cheers,
Philip

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/54531/_/976892207/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

o On- is the short o sound. If I'm understanding my dictionary right, this sound is pretty strongly associated with the Roman letter o. On, hot, not, etc.

I'd say so, yes. (I notice I also pronounce "fault" with this sound, though.)

Y Awe- is the sound we Americans might make in fall, ball, and a few other words. I think our Commonwealth Comrades say it not only there, but also when they see au, aw, all, and sometimes o. fought?

Yes, "fought" has the AWE vowel for me, as do fall, awe, raw, haul, thought, auction, haunt, and audio.

Cheers,
Philip

eGroups Sponsor
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=102308.1038796.2731130.908943/D=egroupmail/S=1700619718:N/A=466331/?http://features.yahoo.com/webceleb/carrey/>

Hal Fulton wrote:
> Apparently I had not been to the egroups website in perhaps
> a month. I just read a ton of messages.

Sounds familiar -- I'm just going through about three weeks' worth of
articles, which came to about 150 :)

> 5. Re: "thither." Someone implied that the "th" sounds here were the
> same. How many of you do/don't say it that way? I've always pronounced
> it with an unvoiced th at the beginning and a voiced one near the end.

I pronounce it that way, too. In Shavian: TiHD.

> 6. Scott implies that Brits pronounce "controversy" differently from
> Americans. How so??

Brits: (Shavian) kontravxsI or (ASCII IPA) /'kA.ntr@,vV"si/, Americans
(Shavian) kontrovxsI or (ASCII IPA) /kOn'trOv@rsi/. Roughly: B
CON-truh-ver-see, A can-TRO-vur-see. I think.

> 7. Concerning words such as "president." Note that the second e is
> in an unaccented syllable, causing it to be somewhat slurred or
> hurried over. But I strive to "think" an e even when I can't hear it
> in a recording of my own voice. I really believe I'm saying an e. Oh,
> certainly, the sound is modified. But it is not justifiable, IMO, to
> pronounce it as "uh" as some pseudo-spellings would do. (Some would
> do the same with the i also.)

Dialects differ, I suppose. I'd spell it in Shavian as prezadant, since both
the I and the second E are shwas for me.

> 9. President yet again. What about related forms, like "presidential"?
> If I say/write "presidunt," should I say/write "presiduntial" or not?

I say no. You don't pronounce them the same, so you shouldn't spell them the
same IMO. Shavian is phonemic, not etymological. My spellings: prezadant,
prezadenSal.

Cheers,
Philip

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/54531/_/976896945/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Lux Lucre wrote:
> Yes I think we should have a good links page there, at the very
> least.

I added a bunch of links today, from Google's directory and also from links
on those pages. Anyone else? Scott Harrison, what's your site's address?

> How much web space does the site have at present?

10 MB are available at the moment. Very little of this is used :-)

Offers to provide content are welcome. I could also host people under
subdirectories if they wish.

Cheers,
Philip

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/54531/_/976897083/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
> How does everyone here pronounce the word 'vehemently'?

vi-uh-ment-ly, with the first two syllables being as in my pronunciation of
"vehicle". They sort-of rhyme with "veer", as if the word were spelled
veermently (though the R is not pronounced).

Cheers,
Philip

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/54531/_/976897223/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Gary Shannon wrote:
> unless Windows goes to Unicode users won't go to Unicode.

Windows NT uses Unicode internally :-). So if you have the correct font,
Shavian should display correctly. However, I don't think there's a keyboard
input method that produces the Shavian Unicode code points. But that's
probably because it's such a minority (there's no keyboard input method for
Esperanto, either, and the letters are there in the free fonts Microsoft
provides on its page and there are more Esperanto speakers than Shavian
writers, I'll wager).

Cheers,
Philip

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/54531/_/976897805/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->