Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

I wasn't referring to keyboard Shavian, though I can work that out easily enough.
Actually, I meant that the display Shavian was much easier to read than the others.
Specifically, I was referring to this article: http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/
j31/shawbett.html

I pronounce appreciated as /apriSIEtad/ rather than /aprISIETad/.

But reading all this about automated transliteration and changing orthography has
given me an idea. Why not store text in one orthography (whatever is the preference
of the writer) and allow a computer to convert when necessary to display it according
to the preference of the reader? This wouldn't work very well for T.O., but as long as
we're spelling phonemically, it's basically all the same.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Is Keyboard Shavian easy to read?
>
> Paul,
>
> How do you pronounce appreciated?
> aprISIEtad aprISIEtad
>
> H advAntaJ v VziN a fOnEmik rFtiN sistam iz
> H abilati tM spel Az V spEk.
>
> I found it interesting that you find keyboard Shavian easier to read than
> keyboard Unifon.
> This is a minority view but it may be near consensus view in this group. We
> need some more readers to post their views.
> For a Shavian - Unifon correspondence table see
> http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/14-unifon-ipa-shavian16.gif
>
> The whole article can be found at
> http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/shavian-short.html
>
> For another article on Shavian see
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j31/shawbett.html

Hi Steve

You said in your last response you said that

"In English we take the step because we don't want to be cut off
from the past. We don't just want to be literate. We want to be
literate in the traditional code."

And then you discussed the secondary role of the Shavian Alphabet.
While I agree Shavian as a Secondary or Alternate Alphabet as a
first step is better than nothing, I think that the only that
prevents the Shaw Alphabet from replacing the Roman Alphabet for
English, is the lack awareness of its availability, by the people
who need it.
Catch-22. You have to be fairly literate to find out about the
Shavian Alphabet. And once you are literate, you don't need it.

You say that you work with People trying to gain their literacy.
I know what time-consuming and difficult activity it is for an Adult
to become literate in the Roman Alphabet

But if you tell him, hey.
Buy a better Computer interface.
Learn a Phonetic Alphabet in a couple months.

And then you get literacy in the Shaw Format
- You can get information, contact and mail via the internet.
- You can get most of the benefits of literacy, in terms of making
notes, agenda, schedules, address books.
- improvement in Learning other things.
- You can send text messages.
- You can ask the computer for the equivalent Roman Spelling.

There are huge benefits to have an easy access to Literacy.
The traditional functional Literacy in the Roman Alphabet is
becoming more and more difficult to attain in our high speed modern
world.
More people move around. We have a lot of Home Schooled kids.
We have towns in Canada, where 37% of the kids do not have English
as first language in their home.

We need a fast path to literacy. The T.O. doesn't cut it.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. The Shavian Computer Interface would need some A.I.
sophistication, because there isn't a standard spelling for some
Shavian words. But I think the technology is there. If we can
process speech on a Computer, that Phonetic spelling should be a
piece a cake.

P.P.S. I also agree with Joe in the last message.

___________________attached________________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Why transition to tradspel
> pvandenbrink@s... writes:
> PV: Hi Steve
> I quite like your article, "The Introduction to Shavian"
> [www.spellingsociety.org]
> You make the point that [children] lose most of the benefits of
developing
> literacy through a Phonemic Alphabet, when [they] have to take the
next step and
> start reading the T.O.
> See http://www.foolswisdom.com/users/sbett/ita1.htm
>
> The i/t/a experiments indicated that the transition to tradspel
was not quite
> as easy
> as Pitman and Downing anticipated. The hypothesis was that if you
> overlearned a phonemic writing system that the transition to
another writing system
> would be relatively easy since you only become literate once.
>
> Once you learn 40 sound-signs, you can decode or read aloud
anything written.
> However, it does not take long before you also memorize high
frequency
> words. After a while, you do not even bother to break the word
down into its
> component sound signs.
>
> Speed readers may read several words together as single meaning
signs.
>
> When the written language is learned as sight words, any change to
the
> spelling of these sight words can be disruptive. Changes in the
word pattern
> reduces the ability to recognize the meaning sign.....at least
until the new pattern
> is acquired.
>
> For example, after you get used to reading SHOE as "show" it is
difficult to
> learn this letter string as the traditional spelling of /shoo/.
>
> It took the i/t/a trained students about 6 months to recover from
this
> alphabet shock and recover their reading skills. The i.t.a.
students started the 3rd
> grade a year ahead of their traditionally trained counterparts.
They never
> fully regained this advantage. By the 6th grade, it would be
difficult to
> select the i.t.a. trained student based on their reading and
writing skills.
>
> I attribute the problem more to the method not to the
orthography. Unifon
> trained preschoolers mastered the Unifon code in 3 months and were
two years
> ahead of their conventionally trained counterparts by the start of
the 1st grade.
>
>
> The i.t.a. program tended to teach whole word patterns rather than
sound
> signs. Altho the orthography was more like traditonal spelling
than Unifon, its
> prolonged use [2 years instead of 3 months] tended to make the
transition more
> difficult.
> So why do we take that step.
> If you learned to read Spanish, you never would have to take such
a step.
> Spanish as written is highly phonemic.
>
> In English we take the step because we don't want to be cut off
from the
> past. We don't just want to be literate. We want to be literate
in the
> traditional code.
>
> There could be a parallel writing system that would used as an
initial
> teaching alphabet and as a alternate way to spell unfamiliar words
and as a way of
> spelling words with unfamiliar pronunciations. For instance if
you name is
> GUTCHOW you could provide the alternate spelling /g?h? or *gMtSO
or *gUtSO
> or *gUKO .... to indicate how the spelling should be interpreted
or
> sounded-out.
> Why not simply get your Computer Program to convert any
correspondence in
> T.O. to Shavian. Let the Computer interface clean up all that old-
fashioned
> garbage.
> Right now on the Internet, if you come a across something in
German, in many
> cases it has an interactive Translate option.
> The translate option substitutes one meaning sign for another. It
does not
> reduce the German spelling to a clear pronunciation or a
pronunciation guide
> spelling such as the IPA.
>
> The converters do about the same thing. It substitutes one word
spelling for
> another. There is no "fuzzy logic". If the word is not in the
dicitonary
> list, it cannot be translated. If the spelling is associated with
two or more
> different words, only one can be used.
> If you can translate, you should certainly be able to
transliterate.
> Actually you could probably even choose the flavor of your
transliteration.
> From my point of view of ease, it is easier to go from Shavian to
Unifon than
> the other way around.
> For you perhaps. I think that most people would find keyboard
Unifon a
> little easier to read than keyboard Shavian. Both are unigraphic
mixed cap systems
> and unigraphic writing system are generally disliked because the
traditional
> writing system uses digraphs.
>
> Unigraphic mixed cap systems are disliked for two reasons. The
notation is
> disruptive. Words cannot be easily recognized. And, the notation
is
> typographically challenged.
>
> --Steve
> PV: P.S. You are correct, I would spell appreciate as you have it
below.
> What's with Phonemic, tho? [typo corrected below] Remember, I am
quite familiar
> with Shavian and its keyboard mapping equivalent.
>
>
> At 01:42 PM 11/22/04, you wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> How do you pronounce appreciated?
> aprISIEtad aprISIEtad ENgliS: aprESEAtad
>
> H advAntaJ v VziN a fanFmik rFtiN sistam iz
> H abilati tM spel Az V spIk. [keyboard Shavian]
> D advantaj v UziN a fanEmik rYtiN sistM
> iz D abilatE tU spel qz U spEk. [ENgliS]
> This is the notation that most would find easier to read.
>
> Dc cdvantcj cv yUziN a fcnEmik rItiN sistcm
> iz Dc cbilctE tU spel az yU spEk. [Unifon - www.unifon.org]
> I found it interesting that you find keyboard Shavian easier to
read than
> keyboard Unifon.
> This is a minority view but it may be near consensus view in this
group. We
> need some more readers to post their views.
> For a Shavian - Unifon correspondence table see
> http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/14-unifon-ipa-shavian16.gif
>
> The whole article can be found at
> http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/shavian-short.html
>
> For another article on Shavian see
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j31/shawbett.html
>
> Learning to Read with Shavian
>
> Hi Scott
>
> That's an interesting article. I couldn't read the keyboard Unifon
> or the others, even though I've studied them a little, but I
breezed
> right through the Shavian at a rate that surprized even myself,
> until I got to the word "appreciated", which is not spelled the way
> I pronounce it. I've found that Shavian was easier to learn than I
first
> expected.
>
> aprISIEtad aprISIEtad

Hi Joe & Steve

In regards to my first postscript below
The proposed Shavian Computer Interface would need to
recognise both
/apriSIEtad/ rather than /aprISIETad/
as equivalent to "appreciated".

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve
>
> You said in your last response you said that
>
> "In English we take the step because we don't want to be cut off
> from the past. We don't just want to be literate. We want to be
> literate in the traditional code."
>
> And then you discussed the secondary role of the Shavian Alphabet.
> While I agree Shavian as a Secondary or Alternate Alphabet as a
> first step is better than nothing, I think that the only that
> prevents the Shaw Alphabet from replacing the Roman Alphabet for
> English, is the lack awareness of its availability, by the people
> who need it.
> Catch-22. You have to be fairly literate to find out about the
> Shavian Alphabet. And once you are literate, you don't need it.
>
> You say that you work with People trying to gain their literacy.
> I know what time-consuming and difficult activity it is for an
Adult
> to become literate in the Roman Alphabet
>
> But if you tell him, hey.
> Buy a better Computer interface.
> Learn a Phonetic Alphabet in a couple months.
>
> And then you get literacy in the Shaw Format
> - You can get information, contact and mail via the internet.
> - You can get most of the benefits of literacy, in terms of making
> notes, agenda, schedules, address books.
> - improvement in Learning other things.
> - You can send text messages.
> - You can ask the computer for the equivalent Roman Spelling.
>
> There are huge benefits to have an easy access to Literacy.
> The traditional functional Literacy in the Roman Alphabet is
> becoming more and more difficult to attain in our high speed
modern
> world.
> More people move around. We have a lot of Home Schooled kids.
> We have towns in Canada, where 37% of the kids do not have English
> as first language in their home.
>
> We need a fast path to literacy. The T.O. doesn't cut it.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> P.S. The Shavian Computer Interface would need some A.I.
> sophistication, because there isn't a standard spelling for some
> Shavian words. But I think the technology is there. If we can
> process speech on a Computer, that Phonetic spelling should be a
> piece a cake.
>
> P.P.S. I also agree with Joe in the last message.

Now that the subject of clerical error at the birth of "Androcles" has been
broached once more (oh no, not again! — the lament that won't go away!)
and discussed fleetingly, it is only fitting and proper to afflict all with my
annual rant about the reversal of 'ha' and 'hung', an admittedly futile exercise
to be dismissed with indifference or worse. So, be warned: The following is an
appeal to remedy that which can be easily remedied, and those who feel this
to be an overly annoying topic too trivial to bother about, besides being
already settled, should avoid unnecessary irritation and stop reading … now.

............................

The Shaw alphabet is striking in its simplicity, clarity, and beauty. Its beauty
should be self-evident, its simplicity made manifest with practice, and its
clarity a result of systematic, logical organization.

Is this important? Not necessarily. An alphabet could be made to work
without such considerations. But how much easier and more rewarding to use
a system of writing that does.

Organization facilitates comprehension, and it is therefore unfortunate,
distressing even, to see logic flawed by some error of compilation.

The expository logic of the Shaw alphabet is the separation and identification
through position or complexity the phonological components of English: the
principal unvoiced and voiced consonants are distinguished by rotational
symmetry and situation as tall or deep letters; the vowels are marked lax or
tense by the number of strokes used. There are some exceptions; phonology is
not always precise, or perhaps more accurately, is precise and the speech it
attempts to reflect isn't — language after all is dynamic. Compromise, even a
certain vagueness, can have its uses: incongruities do not — they only disturb
and undermine structural principles.

The odd couple ng/h, lumped together arbitrarily, does not represent a
contrasting pair as do the others in the series of primary consonants, p/b, t/d,
k/g, f/v, th/dh, s/z, and sh/zh, but does at least mark an unvoiced/voiced
opposition. Or should; unfortunately they are sadly reversed, surely by
accident, and ought instead to be h/ng following the pattern already
established. There is no reason why the two letters of this pair should diverge,
and not also be placed in what should be their obvious location within the
tall/deep structure that is such a prominent, indeed, key feature of the Shaw
alphabet, something a simple exchange of keywords alone would accomplish.
Why depart from basic principles in this one instance? Yes, there is also the
the anomaly y/w, pairing two voiced glides, but their continued existence in
their present form is — heresy! heresy! — doubtful, provided the Shaw
alphabet ever attracts a wider interest.

Now, some think this notion of identification and distinction of component
parts to be of little importance, it's all abstract anyway (Read may have
thought so himself), and certainly nothing to make a fuss about — perhaps so,
but I think it wrong to flaunt so lightly a guiding concept of this alphabet.
Others accept that errors may have been made but that nevertheless the Shaw
alphabet as it stands should remain inviolate, as it is too late to do anything
about it. I think this misguided; the current fate of the Shaw alphabet is by
default in the hands of the only parties interested in its success, the perhaps
two dozen or so active members of this group — hardly a huge inchoate mass
too ponderous to contemplate reconsideration. And then there are some who
see no error at all. Denial however does no service: the aspirate `h' is of
necessity unvoiced, the nasal `ng' can be but voiced.

That errors could have occurred in the preparation of Androcles is not
surprising. After all, imagine the plight of a typesetter in the sixties coping
with the unfamiliar squiggles of a completely different and unintelligible
alphabet, something that could just as well have been Martian to him. That
this was not caught and corrected by subsequent, perhaps cursory,
proofreading, or if caught, regretfully accepted, was probably due to the
economic circumstances (and disputes) arising from the attempts to fulfil
Shaw's will. Perhaps their only choice at the time was to publish with warts
and all rather than not — in such cases people ordinarily rely upon the future
for amendment. On the basis of his plays I suspect Shaw himself would have
pilloried such a slavish reluctance to challenge authority, even if it were about
something created and produced in his name.

But what about the objection that Read did not correct this `error' when
devising Quickscript (he did reverse `err' and `air', and he did devise a new
letter for `h')? It may well have been that Read was not the author of the
voiced/unvoiced distinction; it could have been the contribution of one of the
other contestants with whom Read had to share responsibility, and as such,
something he readily dispensed with later. In any event this distinction is
blurred or lost in Quickscript as the rotational symmetry of several paired
consonants was abandoned, and when this principle is no longer observed, the
concept of deep and tall letters is no longer significant and can be ignored —
and anything that can be ignored, will be. QuickScript is however easier to
write (there are no backward or two-part strokes) and in this way resembles
traditional shorthand; this may have been Read's true goal, to only devise a
better shorthand in order to enhance the ease and thus speed of writing by
hand. Apparently Read believed QuickScript the superior of the two alphabets,
and this may indicate that it was closer to his original intentions, something
we shall not know for certain until someone has had the opportunity of
viewing his collected materials at Reading University. Would it be
inappropriate to propose, as this new (or renewed) group gets underway, a
membership fee or contribution, to be used to defray expenses by whomever
is closest and could visit Reading?

But, the original Shavian alphabet with its striking simplicity, clarity, and visual
appeal, is clearly beautiful when displayed on a screen (which Read could not
have foreseen) or printed on a page. The only exception, at least to my eye, are
those letters that rely upon some internal twist or turn, these being I think
somewhat out of scale with the other letters, and which can be difficult to
discern in the smaller font sizes. This is easly observable by successively
reducing the size of a paragraph: they will be the first to become illegible.
Some of these could be helped by turning half-strokes into full strokes, but
alas, this too is, gasp! — a revision. Read may have been aware of the problem
as he made the `ah' and `awe' letters more legible in QuickScript (and closer in
character to the other vowels) by replacing them with the previous `m' and `n'
letters, and devising new forms for the latter. Unfortunately this substitution
(and others) renders QuickScript not an entirely consequent script-form of
Shavian, which would have been useful.

Of course, whether or not any real or imagined flaw is worth arguing about,
or improvements arguing for, depends upon the purpose and future of the
Shaw alphabet. If, as discussed before, the Shaw alphabet remains an innocent
pastime and amusement for a handful of enthusiasts, then a flaw or two does
no harm — it may even have a certain charm as being imperfect, like ourselves.
But if, as some assert, the Shaw alphabet is of such promise and intrinsic value
that an effort should be made to proselytize the public through practical
demonstration and other means, then it should — it will have to be — made
as appealing, as irresistible, and as unreproachable as possible, or it will be
dismissed by critics eager to display skill by questioning anything arbitrary or
difficult to defend, rejected by anyone predisposed to mock the idealistic folly
of do-gooders and other sillies, and ignored by everyone else.

A radical new way of writing, if there is to be any hope of tempting the
doubtful, disarming the hostile, and overcoming the indifference of the
uninterested, cannot just be overwhelmingly beautiful, severely practical, and
mostly logical — it must be ruthlessly logical and entirely consistent, not as an
exercise in sterile pedantry but as a demonstration of undeniable clarity, too
good not to embrace. To paraphrase, you must make the public an offer it
would be unreasonable to refuse.

And, the view that initial errors, though regrettable, should not ever be
corrected, that first efforts are somehow sacrosanct, is unlikely to convince
critics, especially as they are sure to point out other shortcomings. For
example, let us suppose the English-speaking community were by some means
exposed to an attack of rationality and declared that yes, Shawscript or
whatever one wished to call it should be immediately adopted — the first
alteration made necessary by events would be the substitution of some other
graphic form for the w-sound: the present one is much too similar to the
forward slash, a useful symbol in itself and now far too entrenched as an
inherent part of ubiquitous URL-addresses to ever be sacrificed. The same
could be said for the backward slash, used for the y-sound, which is almost as
useful, especially in linguistics. A new letter for 'w' would be needed and one
might as well then add its naturally contrasting opposite, the 'wh' or more
correctly, the unvoiced, 'hw'-sound as in whether/weather — a sound used by
our patron, Shaw himself.

Something else could then be found to pair with the y-sound, perhaps the
(unvoiced?) glottal stop (now growing in frequency of use), though language
purists will undoubtedly object. Or the aspirate could pair with the y-glide and
a new letter devised for the final sound of `think', to be matched with that of
`thing'. Dictionaries in the past have lumped these two together but the most
recent edition of the Pocket Oxford distinguishes them — and this may be a
coming trend in pronunciation notation. In addition, critics will point out that
an opportunity was lost, with a new alphabet, in not devising (in a binary
world) an alternate `i' and `o' in order to avoid confusion, especially in
handwriting, with the numerals 1 and 0.

Well, how dare I tamper so freely with the heritage of Androcles, our one and
only, but apparently imperfect, bible? Because, just perhaps, the Shaw
alphabet might have a future beyond the attentions of this brave group, and I
wish it all success!


There you have it for this year, no further complaints until next.

(relieved applause, sighs of exhaustion, exit stage right, curtain, lights)

dshep

............................

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> dshep,
>
> You are in. There is not much involved in joining a discussion group.
> Participating is a little harder. You have to ask a question or comment on a
> posting;-)
>
> --Steve
>

Be careful what you wish for……


And I vote for Lionspaw.


dshep

FLAME! Flame flame flame flame flame.... flame flame....

Feel better now that you've been flamed?
Okay we won't behead you today!
--Star

--- dshepx <dshep@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Now that the subject of clerical error at the birth of "Androcles"
> has been
> broached once more (oh no, not again! � the lament that won't go
> away!)
> and discussed fleetingly, it is only fitting and proper to afflict
> all with my
> annual rant about the reversal of 'ha' and 'hung', an admittedly
> futile exercise
> to be dismissed with indifference or worse. So, be warned: The
> following is an
> appeal to remedy that which can be easily remedied, and those who
> feel this
> to be an overly annoying topic too trivial to bother about, besides
> being
> already settled, should avoid unnecessary irritation and stop reading
> � now.
>
> ............................
>

====http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com

Paul,

dh and th are H and T in Shavian, D and T in Unifon.
the thug = Ha Tug or Dc Tug or H Tug and D Tug
so appreciated = aprISIEtad unless you have a lisp. Unifon: cprESEAtcd



Hi Joe & Steve

In regards to my first postscript below
The proposed Shavian Computer Interface would need to
recognise both
/apriSIEtad/ rather than /aprISIETad/
as equivalent to "appreciated".

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve
>
> You said in your last response you said that

"In English we take the step because we don't want to be cut off
from the past. We don't just want to be literate. We want to be
literate in the traditional code."

> While I agree Shavian as a Secondary or Alternate Alphabet as a
> first step is better than nothing, I think that the only that
> prevents the Shaw Alphabet from replacing the Roman Alphabet for
> English, is the lack awareness of its availability, by the people
> who need it.

Shavian is more or less isomorphic with the IPA. The first argument
you have to win is why should an ESL teacher use Shavian rather than
the IPA?

There is an IPA transcription at
www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/ita1.htm


> Catch-22. You have to be fairly literate to find out about the
> Shavian Alphabet. And once you are literate, you don't need it.
>
> You say that you work with People trying to gain their literacy.
> I know what time-consuming and difficult activity it is for an Adult
> to become literate in the Roman Alphabet
>
> But if you tell him, hey.
> Buy a better Computer interface.
> Learn a Phonetic Alphabet in a couple months.
We have an ipa plain text converter so if you want to read a book or article
in the ipa you can. Just cut and paste into the cdonverter and presto, you
have it.

The same capability could be extended to Shavian with just a little more
standardization.

With a reverse converter you can type in the IPA or the Shavian phonetic
spelling
and get back the lexical spelling. This would be useful.
> And then you get literacy in the Shaw Format
> - You can get information, contact and mail via the internet.
> - You can get most of the benefits of literacy, in terms of making
> notes, agenda, schedules, address books.
> - improvement in Learning other things.
> - You can send text messages.
> - You can ask the computer for the equivalent Roman Spelling.
>
> There are huge benefits to have an easy access to Literacy.
> The traditional functional Literacy in the Roman Alphabet is
> becoming more and more difficult to attain in our high speed modern world.
It is no more difficult than it has been since 1755 when the spelling was
standardized
in the first popular dictionary. Perhaps, we do not have the patience to
memorize the
dictionary which is essentially the only way to be a perfect speller.

People tend to use good enough freespelling on the Net. A spelling is good
enough
if it communicates the intended meaning to the intended audience.


> More people move around. We have a lot of Home Schooled kids.
> We have towns in Canada, where 37% of the kids do not have English
> as first language in their home.
>
> We need a fast path to literacy. The T.O. doesn't cut it.
We can attain code literacy in 3 months.
This is the time it takes to learn how to read a newspaper aloud in most
languages.
with highly phonemic writing systems. ....an most languages other than French
and
English have them.

The code can be quite close to traditional English spelling but
with so many ways to spell the 40 sounds of English speech,
there is not way to predict the spelling of an unfamiliar word.

We can usually guess the spelling in five tries but someone has to tell us
when we are wrong.

akomadEt = acomadate (No) accomadate (No), acommadate (No)
Well, depending on the number of syllables, it can take more than 5 guesses.
Any of the guesses are probably good enough. We can never be sure about
where and when to insert silent letters and how to spell unstressed syllables.

>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> P.S. The Shavian Computer Interface would need some A.I.
> sophistication, because there isn't a standard spelling for some
> Shavian words. But I think the technology is there. If we can
> process speech on a Computer, that Phonetic spelling should be a
> piece a cake.
>
> P.P.S. I also agree with Joe in the last message.

Who would argue with someone who can write like that?
i.e.:

"A radical new way of writing, if there is to be any
hope of tempting the
doubtful, disarming the hostile, and overcoming the
indifference of the
uninterested, cannot just be overwhelmingly beautiful,
severely practical, and
mostly logical � it must be...."

So, yes. there should always be room for improvement.
Otherwise Shavian will become in time just another
T.O.

As The Man himself wrote: "The plain working truth is
that it is not only good for people to be shocked
occasionally, but absolutely necessary to the progress
of society that they should be shocked pretty often."

Will Shavian change? The problem is that our group has
a lot of acolytes, but, alas, no priest.

Not. of course, that I would want one.


====Bob McBroom Woodstock NY- /byb /mk/brMm /wUdstak /nV /jDk"wun simbel iz az gUd Az anuHD prOvFdid evrIwun atacez H sEm mIniN tM it." - /JPJ /bxnRd /SY



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com

Hi Bob,

I support the original Shavian. Mainly because it still needs to be prolificly transliterated with as much public-domain books. I also believe one also use Quickscript and other Shaw revisions for books as well. As for Shavian becoming another T.O. -- I doubt it will be because of the revisions and besides the Original Shavian needs to become more established through more literature than Androcles and the Lion. I believe in democracy of the Shaw writing systems. For me anyways the original Shavian is the easiest one the learn.

best of regards,

Carl

robert McBroom <mcbroom1946@...> wrote:

Who would argue with someone who can write like that?
i.e.:

"A radical new way of writing, if there is to be any
hope of tempting the
doubtful, disarming the hostile, and overcoming the
indifference of the
uninterested, cannot just be overwhelmingly beautiful,
severely practical, and
mostly logical � it must be...."

So, yes. there should always be room for improvement.
Otherwise Shavian will become in time just another
T.O.

As The Man himself wrote: "The plain working truth is
that it is not only good for people to be shocked
occasionally, but absolutely necessary to the progress
of society that they should be shocked pretty often."

Will Shavian change? The problem is that our group has
a lot of acolytes, but, alas, no priest.

Not. of course, that I would want one.


====Bob McBroom Woodstock NY- /byb /mk/brMm /wUdstak /nV /jDk"wun simbel iz az gUd Az anuHD prOvFdid evrIwun atacez H sEm mIniN tM it." - /JPJ /bxnRd /SY



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com




Yahoo! Groups Links









---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! � Try it today!

Shavians,

I agree with Carl. There is not much chance of Shavian becoming another TO.
Altho I am not sure what Bob meant by this statement.

Shavian is a phonemic notation. It is sufficient to describe broadcast
English. As such if the pronunciation changes, so will the spelling or the
phonemic description.

The key feature of TO is its resistance to change. When the pronunciation of
English changed in the 15th & 16th Century, the spelling remained basically
the same.

Shavian is an alternate representation of the IPA..... adapted for English..

For Shaw to be come another IPA, it would have to enjoy more widespread use
and understanding. .

Can the IPA be improved? It has been refined a little over the years but
once you assign a symbol to a particular category of speech sounds it is rather
difficult to make changes.

Instead, what we have are a vareity of different IPAs in use. There is no
one official IPA for English. There is a common core to all of these notations.
[See phonetic texts by ...A]

So the question is, can there be more than one Shavian?

While there will always be one classic Shavian, the one used in Androcles...
There could be several adaptions of Shavian for specific goals.

Quickscript itself is one such adaption.

The way that Shavian characters are mapped to an American keyboard would be
another possible adaption.

The reduction of Shavian to 40 basic symbols would be one way to make the
code easier to learn and use.

--Steve

Who would argue with someone who can write like that?
i.e.:

"A radical new way of writing, if there is to be any
hope of tempting the
doubtful, disarming the hostile, and overcoming the
indifference of the
uninterested, cannot just be overwhelmingly beautiful,
severely practical, and
mostly logical — it must be...."

So, yes. there should always be room for improvement.
Otherwise Shavian will become in time just another
T.O.

As The Man himself wrote: "The plain working truth is
that it is not only good for people to be shocked
occasionally, but absolutely necessary to the progress
of society that they should be shocked pretty often."

Will Shavian change?