Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

True, but they are bonus points and cannot be lost until the lightning
round.

--Star

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

> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> --- Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
>
>
> > Nice use of the word "excoriation." Five points.
>
>
> That's only one point per syllable.
> I request a reconsideration.
>
> dshep
>
>
>
>


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

An idle duck is the devil's playground.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

From: "beth.an" <beth.an@...>
Date: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:29 pm
Subject: kiN v sFprus-prefAs beth.an
Offline
Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360º

******************

pigmElion

/bernard SY

1912

ekzerpts from H prefas:

a profesOr v fonetiks.

Az wil bI sIn lEter on, /pigmElion nIdz, not a prefas, but a sIkwel,
wic F hAv suplFd in its dM plEs.

____________________

H eNgliS hAv nO respekt for Her lANgwaJ n wil not tIc Her cildren t
spIk it. HE spel it sO abominabli HAt nO mAn kAn tIc himself wot it
sQndz lFk. it iz imposibel for An eNgliSmAn t Open hiz mQT wiHQt mEkiN
som oHer eNgliSmAn hEt or despFz him.

____________________

JermAn n spAniS yr Aksesibel t fOrenerz: eNgliS iz not Aksesibel Iven
t eNgliSmen. H refOrmer eNlAnd nIdz tUdE iz An enerJetik fonetik
enTMziAst: HAt iz wF F hAv mEd suc a wun H hIrO v a popjMlar plE. Her
hAv ben hIrOz v HAt kFnd krFiN in H wildernes for mAni jirz pAst.

___________________

/henri swIt, Hen a juN mAn, lAkd muc swItnes v kArAkter: hI woz abQt
Az konsiliatori t konvenSonal mOrtalz Az /ibsen or sAmjMel butler.

grEt abiliti Az a fonetiSian (hI woz, F TiNk, H best v Hem Yl At hiz
Job) wUd hAv entFteld him t hF ofiSal rekogniSon, n perhAps enEbeld
him t popjMlarFz hiz subJekt, but for

hiz sEtAnik kontempt for Yl Akademik dignitarIz n personz in Jeneral
hM TYt mOr v grIk HAn v fonetiks.

____________________

... H fjMcur v fonetiks rests probabli wiH H pjMpilz v /henri swIt, hM
Yl swOr bF him... /henri woz, F belIv, not in H lIst An il-nEcurd mAn:
veri muc H opozit, F SUd sE; but hI wUd not sufer fMlz glAdli.

___________________

...H SOrthAnd in wic F Am rFtiN HIz lFnz iz /pitmAn'z. mF sekretari
trAnskrFbz Hem intM H [EnSient-obsolIt-pEliografi H world'z publiSerz
yr stil afrEd t replEs n sO H yrkEik trAdiSon kontinjMz H unesesari
kYst v milionz per dE]

____________________

...pigmElion /higinz iz not a pOrtrat v /swIt, t hMm H Advencur
v /elFza dMlitel wUd hAv ben imposibel; stil, Az wil bI sIn, Her yr
tucez v /swIt in H plE.

__________________

...Az it woz, hI impresd himself profeSonali on /jUrop t H ekstent HAt
mEd hiz komparativ personal obskjUriti, n H fEljUr v /oksford t dM
Justis t hiz eminens, a puzel t foren speSalists in hiz subJekt.

____________________

...if H plE mEks H publik awEr HAt Her yr suc pIpel Az fonetiSionz, n
HAt HE yr amoN H mOst importAnt pIpel in /eNglAnd At prezent, it wil
serv its turn..

__________________

F wiS t bOst HAt /pigmElion hAz ben An ekstrImli suksesful plE Yl
Over /jUrop n nOrT amerika Az wel Az At hOm. it iz sO intensli n
deliberatli didAktik, n its subJekt iz estImd sO drF, HAt F delFt in
TrOiN it At H hedz v H wFzEkerz hM repIt H parot krF HAt yrt SUd never
bI didAktik. it gOz t prMv mF kontenSon HAt yrt SUd never bI AniTiN
els.

*****************************************************


--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "sociolinguist1981"
<sociolinguist1981@...> wrote:
>
> Hello All. I am a graduate student researching Shaw's linguistic
> background. Obviously, he is very influential in this field,
however,
> I cannot find any information regarding any formal training Shaw may
> have recieved in the subject. I am also searching for any letters,
> articles, etc. that may give an insight into Shaw's view of his play
> Pygmalion and his views of the linguistically based social
> stratification in England.
>
> Thanks& Cheers
>
> Lee J.
>

dshepx wrote:

>--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
>--- Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
>
>
>>dshepx wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think it interesting that you and I seem to be the only ones (?) who received
>>>Kirk's message as intended. I have no idea why this should be so.
>>>
>>>regards,
>>>dshep
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>F got it tM. it sDprFzd mI, tM, but OnlI bIkuz it wuz in H /AndraklIz
>>font, lFk His.
>>
>>--
>>Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, ·???? ·??????
>>
>>The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
>>The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
>>The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
>>
>>
>
>
>Ethan,
>
>Your message (and signature) came through as intended. Do you do
>anything special to make this work? Why should Androcles work and
>not the others, I wonder. Also, did you reply in the yahoo interface or
>through an e-mail?
>
>regards,
>dshep
>
As for the portion in Androcles, all I did was select Androcles for my
text font and send my email in html format. My signature line is always
in Unicode, and my messages use UTF-8 encoding. I notice that your
quote of my text above has replaced the Shavian characters with question
marks, which suggests a problem on your end, or with Yahoo. At the same
time, there are as many question marks as letters in my name, so your
software understands plane-1 Unicode. Also, your message came through
encoded as ISO-8859-1, which may explain the question marks - you need
to set your message encoding to UTF-8, which you may not be able to do
with the Yahoo interface.

I use email to reply - specifically Mozilla mail running under Linux. I
expect you may have problems with the Yahoo web interface - I gave up on
it some time ago due to incompatibilities with UTF-8.

Below are the relevant lines from your message header. Note especially
the content-type header.

To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <dr6sl4+ek38@...>
In-Reply-To: <43D59A51.6010009@...>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "dshepx" <dshep@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:52:04 -0000
Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: Original Shaw Alphabet edtions available
Reply-To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


--
Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

dshepx wrote:

>--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@g...> wrote:
>
>
>>--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
>>--- Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dshepx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think it interesting that you and I seem to be the only ones (?) who received
>>>>Kirk's message as intended. I have no idea why this should be so.
>>>>
>>>>regards,
>>>>dshep
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>F got it tM. it sDprFzd mI, tM, but OnlI bIkuz it wuz in H /AndraklIz
>>>font, lFk His.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, ·???? ·??????
>>>
>>>The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
>>>The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
>>>The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
>>>
>>>
>>Ethan,
>>
>>Your message (and signature) came through as intended. Do you do
>>anything special to make this work? Why should Androcles work and
>>not the others, I wonder. Also, did you reply in the yahoo interface or
>>through an e-mail?
>>
>>regards,
>>dshep
>>
>>
>>
>
>This is odd. Your original message came through in shavian, but my reply,
>which contained your message, converted your text to keyboard romanji,
>if that is what keyboard shavian is called.
>
>regards again,
>dshep
>
>
I call it "ASCII Shavian". And yes, it would - since your reply came
through in plain text, it lost the Androcles font info. However, my
signature is in Unicode, so it didn't come through in ASCII, but in
question marks, instead.

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

dshepx wrote:

>However, the curious thing is that Ethan's reply and signature (message
>1402) does come through in shavian in what appears to be Androcles.
>I say appears because if transferred to a word-processing document the
>font cannot be identified. And, as in Kirk's original message, no matter
>what font or encoding I change to, it remains in shavian. Mysterious.
>
>regards,
>dshep
>
>
That's the neat thing about Unicode. Your text remains correct, despite
losing font information. As long as you have a font installed on your
system which is capable of displaying the text, it will work on almost
any Unicode-capable application, as long as the application (and your
OS) conform to the standards.

Here's the above text, in Unicode:
𐑞𐑨𐑑𐑕 𐑞 𐑯𐑰𐑑 𐑔𐑦𐑙 𐑩𐑚𐑬𐑑 ·𐑿𐑯𐑦𐑒𐑴𐑛. 𐑘𐑹 𐑑𐑧𐑒𐑕𐑑
𐑮𐑰𐑥𐑱𐑯𐑟 𐑒𐑼𐑧𐑒𐑑, 𐑛𐑦𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑑 𐑤𐑵𐑟𐑦𐑙 𐑓𐑪𐑯𐑑
𐑦𐑯𐑓𐑼𐑥𐑱𐑖𐑩𐑯. 𐑨𐑟 𐑤𐑪𐑙 𐑨𐑟 𐑿 𐑣𐑨𐑝 𐑩 𐑓𐑪𐑯𐑑
𐑦𐑯𐑕𐑑𐑷𐑤𐑛 𐑪𐑯 𐑘𐑹 𐑕𐑦𐑕𐑑𐑩𐑥 𐑣𐑢𐑦𐑗 𐑦𐑟 𐑒𐑱𐑐𐑩𐑚𐑤 𐑝
𐑛𐑦𐑕𐑐𐑤𐑱𐑦𐑙 𐑞 𐑑𐑧𐑒𐑕𐑑, 𐑦𐑑 𐑢𐑦𐑤 𐑢𐑻𐑒 𐑪𐑯 𐑷𐑤𐑥𐑴𐑕𐑑
𐑧𐑯𐑰 ·𐑿𐑯𐑦𐑒𐑴𐑛-𐑒𐑱𐑐𐑩𐑚𐑤 𐑨𐑐𐑤𐑦𐑒𐑱𐑖𐑩𐑯, 𐑨𐑟 𐑤𐑪𐑙 𐑨𐑟
𐑞 𐑨𐑐𐑤𐑦𐑒𐑱𐑖𐑩𐑯 (𐑯 𐑘𐑹 ·𐑪𐑕·) 𐑒𐑩𐑯𐑓𐑹𐑥 𐑑 𐑞 𐑕𐑑𐑨𐑯𐑛𐑼𐑛𐑟.

Since this message is plain text, there is no font information
whatsoever in the message.

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...> wrote:
>
>
> > > Hi Scott
> > > I agree wholeheartedly.
> > > These spelling conventions ensure that some of the most
> > > used words are written consistently and with a minimum
> > > number of letters.
> > > Shavian was designed to require less effort to write, having
> > > many of the benefits of a Shorthand, while preserving clear
> > > easily recognizable letter shapes.
>
> >
> > I don't.
> >
> > The use of abbreviations, well, these aren't even abbreviations,
> > they are, what is the word?--logograms, like the ampersand (&),
> > and in my opinion they deter, detract, and diverge from the basic
> > phonemic structure of Shavian, where every word can or should
> > be quickly and easliy identified by its vocalic components, and for
> > what? A savings of one letter per word, a mere key-stroke. A loss
> > of clarity for a marginal gain in efficiency. To my eye they are as
> > crude as birds + bees or I (heart) U. If something more like a
> > shorthand is wanted then surely Quickscript/Kwikskrip would be
> > the better choice.
> >
> > heretically,
> > dshep
>
> With most phonemic alphabets, I would agree, but Shavian's no.1
> guiding principle was EFFICIENCY, not absolute phonemic consistency.
> The four most common words given single letters in Shavian are used
> so much in English writing that there can be a considerable space
> saving by abbreviating them. You only have to look at "txt spk" to
> realise that people love abbreviations for efficiency's sake.
>
> Hugh B


I don't love abbreviations. They have their uses in special places
but don't belong in considered text, I don't think.

I also think the question to be pondered is whether Shavian is
(or was meant to be, or should be or could be) a shorthand or a
replacement alphabet? I thought the latter was Shaw's wish, not
the former. I am though not at all certain that Kingsley Read felt
that way, as his later alterations did move in the direction of
shorthand, it seems to me, which is why if efficiency alone is
desired then Quickscript would I think be the better choice â€"â€"
I certainly think some of the letters have been simplified in
Quickscript which makes them easier and quicker to write, a
desirable feature of shorthand after all. There is even I believe
a third reiteration (ReadScript?) that went so far as to reintroduce
some Roman letters, and why not? After all, many Roman letters
are as easy to write as Shavian and there is no reason not to
incorporate any that are unambiguous in pronunciation, if
efficiency is the primary goal.

The chief attraction to me of Read's original opus is its beauty.
A page of Shavian is stunning to behold. Add to that a rational
construction, by which I mean the paired system of related
elements (and its almost, not quite but easily remedied internal
consistency which we have debated before), and you have a truly
radical, rational, workable, pleasing alternative to our current
alphabet â€"â€" and I thought that was what Shaw had in mind. An
alphabet, or peebiteedi, to label Shavian by its first four letters,
that perhaps, just perhaps, in its dual appeal to both mind and
eye, has a future.

It seems to me, that to use single letters devoid of phonemic
content as word substitutes is to unnecessarily contradict the
basic nature of Shavian for limited and questionable gain, and
to sink to the level of NuRite as used on hand-held devices:
"R U coming? C U soon, Dont B L8!"

I wish a better fate for Shavian.

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Paul Vandenbrink wrote:

> "and" would sometimes be spelt An, an or And.
> "the" would sometimes be spelt Hu, Ha, Hi, HI
> "of" would sometimes be spelt av, uv, ov


I don't agree with that at all. I believe in earlier discussions
it was considered best never to take into account the
additional complication of sentence stress, so therefore
and would always be /And/, the /Ha/, and of /ov/. The
only exception I see would be those occasions where one
might wish to deliberately emphasize "the", making it /HI/,
which you would have to do even now if emphasis was needed.

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Ethan wrote:
>
> dshepx wrote:
>
> >However, the curious thing is that Ethan's reply and signature (message
> >1402) does come through in shavian in what appears to be Androcles.
> >I say appears because if transferred to a word-processing document the
> >font cannot be identified. And, as in Kirk's original message, no matter
> >what font or encoding I change to, it remains in shavian. Mysterious.
> >
> >regards,
> >dshep
> >
> >
> That's the neat thing about Unicode. Your text remains correct, despite
> losing font information. As long as you have a font installed on your
> system which is capable of displaying the text, it will work on almost
> any Unicode-capable application, as long as the application (and your
> OS) conform to the standards.
>
> Here's the above text, in Unicode:
> ð`žð`¨ð``ð`• ð`ž ð`¯ð`°ð`` ð`"ð`¦ð`™ ð`©ð`šð`¬ð`` ·ð`¿ð`¯ð`¦ð`'ð`´ð`›. ð`˜ð`¹ ð``ð`§ð`'ð`•ð``
> ð`®ð`°ð`¥ð`±ð`¯ð`Ÿ ð`'ð`¼ð`§ð`'ð``, ð`›ð`¦ð`•ð`ð`²ð`` ð`¤ð`µð`Ÿð`¦ð`™ ð`"ð`ªð`¯ð``
> ð`¦ð`¯ð`"ð`¼ð`¥ð`±ð`–ð`©ð`¯. ð`¨ð`Ÿ ð`¤ð`ªð`™ ð`¨ð`Ÿ ð`¿ ð`£ð`¨ð` ð`© ð`"ð`ªð`¯ð``
> ð`¦ð`¯ð`•ð``ð`·ð`¤ð`› ð`ªð`¯ ð`˜ð`¹ ð`•ð`¦ð`•ð``ð`©ð`¥ ð`£ð`¢ð`¦ð`— ð`¦ð`Ÿ ð`'ð`±ð`ð`©ð`šð`¤ ð`
> ð`›ð`¦ð`•ð`ð`¤ð`±ð`¦ð`™ ð`ž ð``ð`§ð`'ð`•ð``, ð`¦ð`` ð`¢ð`¦ð`¤ ð`¢ð`»ð`' ð`ªð`¯ ð`·ð`¤ð`¥ð`´ð`•ð``
> ð`§ð`¯ð`° ·ð`¿ð`¯ð`¦ð`'ð`´ð`›-ð`'ð`±ð`ð`©ð`šð`¤ ð`¨ð`ð`¤ð`¦ð`'ð`±ð`–ð`©ð`¯, ð`¨ð`Ÿ ð`¤ð`ªð`™ ð`¨ð`Ÿ
> ð`ž ð`¨ð`ð`¤ð`¦ð`'ð`±ð`–ð`©ð`¯ (ð`¯ ð`˜ð`¹ ·ð`ªð`•Â·) ð`'ð`©ð`¯ð`"ð`¹ð`¥ ð`` ð`ž ð`•ð``ð`¨ð`¯ð`›ð`¼ð`›ð`Ÿ.
>
> Since this message is plain text, there is no font information
> whatsoever in the message.
>
> --
> Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, ·ð`°ð`"ð`©ð`¯ ·ð`¤ð`¨ð`¥ð`©ð`®ð`´
>
> The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
> The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
> The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
>

Your message came to my browser as intended, in Shavian, but here
is an interesting detail. The font did not look familiar so I transferred
it to a word-processing document which refused to identify it. However,
comparing it other text samples it appears to be Ghoti 2. Is this correct?

Moreover, your text remained in shavian even in the reply.

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- "sociolinguist1981" wrote:
>
> Hello All. I am a graduate student researching Shaw's linguistic
> background. Obviously, he is very influential in this field, however,
> I cannot find any information regarding any formal training Shaw may
> have recieved in the subject. I am also searching for any letters,
> articles, etc. that may give an insight into Shaw's view of his play
> Pygmalion and his views of the linguistically based social
> stratification in England.
>
> Thanks& Cheers
>
> Lee J.


I may be mistaken but I don't think Shaw had any formal training in
anything, but he was interested in just about everything, and became
the very model of a man who, obliged to live by his wits, cultivated
intellect and curiousity, all tempered by humour.

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@...> wrote:
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> --- Ethan wrote:
> >
> > dshepx wrote:
> >
> > >However, the curious thing is that Ethan's reply and signature (message
> > >1402) does come through in shavian in what appears to be Androcles.
> > >I say appears because if transferred to a word-processing document the
> > >font cannot be identified. And, as in Kirk's original message, no matter
> > >what font or encoding I change to, it remains in shavian. Mysterious.
> > >
> > >regards,
> > >dshep
> > >
> > >
> > That's the neat thing about Unicode. Your text remains correct, despite
> > losing font information. As long as you have a font installed on your
> > system which is capable of displaying the text, it will work on almost
> > any Unicode-capable application, as long as the application (and your
> > OS) conform to the standards.
> >
> > Here's the above text, in Unicode:
> > �`��`��``�`� �`� �`��`��`` �`"�`��`� �`��`��`��``
·�`��`��`��`'�`��`�. �`��`� �``�`��`'�`��``
> > �`��`��`��`��`��`� �`'�`��`��`'�``,
�`��`��`��`��`��`` �`��`��`��`��`� �`"�`��`��``
> > �`��`��`"�`��`��`��`��`��`�. �`��`� �`��`��`�
�`��`� �`� �`��`��`� �`� �`"�`��`��``
> > �`��`��`��``�`��`��`� �`��`� �`��`�
�`��`��`��``�`��`� �`��`��`��`� �`��`�
�`'�`��`��`��`��`� �`�
> > �`��`��`��`��`��`��`��`� �`� �``�`��`'�`��``, �`��``
�`��`��`� �`��`��`' �`��`� �`��`��`��`��`��``
> > �`��`��`� ·�`��`��`��`'�`��`�-�`'�`��`��`��`��`�
�`��`��`��`��`'�`��`��`��`�, �`��`� �`��`��`� �`��`�
> > �`� �`��`��`��`��`'�`��`��`��`� (�`� �`��`� ·�`��`�·)
�`'�`��`��`"�`��`� �`` �`� �`��``�`��`��`��`��`��`�.
> >
> > Since this message is plain text, there is no font information
> > whatsoever in the message.
> >
> > --
> > Ethan Lamoreaux - in Shavian, ·�`��`"�`��`� ·�`��`��`��`��`��`�
> >
> > The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
> > The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
> > The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
> >
>
> Your message came to my browser as intended, in Shavian, but here
> is an interesting detail. The font did not look familiar so I transferred
> it to a word-processing document which refused to identify it. However,
> comparing it other text samples it appears to be Ghoti 2. Is this correct?
>
> Moreover, your text remained in shavian even in the reply.
>
> regards,
> dshep


It did not however survive re-transmission

dshep