Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

dshepx 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:
>>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
>
>
Perhaps you're using the font Andagii, which appears to me to be a copy
of Ghoti, only in the Shavian range instead of the Roman range. Notice
how all Shavian text in your reply got scrambled after transmission.
That's because the Yahoo web interface only sends messages using
IS0-8859-1, rather than UTF-8. Shame on them!

--
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, "dshepx" <dshep@...> wrote:
<snip>
> > Do you write "Mister" or "Mr," "Doctor" or "Dr."? Do
> > eitherof those examples strike you as equivalent to the
> > barbarityof "C U soon"? Perhaps, the difference is
> > familiarity, as Read said.
>
> Ha -- got me there. A clear oversight on my part -- even
> I like those abbreviations, and there is no good reason not
> to use them. However, there is the restriction that these
> always occur together with personal names, not usually
> otherwise, as in "This is Mr Tom Smith Jr, our junior partner".
> Am I missing any others?
>
> regards again,
> dshep

Yes. ie, cf, eg, etc.

Hi Paige & Dshep
I think the 4 documented Shavian abbreviations work quite nicely for
a number reasons which I have previously discussed.
Any other abbrev. especially those derived from Roman spelling or
Latin words, need to be documented. They can't be absorbed
wholeheartedly without some consideration, no matter how "sensible"
they might seem.
Also, I still think we need to document, the 1,000 most common
English words in Shavian, along with maybe 200 of the most common
names. We need an agreed Corpus, beyond that found in Androcles.
It would serve as the working appendixes of a Proposed Teaching
Manual.

Regards, Paul V.
__________________________attached____________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
wrote:
What does it all matter?

> > > A "th" symbol standing in place of "the" is not use of a
> > > a single letter "devoid of phonemic content" since the
> > > symbol represents an English phoneme. It just omits
> > > the vowel content, which must be inferred.
> >
> > But it is a single letter in Shavian, where the abbreviation
> > occurs. And to infer the existence of sounds is to depart
> > from the spirit of a phonemic alphabet, does it not?
> > This is all perfectly sensible, except that Read here
> > appears to me to be undercutting the very reason for
> > promoting an alternative alphabet at all. After all, we
> > are at present thoroughly "familiar" with our "well-
> > known" graphs, and got used to them long ago.

Ethan:

> > Ha -- got me there. A clear oversight on my part -- even
> > I like those abbreviations, and there is no good reason not
> > to use them. However, there is the restriction that these
> > always occur together with personal names, not usually
> > otherwise, as in "This is Mr Tom Smith Jr, our junior partner".
> > Am I missing any others?
> >
> > regards again,
> > dshep

Hi Dshep (Heretic in waiting)
Previously, we did agree to write words, as if each word was
pronounced as a distinct unit.
I don't see how such a rule could be extended to cover abbrev.s,
which obviously are incomplete to start with.
But even discounting stressed or unstressed vowels,
there are 2 different but phonetically valid ways to spell
and, the and of.
Perhaps, you haven't noticed the differences, except in the case
of "HI" for "the".
Regards, Paul V.
____________________________attached__________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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
>

dshep:

I believe I marked the post to be sent in HTML and regular text. I did not
do anything out of the ordinary so I cannot respond as to why it may have
resisted resizing.

Paige

----- Original Message -----
From: "dshepx" <dshep@...>
To: <shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 1:09 AM
Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: Shavian Spelling Conventions


> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> --- dshep wrote:
>
> A lot, but forgot to ask Paige if he submitted his post in
> some special way, as it appears (in my browser at least)
> as much broader than all the others --- literally. To read
> it I must scroll laterally to a width of double or triple the
> normal frame width, and unlike the others, which may be
> squeezed narrower if desired, his would permit no
> manipulation.
>
> In addition, my reply, sent by e-mail, converted all apostrophes
> to strange symbols, something that had not happened before.
> Weird.
>
> regards,
> dshep
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

dshepx skribis:
>
> > --- Paige Gabhart wrote:
> >
> > Here is part of what Read had to say about spelling:
> >
> > It is popularly assumed that a phonetic alphabet
> > is useless unless every spelling is a precise
> > representationof speech, without reservations
> > or conveniences. Whose speech, then, is to be
> > so precisely represented?...
>
> I am not familiar with the Quikscript manual, a
> circumstance I should correct, but I am surprised
> that Read would here imply that his alphabet was
> to be classed as a phonetic rather than a phonemic
> one, with the conclusion that the use of abbreviations
> would therefore prevent disputes.
> [snip]


Read certainly meant "phonemic." In ordinary language
(i.e. among people without a background in linguistics)
"phonetic alphabet" or "phonetic spelling" means what
a linguist would call "phonemic spelling." I find that few
non-linguists have heard the word "phonemic" or know
of the more restricted meaning of "phonetic."

--Ph. D.

Hi Paige
I suspect that the term "phonemic" was not in common or even
specialist parlance, at the time Kingsley Read was describing
the workings of the Shavian Alphabet. Lingusts, were called
Philologists, before the 1950's.
A Philologist typically studies languages scientifically through
tracing developments over time or by comparing languages or
varieties of a language. They typically concentrated on the under
standing of ancient languages and other rare or exotic languages.
The Ordinary Language School of Linguistics, developed in the 1950's
and early 1960's in England.
My how times have changed.
Regards, Paul V.
________________________attached_________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Ph.D." <phil@...> wrote:
> > > --- Paige Gabhart wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is part of what Read had to say about spelling:
> > >
> > > It is popularly assumed that a phonetic alphabet
> > > is useless unless every spelling is a precise
> > > representationof speech, without reservations
> > > or conveniences. Whose speech, then, is to be
> > > so precisely represented?...
> >
> Read certainly meant "phonemic." In ordinary language
> (i.e. among people without a background in linguistics)
> "phonetic alphabet" or "phonetic spelling" means what
> a linguist would call "phonemic spelling." I find that few
> non-linguists have heard the word "phonemic" or know
> of the more restricted meaning of "phonetic."
>
> --Ph. D.
>

I posted a test page for anyone who wants to check their
browser/fonts/OS/computer for compatibility with Shavian. If anything's
broken or less than ideal, this page should make it obvious. Here's the
link:
http://shavian.ravenscall.net/𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯/𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯.html

Notice there's Shavian in the address, as well as on the page.

--
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,
--- Ethan wrote (about abbreviations):

> > dshep asked:
> > Am I missing any others?

> Yes. ie, cf, eg, etc.


y, HOz tM. F wundD HO,
if wI kamit Qrselvz tM a
difDant Alfabet, Sud wI
pDpecMEt Ha Vs ov /lAtan
abrIvIESanz?

Just a Tyt,
/dSep
...................

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- Ethan wrote (about abbreviations):

> > dshep asked:
> > Am I missing any others?

> Yes. ie, cf, eg, etc.


y, HOz tM. F wundD HO,
if wI kamit Qrselvz tM a
difDant Alfabet, Sud wI
pDpecMEt Ha Vs ov /lAtan
abrIvIESanz?

Just a Tyt,
/dSep
...................