Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

reply to message 1483 from paul vandenbrink
who appears to discount the value of aesthetics:


did V fDget t tEk yP /prOzAk tadE?
R V kumpItiN t sI hM kAn bI H mOst dafItist?

not mI.



nObudI JuJaz "H TCI v relativatI", bI hQ menI
pIpal lIk H wE it lUks. it IHD wxks P it duzant.

AkcMai, fizasists dM strFv tM

atEn bjMti, a bjMti ov fYrmjMlESan.

A gUd Tiri, HE SE, iz "eligant".

/FnstFn TYt sO.



/SYvIan wxks.

sO duz tradiSanal YrTografi.

/SEvian, F kantend, must bI

sIn az sMpiriD bF nYrmal pIpal

if it iz tM alisit eni intrest

bajond bamjMzd kjMriosati.



n wen H nId arFzaz, /SYvIan wil bI HX. CragRdles.

mEbi, let us Nop sO, and Nop

it wil bI redi tM mIt Ha nIdz

And ekspektESanz ov kritakal jMDz.




evD Nopfal,

/dSep

in message 1484 paul vandenbrink observed:


I still regularly see people use a vowel letter
+ "roar" to make the equivalent of one of the
syllabic R-sounds, for which there is an
existing Shavian letter.


jM sI mI dM sO. HAr iz

a /SEvian dFgrAf fYr sum

kombanESanz, but not uHDz.

NwF mEntEn mOr HAn wun

sistem?


E?,
/dSep

in message 1485 Ethan wondered:


Would you favor writing "Give me a apple" rather
than "Give me an apple", because "an" is simply
a phonetic variation of "a"?


iz it rIli korekt tM sE HAt

"an" iz simpli a fanetik vAriant

ov "a"?



F wundD,

/dSep

in message 1486 Ethan also wondered:


> F fFnd it hRd t undDstAnd ...
> V rIplEs mAnI v H /SEvWn letDz ...
> n rIvxsiN hy-hy n huN ...
> hwic iz vXI kanfVziN.


F Am sori tM kYz jM difakultiz,

And jM dazurv an eksplanESan.

it mE bI best HO tM kalekt Yl

mF sinz tageHD sO HAt jM mE

betD JuJ fYr jOrself if eni

purpas lFz berid in suc erant

baNEjD.


az evD,
/dsep

reply to message 1487 from Hugh Birkenhead,
in which he deplores dshep's idiosyncrasies:


> hQ kAn V fFnd sO muc t bI

> obJekSanabal in /SEvIan?



unlFk jM, F kansidD /SEvian

tM bI (patenSali) mOr HAn An

entDtEnmant, HO it iz YlsO HAt.

ov Yl Ha spelih rafYrmz HAt

NAv sIn Ha lFt ov dE, /SEvian

F balIv iz Ha Onli wun (bakYz

it iz ritan in a kamplItli njM

skript) wiH eni posabilati At Yl

ov bIih nOtist And tEkan up bF

enuf pIpal tM sumdE (mEbi)

estAbliS a fUtNOld in Ha relm

ov popjalD imAJanESan.



> fxst, it woz hAf a duzan tYl n SPt

> letDz HAt wx H roN wE rQnd


Onli a kupal: "N" And "h"


> nQ kompQnd letDz SUdnt bI Vzd n

> abrIvIESanz Just Rnt kOSD.


jMz Hem if jM lFk, but Ha

/SEvian Alfabet wUd bI simplD

And IziD tM lurn wiHQt Hem.


HX R a kupal mP odatIz:
- kompramIz (kompramFz)
- senz (sens)
- dispVMt (dispVt)

jes, kArlas ov mI. jM mE dadukt

TrI pqnts from mF test skOr. tEk

fFv AkcMli, az jM mist a kupal.


> hAv V RbitrXalI rIasFnd HOz letDz,
> tM? F dOnt mIn t sQnd kondasendiN,

O NO NO, ov kOrs jM didnt --


> but pDhAps a fUl grAsp v H Alfabet in

> its ‘PTadoks’ fPm wUd bI AdvantEJas bifP

> bOldlI imbRkiN apon rAdikal YltDESanz

> v its fundamental elamants...


Nwot a pompas AtitjMd tM tEk. His

iz a diskuSan grMp, not a raliJas

YrdD nYr a prep skMl. lFtan up!



wI yr (Yr SUd bI) atemptih tM

fFnd a prAktikal wE ov jMzih (sum

ov us mOr cArlasli HAn uHDz,

sori, sori, sori!) a rAdikal, njM

(relativli) And cAlanJih Alfabet

kurantli nOn tM Onli a NAndfal

ov pIpal -- HAr iz nuTih YrTadoks

abQt it,



wel, anuf fun fyr wun dE,
/dsep

What a lot to trouble you with, but the Olympics
are over and there'll be no more excitement for
a while..


So that everyone may see exactly what it is that
they are objecting to or are annoyed by, I shall
here assemble my assorted and outrageous
heresies in full view, and use normal orthography
so that any newcomer not yet proficient in Shavian
may, if curious, observe this tempest in a teapot
with minimum effort and I hope without excessive
tedium.

This is an argument for a Shavian that might, just
might, have a slight chance of becoming a useful
complement to the standard alphabet -- if, that is,
if it can overcome the natural resistance to anything
new and strange as certainly will and generally does
occur in such cases.

Any new product, if it wishes to enjoy commercial
success, or any new cultural innovation, if it is to
achieve broad acceptance, must be (and must be
seen to be) as simple and as rewarding to use as
is possible (would anyone really want to challenge
this statement?).

If it is not simple and rewarding to use then too few
people will incur the expense to purchase the item
or expend the time and effort to master the idea or
technique in question. Inherent quality or brilliance
of conception is no guarantee of success.

In pursuit of acceptance, it helps tremendously if
whatever it is that one wishes to promote is made
as simple and foolproof as it can be made to be
(actually, as that term has lost much of its edge, it
is often today replaced by the somewhat unkind
alternative, idiot-proof). What this can amount to in
practice is in advance to at least attempt to overcome
all foreseeable objections (and therefore reduce
resistance) through the elimination of any feature
that may give any cause at all for doubt, scepticism,
uncertainty, or that might provide an excuse, any
excuse at all, for not taking action. We are, many of
us, lethargic by nature, and (again, many of us) more
prone to rely upon rationalization than rationality.

By now you see where this exercise is leading. I
believe it would be advantageous for the future of
Shavian (if there is to be one) if it could be refined
to the most utterly simple model possible, one that
sceptical and nominally interested people, even
children, could quickly learn (and begin to use).

If Shavian is ever to be more than the idle amusement
that some consider it to be, or just another failed
spelling reform, then, I submit, it will have to be
ruthlessly, relentlessly, pared down to an unassailably
simple, utterly logical, and not just mainly or even
mostly but thoroughly consistent, transparent, easily
and quickly understood, justifiable core structure
devoid of obvious flaws, able to withstand and
overcome dismissive criticism and all other attempts
to demean, ridicule, or discredit it, attitudes that will
inevitably arise if ever this alphabet comes to the
attention of a wider public beyond this group. So there!

Where could such effort be directed?

1. substitutions

The use of t, v, n, and voiced-th as word substitutions
(they are not really abbreviations, as abbreviations offer
some clue as to what is abbreviated) is a fine idea if Shavian
were a shorthand. And there is no reason why anyone who
prefers shorthand should not make use of these and invent
others. But clarity is strengthened if the basic model is built
upon the clear principle that all words have an identifiable
phonemic composition and not rely upon symbols. Is this
unreasonable?

2. reversals

Through some accident the keywords for the pair "ha" and
"hung" and the pair "air" and "err" were transposed. This is
so obvious it is amazing that it can be denied. The sound of
"h" is voiceless and the sound of -ng is voiced, and therefore
should be tall and deep respectively to preserve consistency.
No poll taken can alter this simple fact, as you cannot by
consensus issue a decree that black is white nor up is down.
Sorry. Extend a hand to all new prospective adherents to
Shavian and correct this simple flaw!

3. r-vowels

Shavian has two sets of r-flavoured, composite, or compound
vowels -- whichever is the better term. The one contains "are,
or, err, air, ear", Ian, yu", and of course the "array" or -er
letter for the unstressed compound; in the other "our, ire,
poor, pure", and for many, "pour". The first group may be
represented by digraphs; the second not, as there aren’t any
for these sounds. In addition those who distinguish between
"merry" and "marry" have no option but to use the "air" sign
for both if they wish to use the available digraphs.

It would, I suggest, be simpler, hence better -- in the field of
language acquisition I submit that simpler, being easier, is
always better -- to use only one method to indicate these
particular vowels. I cannot believe that the mere millimetre's
separation between the two parts of most of the compounds
can really cause genuine distress. There is of course, the signs
for "err" and "air", which are different, and rather clever in
conception. But, as even my friend who resolutely denies that
the keywords for the letters "ha" and "hung" could ever
conceivably, possibly, no not ever have been transposed
because, well because, does admit that such did happen with
"err' and "air", as anyone can determine by examining their
composition carefully. In this case one could simply exchange
the keywords as I argue should be done for "ha" and "hung",
but it would be even simpler to abandon all digraphs altogether
and rely, at least in the basic model, upon simple vowel plus
r-sign to cover all bases. Well, there is the "array" sign, and
as that represents an unstressed sound, and is therefore
special, it perhaps would be counter-productive to separate
its components.

It can be argued on the other hand that a digraph is
warranted for "are" and "err", as they usually are or can
be monophthongal in quality. This point of view would have
had greater weight had the two been paired with each other.
For some reason however they were not. It can also be argued
that some (but not all) of the second group are triphthongs and
can be spelt using final "array". But they aren't always, not for
all speakers. There is no reason why the r-sign cannot serve for
all varieties of the stressed-r sound, without confusion; flaps,
uvulars, trills (for those who care to), and non-r schwas after
vowels. There is a precedent for the latter -- as an increasingly
common practice younger British linguists use postvowel-r to
indicate vowel lengthening, to describe the pronunciation of
"arm", for example; Americans would understand this to be a
sign of rhoticity. Everyone can be happy. Other letters stand
for a wide range of sound variation, or in this case function,
why not the "r' as well? Everyone in true phonemic fashion
supplies their own pronunciation.

Now, was that so terrible?

I expect these proposals shall meet universal approval and
wild cheers of joy.

Tongue-in-cheekily,
dshep

Wow. You sure used a lot of words to say what you had to say!

I can probably sum it up like this:

You believe Shavian has not been generally accepted because there's
something drastically wrong with the alphabet, and that if everybody
would just write the way you do, it would solve the problem and everyone
would use it.

You believe substitutions for the four most common words are evil.

You believe that if Haha doesn't stick up and Hung hang down, it will
cause mass confusion.

You believe compound letters are evil.

First point: Most people who know Shavian don't have any major gripes
about it. It works pretty darn well, in my opinion. The reason more
people don't use it is mostly due to obscurity. Since the vast majority
of people have never heard of it, they don't use it either. The one
thing Shavian needs most is exposure.

Second: I have absolutely no trouble reading the substitute letters, and
they make writing much easier. I've never heard anyone else complain
about them, though I could be wrong. It just seems like a non-issue to
me. How are they any different from using the following examples? "Meet
@ my house" "We're #1!" "I need $3" "How much $$$ do you have?" "John &
Lisa"

Third: Up, down, whatever, does it really matter? Normal people (that
is, non-linguists) don't normally think about whether a sound is voiced
or voiceless. So just as long as everyone is consistent, there should
be no problem. The problem only arises when someone decides to buck the
norm and do it their own way. That's when confusion begins to reign.

Fourth: The compound letters are integral to the alphabet's design.
They make writing much shorter, just as the word substitutions do. They
also make distinctions which cannot be made any other way. Also, nobody
seems to complain that they just cannot understand the last eight
letters of the alphabet! And finally, these letters are NOT digraphs.
Digraphs are what you are using - that is, two letters juxtaposed for
the purpose of representing one sound or phoneme. Now while it may be
debated whether we need letters like Are, Or and Air, since they are not
phonemes, there still is an advantage to using them - mainly, it makes
writing simpler and shorter. Err and Array are very necessary. They
are vowels for rhotic speakers, and should not be replaced with a
vowel+consonant digraph such as you use: Up+Roar, for instance. How
else would you make the distinction between words like "throw"
(consonant), "thorough" (vowel), and "Thoreau" (vowel+consonant, as many
pronounce it)?

Finally, I have to say this: I have more trouble reading your Shavian
than I do anybody else's in this group. The changes you make, which are
totally without consensus, do nothing to make Shavian easier. In fact,
they make it more difficult and illogical, longer and more complex. I'm
not trying to offensive; I believe in being simple and direct when
necessary, and in this case I have to say, your use of Shavian holds no
advantage, that I can see. And I believe there is some agreement on
this, too.

Take care,

Ethan

dshep wrote:

>
> What a lot to trouble you with, but the Olympics
> are over and there'll be no more excitement for
> a while..
>
>
> So that everyone may see exactly what it is that
> they are objecting to or are annoyed by, I shall
> here assemble my assorted and outrageous
> heresies in full view, and use normal orthography
> so that any newcomer not yet proficient in Shavian
> may, if curious, observe this tempest in a teapot
> with minimum effort and I hope without excessive
> tedium.
>
> This is an argument for a Shavian that might, just
> might, have a slight chance of becoming a useful
> complement to the standard alphabet -- if, that is,
> if it can overcome the natural resistance to anything
> new and strange as certainly will and generally does
> occur in such cases.
>
> Any new product, if it wishes to enjoy commercial
> success, or any new cultural innovation, if it is to
> achieve broad acceptance, must be (and must be
> seen to be) as simple and as rewarding to use as
> is possible (would anyone really want to challenge
> this statement?).
>
> If it is not simple and rewarding to use then too few
> people will incur the expense to purchase the item
> or expend the time and effort to master the idea or
> technique in question. Inherent quality or brilliance
> of conception is no guarantee of success.
>
> In pursuit of acceptance, it helps tremendously if
> whatever it is that one wishes to promote is made
> as simple and foolproof as it can be made to be
> (actually, as that term has lost much of its edge, it
> is often today replaced by the somewhat unkind
> alternative, idiot-proof). What this can amount to in
> practice is in advance to at least attempt to overcome
> all foreseeable objections (and therefore reduce
> resistance) through the elimination of any feature
> that may give any cause at all for doubt, scepticism,
> uncertainty, or that might provide an excuse, any
> excuse at all, for not taking action. We are, many of
> us, lethargic by nature, and (again, many of us) more
> prone to rely upon rationalization than rationality.
>
> By now you see where this exercise is leading. I
> believe it would be advantageous for the future of
> Shavian (if there is to be one) if it could be refined
> to the most utterly simple model possible, one that
> sceptical and nominally interested people, even
> children, could quickly learn (and begin to use).
>
> If Shavian is ever to be more than the idle amusement
> that some consider it to be, or just another failed
> spelling reform, then, I submit, it will have to be
> ruthlessly, relentlessly, pared down to an unassailably
> simple, utterly logical, and not just mainly or even
> mostly but thoroughly consistent, transparent, easily
> and quickly understood, justifiable core structure
> devoid of obvious flaws, able to withstand and
> overcome dismissive criticism and all other attempts
> to demean, ridicule, or discredit it, attitudes that will
> inevitably arise if ever this alphabet comes to the
> attention of a wider public beyond this group. So there!
>
> Where could such effort be directed?
>
> 1. substitutions
>
> The use of t, v, n, and voiced-th as word substitutions
> (they are not really abbreviations, as abbreviations offer
> some clue as to what is abbreviated) is a fine idea if Shavian
> were a shorthand. And there is no reason why anyone who
> prefers shorthand should not make use of these and invent
> others. But clarity is strengthened if the basic model is built
> upon the clear principle that all words have an identifiable
> phonemic composition and not rely upon symbols. Is this
> unreasonable?
>
> 2. reversals
>
> Through some accident the keywords for the pair "ha" and
> "hung" and the pair "air" and "err" were transposed. This is
> so obvious it is amazing that it can be denied. The sound of
> "h" is voiceless and the sound of -ng is voiced, and therefore
> should be tall and deep respectively to preserve consistency.
> No poll taken can alter this simple fact, as you cannot by
> consensus issue a decree that black is white nor up is down.
> Sorry. Extend a hand to all new prospective adherents to
> Shavian and correct this simple flaw!
>
> 3. r-vowels
>
> Shavian has two sets of r-flavoured, composite, or compound
> vowels -- whichever is the better term. The one contains "are,
> or, err, air, ear", Ian, yu", and of course the "array" or -er
> letter for the unstressed compound; in the other "our, ire,
> poor, pure", and for many, "pour". The first group may be
> represented by digraphs; the second not, as there aren�t any
> for these sounds. In addition those who distinguish between
> "merry" and "marry" have no option but to use the "air" sign
> for both if they wish to use the available digraphs.
>
>
>
> It would, I suggest, be simpler, hence better -- in the field of
> language acquisition I submit that simpler, being easier, is
> always better -- to use only one method to indicate these
> particular vowels. I cannot believe that the mere millimetre's
> separation between the two parts of most of the compounds
> can really cause genuine distress. There is of course, the signs
> for "err" and "air", which are different, and rather clever in
> conception. But, as even my friend who resolutely denies that
> the keywords for the letters "ha" and "hung" could ever
> conceivably, possibly, no not ever have been transposed
> because, well because, does admit that such did happen with
> "err' and "air", as anyone can determine by examining their
> composition carefully. In this case one could simply exchange
> the keywords as I argue should be done for "ha" and "hung",
> but it would be even simpler to abandon all digraphs altogether
> and rely, at least in the basic model, upon simple vowel plus
> r-sign to cover all bases. Well, there is the "array" sign, and
> as that represents an unstressed sound, and is therefore
> special, it perhaps would be counter-productive to separate
> its components.
>
> It can be argued on the other hand that a digraph is
> warranted for "are" and "err", as they usually are or can
> be monophthongal in quality. This point of view would have
> had greater weight had the two been paired with each other.
> For some reason however they were not. It can also be argued
> that some (but not all) of the second group are triphthongs and
> can be spelt using final "array". But they aren't always, not for
> all speakers. There is no reason why the r-sign cannot serve for
> all varieties of the stressed-r sound, without confusion; flaps,
> uvulars, trills (for those who care to), and non-r schwas after
> vowels. There is a precedent for the latter -- as an increasingly
> common practice younger British linguists use postvowel-r to
> indicate vowel lengthening, to describe the pronunciation of
> "arm", for example; Americans would understand this to be a
> sign of rhoticity. Everyone can be happy. Other letters stand
> for a wide range of sound variation, or in this case function,
> why not the "r' as well? Everyone in true phonemic fashion
> supplies their own pronunciation.
>
> Now, was that so terrible?
>
> I expect these proposals shall meet universal approval and
> wild cheers of joy.
>
> Tongue-in-cheekily,
> dshep

/dSep:

unlFk jM, F kansidD /SEvian

tM bI (patenSali) mOr HAn An

entDtEnmant



wX iz it V got His nOSan HAt HAt's Yl F kansidD /SEvIan t bI, Ivan
patenSalI?



wot F sed woz HAt At prezant, t H QtsFd wxld, /SEvIan iz not a wxld-cEnJiN
teknolaJI, P a riplEsmant Alfabet in wEtiN; nP iz it undD H intDnASanal
spotlFt. it iz At prezant Just a kVrIosatI. fAkt. sEiN sO duz not mIn F
bilIv it SUd rimEn sO.



lFk a lot v uHD pIpal hM Vz it, F wont it t bI mP. F hAv hAd sevDal plAnz
OvD H jCz fP its fXHDans (wun v wic did involv rimMviN sevDal letDz) but
pritendiN HAt /SEvIan iz YlredI mEkiN wEvz wX it klClI iznt iz mAdnas.



H fxst step in dIliN wiH /SEvIan'z abskVratI iz t admit HAt it hAznt got
enIwX speSal jet.



ov Yl Ha spelih rafYrmz HAt

NAv sIn Ha lFt ov dE, /SEvian

F balIv iz Ha Onli wun (bakYz

it iz ritan in a kamplItli njM

skript) wiH eni posabilati At Yl

ov bIih nOtist And tEkan up bF

enuf pIpal tM sumdE (mEbi)

estAbliS a fUtNOld in Ha relm

ov popjalD imAJanESan.



His iz wX wI agrI!



[F saJestad ramMviN] Onli a kupal: "N" And "h"



hAv V fDgotan? lAst JAnVerI V saJestad HAt sins 'j' woz vqst, it SUd bI
YltDd t bI a dIp letD lFk 'w'. V YlsO prapOzd swopiN 'x' n 'X', but sins V'v
rIsantlI dumpt kompQnd letDz YltageHD...



jMz [konpQnd letDz] if jM lFk, but Ha

/SEvian Alfabet wUd bI simplD

And IziD tM lurn wiHQt Hem.



mOst pIpal hC wil disagrI, but it's a rIzanabal TCI. V'D welkam t kYl jP
Alfabet sumTiN difDant n prizent it t H grMp.



in kEs V TiNk F'm sum kFnd v ludFt, V SUd bI awX F'v YlredI trFd riviZanz
mFself. F divFzd /kut
<http://www.shavian.org/hugh/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?sD0451c97721ffff;actST;f=1;t> /SEvIan a fV jCz bAk, wic rimMvd Yl kompQnd letDz n
kansolidEtad 'o'|'y' n 'u'|'a', rizultiN in a simplifFd Alfabet v 38
kAraktDz. mF intent woz t sI if it woz fIzabal t kamVnikEt ifektivlI wFl
amitiN letDz wic wxnt kansistantlI Vzd akros difDant dFalekts. F stil dOnt
kansidD it a fEljD, YlHO nObodI woz tM kIn t giv it a gO. mEbI F Just didnt
iksplEn mFself wel inuf bAk Hen.



hQevD, F stil disagrI HAt swopiN 2 letDz wil hAv enI ifekt wotsOevD on H
apIl v H Alfabet t nV VzDz.



> hAv V RbitrXalI rIasFnd HOz letDz,

> tM? F dOnt mIn t sQnd kondasendiN,



O NO NO, ov kOrs jM didnt --



jes, sorI. F woz in a sRkI mMd.



> but pDhAps a fUl grAsp v H Alfabet in

> its 'PTadoks' fPm wUd bI AdvantEJas bifP

> bOldlI imbRkiN apon rAdikal YltDESanz

> v its fundamental elamants...





Nwot a pompas AtitjMd tM tEk. His

iz a diskuSan grMp, not a raliJas

YrdD nYr a prep skMl. lFtan up!



F'm OnlI hC bikoz F inJq it, not bikoz F lFk pikiN fFts. F hOp V'D hC fP H
sEm rIzan. F didnt mIn t sQnd pompas, fP HAt F apoloJFz. hQevD, F'm stil
sumwot bimVzd bF V on H wun hAnd rizistiN kanvenSanal /SEvIan wFl on H uHD
hAnd rifVziN t aknolaJ HAt jP cEnJaz konstitVt a riviZan n SUd bI kYld
sumTiN els.



wI yr (Yr SUd bI) atemptih tM

fFnd a prAktikal wE ov jMzih (sum

ov us mOr cArlasli HAn uHDz,

sori, sori, sori!) a rAdikal, njM

(relativli) And cAlanJih Alfabet

kurantli nOn tM Onli a NAndfal

ov pIpal -- HAr iz nuTih YrTadoks

abQt it,



plIz aknolaJ HAt not evrIbodI hC hAz H sEm miSanDI zIl Az V, nP SUd V dimAnd
HAt wI "SUd". menI v us R 'kansxvativ' in QD vV v /SEvIan n Just inJq H
Alfabet fP wot it iz. wI mFt Just Vz it fP QD pxsanal nOts. V'D welkam t
prapOz Az menI bOld cEnJaz Az V lFk, but plIz dOnt ikspekt us t FHD aksept P
aprMv v Hem.



rimembD, if V wont t txn jP copt-abQt darivativ v /SEvIan intM H nV wxld
Alfabet HAt evrIbodI wil luv, dM it; but plIz, dM wot F did n nEm jP
riviZanz sumTiN els, n dOnt SQt abQt it evrI dE wen H grMp iz fed up hCiN
abQt it.



/hV /b

TANks /daSep
nQ HAt V R hOpfUl abQt /SYvIan,
F Am muc hApIjD. sPI, F miskynstrMd
yP fIliNz abQt /SYvIan.
let mI raspynd t 2 v yP pqnts.
1. lYJakal n esTetik R nyt inkumpAtabal,
n wen HE kum t tageTD in sumTiN lFk
H /SYvIan Alfabet, F Am mP HAn imprest,
F bakMm
a fCles kumitad AdvakEt t wun n Yl.
2. Az a prOgrAmD, F admFD tFt wel ritan
kOd. F Am not a /hAkD hM pDsists
endlesly kutiN awE At H kOd
t pradM H minamum numbD v linz.
sum radundencI iz a gUd TiN.

enIwE, F am glAd V R bak yn trAk,
n I hOp V rIaliz HAt /SYvIan haz a bit
v lMsnes in it, wic mEks it mP, nyt les
atrActIv t a wFd vDFatI v /iNgliS Vzxz.
it iz akYmadEtiN.
H pryblem iz HAt nyt anuf pIpal hAv bIn
rIlI ekspOzd t /SYvIan.

ragRdz, /pYl /vI.
P.S. /SYvIan is nyt an abstrAkt Tiri, it iz
a rIal kynstrukt, a tMal t kymmVnakEt
H signifakent sQndz v /iNgliS.
_______________________attached__________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
> reply to message 1483 from paul vandenbrink
> who appears to discount the value of aesthetics:
>
>
> nObudI JuJaz "H TCI v relativatI", bI hQ menI
> pIpal lIk H wE it lUks. it IHD wxks P it duzant.
>
> AkcMai, fizasists dM strFv tM
>
> atEn bjMti, a bjMti ov fYrmjMlESan.
>
> A gUd Tiri, HE SE, iz "eligant".

hF /daSep
if HX iz nO
a /SEvian dFgrAf fYr sum
kombanESanz, V wUd Vz
vQal letD + "array"
ragRdz, /pYl /vI.
___________attached_________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
> jM sI mI dM sO. HAr iz
>
> a /SEvian dFgrAf fYr sum
>
> kombanESanz, but not uHDz.
>
> NwF mEntEn mOr HAn wun
>
> sistem?
> E?,
_____________attached________________
> I still regularly see people use a
vowel letter + "roar"
> to make the equivalent of one of the
> syllabic R-sounds, for which there is an
> existing Shavian letter.