Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

hF /daSep
F tOtalI agrI wiT V abQt
H impPtins n VnIknes v /SYvIan.
ragRdz, /pYl /vI.
_________________attached__________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
> unlFk /hV, 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
>

Hi Dshep
First let me correct you. What you bring up are
all perfectly valid points, that have been brought up
at least 10 or more times before. They are not Heresies.
They were problems for which there have been good solutions,
so the original problem and usage was left as it is.
"Better the Devil you know"
Because we have replied to these questions a number of times
we get a little over-critical of people bringing up the same
quibbles.
Forgive us our trespasses of good manners.
Let me give you my own proposals/reactions to your proposals
to the points you raised.
Note that these proposals not only do not meet with
universal approval but have produced catcalls and innumeral
references to flogging a dead horse.
"Fresh Horse meat, any one?"

To still the wild cheers of joy, let me be brief.

1. Substitutions
"H" for "the"
"t" for "to" or "too"
seem to be perfect valid abbrev.
albiet without a dot on the end of the letter.
"n" for "and" is a strech and might be better
represented by a "&"
"v" is not great but better than writing,
uv, ov or av. It save thinking about it.

2. Reversals
Pairing up the h sound and the ng-sound
shows a singular lack of imagination.
The NG sound should be symbolized by a letter
that bears some resemblence to mem or nun
and have a short central position.
So if you gave the ng-sound a new letter altogether,
and then moved the Hung letter up into an unvoiced
position, (Why flip it over) everything would
be fine.

3. R-vowels
The determination of which of the R-vowels get
their own letter and which get a
vowel letter + "array" diagraph is a troubling
conundrum. How do we consistently
differentiate "err"(urge) and "array"?
Personally, I feel for most words, it is better to
write "Eat"+"Array" rather than "Ear",
because the "eat sound seem to predominate
in words like teardrop, fear, ear, gear and Dear.
"Ear" the letter seems a lighter shorter sound only found
in words like mirror, here, spear, Cyril and beer.
Still, even to my untrained ear,
it does seem that "Array", "Or" and "Are",
at least
are simple distinct sounds.

Is that simple enough for you.

Regards, Paul V.
______________________attached_______________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
> 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
>

reply to message 1503 from Ethan:



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

Yes, bad habit I suppose. But, I read somewhere that civilization
is conversation, or something like that. Perhaps the word used was
the more fashionable "discourse" -- I can't remember.

> 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.

I would not use the term" drastically wrong"; what about "insufficiently
right"? The modifications I propose are actually so modest I am con-
tinually dismayed by the hostility they generate. What I have argued
is that any, any, objection that could be made by critics, genuine
linguists for example (unlike we amateurs) and especially educators,
if they ever rip into it, should be, when possible, removed beforehand.
Why not? Of course, as I have conceded previously, if there is no real
interest in promoting Shavian beyond the confines of this group, to
make it as easy as possible for the not-necessarily-interested mass
of the population to acquire, then there is no point in doing anything.

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

Evil? Surely you exaggerate. Merely unnecessary. Substitutions are,
perhaps, a convenience, but at the loss of transparency, the
transparency
of every word revealed as composed of phonemic elements.

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

Some, and unnecessary, confusion -- not for you but conceivably for the
unexposed. The sound of \h\ is unvoiced and logically belongs in the
group
\p, t, k, f, s, etc\; the sound \ng\ is voiced and belongs in the
group \b, d, g, v, z,
etc\. Do you really dispute this? Supply a good reason beyond inertia
why the
pattern set up by separation into tall and deep letters should not be
followed
through as consistently as is possible. Why accept even the
possibility of
confusion, however slight, or illogic, however modest, if the remedy
is so
painless? The point I think is to make Shavian, as far as is
possible, beyond
reproach, all for the purpose of being able to display to the public
at large
a system well worth taking up.

> You believe compound letters are evil.

Evil again? Are we straying into deep waters here? I submit merely that
there is no good reason for there to be two types of compound vowels,
some represented by a digraph and others not. Why should there be?
Is not simplicity a virtue?

> First point: Most people who know Shavian don't have any major
> gripes about it.

You mean all several dozen of us?

> It works pretty darn well, in my opinion.

In mine too, but could work even more smoothly with the wrinkles ironed
out. Do you consider it perfect? The test should be not whether you
find it
fine as it is, but whether a class you were assigned to teach it to
would,
and would you have any difficulties explaining some of its features.

> 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.

Yes, and if that time ever comes the chances of acceptance will be that
much better if there are no critical weaknesses to be explained away.

> 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"

U don't find such usage ugly?

> 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.

Logical consistency can matter a lot in initial acquisition, even if
one is
unconscious of the process at work, otherwise you are condemned to rely
upon rote memorization. Again, for this group it doesn't matter, we
are too
small to count, but look to the future when there might some day be a
need
for an alternative way of writing. Moreover everyone is already
trained to
use traditional orthography consistently, and there is little
problem. Bucking
the norm is using something strange like Shavian. Most people aren't
going
to be terribly enthusiastic about leaning a new alphabet.

And not to be elitist, but it does matter what linguists and
educators might say
about any new combination spelling reform and alphabet, as what they
think
will influence the authorities, who have the means to support any new
idea
with funds and direction. Just a brief introductory session in the
schools could
have a big effect.

> 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.

I think the question here however is whether Shavian is or should be
a shorthand or a full alphabetical script. I prefer the latter
choice, especially
as Quikskript may be the better shorthand.

> Also, nobody seems to complain that they just cannot understand
the last
> eight letters of the alphabet!

The complaints of this group are not what interests me. Rather, it is
the slim
possibility that Shavian, a writing system based upon clarity of
display and
simplicity of organization, both of which have pedagogical benefits
which I
suspect you do not credit, might someday, with a little help, be seen
as a
worthwhile complement to the standard script. And as for the last eight,
compound letters, they are not really necessary, everything else is.

> And finally, these letters are NOT digraphs.

Yes they are. From the AHD, Fourth Edition:

digraph
1. A pair of letters representing a single speech sound, such as the
ph in
pheasant.
2. A single character consisting of two letters run together and
representing
a single sound, such as Old English æ. (a and e joined, which
may not
show up on all browsers)

You mean the first definition, I the second.

> Digraphs are what you are using -- that is, two letters juxtaposed
for
> the purpose of representing one sound or phoneme.

Or, maybe I don't understand what you mean here.

> 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.

We both want simplicity, but it would seem of a different kind. Again,
Quikscript may be the better shorthand, being even easier to write and
simpler in form. I consider however the intention of Shavian is to
serve as
a fully adequate alternative alphabet, where the simplicity lies in
ready
reading comprehension rather than swiftness of writing. Newspapers
aren't written in shorthand, are they?

> Err and Array are very necessary.

Array is, as it is a subdued sound, frequently a mumble, but as err can
be replaced by u+r then, though it may be convenient if brevity is
the goal,
is not, strictly speaking, 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.

Well, I would think that using a vowel+r only underscores the
possibility of
rhoticity, not the opposite. RP speakers would have more reason to
object.
But to repeat, the -r can be interpreted as one wishes, either as a
rhotic mark
or a vowel lengthener.

> How else would you make the distinction between words like "throw"
> (consonant), "thorough" (vowel), and "Thoreau" (vowel+consonant, as
> many pronounce it)?

Is that a problem?
throw = TrO, thorough = TurO, Thoreau = /TarO

> 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.

I am sorry to hear it. But I do contest the charge of illogicality.
Slightly longer
yes, not enough to matter much in my opinion, but as i have argued,
easier
I believe for newcomers not as motivated as you to learn and use.

Take care,
Ethan

Thank you for your recent test page,
dshep

Hi DShep
You make some very strong points most of which I can not really
disagree with. I think the majority of us here believe that after
50 years of experiance with the Shavian, we are ready to produce
a version 2.0.
However there are 2 problems, first that everybody has his own pet
peeve and if
every change that everybody wanted was included, the alphabet would
fragment into a a number of incomprehensible variant forms.
Second, the changes reccommended are not upward compatible.
This means that the proposed changes invalidate the original
form of the Alphabet.
This is not only unnecessary, but it is stupid.
It is cutting away the ground from under your feet.

I accept that it is a good idea to fix the ha-ha/hung inconsistency
but why in G-d's name would you want to reverse meanings of the
letters.
It creates 2 distinctly different and incompatible Alphabets.

Let's correct two other errors in your thinking. First simplicity
is not an absolute ideal in developing methods of recording complex
phenomena like human speech.
Second, Phonemes are not atoms, sounds broken down to their minimum.
Merged Vowels (Dipthongs & R-Vowels) especially should be considered
as different phonemes.

Think about that every syllable has one vowels sound.
Other than that I am willing to get on board with the points you made.

Regards, Paul V.
_______________attached________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
>
> reply to message 1503 from Ethan:
>
> > 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.
>
> I would not use the term" drastically wrong"; what
about "insufficiently
> right"? The modifications I propose are actually so modest I am con-
> tinually dismayed by the hostility they generate. What I have argued
> is that any, any, objection that could be made by critics, genuine
> linguists for example (unlike we amateurs) and especially educators,
> if they ever rip into it, should be, when possible, removed
beforehand.
> Why not? Of course, as I have conceded previously, if there is no
real
> interest in promoting Shavian beyond the confines of this group, to
> make it as easy as possible for the not-necessarily-interested mass
> of the population to acquire, then there is no point in doing
anything.
>
> > You believe substitutions for the four most common words are
evil.
>
> Evil? Surely you exaggerate. Merely unnecessary. Substitutions are,
> perhaps, a convenience, but at the loss of transparency, the
> transparency
> of every word revealed as composed of phonemic elements.
>
> > You believe that if Haha doesn't stick up and Hung hang down, it
will
> > cause mass confusion.
>
> Some, and unnecessary, confusion -- not for you but conceivably for
the
> unexposed. The sound of \h\ is unvoiced and logically belongs in
the
> group
> \p, t, k, f, s, etc\; the sound \ng\ is voiced and belongs in the
> group \b, d, g, v, z,
> etc\. Do you really dispute this? Supply a good reason beyond
inertia
> why the
> pattern set up by separation into tall and deep letters should not
be
> followed
> through as consistently as is possible. Why accept even the
> possibility of
> confusion, however slight, or illogic, however modest, if the
remedy
> is so
> painless? The point I think is to make Shavian, as far as is
> possible, beyond
> reproach, all for the purpose of being able to display to the
public
> at large
> a system well worth taking up.
>
>> > It works pretty darn well, in my opinion.
>
> In mine too, but could work even more smoothly with the wrinkles
ironed
> out. Do you consider it perfect? The test should be not whether
you
> find it
> fine as it is, but whether a class you were assigned to teach it
to
> would,
> and would you have any difficulties explaining some of its features.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, and if that time ever comes the chances of acceptance will be
that
> much better if there are no critical weaknesses to be explained
away.
>
> > 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"
>
> U don't find such usage ugly?
>
> > 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.
>
> Logical consistency can matter a lot in initial acquisition, even
if
> one is
> unconscious of the process at work, otherwise you are condemned to
rely
> upon rote memorization. Again, for this group it doesn't matter,
we
> are too
> small to count, but look to the future when there might some day be
a
> need
> for an alternative way of writing. Moreover everyone is already
> trained to
> use traditional orthography consistently, and there is little
> problem. Bucking
> the norm is using something strange like Shavian. Most people
aren't
> going
> to be terribly enthusiastic about leaning a new alphabet.
>
> And not to be elitist, but it does matter what linguists and
> educators might say
> about any new combination spelling reform and alphabet, as what
they
> think
> will influence the authorities, who have the means to support any
new
> idea
> with funds and direction. Just a brief introductory session in the
> schools could
> have a big effect.
>
> > 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.
>
> I think the question here however is whether Shavian is or should be
> a shorthand or a full alphabetical script. I prefer the latter
> choice, especially
> as Quikskript may be the better shorthand.
>
> > Also, nobody seems to complain that they just cannot understand
> the last
> > eight letters of the alphabet!
>
> The complaints of this group are not what interests me. Rather, it
is
> the slim
> possibility that Shavian, a writing system based upon clarity of
> display and
> simplicity of organization, both of which have pedagogical
benefits
> which I
> suspect you do not credit, might someday, with a little help, be
seen
> as a
> worthwhile complement to the standard script. And as for the last
eight,
> compound letters, they are not really necessary, everything else
is.
>
> > And finally, these letters are NOT digraphs.
>
> Yes they are. From the AHD, Fourth Edition:
>
> digraph
> 1. A pair of letters representing a single speech sound, such as
the
> ph in
> pheasant.
> 2. A single character consisting of two letters run together and
> representing
> a single sound, such as Old English æ. (a and e joined, which
> may not
> show up on all browsers)
>
> You mean the first definition, I the second.
>
> > Digraphs are what you are using -- that is, two letters
juxtaposed
> for
> > the purpose of representing one sound or phoneme.
>
> Or, maybe I don't understand what you mean here.
>
> > 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.
>
> We both want simplicity, but it would seem of a different kind.
Again,
> Quikscript may be the better shorthand, being even easier to write
and
> simpler in form. I consider however the intention of Shavian is to
> serve as
> a fully adequate alternative alphabet, where the simplicity lies
in
> ready
> reading comprehension rather than swiftness of writing. Newspapers
> aren't written in shorthand, are they?
>
> > Err and Array are very necessary.
>
> Array is, as it is a subdued sound, frequently a mumble, but as err
can
> be replaced by u+r then, though it may be convenient if brevity is
> the goal,
> is not, strictly speaking, 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.
>
> Well, I would think that using a vowel+r only underscores the
> possibility of
> rhoticity, not the opposite. RP speakers would have more reason to
> object.
> But to repeat, the -r can be interpreted as one wishes, either as
a
> rhotic mark
> or a vowel lengthener.
>
> > How else would you make the distinction between words
like "throw"
> > (consonant), "thorough" (vowel), and "Thoreau" (vowel+consonant,
as
> > many pronounce it)?
>
> Is that a problem?
> throw = TrO, thorough = TurO, Thoreau = /TarO
>
> > 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.
>
> I am sorry to hear it. But I do contest the charge of
illogicality.
> Slightly longer
> yes, not enough to matter much in my opinion, but as i have
argued,
> easier
> I believe for newcomers not as motivated as you to learn and use.
>
> Take care,
> Ethan
>
> Thank you for your recent test page,
> dshep
>

iz enIwun els hC a mVziSan?



if sO, wot instramant dM V plE n wot stFl v mVzik?



/hV /b

Fm not a mVziSan As suc , but F kan plE H pIynO . F lxnd
klAsikal mVzik but hAvant hAd muc cyns t prAktis HAt lEtlI . F
dM plE himz regVlDlI fP QD lOkal kongrigESan .

/filip /nVtan

-----Original Message-----
From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Hugh Birkenhead
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:41 PM
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SPAM Verdacht] - [shawalphabet] Musicians - Bayesian Filter
detected spam



iz enIwun els hC a mVziSan?



if sO, wot instramant dM V plE n wot stFl v mVzik?



/hV /b



SPONSORED LINKS
Shaw
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Shaw+rug&w1=Shaw+rug&w2=Shaw+carpets&w3
=Corporate+culture&w4=Business+culture+of+china&w5=Shaw+flooring&w6=Shaw+flo
rist&c=6&s3&.sig=YIW_B1oY2COM27wPq8lHOw> rug Shaw
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Shaw+carpets&w1=Shaw+rug&w2=Shaw+carpet
s&w3=Corporate+culture&w4=Business+culture+of+china&w5=Shaw+flooring&w6=Shaw
+florist&c=6&s3&.sig=i0GmmaJZ-_LYyTKfZV3A7Q> carpets Corporate
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Corporate+culture&w1=Shaw+rug&w2=Shaw+c
arpets&w3=Corporate+culture&w4=Business+culture+of+china&w5=Shaw+flooring&w6
=Shaw+florist&c=6&s3&.sig=IJh5sOdyyouM1wglT1O6tQ> culture
Business
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+culture+of+china&w1=Shaw+rug&w
2=Shaw+carpets&w3=Corporate+culture&w4=Business+culture+of+china&w5=Shaw+flo
oring&w6=Shaw+florist&c=6&s3&.sig=u2pQwknmRESr-Lwdrp2YvA> culture of
china Shaw
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Shaw+flooring&w1=Shaw+rug&w2=Shaw+carpe
ts&w3=Corporate+culture&w4=Business+culture+of+china&w5=Shaw+flooring&w6=Sha
w+florist&c=6&s3&.sig=7on4hP0fDgPAj4mBIRmqJQ> flooring Shaw
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Shaw+florist&w1=Shaw+rug&w2=Shaw+carpet
s&w3=Corporate+culture&w4=Business+culture+of+china&w5=Shaw+flooring&w6=Shaw
+florist&c=6&s3&.sig²yWzpM8b6y1pPnsYnJAcw> florist

_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



* Visit your group "shawalphabet
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet> " on the web.


* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>


* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


_____

hF /hV
F hAv nO speSal mVzakYl AbilatI.
F lFk t lisan t a simpal fOk meladI n sum /kQbq mVzak.
hRmunIz R nyt mF strYN sMt. (briJ refDuns)
HE trFd t tIc mI, but F wuzant HAt intDestad n
nevD lxrnd t rId H nOts yn H SIt mVzak.
nId t rId t suksId.

ragRdz, /pYl /vI.
____________________AtAct____________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Newton, Philip"
<Philip.Newton@...> wrote:
>
> Fm not a mVziSan As suc , but F kan plE H pIynO . F lxnd
> klAsikal mVzik but hAvant hAd muc cyns t prAktis HAt
lEtlI . F
> dM plE himz regVlDlI fP QD lOkal kongrigESan .

Hi DShep
I found an old note from Mr. Callaway to Algy that supports a
previous suggestion, that would better resolve the Ha/Hung problem.
The recommended solution is to provide a new Short letter for Hung,
and move Ha-Ha up into the Unvoiced Tall position. (Ha-Ha is an
aspirate and doesn't fit in the voiced consonant category. In fact
it is in a category all by itself)
Please take a look at his recommendation attached to the bottom of
this note.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Please note unless there is some kind of consensus in this forum,
on this issue, I will retreat humbled yet again back to the Status
Quo.
_________________attached_______________________
> And You make some very strong points most of which I can not really
> disagree with. I think the majority of us here believe that after
> 50 years of experiance with the Shavian, we are ready to produce
> a version 2.0.

> I accept that it is would a good idea to fix the ha-ha/hung
> inconsistency if we could come up something obviously better
> but why in G-d's name would you want to reverse meanings of the
> letters.
> It creates 2 distinctly different and incompatible Alphabets.
> Regards, Paul V.
> _______________attached________________________________
Evening Algy

I've got a possible solution, if the issue comes up again. why don't
we just move the huNG down so it sits in the deep position, and move
Haha up so it sits on the base line, qualifying it as tall.
Then, the same characters are
used, but would now sit in their "correct" positions.
And if the issue doesn't come up again, pretend I never spoke. :-)
Toodle-Pip
A.M.Callaway
___________________attached__________________________
(snip)
* I'm glad that the threatened rift in the Shavian internet
* community
* concerning "huNG" and "Ha-ha" seems to have healed for the
* time being, but now that the matter
* of the switched glyphs has been to our attention, yet again,
* I imagine it will keep
* nagging at the perfectionist part of many of our minds
* for some time to come -- and rightly so.

* Thankfully, Algernon

Hugh:

F Am rFtiN His in /kwikskript n hOpiN HAt it wil bI rIdabal sins H kErAktar mApiN iz YlmOst Fdentikal.

F Am a mjMsican. F atendd H /jMnavarsiti v /lMIvil mjMsik skMl, n risIvd a bAcalar v mMzik degrI in 1972. mF mELJar waz aplFd pIAnO. in 1977 F kamplItd mF mAstarz degrI, mEJariN in TIrI-kompasiSan. F enZq rFtiN mjMzik, bat it iz a solitErI n tFm kansMmiN LJob. F prFmErilI plE klAsikal mjMzik (F prefar H tarm 'yrt mjMzik). F sarvd Az A carc YrgAnist n kwFr direktar fYr 30 jiarz. F stopt Hat sam 5 jiarz agO. At H prezant, F hAv agrId tM plE a konsart in 6 wIks. F wil plY sOlO pIAnO n wil bI akampanId bF a striN Yrkestra. a frend v mFn stYrtd H Yrkestra abQt 20+ jirz agO.

F wOnt bYr H grMp wiT mYr dItElz, bat Fm YlwEz redI tM tYlk mjMzik wiT inIwan interestd.

/pEJ



----- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Birkenhead
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:41 AM
Subject: [shawalphabet] Musicians


iz enIwun els hC a mVziSan?



if sO, wot instramant dM V plE n wot stFl v mVzik?



/hV /b



SPONSORED LINKS Shaw rug Shaw carpets Corporate culture
Business culture of china Shaw flooring Shaw florist


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "shawalphabet" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ha prIvIas mesaJ waz sent in /kwikskript bikYz F TYt H brQzar wUd not kIp H font intAkt And HAt it wUd bI rIdabal in /SY skript.



F Am rFtiN His in /kwikskript n hOpiN HAt it wil bI rIdabal sins H kErAktar mApiN iz YlmOst Fdentikal.

F Am a mjMsican. F atendd H /jMnavarsiti v /lMIvil mjMsik skMl, n risIvd a bAcalar v mMzik degrI in 1972. mF mELJar waz aplFd pIAnO. in 1977 F kamplItd mF mAstarz degrI, mEJariN in TIrI-kompasiSan. F enZq rFtiN mjMzik, bat it iz a solitErI n tFm kansMmiN LJob. F prFmErilI plE klAsikal mjMzik (F prefar H tarm 'yrt mjMzik). F sarvd Az A carc YrgAnist n kwFr direktar fYr 30 jiarz. F stopt Hat sam 5 jiarz agO. At H prezant, F hAv agrId tM plE a konsart in 6 wIks. F wil plY sOlO pIAnO n wil bI akampanId bF a striN Yrkestra. a frend v mFn stYrtd H Yrkestra abQt 20+ jirz agO.

F wOnt bYr H grMp wiT mYr dItElz, bat Fm YlwEz redI tM tYlk mjMzik wiT inIwan interestd.

/pEJ



----- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Birkenhead
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:41 AM
Subject: [shawalphabet] Musicians


iz enIwun els hC a mVziSan?



if sO, wot instramant dM V plE n wot stFl v mVzik?



/hV /b



SPONSORED LINKS Shaw rug Shaw carpets Corporate culture
Business culture of china Shaw flooring Shaw florist


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "shawalphabet" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------