Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

> iz enIwun els hC a mVziSan?
>
>
>
> if sO, wot instramant dM V plE n wot stFl v mVzik?
>
>
>
> /hV /b
>
helO, hV.
jes, Fm a mVziSan. F plE sevral difrant instramants, inklMdiN:
gitR
mAndalin
vFalin
striN bEs
pIAnO
YtOhRp
GFriS tin hwisl
Fv YlsO plEd vXWs uHD instramants OvD H jCz, suc HAt F kAnot rImembD Hem Yl!
mF mEn instramant iz H vFalin P "fidl".

F plE a varFatI v stFlz, inklMdiN:
blMgrAs
kuntrI
gYspl
fOlk
"Old-tFm" kuntrI
keltik
himz
klAsikl
n a litl smAtDiN v evrITiN. F dOnt dM rok, JAz, P hip-hop!

H best wE fP mI t sum it Yl up iz, a litl v evrITiN but a lot v nuTiN!
Fm nO prOfeSanl, in uHD wDdz. but F luv mVzik!

--
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.

dshep wrote:

> /reply to message 1503 f//rom //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.

That's okay. I do tend to be verbose myself at times.

>
> /> //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.

Well, might it not be wise, if you are concerned with the objections of
the professionals, to allow the professionals to have at it? They
certainly could do as good a job as we can of picking out its flaws and
strengths, and proposing any changes which might be necessary or useful.

>
> /> //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.

Not an exaggeration, really, just a different definition! In my attempt
to be concise, I unwittingly used a neologism. I probably should have
said, "You believe substitutions for the four most common words are a
detriment to the alphabet."

>
> /> //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.
>
I guess I have no better reason than inertia, as you put it. The
problem we have is that the alphabet has existed in a standard form for
more than half a century, and other standards have been made from it,
such as the standards for digital encoding of these letters. These
standards do not change lightly, or for any but the most compelling
reasons. Such a change would even make the original "Androcles and the
Lion" obsolete, which has been seen as the foundation stone for the
whole alphabet. I don't disagree that there is a certain logical
inconsistency with Haha/hung, yet I must conclude that the existing
standard holds much greater weight than this slight inconsistency. I
also do not believe that the reversal of these two letters is of any
great importance to their use. The use of tall, short, and deep
characters is more for aesthetics, and voiceless=tall, voicedÞep is
merely a convention chosen out of convenience, seeing as how English has
most consonants divided equally between voiced and voiceless, with
notable exceptions being the nasal and liquid consonants and the
approximates, which have no voiceless companions, and H, which has no
voiced companion.

> /> //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?

You seem to have missed the fact that "Roar" is not a vowel, but a
consonant, which in English comes only at the beginning of a syllable
(with an exception for dialects where "r" is flapped or trilled). As
such it should not be used to represent a vowel sound, if a proper vowel
symbol exists such as "Err".

>
> /> //First point:// //Most people who know Shavian don't have any major /
> /> gripes //about it./
>
> You mean all several dozen of us?

We don't really know how many people use it. I'd say the vast majority
of users are not members here. Any changes made and publicised here
would amount to little more than a drop in the bucket of Shavian users.

>
> /> //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.

I do not believe I would have any trouble teaching it to a class of
young students or adults, in its current standard form. And I have not
received any complaints of this type from anybody I've introduced it to
before. Most people who take an interest, even if they are not amateur
linguists, recognize the elegant simplicity of the alphabet, and I see
no reason to change it.

>
> /> //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.

I just don't believe they are critical, even though they are
imperfections. Nothing can be perfect anyway, and people learn to deal
with imperfections. It's certainly not as imperfect as our current system!

>
> /> //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?

Perhaps a little. But that's only because of unfamiliarity. If I saw
them all the time in all kinds of writing, I would not find them ugly at
all. I find that "gaol" appears ugly, while "jail" looks normal, but
that's only because I so rarely see "gaol" used. Same with "cheque"
(ugly) vs. "check" (norm), "colour" (ugly) vs. "color" (norm), etc. In
the past, when printing was difficult and expensive, abbreviations and
symbols (eg, & for and, &c. for et cetera, gov't. for government) were
used much more frequently to save time and money. Sometimes even proper
names were abbreviated. In these days of digital typesetting and cheap
materials, we no longer mind longer constructs, and thus many of these
space-savers have fallen into disuse. Older texts even appear ugly to
our eyes now.

>
> /> //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.

Once again, a noble goal, but if it costs too much, it's not necessarily
worth it. Breaking with the standards is a much bigger thing than it
may seem.

>
> /> //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.

It's definitely not a shorthand, and never was touted as such. It is
fully alphabetical, with even the four replacements being partly
alphabetical.

>
> /> //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.

I also don't see any complaints from the users of the various Cyrillic
alphabets over their multi-consonant cluster letters, such as "?"
(shcha), which represents the same sound as Shavian "Sc" or TO "shch",
actually three consonant sounds. Also their vowel clusters such as ?
for "ya", ? for "yu". Note also Greek's Psi and Xi, and Latin's X.
These are real-world examples of this sort of "rolling together" of
sounds into one letter to make it more convenient. It works with
Cyrillic, Greek and Latin, and it works with Shavian too.

>
> /> 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 �. (a and e joined, which may
> not
> show up on all browsers)
>
> You mean the first definition, I the second.

Perhaps. But I dare say the first definition is more common.

>
> /> //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.

Best example is your use of "ur" (a digraph, two letters for one sound)
to represent what is for most North American speakers a pure vowel sound
"x". Perhaps you don't speak a rhotic accent, and cannot appreciate the
elegant solution this one letter (x) provides.

>
> /> //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?

Once again, we're not discussing shorthand.

>
> /> //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.

See above.

>
> /> //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.

That's the problem. It's neither a rhotic mark nor a vowel lengthener,
but an approximate consonant. In some accents it's a liquid.

>
> /> //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

Yes. For many rhotic speakers, thorough has only one consonant followed
by two vowels. This is consistent when spelled "TxO" but not when
spelled "TurO", which looks like Thoreau to me.

>
> /> //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.

I understand how your logic works, now. The only problem remaining is
that your logic seems to run in a bit different direction from the logic
of the alphabet's designers.

>
> Take care,
> Ethan
>
> Thank you for your recent test page,
> dshep
>
Are you referring to my Unicode test page? If so, was it useful to you?

Take care!

--
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.

comment to message 1495 by paul vandenbrink



> I agree. As a Canadian, I had to suffer with American
> pronunciation and British Spelling, but after years of
> fumbling around, I now consider myself fully bi-lingual,
> at least when I am reading a phonetic transcription.


Do you not pronounce 'about' as something approaching
'aboot'? I've always thoght that a charming feature of Canadian,
besides being a badge of national identity.



regards,
dshep

reply to message 1505 from paul vandenbrink


> 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,

F SUrli Nop not

> 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.

Ha komanEsan ov loJik And bjMti iz
prisFsli Ha AtrAkSan (And strehT) ov
/SEvian. F dM not undarsAnd HOz NM
bilIv HAt its stukcar iz ov nO impYrtans.


> 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.

Iz HAt Ha difrans bitwIn a NAkar And a
prOgrAmar? F didnt nO. ridundansi mE
NAv its mistirIas jMsaz -- F'v red HAt
Qr DNA iz abQt fYrti pur sent ridundant
-- nO wun nOz NwF.


> 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.

And HE wOnt bI ekspOzd until /SEvian
kAn in sum wE bI intradjMst intM HA
skMlz. just an Qr pur turm wUd lFt
a (smYl) spyrk, F belIv.


> 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.

F dont Tihk /SEvian iz an AbstrAkt Tiri;
F Tihk it kUd bI an eksIdihli jMsfal
Yltarnativin in Ha fjMcar. a lot kAn
And just mFt cEnJ in Ha nekst fifti jirz.

az evar,
/dSep

reply to message 1506 from paul vandenbrink:


> if HX iz nO
> a /SEvian dFgrAf fYr sum
> kombanESanz, V wUd Vz
> vQal letD + "array"

> ragRdz, /pYl /vI.

yr jM SUr? HAt sQndz a lital od tM mI
tM turn Hem intM tM-silabal wurdz

I would pronounce them

fire fFr
flour flQr
poor pUr

but would use 'array' for these:

we're wI'ar
you're jM'ar


az evar, SUrli,
/dSep

reply to message 1508, in which paul vandenbrink wrote:


> First let me correct you.

Correct, or admonish?

> What you bring up are all perfectly valid points, that have been
> brought up at least 10 or more times before.

But never resolved.

> They are not Heresies. They were problems for which there have
> been good solutions,

There have been no solutions, only a determination to resist any
and all change.

> so the original problem and usage was left as it is. "Better the
Devil
> you know"

Is that good policy, or failure of imagination?

> Because we have replied to these questions a number of times we
> get a little over-critical of people bringing up the same quibbles.

I can understand the irritation, but critical discourse is not a bad
thing, not really...

> 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.

Well, I just think Shavian would be simpler to read without them.
Writing may be marginally quicker using word substitutions, but I
believe reading is hampered; those individual letters can easily
get lost in a run of text.

> 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.

That would be fine. It's the position in the three-tier system that is
important.

> 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"?

The r-compounds are indeed problematic. I don't usually have any
problem myself distinguishing the \urge\ and \array\ sounds as it is
clear to me that the former is the stressed or semi-stressed vowel
while the latter is always unstressed, often merely a murmur. I know
however that you do as you have mentioned it before. Moreover
some dictionaries, can't remember which just now, have stopped
using the schwa so perhaps this is a general trend in some parts.

> 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.

You see, you have begun modifying r-vowels yourself, depending
upon the degree of emphasis desired, or personal pronunciation.
I fear that it is impossible to fit all speech varieties into the
existing
limited framework, which the reduction to the simple format of vowel
plus r could perhaps alleviate.


> Is that simple enough for you.

Que?


as ever,
dshep

reply to message 1511 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote"


> 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.

i think the phonemic nature of Shavian would prevent that.

> 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.

But Kingsley Read did not hesitate to do so, why should we?

> 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.

That seemed to be the simplest solution. If you look at the Reading
Key you will see that the last letter on the top line is in the right
position,
it is merely mis-labelled. Exchange the keywords and everything
pops back into place.

> Let's correct two other errors in your thinking.

Always open for enlightenment.

> First simplicity is not an absolute ideal in developing methods of
> recording complex phenomena like human speech.

Why not? Was that a correction or a statement?

> Second, Phonemes are not atoms, sounds broken down to their
minimum.

No, they are not. More like molecules. Flexible within certain
boundaries.

> Merged Vowels (Dipthongs & R-Vowels) especially should be
> considered as different phonemes.

Yes, they are always followed by an 'r-sound' or schwa, which alters
their value in one way or another. What exactly do we disagree about
here?

> Think about that every syllable has one vowels sound.

Yes. I don't believe i have ever questioned that.

> Other than that I am willing to get on board with the points you
made.

> Regards, Paul V.

as ever,
dshep

reply to message 1515 from paul vandenbrink, who wrote:


> 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)

That would work. Yes, it is the only aspirate, but it is also a
fricative,
and so should be in that set, if any.

> 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.

What is that faux-Latin quote that goes something like "Carborundum
something something.." Can't recall.

> 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

Good idea! Why don't we? How do you do this, move them I mean?
It would look fine that way.

> 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

Thank you, Algernon
dshep

> First let me correct you.



Correct, or admonish?



> What you bring up are all perfectly valid points, that have been

> brought up at least 10 or more times before.



But never resolved.

> They are not Heresies. They were problems for which there have

> been good solutions,



There have been no solutions, only a determination to resist any

and all change.



> so the original problem and usage was left as it is. "Better the Devil

> you know"



Is that good policy, or failure of imagination?



> Because we have replied to these questions a number of times we

> get a little over-critical of people bringing up the same quibbles.



I can understand the irritation, but critical discourse is not a bad

thing, not really...



> 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.



Well, I just think Shavian would be simpler to read without them.

Writing may be marginally quicker using word substitutions, but I

believe reading is hampered; those individual letters can easily

get lost in a run of text.



> 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.



That would be fine. It's the position in the three-tier system that is

important.



> 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"?



The r-compounds are indeed problematic. I don't usually have any

problem myself distinguishing the \urge\ and \array\ sounds as it is

clear to me that the former is the stressed or semi-stressed vowel

while the latter is always unstressed, often merely a murmur. I know

however that you do as you have mentioned it before. Moreover

some dictionaries, can't remember which just now, have stopped

using the schwa so perhaps this is a general trend in some parts.



> 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.



You see, you have begun modifying r-vowels yourself, depending

upon the degree of emphasis desired, or personal pronunciation.

I fear that it is impossible to fit all speech varieties into the existing

limited framework, which the reduction to the simple format of vowel

plus r could perhaps alleviate.





> Is that simple enough for you.



Que?

Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
GhV,
V tUk H wxdz rFt Qt v mF mQT!
--
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.


--------------080108090906080404030700
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="------------050105030907000107090601"