Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Scott
Thanks for bringing up these issues.
You are correct that even tho we have established an informal
standard for writing Shavian amongst ourselves, it has certainly not
been documented.
I suspect if we re-edited Androcles, today, there would be more than
just a few Typo's corrected.
I think we do need to document the Orthodox position or starting
point, and then deal with some of the undefined or unresolved issues,
by at least listing them.
The problem is who is going to bell the cat.
It snoozes away quietly most of the time, but occassionally it
is startled out of its torpor and chases us as all around the
baseboards.
regRdz, /pYl /vI.
p.s. If only Algernon was back in the fray, you'd see the fur fly.
_______________attached___________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Scott Harrison <nik@...> wrote:
> There are some issues I see with people using Shavian.
I am ignoring pronunciation differences between the various
English dialects as that is a different problem
that Shavian cannot really address. From my limited
experience of seeing people using Shavian a lot of people
seem to be re-representing Roman spelling in Shavian.
> I do not think this is the proper way to address things.
> There are a
> couple of situations that come to mind:
>
> (1) Apostrophes in Roman words, representing the lack of
letters in
> Roman. Representing one of these words in Shavian should not use
an
> apostrophe since there is no missing letter in Shavian. "Don't"
> would be represented as "dont" because that is the way the word is
> pronounced.
>
> (2) Abbreviations. These "words" should not use a straight
letter
> for letter replacement as that would pose a problem with letters
like C which would cause confusion going to Shavian. Also,
the "word" should not use pronunciation that we attribute to it using
the Roman
> letters because that pronunciation is derived solely
> from the letters
> used to create the "word" in Roman.
> Therefore, the A in NATO is not
> really association with the pronunciation of Atlantic from which >
the
> A comes, but because of someone's arbitrary pronunciation. I
propose
> that NATO becomes "nator" because the o from organization in
Shavian
> is represented by OR as it is the first letter in Organization in
> Shavian.
>
> Now, for those that do not like using the "combination
letters" that
> include the R sound (or Yew for that matter), you can always teach
> someone at first without their use. Luckily the visual
> representation of them allows someone not familiar with them to
> discern their meaning. So their acquisition becomes natural
> assimilation and does not necessarily need to be taught.
>
> I think as a group we have the capability to come up with
some sort of document indicating the best practices of Shavian use.
This document can cover the whole gamut of things Shavian --
technical
> issues like using Unicode, accepted norms like the four
> abbreviations, things that make pronunciation different from Roman
> but should be used for consistency like abbreviations, heresies
> like
> limiting the letter set to the forty eight core letter, etc.
If people
> have a resource like this I imagine Shavian use will not have as
many
> issues. By the way, does something like this exist?
> Admittedly I
> have not looked at all the different web sites in many moons now
> since I have not been able to tackle Shavian issues lately.
> Instead
> of writing a document like this I originally started making
> translations and adopted these conventions in those translations.
> Note that we can make use of the guidelines in Androcles and the
Lion
> as a basis, or come up with our own based on our
collective "wisdom."

hF,



F hAv ben plEiN H vFOlin fP H pAst seven

jCs. bIfP thAt F plAed H gitR fP a wFl.

F mOstlI plE klAsikal musik nQ a dEs.



brFAn





>> Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

  iz enIwun els hC a
mVziSan?
  if
sO, wot instramant dM V plE n wot stFl v mVzik?
  /hV /b

> response to message 1504, in which hugh birkenhead asks:

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

wel, HIz wur jOr wurdz:

> > /SEvian iz but an Fdal frolik,
> > fYr Qr amVzmant Onli.

> > iz it? mEbI sO.

> HAt’s igzAktlI wot it iz.
> unfPcanatlI, /SEvIan iz Just a kVrIosatI.>

> /hV /b

but F kAn ges HAt His woz Onli An irupSan ov frustrEsan.
F Am sori HAt F upset jM sO.

... ... ...

> hAv V fDgotan? lAst JAnVerI V saJestad HAt
> sins ‘j’ woz vqst, it SUd bI YltDd t bI a dIp letD
> lFk ‘w’.

nO, ov kOrs not. F wos onli wEtih fyr sumwan tM TrO
HAt bAk At mI sO HAt F kud raplF in Ha sEm wE F did
prIviasli.

... ... ...

> in kEs V TiNk F’m sum kFnd v ludFt, V SUd bI

> awX F’v YlredI trFd riviZanz mFself. F divFzd
> /kut /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.

nQ HAt jM menSan it, F dM rimembar. it woz not a bAd
FdIa if jM wil alQ mI tM sE sO. Az An asFd, Sud wurdz
lFk 'ludft', Nwic wud bI kApitalFzd in nYrmal /ihliS, bi
givan a nEmar dot in /SEvian, Ivan if striktli spIkih Ha
rMlz dont kYl fYr it?

... ... ...

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

HAts bakYz jM asMm evriTih Sud bI lurnd bF rOt
wiHQt redarans tM inNerant kwYliti.

... ... ...

> jes, sorI. F woz in a sRkI mMd.

F gest As muc.

... ... ...

> F’m OnlI hC bikoz F inJq it, ...

sO Am F. F dont enJq bIih Ha cyz ov sO muc
qtrEJ, wel, not HAt muc eniwE -- sumtFmz its priti
funi, jM wUd Tihk grEv mAtarz ov lFf And deT wur
At stEk.

... ... ...

> plIz aknolaJ HAt not evrIbodI hC hAz H
> sEm miSanDI zIl Az V, nP SUd V dimAnd
> HAt wI “SUd”.

F Am not a miSaneri, mirli An Advakat, nYr dM F
'damAnd' eniTih. HAr iz a difrans batwIn 'must' And
'Sud', dOnt jM Tihk sO?

... ... ...

> rimembD, if V wont t txn jP copt-abQt
> darivativ v /SEvian ...

O, His woz suc a gUd letar up until His pqnt, F
woz rMtih fyr jM -- plIz, plIz, let Nim finiS And
kAri TrM tM Ha end in stFl! F woz NOpih sO HAt
jM kUd rizist Ha temptESan tM slip in a fFnal JAb.
but nO. it iz, in Ha nEcar ov HIz Tihz, betar tM
bI YltageHar ov wun mMd Yr anuHar, Hus ablFJih
Ha risipIant tM rispond in kFnd. mikscarz yr
jMZMali kqntar-produktiv.

sO F rispond: it is not copt-abQt, HO F reliS HAt
frEz; mirli pArd dQn tM Ha isenSal. And dM F SQt?
wel, F dM rapIt mFself, but F dOnt jMz bold letarz
tM dM sO.

TAhks eniwE,
/dSep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Scott Harrison <nik@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2006, at 9:48 , dshepx wrote:
>
> > --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> > --- Scott Harrison wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 4, 2006, at 14:35 , dshep wrote:
> >>
> >>> reply to message 1506 from paul vandenbrink:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> <SNIP>
> >>
> >>> but would use 'array' for these:
> >>>
> >>> we're wI'ar
> >>> you're jM'ar
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do not use apostrophes!
> >>
> >> --
> >> ·›∆`›∆`'›∆`ª›∆`` ·›∆`
> >> £›∆`º›∆`Å"›∆`›∆`©›∆`¯ Scott Harrison
> >
> >
> > Do not issue commands!
> >
>
> You just did! :-)
>

I did say please.

dshep

reply to message 1519 from Ethan:


> 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.

They will have a go at it, if ever, and of course this is an long
shot, if ever
Shavian rises above the the categorization of a curiosity to come
under the
scrutiny of, for lack of a better phrase, the educational
establishment. If any
money is to be allocated for the introduction of an alternative
alphabet in the
schools, even as an option, and for the necessary training, however
easy that
might be, of individuals to teach it, you can bet your boots that any
such
proposal will have to be vetted by professionals. And they will not
hesitate to
make changes as they see fit. Any plea by an internet discussion
group to
respect 'convention' will receive short shrift. And this is to be
expected as it
is they, not we, who will be responsible for its success or lack
thereof.
Everyone involved will be acutely aware of the failure of the Initial
Teaching
Alphabet, which had a lot going for it.

> > > 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."

Well, that makes more sense. And that is precisely what I believe.
There is
nothing moral involved here, merely a question of ease of comprehension.

> > ... 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.

> 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.

I would think exposure to a broad base of potential users is a
compelling reason.

> 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.

That's not an insurmountable obstacle. There are a number of
typographical
errors in 'Androcles', so it would have to re-edited anyway. I
suspect moreover
that something more modern would be wanted as an initial text.

> I don't disagree that there is a certain logical inconsistency with
> Haha/hung, ...

It is only a slight inconsistency, granted, but an inconsistency
nevertheless.
Whether this is important or not depends upon what you wish Shavian
to be:
if it is to be merely a harmless medium for the exchange of chit-chat
then who
cares? If, on the other hand, it truly represents a real alternative
alphabet for
general use, then perhaps a little attention to detail is not
unwarranted.

> The use of tall, short, and deep characters is more for
aesthetics, ...

No, no, no. The individual letters themselves are of a high aesthetic
standard,
but it is the organization of these letters into meaningful sets and
sub-sets that
give Shavian its logical structure; if anything, this is what would
appeal most to
educational professionals as this is of obvious pedagogical benefit:
two-tiered
principal consonants (rotationally symmetrical), one-tiered vowels (and
unfortunately nasals); thereof unvoiced consonants tall, voiced
consonants
deep, lax vowels as a simple stroke, tense vowels as a double stroke,
and
compounds as digraphs (of one definition or the other). Shavian as it
now
stands is not entirely consistent, there are a few lapses, just a
few, and it is
these that would be quickly altered if ever it came into the hands of
educational professionals. The pattern is there, already established,
awaiting
easy adjustment. This is an alphabet unlike any other, not a string
of abstract
units of no internal relationship that must be mastered by rote, but
one that can
be broken down into its constituent components, an instructor's
dream, its parts
readily identifiable by both sight and sound. Can you think of
anything else of
such promise?

... ... ...

> I submit merely that there is no good reason for there to be two
types
> of compound vowels, some represented by a (conjoined) 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, ...

There is obviously some misunderstanding here.

... ... ...

> > 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....

Then give it a try. You'll quickly discover what is important and
what is less
important.

> In the past, when printing was difficult and expensive,
abbreviations and
> symbols (eg, & for and, &c. for e 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...

No need for word substitutes then.

... ... ...

> > digraph
> > 1. A pair of letters representing a single speech sound...
> > 2. A single character consisting of two letters run together
and
> > representing a single sound...

> > You mean the first definition, I the second.

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

Maybe, but that does not make the second definition wrong.

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

> 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.

I use a digraph (definition 1) to replace a digraph (definition 2).
No vowel
affected by a subsequent 'r', especially in rhotic accents, can be
called 'pure';
rather, they are lumped together with the diphthongs, i.e., sounds
composed
of more than one element. The pure vowels are represented by the vowels
of the words: bit, bet, bat, but, botch, book, and boot, all short,
or lax There
are observers who point out that English has no pure vowels at all,
and from
an international point of view, may be right.

> > > 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.
... ... ...

> Once again, we're not discussing shorthand.

No we are not. That is why neither word substitutions nor
(compressed) digraphs
are 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.

> 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.

It's both. It is whatever the speaker wants it to be; that is the
advantage of a
phonemic-based alphabet. the '-r' stands for whatever sound you may use
in that position.

> > > 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.

Try as i can I cannot pronounce 'thorough' with two vowels following the
consonant. What are they? And no dictionary I have shows such a
pronunciation.
The first syllable in 'Thoreau' is unstressed, hence a schwa. If
given some
semblance of stress, then a subdued version of 'or'. Otherwise you
are mangling
that poor man's name.

> 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.

Several of the members here are under the impression that design is
somehow
a perfect process, which by its very nature produces perfect results.
I assure
you it is not.

> > Thank you for your recent test page,

> Are you referring to my Unicode test page? If so, was it useful
to you?
> Take care!

Yes, and yes it demonstrated that everything at my end is unicode-
compliant,
so thank you again.

as ever,
dshep

We now have 2 parallel threads going on about the same topic,

iz HAt bAd?


DShep vs everyone (which is starting to bore).

HAts bAd, but not fEtal.


/dSep

hi /daSep
V sIm t bI a fV mesaJaz bahFnd evrI wum els.
did V cek mF respyns t /hVz cyment?
F supPt a big cuNk v yP pusiSan
V R nyt AlOn.
kAn wI diskus dItEalz?
ragRdz, .pYl /vI.
pI. es. wI SUd giv it a nV subJect hediN. sE
stAndxd /SYvIan speliN kunvenSuns
______________atAct__________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
> We now have 2 parallel threads going on about the same topic,
> DShep vs everyone (which is starting to bore).
>
> HAts bAd, but not fEtal.

F dOnt hAv enI problamz wiH H FdIa v a modifFd /SEvIan, FHD.



but wot F dM hAv a problam wiH iz ripItiN H sEm TiN OvD n OvD agen (nO mP
"huN vs hyhy" plIIIIIz!). wF fPs H iSV? wot wil it akumpliS?



F dM admFD jP ditxminESan, /dSep.



/hV





> hi /daSep

> V sIm t bI a fV mesaJaz bahFnd evrI wum els.

> did V cek mF respyns t /hVz cyment?

> F supPt a big cuNk v yP pusiSan

> V R nyt AlOn.

> kAn wI diskus dItEalz?

> ragRdz, .pYl /vI.

> pI. es. wI SUd giv it a nV subJect hediN. sE

> stAndxd /SYvIan speliN kunvenSuns

> ______________atAct__________________________

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

> > We now have 2 parallel threads going on about the same topic,

> > DShep vs everyone (which is starting to bore).

> >

> > HAts bAd, but not fEtal.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/

>

> shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

>

> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

hi /daSep
lets gO wiT /hVz AdvFs in His mAtD
n get yn wiT it.
lets cynsintrEt yn H letD "huN".
pDsanAlI, F wUd lF t kAl H nV letD "iNga", lIF
H wUminz nEm, just t avqd cynfVSan. it kUd bI rInEmd
bAk t "huN" wuns wI hAv agrId it wUd mEk a dIsant
raplEsment, n duz in fAkt alimenEt H inkyNgrMAtI
v "huN".
lets lUk At H rakwFDments.
it SUd lUk lFk "mem" n "nun".
it SUd be a SPt letD.
t mI, HAt saJests sum kFnd v wEvI lFn.
wun pysabilatI, a "nun" rOtEtad 40 dagrIz
kQntD-klyk-wFz. it wUld lFk a lRJD
mP eksAJDEtad "tild" silabal.
it wUd bI IzI t rFt.
it wUn bI wFdD HAn H AvDiJ /SYvIan letD
but "huN" iz nyt a pDtikVlDlI kyman sQnd,
in /iNgliS, n is VzVlI fUnd At H end v a wxd.
F dOnt TiNk it wil mes up H integratI
v H /SYvIan letxz.
enI uHD suJestad SEps fP "iNga".
just bakuz F TiNk a kVt /skAndinEvIan
SUd hAv a lyt v kxvz, duzent mIn V nId
t TiNk H sEm wE.
ragRdz, /pYl vI.
___________________atAct______________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
wrote:
>
> F dOnt hAv enI problamz wiH H FdIa v a modifFd /SEvIan, FHD.
> but wot F dM hAv a problam wiH iz ripItiN H sEm TiN OvD n OvD agen
(nO mP
> "huN vs hyhy" plIIIIIz!). wF fPs H iSV? wot wil it akumpliS?
> F dM admFD jP ditxminESan, /dSep.

____________atAct_________________________
> > hi /daSep
>
> > V sIm t bI a fV mesaJaz bahFnd evrI wum els.
>
> > did V cek mF respyns t /hVz kyment?
>
> > F supPt a big cuNk v yP pusiSan
>
> > V R nyt AlOn.
>
> > kAn wI diskus dItEalz?
>
> > ragRdz, .pYl /vI.
>
> > pI. es. wI SUd giv it a nV subJect hediN. sE
>
> > stAndxd /SYvIan speliN kunvenSuns

Hope you don’t mind if I reply in Shavian!



Scott wrote:



There are some issues I see with people using Shavian. I am ignoring pronunciation differences between the various English dialects as that is a different problem that Shavian cannot really address. From my limited experience of seeing people using Shavian a lot of people seem to be re-representing Roman spelling in Shavian. I do not think this is the proper way to address things. There are a couple of situations that come to mind:



(1) Apostrophes in Roman words, representing the lack of letters in Roman. Representing one of these words in Shavian should not use an apostrophe since there is no missing letter in Shavian. "Don't" would be represented as "dont" because that is the way the word is pronounced.



F dOnt TiNk HAt’s nesaseralI trM. /AndraklIz Vzd apostrafIz in evrI sPt v kantrAkSan iksept in HOz wiH “not” (e.g. wOnt, SUdnt). H apostrafIz hC R dinOtiN misiN letDz in /SEvIan Just H sEm Az in /rOman.



H ‘not’ kantrAkSanz ofan krIEt a signifikantlI difDant wxd, e.g. “dOnt” (rAHD HAn “dMn’t”), “wOnt” (rAHD HAn “wiln’t”), /britiS “kynt” (rAHD HAn “kAn’t”), “SAnt”|”Synt” (rAHD HAn “SAln’t”), ets.



(2) Abbreviations. These "words" should not use a straight letter for letter replacement as that would pose a problem with letters like C which would cause confusion going to Shavian. Also, the "word" should not use pronunciation that we attribute to it using the Roman letters because that pronunciation is derived solely from the letters used to create the "word" in Roman. Therefore, the A in NATO is not really association with the pronunciation of Atlantic from which the A comes, but because of someone's arbitrary pronunciation. I propose that NATO becomes "nator" because the o from organization in Shavian is represented by OR as it is the first letter in Organization in Shavian.



F sapoz if V hAd t spel H abrIvIESan Qt in /SEvIan, V wUd spel it fanImiklI Az V saJest, i.e. “n.a.t.P.”. but F wUd probablI saJest speliN it Qt in its DiJinal /rOman fPm, i.e. “NATO”, bikoz suc abrIvIESanz R kansidDd Az wxdz in HX On rFt, n R rekagnFzd in spIc bF H pranunsIESan v H Akranim, i.e. “/nEtO”.



Now, for those that do not like using the "combination letters" that include the R sound (or Yew for that matter), you can always teach someone at first without their use. Luckily the visual representation of them allows someone not familiar with them to discern their meaning. So their acquisition becomes natural assimilation and does not necessarily need to be taught.



F dOnt TiNk V kAn avqd tIciN ‘x’ n ‘X’, bikoz HE reprazent VnIk sQndz. F sapOz V kUd get awE wiH not tIciN H uHD ligacDz, but HX R OnlI 6 uHDz enIwE sO it mFt not bI sO muc v an iSV.



I think as a group we have the capability to come up with some sort of document indicating the best practices of Shavian use. This document can cover the whole gamut of things Shavian -- technical issues like using Unicode, accepted norms like the four abbreviations, things that make pronunciation different from Roman but should be used for consistency like abbreviations, heresies like limiting the letter set to the forty core letter, etc. If people have a resource like this I imagine Shavian use will not have as many issues. By the way, does something like this exist? Admittedly I have not looked at all the different web sites in many moons now since I have not been able to tackle Shavian issues lately. Instead of writing a document like this I originally started making translations and adopted these conventions in those translations. Note that we can make use of the guidelines in Androcles and the Lion as a basis, or come up with our own based on our collective "wisdom."



nO, nO ‘/SEvIan FAQ’ egzists, jet. F TYt abQt H FdIa mFself a fV jCz agO but Az YlwEz got sFdtrAkt. it wUdnt bI a bAd TiN t dM. nVzgrMps ofan hAv FAQ‘z t avqd sxtan pDenIal topiks rIsxfasiN agen n agen (hmmm)



--

·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑 ·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott Harrison



/hV /bxkanhed