Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

OK, let's get cracking. I've chosen the verse entitled
"Virtues," the name of which I reveal ahead of time
as I believe it to be the addition of modern editors.
The older texts are only numbered, in one of two ways,
and in the enumerative system most frequently used
this is number 33. In the days to come I shall present
different versions. I hope also to display the original
Chinese if I can figure out how to do so.

Please do not think I am pushing this particular set
of — well, I don't know what to call them exactly:
homilies, words of wisdom, "eternal truths", whatever
— it is the variety of translation that is interesting,
though for that matter if everyone were to embrace
such exhortations as these the world would undoubtedly
be the better for it.

This verse has four coupled stanzas, the first two appear
simple enough, but you shall see that no one expresses
them in quite the same way. The third (especially) and
fourth must have been difficult as no two are alike. Such
are the perils of translation.

It is only fitting that the first to be offered is the version
published in the venerable Penguin Classic series, back when
Penguin was still an independent force and not the
conglomerate cog it became after the passing of its founder
and guiding spirit, Allen Lane. Then there is another version
by the same author, somewhat later, and somewhat altered.

The transcription method, as I have warned, is what I in a fit
of fancy dubbed ReadShaw Mk.III, and if you can overcome
the wrath this presumption encurs then you may find
descriptive details in message 169. If you cheat and attempt to
read it in keyboard Shavian it will appear strange indeed, but
if you copy it to a word-processing application using a
ShawScript font it will soon, sooner than you think,
be easily decipherable.




Lao T'zu

Tao Te Ching
Verse 33

Translated by D. C. Lau
Penguin Books, 1963

NI NM nOz uHDz iz klevD;
NI NM nOz Namself Naz dasurnmant.

NI NM OvDkamz uHDz Naz fOrs;
NI NM OvDkamz Namself iz strYh.

NI NM nOz kantentmant iz ric;
NI NM persavirz iz a mAn ov purpas.

NI NM duz not lMz Niz stESan wil endUr;
NI NM livz Qt Niz dEz Naz NAd a lYh lFf.




Lao T'zu

Tao Te Chin
Verse 33

Translated by D. C. Lau
Everyman, 1982


NI NM nOz uHDz iz klevD;
NI NM nOz Namself Naz dasurnmant.

NI NM OvDkamz uHDz Naz strehT;
NI NM OvDkamz Namself iz strYh.

NI NM nOz kantentmant iz ric;
NI NM persavirz in AkSan Naz purpas.

not ta lMz wunz stESan iz ta endUr;
not ta bI fYrgotan Nwen ded iz lYh-lFvd.




I'm sure that there are a number of things that
could be done differently, but this is how I thought
it should be today, perhaps tomorrow it would be
different.

dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:

>> This omission also allows me to use æ+r for air which
>> is the way I pronounce that word and others like it
>> anyway (but e+r for words like 'where').

> Is this the marry-merry distinction? arr=air /ær/,
> err= for /Er/ where error /Er@`/


Yes. Anyone who does not maintain this distinction should be shot.


>> DSCHP: I also add oh+r, which I distinguish from o+r
>> (= aw+r), as in the contrast four/for. In America this
>> distinction is maintained by the American Heritage
>> dictionaries and the larger editions of Webster's, but
>> abandoned in Albion, and in the American versions of
>> British dictionaries (Oxford, Longmans', Chambers etc).
>> I excuse this blatant hubris on the grounds that both
>> Shaw himself and the designated model his alphabet
>> was to have been patterned after, HRH George V (and
>> George VI as well), also maintained this range of
>> diversity, though I do so without the latter's dignified
>> gravity and the former's delightful lilt.
>
> SB: Shaw believed that the King's English was the dialect to
> be represented by the writing system. In other countries, it
> was common to use the dialect of court as the model for
> speech and the writing system. For some reason, this never
> happened in England - the writing system was never adjusted
> to represent the way English was spoken by the king.


There is an interesting story here. Neither George V nor his son and
eventual successor George VI spoke what most people think of as
pure RP or, as it is derided in some circles, posh. The reason is
that both were second sons, and both were shunted off at an early
age to the Navy, while their older brothers were groomed for the
throne. Both were modest men, according to all accounts, who
enjoyed what they thought was to be their station in life, got on
well with their fellow officers, did not attempt to maintain distance
between themselves and others, and spoke a more normal and natural
English, unlike what was encouraged at the court, the court of
Imperial Britain, still a world power.


The first elder brother, Arthur, died of some disease before he could
assume the throne, and the younger brother and substitute became
a reluctant George V, a man who never gave up his unassuming ways,
at least in his personal life, and even though he reigned during one
of the most trying times in British history, the first World War and
afterwards, became very much loved and respected (by Shaw among
others, who, let us not forget, was a Socialist), His son and heir
was just the opposite, a man who cultivated exaggerated elegance in
speech, dress, and manner, but in the biggest scandal of the day had
to give up the throne in order to marry the woman of his choice, and
became the Duke of Windsor.

Enter reluctant king number two, the younger brother who became
George VI, a man who spoke after the fashion of his father, in a
decidedly much less royal and elaborate manner — slow, clearly,
and dignified, yes, but in a way that was, well, normal in the sense
that there were no overtones of grandeur or snobbishness.

I suspect it was this that impressed Shaw (who otherwise poked fun
at the high and mighty) and caused him to specify the speech of
George V as the one to be emulated in his proposed new alphabet.
It was also, as Shaw would have known more than well, the theatre
speech of the day used by travelling companies, that was perhaps
even somewhat of an artificially cultivated speech, one meant to be
non-regional and non overtly class-bound. I believe something similar
exists in the German theatre, and for the same reason, to have a form
of speech acceptable without prejudice everywhere in the country.

Kingsley Read did not exactly follow this prescribed precept when he
devised his alphabet, but turned to the language arbiters of the day
who defined RP as the speech of the realm, not the "Northern English"
that Shaw had mentioned, and by which I take to mean Theatre English.
Certainly what most people would think of as Northern speech today
would be that spoken by people in the North of England, whose speech
is most noted for its absence of the 'uh'-sound as in cup, that class
of words using the same sound more or less as could and good.

In fact Read's alphabet exactly corresponds to the RP as defined by
by Gimson back in the sixties and in Wells later in the eighties, and
is the same as represented by his SAMPA chart of English.


Well, I do go on...
dshep

It is people in my family who are responsible for the Chambers
dictionary... small world, eh?

--Star

--- dshepx <dshep@...> wrote:

>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" wrote:
> >
> > ..................................................
> > ..................................................
> >
> >
> > Professor J. C. Wells of Cambridge, responsible for the
> > SAMPA pages, and pronunciation editor for either the
> > Chalmers' or Longman's dictionaries, can't remember
> > which, refers to this choice of vowel spread as old-
> > fashioned. So be it.
>
>
> Correction:
>
> Chambers, not Chalmers. Once published by Edinburgh
> University (with whom it may still be affiliated) to rival
> the Oxford dictionaries. Perhaps a guide to Northern
> English?
>
> Professor J. C. Wells is with University College London
> not Cambridge, but is the author (at least one of them)
> of SAMPA (the Speech Assessment Methods Phonetic
> Alphabet), a project designed to reproduce all the sounds
> found in modern European languages, a EU sort of thing,
> using ordinary typewriter keys � not pretty, but supposedly
> precise.
>
> dshep
>
>
>
>
>


====http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

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

> no amount of diversion can alter the fundamental and
> obvious fact that the sound represented by the letter
> 'h' is unvoiced, that by 'ng' is unvoiced, and there is no
> good reason why they should be displayed incorrectly.
> Is there? Why be deliberately wrong? Makes no sense.


Correction:

'ng' is of course voiced. Undermined my own argument there.


dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:


> SB: Shaw believed that the King's English was the
> dialect to be represented by the writing system

One other point of some interest about the two Georges
and their possible effect upon speech. Not only were they
as young men sent off to the Navy, when they came of age
they were also encouraged to establish homes well away
from the court and London, which they did — in the north.
And though both men were not greatly interested in being
the objects of attention, as royals they became by default the
most prominent inhabitants there, and the hub of a smaller,
more informal, mini-court of some, if quieter, influence. It can
well be imagined that the speech used there was Shaw's
more inclusive Northern English.


> In other countries, it was common to use the dialect
> of court as the model for speech and the writing  
> system. For some reason, this never happened in
> England — the writing system was never adjusted
> to represent the way English was spoken by the king. 

One of the reasons was that many of the Kings weren't English,
allowing other, more subtle, social forces to establish the tone
of preferred speech. One interesting case was that of the first
Georges. When the throne fell empty in the 18th century,
Parliament looked round and found a tenous hereditary link to
a German prince, Georg (without an e) of Hanover, Saxony, or
something-something, and offered him the throne. This was an
attractive offer for Georg, as his family domains were under
constant threat from an ambitious Prussia, and an advantageous
choice for Parliament as well because Georg spoke no English,
thus preventing him from meddling in affairs of state (in an age
when kings still routinely did so).

So Georg became George I with an e and a proper crown. He never
did manage to master English well but his grown son and eventual
heir (George II) did, more or less, though he had other problems
(mental). There is a really good story connected to one of these
two, not sure which, which explains one of the curiousities of
English.

One of the more obvious and traditional features that have
served to distinguish American from British English, at least
until recently, is the pronunciation of the word "either" as
eether or eyether. The former is the older, and the latter
became widespread and fashionable in Britain only after the
American Revolution severed loyalties. A similar development
marked the pronunciation of the long-a 'path' words. But
whereas the pronunciation of the 'path' words using an older
'æ' (ash) has remained a mark of patriotic pride in America,
the eyether pronunciation is growing in popularity, especially
among broadcast people, and is not meeting the same
opposition as an attempt to begin saying 'pahth' would. The
interesting thing is that eether may still be heard in Britain in
many places — eyether is by no means universal, but where
did this innovation come from, and why?

In German, at least school German, the 'ei' sequence is always
pronounced 'eye': nein, heim, mein, etc; the sequence 'ie' always
pronounced 'ee': dienst, nieder, Wien, etc. German allows of no
exceptions (plattdeutsch, the ancestor of English, is another
matter). Our Georg(e), whether I or II, denied any real authority,
isolated, laughed at behind his back for his accent, constantly
manipulated by his supposedly subordinate ministers, found an
opportunity in one small area to exert himself in determined
fashion: eether became in his mouth, following German rules of
pronunciation, eyether (probably eyeduh) and the members of
his immediate entourage, in embarrassment or sympathy,
adopted the same pronunciation, or something close to it, and
like ripples in a pond, this pronunciation spread. To use it became
a sign that one was close to (in most cases wishful thinking), or
an adherent or supporter of the court and its assumed more
elevated and refined atmosphere.

Imagine his delight at having made the English do something they
hadn't planned on, were conscious of, or would admit to doing —
a minor triumph. Now, this may not actually be a true story, but it
is I think too good not to be.


immer weiter,
dshep

Lao T'zu

Tao Te Ching
Verse 33

Stephen Mitchell
Harper Collins

This is a newer version, very popular I'm told. Mr Mitchell
has written other books on Taoism and related issues, and
has recently published his interpretation of the Gilgamesh,
that most ancient of Sumerian tales about Enkidu and his
adventures with the sky-god Marduk.


nOih uHDz iz inteliJans;
nOih jOrself iz trV wizdam.

mAstDih uHDz iz strehT;
mAstDih jOrself iz trV pQD.

if V rialFz HAt V NAv enuf,
V yr trVli ric.

if V stE in Ha sentD
And embrEs deT wiH jOr NOl Nyrt,
V wil endVr fYrevD.



The transcription isn't so difficult, now is it? Just keep
in mind that the aitches have loop up and the ings have
loop down, just the way your grandmother used to write.



Verse 1

Hi dAo HAt kAn bI tOld
iz not Ha etDnal dao.
Hi nEm HAt kAn bI nEmd
iz not Ha etDnal /nEm.

Hi annEmabal iz Ha etDnali rIl.
nEmih is Ha oriJin
ov Yl pyrtikalD Tihz.

frI from dazFr, V rialFz Ha mistari.
kYt in dazFr, V onli sI Ha mAnifestESanz.

jet mistari and mAnifestESanz
ariz fram Ha sEm sOrs.
His sOrs iz kYld dyrknes.

dyrknes wiHin dyrknes.
Hi gEtwE tM Yl undDstAndih.



This is a little more obscure, but the last part
I think is pretty good. Makes one wonder.


dshep

dshep@... writes:

> no amount of diversion can alter the fundamental and
> obvious fact that the sound represented by the letter
> 'h' is unvoiced, that by 'ng' is voiced, and there is no
> good reason why they should be displayed incorrectly.
> Is there? Why be deliberately wrong? Makes no sense.



The last two tall characters are not unvoiced.
The last deep characters is not voiced.
The only thing that can be changed is the sound assignment.

dshep,

You should probably call this regularized Shavian or Shavian II
to distinguish it from classic Androcles Shavian.

You have come up with one way to change the sign symbol correspondences.
Just assign ing to h and write hotel as NOtel.
Before we screw up keyboard Shavian any more, we should consider reforming it.

I have advocated using the most readable keyboard Shavian be used.
What this might be would be determined by ballot.

Although I prefer a scheme that matches up with IPA
I think most tradspel adepts would prefer something closer to Webster
notation which is closer to traditional English. AEIOU or áéíóú instead of eI i: aI
oU ju
Shavian: E I F O M

The choice of a Latin or continental sound assignment over the shifted
English sound assignments will depend on the the intended audience. Is it native
English speakers or ESL students?

When the keyboard standard is determined, then at least one of the Shavian
fonts will have to be reworked.

Shavian II when completed would correct the two transpositions errors in
classic Shavian and have a new keyboard optimized for readability.

--Steve

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

dshep@... writes:
Lao T'zu

Tao Te Ching
Verse 33

Stephen Mitchell
Harper Collins

This is a newer version, very popular I'm told. Mr Mitchell
has written other books on Taoism and related issues, and
has recently published his interpretation of the Gilgamesh,
that most ancient of Sumerian tales about Enkidu and his
adventures with the sky-god Marduk.


nOih uHDz iz inteliJans;
nOih jOrself iz trV wizdam.

mAstDih uHDz iz strehT;
mAstDih jOrself iz trV pQD.

if V rialFz HAt V NAv enuf,
V yr trVli ric.

if V stE in Ha sentD
And embrEs deT wiH jOr NOl Nyrt,
V wil endVr fYrevD.



The transcription isn't so difficult, now is it? Just keep
in mind that the aitches have loop up and the ings have
loop down, just the way your grandmother used to write.

Hi Carl

I responded to your new article in the Ikon board at
www.shavian.org.about how to use all the compound Shavian letters.
I am in Calgary visiting relatives, so it took me a while to get
back to you.
Remember, I am responding in terms of an American English
pronunciation.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. Let me know if you have any questions?

_______________________attached___________________


--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@y...>
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I just barely posted a new article in the Ikon board at
www.shavian.org. It is entitled how to use all the compound Shavian
letters. I would like to hear your responds to it.
>
> thanks,
>
> best of regards,
>
> Carl
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn
more.

Hi Star
There is a lot of drudgery involved in making up even a small
English dictionary.
You need to be an obsessive Englishman or Scotswoman to complete one.
Out damm Spot.

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
<celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
> It is people in my family who are responsible for the Chambers
> dictionary... small world, eh?
>
> --Star
>
> --- dshepx <dshep@g...> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" wrote:
> > >
> > > ..................................................
> > > ..................................................
> > >
> > >
> > > Professor J. C. Wells of Cambridge, responsible for
the
> > > SAMPA pages, and pronunciation editor for either the
> > > Chalmers' or Longman's dictionaries, can't remember
> > > which, refers to this choice of vowel spread as old-
> > > fashioned. So be it.
> >
> >
> > Correction:
> >
> > Chambers, not Chalmers. Once published by Edinburgh
> > University (with whom it may still be affiliated) to rival
> > the Oxford dictionaries. Perhaps a guide to Northern
> > English?
> >
> > Professor J. C. Wells is with University College London
> > not Cambridge, but is the author (at least one of them)
> > of SAMPA (the Speech Assessment Methods Phonetic
> > Alphabet), a project designed to reproduce all the sounds
> > found in modern European languages, a EU sort of thing,
> > using ordinary typewriter keys — not pretty, but supposedly
> > precise.
> >
> > dshep
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad
>
> Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com