Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

>Just out of interest: (www.dictionary.com)
>
>"translate": to render in another language, to express in different words
>"transliterate": to represent (letters or words) in the corresponding
>characters of another alphabet
>
>Hugh B
>
>
Thank you, Hugh. It's good to clarify that every so often, as it gets
confusing when people go back and forth with translate/transliterate.

And speaking of dictionaries, there was mention and a link I believe at
one time on this list about a pronunciation dictionary which everybody
seemed to agree would be a good one to use as a standard for at least
General American pronunciation, and thus spelling in Shavian. There
was, if I remember correctly, a plain text version of this pronunciation
dictionary available on the internet. Does anybody remember what I'm
talking about, and if so, could you point me to this resource?

If I'm going to create a TO to Shavian conversion program, I'd love to
have something like that, since it would save me a ton of work if I
didn't have to type up a whole dictionary myself. It would also help me
to keep my spelling closer to something everyone can agree upon.

Take care, all!

--
Ethan

RSRICHMOND@... wrote:

> Ethan says:
>
> >>Changes can be made, but there must be agreement, and it must go
> further than just this forum.<<
>
> Alas, what is there beyond this forum?
>
> Bob Richmond
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good question! I'm afraid most of what's beyond this forum is all
individual enthusiasts who have never found anybody else to get together
with. Or else people who are afraid of the internet!

--
Ethan

On 5/9/06, Ethan <ethanl@...> wrote:
> And speaking of dictionaries, there was mention and a link I believe at
> one time on this list about a pronunciation dictionary which everybody
> seemed to agree would be a good one to use as a standard for at least
> General American pronunciation, and thus spelling in Shavian.

Hugh often points to AHD4 (The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition), if I remember correctly -- you can
find it at http://dictionary.reference.com/ , among other places (that
server often returns results from multiple dictionaries, but the AHD4
entry is usually (always?) the first one, and I believe the only one
with a pronunciation key by its entries).

That dictionary makes a couple of distinctions that General American
doesn't but which I, for example, do, so I think it's closer to
"standard Shavian" (if there is such a beast) than a dictionary based
on GA.

> There
> was, if I remember correctly, a plain text version of this pronunciation
> dictionary available on the internet. Does anybody remember what I'm
> talking about, and if so, could you point me to this resource?

I don't know of a plain-text pronouncing dictionary that is anything
close to British English; however, I know of two freely-available
American-style pronouncing dictionaries: the Moby Pronunciator and the
CMU pronouncing dictionary.

> If I'm going to create a TO to Shavian conversion program, I'd love to
> have something like that, since it would save me a ton of work if I
> didn't have to type up a whole dictionary myself.

*nods* I'd wish for something like that, too.

Unfortunately, I find the two machine-readable dictionaries that I
know of unsatisfactory for this purpose, since they merge some sounds
which are separate in my speech.

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

Philip Newton wrote:

>On 5/9/06, Ethan <ethanl@...> wrote:
>
>
>>And speaking of dictionaries, there was mention and a link I believe at
>>one time on this list about a pronunciation dictionary which everybody
>>seemed to agree would be a good one to use as a standard for at least
>>General American pronunciation, and thus spelling in Shavian.
>>
>>
>
>Hugh often points to AHD4 (The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the
>English Language, Fourth Edition), if I remember correctly -- you can
>find it at http://dictionary.reference.com/ , among other places (that
>server often returns results from multiple dictionaries, but the AHD4
>entry is usually (always?) the first one, and I believe the only one
>with a pronunciation key by its entries).
>
>That dictionary makes a couple of distinctions that General American
>doesn't but which I, for example, do, so I think it's closer to
>"standard Shavian" (if there is such a beast) than a dictionary based
>on GA.
>
>
>
>>There
>>was, if I remember correctly, a plain text version of this pronunciation
>>dictionary available on the internet. Does anybody remember what I'm
>>talking about, and if so, could you point me to this resource?
>>
>>
>
>I don't know of a plain-text pronouncing dictionary that is anything
>close to British English; however, I know of two freely-available
>American-style pronouncing dictionaries: the Moby Pronunciator and the
>CMU pronouncing dictionary.
>
>
>
>>If I'm going to create a TO to Shavian conversion program, I'd love to
>>have something like that, since it would save me a ton of work if I
>>didn't have to type up a whole dictionary myself.
>>
>>
>
>*nods* I'd wish for something like that, too.
>
>Unfortunately, I find the two machine-readable dictionaries that I
>know of unsatisfactory for this purpose, since they merge some sounds
>which are separate in my speech.
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
>
>
Thanks, Philip. I believe it was the CMU dictionary I was thinking of -
I'll check them all out, though. More resources are better than few!
Even if there is a merger of some sounds, it is possible to search
through the dictionary and change those particular words that have that
sound. I would basically be starting with something like the CMU
dictionary, and modifying it to meet my needs. I could even produce a
couple dictionaries, say one for GA and one for RP. Anybody could
modify it too, as the dictionary would be a simple plain-text document.

--
Ethan

Philip Newton wrote:

>Unfortunately, I find the two machine-readable dictionaries that I
>know of unsatisfactory for this purpose, since they merge some sounds
>which are separate in my speech.
>
>
I looked at the CMU dictionary, and I noticed this:

further
F ER DH ER

The two "er" sounds are merged - compare the entry at
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=further>, which looks like this:

f�r/th/r

But there is a version which includes stress. In that version it looks
like this:
F ER1 DH ER0

So by using the stress marks, you can determin which "er" sound is which.

Are there any other phonemes that are merged in that dictionary, that
you could tell me of? Whatever the case, it can be modified as
necessary. The above example I would change to an entry something like
this in my dictionary:

further = fXHD

and I would do it by setting up a replacement scheme something like this:

F = f
ER1 = X
DH = H
ER0 = D

--
Ethan


--------------030504080301060103080202
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="------------020407080701070806090902"

Hi Bob
First, in fact, I did not bring up this issue, this time.

It gets brought up regularly by most of the new people who learn the
Shavian Alphabet well enogh to appreciate its internal consistency
and logic. I respond to them simply and clearly because
I don't really like to pull the rug over it either.

We are not Emperor's who can demand of every new learner that they
acknowledge that
the Shavian Alphabet is perfect and immune from the changes of time.
Because after all, it supposed to represent current English pronun=
ciation.

If there were a Shavian Literature to consider, it would certainly
be very difficult to make changes in how the Shavian Alphabet is used.
Such is not the case. Unfortunately, Androcles is long out of print,
and a new edition should be produced with corrections.

Personally, I think modest changes would not be impossible to
introduce, if we limited ourselves to minimal changes that were
upwardly compatible with the Original Alphabet.


However, I do defer to the Shavian community such as it is.
I completely agree with Ethan on that point.

Regards, Paul V.
_____________________________attached_____________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethanl@...> wrote:
>
> RSRICHMOND@... wrote:
>
> > Paul Vandenbrink brings up changing the alphabet once again:
> > >>to produce some kind of resolution to the design of the Shavian
> > Ha-ha and Hung letters.<< etc.
> >
> > I really don't think we have the authority to change the Shaw
> > Alphabet, in spite of its obvious imperfections. As it turned
out,
> > even Kingsley Read didn't have the authority to change it - he
had no
> > way to disseminate his changes, and neither do we. Androcles
remains
> > the medium by which most people know about the Shaw Alphabet, not
> > Kingsley Read and not this forum.
> >
> > An analogy - high school language teachers often think they have
the
> > authority to change a foreign language, to make it easier for the
> > students - I remember in my high school a particularly bad
Spanish
> > teacher who announced that we wouldn't learn the familiar ("tu")
> > forms. - This problem is supposed to be rife with ASL (sign
language)
> > teachers.
> >
> > Bob Richmond
> > Knoxville TN and Gastonia NC
>
> This is why I prefer to continue using the traditional forms, at
least
> until (and if) a consensus is made for a change. Changes can be
made,
> but there must be agreement, and it must go further than just this
forum.
>
> --
> Ethan
>

Paul Vandenbrink notes:

>>Unfortunately, Androcles is long out of print, and a new edition should be
produced with corrections.<<

Because of online resources like abebooks, no book is really "out of print",
and Androcles so far is quite easy to get. There were after all 14,000 copies
of the hardback distributed, and more than 40,000 of the paperback. So I think
it's fair to say that Androcles is still a good part of the accessibility of
the Shaw alphabet.

Because the original fonts are no longer usable, any new edition would be a
different book, even if we didn't change the letter forms or the orthography.

Bob Richmond

RSRICHMOND@... wrote:

> Paul Vandenbrink notes:
>
> >>Unfortunately, Androcles is long out of print, and a new edition
> should be produced with corrections.<<
>
> Because of online resources like abebooks, no book is really "out of
> print", and Androcles so far is quite easy to get. There were after
> all 14,000 copies of the hardback distributed, and more than 40,000 of
> the paperback. So I think it's fair to say that Androcles is still a
> good part of the accessibility of the Shaw alphabet.
>
> Because the original fonts are no longer usable, any new edition would
> be a different book, even if we didn't change the letter forms or the
> orthography.
>
> Bob Richmond

What happened to the original fonts? I know this has been discussed
before, I was wondering if I missed something. Last I heard it wasn't
known what happened to them.

--
Ethan

Have you ever wondered what it'd be like to fly like a bird? Wonder no longer! <http://www.maximumride.com/>

Ethan skribis:
>
> What happened to the original fonts? I know this has
> been discussed before, I was wondering if I missed
> something. Last I heard it wasn't known what happened
> to them.


"Androcles" was printed from metal type. The type was
set using the Monotype system. The matrices for the
type were specially engraved, probably by the Monotype
Corporation (in England), which sometimes made
special fonts like that. (Regular fonts would have been
punched.)

When Stephen Austin went out of business, the matrices
were donated to the Type Museum in London.

--Ph. D.

Hi Bob
In a certain sense, you are right. A literate or educated English-
speaking individual with access to the Internet and a Credit Card
would have very little
trouble getting a copy of the Shavian Alphabet Edition of Androcles
and the Lion.
Unfortunately, that is not the audience we are trying to reach.

As we have discussed Ad Infinitum, such a person
(i.e. rich, literate, educated English-speaker)
has very little
interest in mastering an Alternate Phonetic, when he already has
complete mastery of English written in the Roman Alphabet.
Maybe he can use it to teach his Grand-Children.

Our target audience is the half literate uneducated person for whom
English
is not already an open Book. Probably from some place where English
is not the main language, but used for Commerce, Business and Higher
Education. This includes about half the world.

The Book has to be out there, not just 3 or 4 copies floating around
on the Internet. People have to be able to see it, thumb thru it and
decide to buy it.
There are other problem's with it being our main teaching text.
The Play Format is just not as accessible as the original fable, and
of course the heavy Chris+ian overtones might not be to everybody's
taste,
but at least, thank G-d, it is not bl-dy Poetry.

I assume the Copyright has expired by now, so I really don't know
why we don't re-cast the book back into Fable format and get rid
of the Stage Directions.
It would be nice to publish it again.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Thank G-d so many hard cover copies were distributed, as
otherwise the Alphabet would probably already be extinct.
They were well made.
Unfortunately, the paperbacks were printed on regular paper with a
definate lifetime. Because of the acid used in making the paper I
think. Nowadays, they use acid free paper and it can last much longer.
_______________________attached_______________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, RSRICHMOND@... wrote:
> Paul Vandenbrink notes:
>
> >>Unfortunately, Androcles is long out of print, and a new edition
should be produced with corrections.<<
>
> Because of online resources like Abebooks, no book is really "out
of print",
> and Androcles so far is quite easy to get. There were after all
14,000 copies
> of the hardback distributed, and more than 40,000 of the paperback.
So I think it's fair to say that Androcles is still a good part of
the accessibility of the Shaw alphabet.
>
> Because the original fonts are no longer usable, any new edition
would be a
> different book, even if we didn't change the letter forms or the
orthography.