Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi all!

Philip, thank you for your reply.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Newton" wrote:
>
> On 7/22/06, yahya_melb wrote:
> > does it provide an exact equivalent for each one of the Shavian
alphabet symbols?
>
> It does.

Hmmm, good! See comment (*) below.


> It's based on Ross DeMeyere's Shavian fonts -- which weren't
Unicode fonts, since there was no Shavian Unicode assignment back
then (I think that even the CSUR registration wasn't up back then).
They were simply eight-bit fonts which mapped Shavian glyphs to
ASCII letters (as did many other fonts for other writing systems
back then).
>
> And since those fonts contained all Shaw alphabet symbols,
this "English-Latin alphabet style transcription" can represent all
Shaw alphabet symbols, simply by using the character with the ASCII
code that would result in the appropriate glyph in that font. (If
that makes sense.)

Yes, it does.


> I don't think there's a short name for that transcription
(transliteration, rather); "ASCII Shavian", perhaps?

"The ASCII Shavian transliteration" it is, then.

> To my knowledge, all non-Unicode Shaw alphabet fonts have followed
the original mapping, with only minor modifications, if any (for
example, the namer dot can be G or / or both; yew can be on ü as
well as on V).
>
> It's become a sort of de-facto standard on the list. Also partly
because not many clients support plane 1 Unicode, so if you want to
use Shaw alphabet characters, the best solution so far seems to be
to send HTML mail and to specify an eight-bit Shaw alphabet font --
and those who don't have that font will then see ASCII Shavian
instead. So after a while, you learn to read it.

Indeed, I didn't find it too onerous to guess most of the
equivalents without really trying to map them out logically. One
could say it's a bit like those "Magic Pictures" (Random Dot
Stereograms) - just look in the general direction and let your eyes
go sort of funny, unfocus even ... except I can't see anything in
those pictures!

So I imagine I'd get the hang of it pretty quickly, and I think that
others would also find it pretty easy to read after a little
exposure. So ...

(*) If this transliteration system works so well, do we really need
the Shaw Alphabet instead? Wait a minute, please don't ban me for
heresy ;-) - I'm sure there are some really great advantages to the
Shaw Alphabet; but I don't know what they are. Is it, for example,
easier to write? More compact? (I think so, from what I've seen.)
Easier to keyboard? More phonetic? More phonemic?

Here's another question - has anyone ever adapted the Shaw alphabet
for other languages beside English? And a last - could it replace
the IPA (which is notoriously difficult to write at speed, and
unsuited for cursive use)?

Regards,
Yahya

Hi Brian,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Algeri" wrote:
>
> Hello Yahya,
>
> 1. I am using f as an abbreviation for "for" instead of fP.

OK. Are there any other abbreviations in common use?


> 2. To me o sounds the same as Y. You are right wand is
> pronounced as 'wänd
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/wand

So to write down the way you'd pronounce "wall", I guess for most
English speakers, I'd normally write "woll"; or in CXS, maybe /wO:L/.


> 3. Yes you are right triangle is pronounced 'trI-"a[ng]-g&l
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/triangle.
>
> Usually I just write the Shavian as it sounds to me and do not
always check the pronunciation with the dictionary. I guess I
should check more often.

That explains that!


> >> Does this English-Latin alphabet style of transcription have a
short name?
> I do not know.
>
> >> And does it provide an exact equivalent for each one of the
Shavian alphabet symbols?
> I am not sure on this. Paul do you know? Thanks.

Ah, refreshing honesty!


> Thanks for the comments.
>
> Regards,
> Brian

My pleasure!

Regards,
Yahya

On 7/24/06, yahya_melb <yahya@...> wrote:
>
> Indeed, I didn't find it too onerous to guess most of the
> equivalents

Yes; I think Ross did a decent job of mapping the Shaw alphabet
letters to reasonably appropriate Latin letters.

Some had to be arbitrary, of course (e.g. q/Q, where I can never
remember which is oi and which is ow), but many are fairly good.

> (*) If this transliteration system works so well, do we really need
> the Shaw Alphabet instead?

Good question :)

> Wait a minute, please don't ban me for
> heresy ;-) - I'm sure there are some really great advantages to the
> Shaw Alphabet; but I don't know what they are.

I imagine there will be quite a bit of interference, since people are
used to Latin alphabet letters having a certain range of values, and
suddenly seeing them with other values may be more confusing than
seeing an entirely new letter.

> Is it, for example, easier to write?

Probably debatable -- the short vowels (the quarter-arcs) might be
confusing for dyslexics, for example.

> Easier to keyboard?

That probably depends on the keyboard mapping; the Demeyere mapping,
while common, is not "naturally" married to the Shaw alphabet, and
other keyboard mappings are quite possibly -- as with Dvorak vs Qwerty
for Latin, for example.

> More phonetic? More phonemic?

Since it's a transliteration -- a 1:1 mapping --, it's exactly as
phonemic or unphonemic as the Shaw alphabet itself.

> Here's another question - has anyone ever adapted the Shaw alphabet
> for other languages beside English?

I've seen it used for Esperanto ... more of a curiosity than anything
else, probably, since Esperanto already has (by design) a phonemic
alphabet.

I wouldn't recommend adapting it to other languages, though, since
it's specifically tailored to the phoneme system of English; what
contrasts English makes between sounds but also what contrasts it
doesn't make. Other languages will have other needs that they might
want to see reflected in an "ideal phonemic writing system".

> And a last - could it replace the IPA (which is notoriously difficult
> to write at speed, and unsuited for cursive use)?

I doubt it. It's designed for phonemes, while IPA is more closely
concerned with phones: different levels of abstraction.

For starters, Shavian has no symbol for IPA [e] -- or does it? After
all, some people pronounce "age" like that. But others don't.

And therein lies the rub: Shavian letters do not correspond to exact
sounds (as in IPA), but rather to English phonemes or, perhaps,
lexical sets. So "age" means something like "the vowel you have in
day, age, weigh" regardless of whether it's [e], [EI], [&I] or some
more exotic pronunciation. And conversely, and [aj]-like sound might
be "age" for one speaker and "ice" for another speaker.

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

Thanks again, Philip,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Newton" wrote:
>
> On 7/24/06, yahya_melb wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, I didn't find it too onerous to guess most of the
> > equivalents
>
> Yes; I think Ross did a decent job of mapping the Shaw alphabet
> letters to reasonably appropriate Latin letters.
>
> Some had to be arbitrary, of course (e.g. q/Q, where I can never
> remember which is oi and which is ow), but many are fairly good.
[snip]
> > And a last - could it replace the IPA (which is notoriously
difficult to write at speed, and unsuited for cursive use)?
>
> I doubt it. It's designed for phonemes, while IPA is more closely
concerned with phones: different levels of abstraction.
>
> For starters, Shavian has no symbol for IPA [e] -- or does it?
After all, some people pronounce "age" like that. But others don't.
>
> And therein lies the rub: Shavian letters do not correspond to
exact sounds (as in IPA), but rather to English phonemes or,
perhaps, lexical sets. ...

Yes, I had wondered which of the two it really was. Perhaps they
correspond to sets of pre-Shavian spellings, rather than to phonemes.


> ... So "age" means something like "the vowel you have in day, age,
weigh" regardless of whether it's [e], [EI], [&I] or some more
exotic pronunciation. And conversely, and [aj]-like sound might
be "age" for one speaker and "ice" for another speaker.

Regards,
Yahya

>> (*) If this transliteration system works so well, do we really need
>> the Shaw Alphabet instead?

> Good question :)

Yes I think we do.

Mark Twain said it best when he wrote on Simplified Spelling:

Twain: full essay at http://www.online-literature.com/twain/1322/

******
One great drawback to Simplified Spelling is, that in print
a simplified word looks so like the very nation! and when you
bunch a whole squadron of the Simplified together the spectacle
is very nearly unendurable.

The da ma ov koars kum when the publik ma be expektd to get
rekonsyled to the bezair asspekt of the Simplified Kombynashuns,
but--if I may be allowed the expression--is it worth the wasted
time?

To see our letters put together in ways to which we are not accustomed
offends the eye, and also takes the EXPRESSION out of the words.

La on, Makduf, and damd be he hoo furst krys hold, enuf!

It doesn't thrill you as it used to do. The simplifications
have sucked the thrill all out of it.

But a written character with which we are NOT ACQUAINTED
does not offend us--Greek, Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, and the
others--they have an interesting look, and we see beauty in them,
too. And this is true of hieroglyphics, as well. There is
something pleasant and engaging about the mathematical signs when
we do not understand them. The mystery hidden in these things
has a fascination for us: we can't come across a printed page of
shorthand without being impressed by it and wishing we could read
it.
******

> Are there any other abbreviations in common use?

Yes, the common abbreviations are:

H - the
R - are
P - or
n - and
t - to
v - of
f - for

My abbreviations bitmap at
http://shavian.metabright.com/graphics/abbr.png


Regards,
Brian

Hi all,

Just to let you all know, I've changed the group settings so that all
new members must first be approved by a moderator (myself, Philip
Newton or Paul Vandenbrink).

We're getting too many addresses such as "uwantmexxx69@..."
joining the group who in all likelihood are not much interested in
Shavian. Or am I being unfairly prejudicial?

I am confident that this will not in any way deter potential new
members from joining.

All the best,
Hugh B

Thanks, your moderatorship, You do us well. Bastages.

--Star

--- Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@...> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just to let you all know, I've changed the group settings so that all
> new members must first be approved by a moderator (myself, Philip
> Newton or Paul Vandenbrink).
>
> We're getting too many addresses such as "uwantmexxx69@..."
> joining the group who in all likelihood are not much interested in
> Shavian. Or am I being unfairly prejudicial?
>
> I am confident that this will not in any way deter potential new
> members from joining.
>
> All the best,
> Hugh B
>
>
>
>


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

An idle duck is the devil's playground.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

On 7/25/06, Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@...> wrote:
> Just to let you all know, I've changed the group settings so that all
> new members must first be approved by a moderator

Thank you.
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

On 7/24/06, Brian Algeri <bkalgeri@...> wrote:
>
> the common abbreviations are:
[snip]

Now if we could introduce "w" as an accepted abbreviation for "with",
we'd have all the words which English Braille has special one-cell
"letters" for (and for of the with).

(As for me, I occasionally use "w/" as an abbreviation for "with", and
"w/o" for "without", when handwriting notes to myself, so using "w" in
this manner wouldn't be that much of a stretch.)

What do y'all think?

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