Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

There are many more possible abbreviations beyond the standard 4 mentioned
in the Androcles notes. I'm sure they've been discussed here in the past.
When I can find my copy I'll have a look.



Hugh B



_____

From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Philip Newton
Sent: 25 July 2006 07:51
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Re: Trans. The Mystic Tower - Part 3



On 7/24/06, Brian Algeri <bkalgeri@sbcglobal.
<mailto:bkalgeri%40sbcglobal.net> net> 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@ <mailto:philip.newton%40gmail.com> gmail.com>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Algeri" wrote:
>
> > 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

Brian,

Thanks!

Yahya

Thanks for your reply, Brian.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Algeri" wrote:
>
> >> (*) 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:
[snip]

I don't find Mark Twain's arguments particularly convincing. The
strongest part is about the way the different usage of the same
symbols may cause conceptual confusion in current readers. But this
will pass: as a society, Australia faced and overcame similar
challenges when we went metric in the 1960s. Now most of us have
never used miles or gallons, inches or acres, chains or pounds.

The fact that a different script evokes a sense of mystery, which
*some of us* desire to unravel, applies to my mind equally well to
the Domesday Book and Chaucer, to the Magna Carta and to
Shakespeare, even to bank bills and shares of the 19th century! But
it has no practical daily significance.

Regards,
Yahya

Hi all,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" wrote:
> There are many more possible abbreviations beyond the standard 4
mentioned in the Androcles notes. I'm sure they've been discussed
here in the past.
> When I can find my copy I'll have a look.

Cool!

_____
Philip Newton wrote:
> [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?


Philip,

Perhaps that is an American standard abbreviation? I still tend to
use c with a macron (for Latin "cum") for "with".

And I'd like a standard abbreviation in one or two characters for
every word in the top 100 by usage that in full is longer than 4
characters. (These days, wouldn't that list include "computer"
and "phone"? ;-) )

Regards,
Yahya

On 7/25/06, yahya_melb <yahya@...> wrote:
>
> And I'd like a standard abbreviation in one or two characters for
> every word in the top 100 by usage that in full is longer than 4
> characters. (These days, wouldn't that list include "computer"
> and "phone"? ;-) )

Yes, such usage statistics are problematic.

According to http://www.bckelk.uklinux.net/words/uk1000n.html ("the
1000 most common wordforms in UK English, based on 29 works of
literature by 18 authors (4.6 million words)"), that would be:

which would there could their little about should never before other
after think might being again

How about: wh wd ?? cd ?? ll ab sh ?? bf ?? af ?? ?? ?? ag

I'm trying to think whether English Braille has abbreviations for all
of them... *looks* apparently, it has a one-letter abbreviation for
"which" (the "wh" letter), two-letter abbreviations for "would could
little should about before after again" (wd cd ll (sh)d ab (be)f af
ag), two-cell abbreviations for "there their" (dot-5+"the",
dots-456+"the"), a two-cell abbreviation for "ever" which is used in
"never" (n, dot-4+e), and no specific abbreviations for the other
words. However, due to letter-combination abbreviations, they're all
four cells or shorter, anyway: "other think might being" are "o(the)r
(th)(in)k mi(gh)t (be)(ing)".

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

Brian Algeri skribis:
>
> Yes, the common abbreviations are:
>
> H - the
> R - are
> P - or
> n - and
> t - to
> v - of
> f - for

"Are" and "or" are not abbreviations. That's the way
those words sound. "For" is not a canonical abbreviation.
The other four are specified in _Androcles_.


yahya_melb skribis:
>
> And I'd like a standard abbreviation in one or two
> characters for every word in the top 100 by usage that
> in full is longer than four characters. (These days,
> wouldn't that list include "computer" and "phone"? ;-) )

Am I the only one on this list who is opposed to this?

I thought Shavian was to be a phonemic writing system
for English. Once you introduce abbreviations, you are
no longer spelling words phonemically. Using a two-letter
code such as "cp" for computer makes Shavian into a
shorthand system.

People on this list have often emphasized that English
needs to be written in Shavian to increase literacy by
making it easier to learn to read and write. Using a
set of codes for various words is at cross purposes to
that. Students will no longer be able to sound out those
words, but will have to learn them by rote. Isn't that what
we are trying to avoid?

Frankly, this is the problem with Senior Quikscript. The
connecting letters are okay, but it uses all kinds of
abbreviations and shortcuts, making it just a shorthand
system for English.

Do you want a phonemic writing system or a shorthand?

--Ph. D.

Hi Yahya
I have to support Brian in this matter. In fact the same question
came up in the old Shavian Forum, and I supported the usefulness of
the Shavian Alphabet back then.
Making use of Capitals to indicate the alternate sounds of English is
a Kludge. Just like putting in an "h" after a Consonant or a
Silent "e" at the end of the word. Capitalization has a number of
useful functions in the Roman Alphabet, so providing additional
meaning thru Capitals is not practical in a real world.
Multiple encoding systems using the same symbols, are only useful for
spies.
Is creating confusion, high on your priorities?
People need to immediately recognise that they are reading a phonetic
transcription, not fiddle around with the letters until something
meaningful jumps out.

Regards, Paul V.
____________________attached_____________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "yahya_melb" <yahya@...> wrote:
Question: If this transliteration system works so well, do we really
> need the Shaw Alphabet instead?

>> I don't find Mark Twain's arguments particularly convincing. The
> strongest part is about the way the different usage of the same
> symbols may cause conceptual confusion in current readers. But
this
> will pass: as a society, Australia faced and overcame similar
> challenges when we went metric in the 1960s. Now most of us have
> never used miles or gallons, inches or acres, chains or pounds.
>
> The fact that a different script evokes a sense of mystery, which
> *some of us* desire to unravel, applies to my mind equally well to
> the Domesday Book and Chaucer, to the Magna Carta and to
> Shakespeare, even to bank bills and shares of the 19th century!
But
> it has no practical daily significance.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>

Hi Hugh
Thanks for keeping an eye on things.
A friend of mine called Rachel might be joining
so wave her thru, if you get her application,
before me.
Regards, Paul V.
_______________attached________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "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 (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.

Hi Philip
I was willing to go along and use the "Foe" letter for "for", for 2
reasons.
(It is consistent with the 4 other abbreviations and the name Foe is
close to sounding like "for", anyway.)
but I don't feel that using Dubya to replace "with" meets that
criteria. We can't afford to weaken the "Shavian" Alphabet, by adding
inconsistencies.
No matter how great the need, we can not corrupt the existing system
into Chaos.
I would rather add a new symbol to represent "with" and "without".
Maybe the plus sign with a circle around it. And Without could be
represented with a circle with a minu sign in it.
The Roman Alphabet added Ampersand for And and @ for "at" or "per".
Regards, Paul V.

P.S. did you notice I used the word "for" almost four times in a row.
four (for,4) and two (to, too, 2) have a lot in common, in the
confusion department. Oh, my aching head.
_____________________attached_____________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
wrote:
> From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Philip Newton
> Sent: 25 July 2006 07:51
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Re: Trans. The Mystic Tower - Part 3
>
>
>
> On 7/24/06, Brian Algeri <bkalgeri@sbcglobal.
> <mailto:bkalgeri%40sbcglobal.net> net> 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?

helO grMp,

hC iz anaTx SPt stPI.

************
from: /iNgliS fXI n aTx fOlk tElz
bF /edwin sidnI hRtlAnd [1890]

/mistx foks

wans upon a tFm HX waz a juN lEdI kYld /lEdI /mXI, hM hAd tM braTxz.
wan sumx HE Yl TrI went t a kuntrI sIt v HXz, wic HE hAd not bifP visited.
amaN H aTx JentrI in H nEbxhUd hM kEm t sI Hem waz a /mistx /foks, a
bAclx, wiT hMm HE, pxtikjalxlI H jaN lEdI, wx muc plIzd. hI Vzd often t dFn
wiT Hem, n frIkwentlI invFted /lEdI /mXI t kam n sI hiz hQs. wan dE HAt hx
braTxz wx Absent elswX, n SI hAd naTiN betx t dM, SI ditxmend t gO TiHx, n,
akPdiNlI set Qt unAtended. wen SI arFvd At H hQs n nokd At H dP, nO
wan Ansxd.

At leNkT SI Opend it n went in; Ovx H pPtl v H dP waz writen --

"bI bOld, bI bOld, but not tM bOld."

SI AdvAntsd; Ovx H stXkEs waz H sEm inskripSen. SI went up; Ovx H entrents
v a gAlxI, H sEm agin. stil SI went on, n Ovx H dP v a cEmbx fQnd writen --

"bI bOld, bI bOld, but not tM bOld,
lIst HAt jx hRt's blad SUd run kOld!"

SI Opend it; it waz fUl v skelatenz n tubz v blad. SI ritrIted in hEst, n,
kamiN dQnstXz, sY fram a windO /mistx /foks advAntsiN tOxdz H hQs wiT a drYn
sPd in wan hAnd, wFl wiT H aTx hI drAgd aloN a juN lEdI bF hx hX. /lEdI
/mXI hAd Just tFm t slip dQn n hFd hxself undx H stXz bifP /mistx /foks n
hiz viktim arFvd At H fUt v Hem. Az hI pUld H juN lEdI upstXz, SI kYt hOld v
wan v H bAnistxz wiT hx hAnd, on wic waz a ric brEslet. /mistx /foks kut it of
wiT hiz sPd. H hAnd n brEslet fel intM /lEdI /mXI's lAp, hM Hen kantrFvd t
iskEp unabzxvd, n got sEf hOm t hx braTxz' hQs.

a fV dEz Aftxwxdz /mistx /foks kEm t dFn wiT Hem Az Vzawal. Aftx dinx H
gests bigAn t amVz Ic aTx wiT ikstrPdanXI AnikdOts, n /lEdI /mXI sed SI wUd
rilEt t Hem a rimRkabal drIm SI hAd lEtlI hAd. F drempt, sed SI, HAt Az V,
/mistx /foks, hAd often invFted mI t jx hQs, F wUd gO HX wan mPniN. wen F
kEm t H hQs F nokd At H dP, but nO wan Antsxd. wen F Opend H dP, Ovx H
hY F sY writen, "bI bOld, bI bOld, but not tM bOld." but, sed SI, txniN t /mistx
/foks, n smFliN, "it iz not sO, nP it waz not sO." Hen SI pxsMd H rest v H stPI,
kanklMdiN At evrI txn wiT, "it iz not sO, nP it waz not sO," til SI kEm t H rMm
fUl v skelatenz, wen /mistx /foks tUk up H bxden v H tEl, n sed --

"it iz not sO, nP it waz not sO,
n /god fPbid it SUd bI sO!" --

wic hI kantinVd t ripIt At evrI subsikwent txn v H dredfUl stPI, til SI kEm t H
sxkamstAnts v hiz kutiN of H juN lEdI's hAnd, wen, upon hiz sEiN, As Vzawal --

"it is not sO, nP it waz not sO,
n /god fPbid it SUd bI sO; n
/lEdI /mXI ritPts bF sEiN --
"but it iz sO, n it waz sO,
n hC H hAnd F hAv t SO!" --

at H sEm mOment pradMsiN H hAnd n brEslet fram hx lAp, wXupon H gests drM
HX sPdz, n intstentlI kut /mistx /foks intM a TQzend pIsez.

************

regRdz,
/brFAn /AlJxI
http://shavian.metabright.com/