Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

paul vandenbrink wrote:





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.)






I'll also add that it was used in the Shaw Script newsletter, which is
at least precedent from Kingsley Read himself. With the four word-signs
in Androcles, H v n t,  Read established
three kinds of reductions (where C=consonant and V=vowel):



CV ->  C

    Ha -> H

    tM -> t

VCC -> C for n

    And -> n

VC -> C

    ov -> v



The second was obviously chosen because "and" is often reduced in
speech to a syllabic n. Otherwise it's not very productive, but the
idea could be applied to other words. It could also be called the same
as the last, if you allow a C to stand for a cluster. If we follow the
other two, we could have a lot more word-signs available to us:



CV -> C

    do, go, see, who, we, for,
etc.

    d, g, s, h, w, f ...



VC->

    up, am, is, us, etc.

    p, m, z, s ...



Of course, we couldn't use all possible abbreviations because of
conflicts, like with see vs. us, who vs. he.
And given the brevity of these abbreviations and the functional load of
the words they represent, I think they may be a bit cryptic in
practice. A few like this are mentioned in the Notes on the Spelling at
the back of the book, and they do include for, be, with,
he, are (which is still redundant), so, and do.



But a second set of abbreviations was also given with the more useful
form CVC -> CC (again C can be a cluster):

    that,  was, but, from,
had, has, been, were

    Ht, wz, bt, fm, hd, hz, bn, wr (but given that wx is already only two letters, I don't see the
point of an abbreviation)

I'll also add that these should only be used in cases where the medial
vowel is indistinct or pronounced with some variation. Note that "with"
could be put in this group, except that the final consonant also varies
between H and T
in different dialects (Androcles uses H,
while my dialect has T). This is probably
the reason that it was given as w with the
other list.

It seems these are the only kind of extended abbreviations that are
mentioned specifically in Androcles, and no limit is implied for for
either. But all would be nonstandard, or at least informal.





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.






The idea of our word-signs is to give some suggestion of the
pronunciation without being too specific, thus allowing some variation
in pronunciation without having the written words tied too closely to
any one dialect. I don't think making up a symbol would accomplish
that, though it might get the meaning across. Unicode already has
codepoints for mathematical operators that look like this, so I guess
typing them wouldn't be too hard: ⊕, ⊖.  Use them if you like, but I
think I'll just write out the words.





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.






--

Regards,

Joseph Spicer

JOsaf spFsD

===

> "For" is not a canonical abbreviation.

Ph.D,
I originaly learned the Shavian characters from omniglot which lists f as an
abbreviation for "for". Also I saw the usage in other's Shavian writings. I thought
I read also that the "for" abbreviation was introduced in Kingsley Read's Shavian
newsletters. Is this correct?

===

Yahya,
Are you reading the Shavian in Roman characters or with the Shavian font.
I (my opinion only) would never read or write Shavian on the computer or in
handwriting without the Shavian characters. To me without the using the
Shavian characters the words just look like garbled text. Which is Mark
Twain's point. Without a non Roman alphabet the text looks uneducated
and as Twain said "offends the eye".

Now second generation users who were never taught the use of the Roman
alphabet spelling, just like the second generation metric system users, would
not be "offended" by the usage since there is nothing to compare the usage with.
But not learning the current Spelling system will never happen. This is also
one of Shaw's points that the alphabet be used concurrently with the current
spelling system. Then with enough usage the Shavian alphabet and system
would rise in popularity due to its economics. This has not happend let :)

===

Regards,
Brian

Joseph Spicer writes:
> I'll also add that it was used in the Shaw Script newsletter

That answers my question. Should of checked for new messages
before I sent my last reply out.

I haven't been around for a while, so I didn't have a chance to see
this when you first posted it.

A little while ago I started typing a digital version of just the
Shavian part of Androcles and the Lion. My intention was to eventually
pair this with the traditional version and distribute it as a PDF, with
a new introduction and everything. So far I'm only in Act I. I'm not
sure how often I'll be able to work on this, so if others would like to
type some and send it, I can add others' contributions. If you'd like
to contribute, you may wish to let the group know what part you intend
to type so we're not wasting our time typing the same thing. If you do
so, I'll catch up on Act I, and others can start with Act II.



I'm still not sure of the status of the copyright--I do believe that
the Shaw alphabet edition has its own copyright. As a whole, the book
is a new creative work (typesetting, formatting, etc.), and copyright
as I know it covers "translations" into any other form, not just
between languages. I'm still not sure if it's of a sufficient age to
lose its copyright, and if it isn't, I don't know who might defend it.



If you'd like to contribute, or just see what I've got, you can find it
here: http://wurdbendur.googlepages.com/andro_one.pdf

It's also a good sample of the font I'm developing based on the
original. I still haven't done the bold and italic styles, so they're
based on the plain one.



--

Regards,

Joseph Spicer

JOsaf spFsD



Lionel Ghoti wrote:





Query: The monoalphabetical edition of Androcles and the Lion is
out

of copyright and is available for download from Project Gutenberg.

Does that mean that the Shavian-Roman bialphabetical edition is also

out of copyright? I do sincerely hope so, because I have just placed

on my site a PDF file containing the full text of the Shaw Alphabet

edition of Androcles and the Lion. You can find it here:



http://www.saythewo
rd.org.uk/ shavian/androsca ns/Androcles_ and_the_Lion_ Shaw_Alphabet.
pdf



This flurry of PDF activity was sparked off by an email I received a

few days ago from a gentleman from Culver City, CA, called Efrem

Violin (it's not a pseudonym -- Google him) requesting Shavian reading

matter. (The software you get bundled with scanners nowadays is

amazing. I scanned the whole thing into a PDF file in about 30 minutes.)



Any experts on copyright law please let me know if I have done a bad

thing.



PS: I haven't forgotten about phpGhotiFilleter. It's just on the back

burner. I am an inveterate dabbler and have been dabbling in other

things recently, like the Google Maps API, kayaking and ant farming.

And the weather is still too nice to spend much time indoors. The

promised changes will probably be made to the filleter the next time I

catch a cold that keeps me in bed for a weekend.

In my opinion, Quikscript does not have a "problem." Ph.D. may prefer
Shavian -- that is his prerogative. But QS is a phonemic writing system
every bit as effective as Shavian in representing English speech. One
can use QS without using the contractions. Every word can be written
out in full if one desires. The fact that Read included contractions in
the QS manual does not magically convert it into "just a shorthand
system for English." I would also point out that there is nothing wrong
with a phonemic writing system that, in a pinch, can also function
somewhat like a shorthand. It was quite handy in school when the
professor talked too fast to get it down in T.O.

In reality, the contractions are not difficult to get used to. They
don't slow my reading down. For general, printed communication in QS,
though, I would only use contractions for the five or six most common
English words -- along the lines of what you have been discussing for
Shavian. This still provides a good deal of space-saving and time in
writing or typing and does not leave one with the impression that
numerous letters are missing in action. Those words, represented by one
symbol, are read with no hesitation after the briefest practice. I
would recommend that the full range of contractions listed in the QS
manual be used in informal writing such as personal notes, letters,
eemails, and the like, for those who find them congenial. Obviously,
their use is always optional.

Paige


> 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 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.)



I thought the letter f was called 'fee'?


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".



Kingsley Read himself suggested the use of w for 'with'. I can't find my
copy of Androcles at the moment, but the relevant text is somewhere in the
endnotes. You can't miss it.



Remember, Shavian was all about efficiency, not phonetic purity, which gives
abbreviation the green light.



Hugh B

How about writing Dutton Speedwords with Shavian or QS?

B. J.


>From: "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
>Reply-To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
>To: <shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: RE: [shawalphabet] Re: Trans. The Mystic Tower - Part 3
>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:32:39 +0100
>
>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.)
>
>
>
>I thought the letter f was called 'fee'?
>
>
>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".
>
>
>
>Kingsley Read himself suggested the use of w for 'with'. I can't find my
>copy of Androcles at the moment, but the relevant text is somewhere in the
>endnotes. You can't miss it.
>
>
>
>Remember, Shavian was all about efficiency, not phonetic purity, which
>gives
>abbreviation the green light.
>
>
>
>Hugh B
>
>
>

Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
>
> Kingsley Read himself suggested the use of w for
> 'with'. I can't find my copy of Androcles at the moment,
> but the relevant text is somewhere in the endnotes.
> You can't miss it.
>
> Remember, Shavian was all about efficiency, not
> phonetic purity, which gives abbreviation the green light.


Well, okay. I'm not going to beat this to death. If you want
to come up with a hundred two-letter abbreviations, then
feel free.

There has been a lot of talk in the past that Shavian needs
to replace TO to increase literacy. It just seems to me that
adopting a hundred or more abbreviations is contrary to
that goal. A child learning to read will have to memorize
that "w" is read as "with" (and not "when" or "what" which
may be "wn" and "wt" respecively) and perhaps that "cp"
is read "computer" (and not "compare"). This is no better
than the current system of arbitrary spellings.

A large set of abbreviations and codewords may be more
efficient for those who memorize them, but it's not a pho-
nemic writing system. If you want a phonemic writing
system, you need to represent each phoneme in a word.

I seem to be the odd man out here, so I'll say no more
about it. C U L8R DOODZ. I C U R 2 YZ 4 ME.

--Ph. D.

On 7/25/06, Ph.D. <phil@...> wrote:
>
> 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?

No.

> Do you want a phonemic writing system or a shorthand?

The former.

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

I don't think you're the odd man out, Phillip, or I'm the odd woman
out, one. I think the four original abbreviations are reflections of
how the words themselves are pronounced. To becomes t'. Of, becomes v.
etc. But I can't imagine With becoming w'. Wi' maybe, but not w' and
then only rarely. It does not come naturally to me.

I also agree that too many abbreviations will be detrimental to the
alphabet. This is meant for easy reading and understanding of English.
So do we have the right to install 200 seemingly random "abbreviations"
that don't reflect the language. Why not "I'm" as Ice+Mime?

I might just be crazy. Crazy and pregnant.
--Star

=========
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