Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Mmkay. Done some more work to the layout - no, I haven't gotten to work
on the content yet. That's this week. At any rate, I've changed it
around - now the sub-menus expand out from the upper menus. The
navigation is, I hope, less daunting this way. I went with the white
text, thank you Ph.D. =D

www.circuitous.net/learnshav/


mkE. dun sum mP wxk t H lEQt - nO, F hAvin't gotin t wxk on H kontent
jet. HAt's His wIk. At anI rEt, F'v cEnJd it arQnd - nQ H sub-menVz
ekspAnd Qt frum H upD menVz. H nAvigESan is, F hOp, les dyntiN His wE. F
went wiT H wFt tekst, TEnk V f.d. =r

Philip,

Thanks for this response:

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Newton" wrote:
>
> On 7/25/06, yahya_melb 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)".

I hadn't thought of checking out Braille usage, but it's a sensible
idea.

Regards,
Yahya

Hi Phillip,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Ph.D." wrote:
>
> 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. ...

OK - that was the point of Shaw's bequest, after all.


> ... Using a set of codes for various words is at cross purposes to
that.

I disagree. Educated Romans had a phonemic spelling system that was
exceedingly easy to learn and apply. Because the Latin alphabet was
designed for Latin, one had only to spell words exactly as they
sounded. But this did not deter people from inventing and employing
labour-saving devices, one of which is abbreviations in writing. It
is not possible to regulate exactly how people will use a given
tool, once they have it in their hands. If we did not invent
abbreviations for use in Shavian, other people certainly would. And
that would be in no wise at odds with them learning to spell
correctly in the first place, or to write out the full words (it's
phonetic, remember?) whenever they wanted to.


> 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?

Was it an insuperable intellectual burden to learn to use "i.e."
or "e.g."? My parents also had to know and use "viz.", "op.
cit.", "loc. cit.", "inst." and "ult." All but the last two of
these may still be met with in academic work throughout the English-
speaking world.


> 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.

I'm not familiar with Senior Quikscript. However, a shorthand
system for English - particularly one based on English phonetics -
has got to be a great improvement over the traditional orthography.
That's exactly why I taught myself to use the Teeline shorthand
system while still a student - it's saved me countless hours and
enabled me to keep pace with lecturers.


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

Both.

Regards,
Yahya

Hi Paul,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink" wrote:
>
> 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.

I haven't decried its usefulness; I simply asked whether it was
necessary if the same ends sould be met mroe economically using the
current alphabet.


> 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. ...

Consonant + h is a digraph; "silent" e is worse, a "split digraph".
Using the majuscule forms (capital letters) is not using digraphs;
it's using a single character to represent as single phoneme; thus,
it is a phonemic spelling, which is what I thought we all wanted.


> ... Capitalization has a number of useful functions in the Roman
Alphabet, so providing additional meaning thru Capitals is not
practical in a real world.

None of those functions are essential. e. e. cummings dispensed
with them entirely, and his poetry is still widely read; nobody has
found it necessary to respell it using capitals. English uses them
to start sentences (but not clauses) and proper names like Paul;
German uses Them to start every Noun, like this; and so, once, did
English; yet Nothing essential was lost by changing that Practice.


> Is creating confusion, high on your priorities?

Now, that was uncalled for! Did I insult you?

Regards,
Yahya

Hi Brian,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Algeri" wrote:
[snip]
> Yahya,
> Are you reading the Shavian in Roman characters or with the
Shavian font.

I get the digest in Outlook in HTML format, default font Georgia,
Latin characters + {w, j, W, J}. I can't change my default font to
the Shavian font, or then everything written in OT would beconme
garbled. To view one of your transliterations, or a message,
written in Shavian, I have to edit the message, then select the
appropriate text and change its font to one of the Shavian fonts.


> 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".

It does have all the charm of a blackmailer's newspaper cutout
ransom demand! However, aesthetics aside, having now conned several
of these digests (particularly those messages written in both OT and
Shavian), I'm finding it surprisingly easy to read.


> 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.

Very true.


> But not learning the current Spelling system will never happen.

Not if the reform gains ground through its superior practicality.
Who today in the English-speaking world writes in a fine Gothic
hand - or can even read it?


> 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 :)

We can always *hope* for rational progress. It seems that the whole
world (one nation in the Americas aside) has finally embraced the
superior logic of a purely metric system of weights and measures.

Regards,
Yahya

Hi Paige,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, pgabhart wrote:
>
> 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, emails, and the like, for those who
find them congenial. Obviously, their use is always optional.

Your approach seems to me to be an eminently practical and
reasonable one.

Regards,
Yahya

> > Is creating confusion, high on your priorities?
>
> Now, that was uncalled for! Did I insult you?
>
> Regards,
> Yahya


Okay, let's not get ugly, I think it was meant as a joke. Darn
emotionless text.

:)

On the point, however, we Americans are an economical lot, and if there
is a way to abbreviate something, I'm quite sure we'll do it. So in
truth, we don't have to come up with abbreviations other than the
standard four that we already have, simply because people are going to
do it on their own. I would say that, for formal writing, we should
stick to the formal four as it were. Outside of that, for instance, in
these quick little notes, I don't see why you couldn't abbreviate
words.

And why is the word abbreviation so long?
--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

Hi again Phillip,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Ph.D." wrote:
>
> 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. ...

Well, I'll give it a rest after this, too.


> ... If you want
> to come up with a hundred two-letter abbreviations, then
> feel free.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear that my comment about wanting these
was strictly for my own informal use, looking for the greatest
increase in efficiency. I don't see the point in using them in
public documents, or mandating the learning and use of a particular
set


> 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"). ...

I would agree with you, if a child HAD to learn these things.
AFAICT, no child in any of my classes at school ever had to learn
any standard abbreviations other than e.g. and i.e. It's fairly
obvious from the results of their schooling that even those two were
two too many for some of them. So I don't propose that any
*reader* of English should need to learn any abbreviations
whatsoever for English spelling. However, certain *writers* of
English, eg students and journalists, might find shorthand skills -
including the ability to create recognisable abbreviations - useful
in their work. For those people, training in suitable techniques
would be desirable.


> ... This is no better
> than the current system of arbitrary spellings.

If it were only 100 standard abbreviations, that would still be WAY
better than the current, highly unphonemic spelling of the TO.


> 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.

;-)

Regards,
Yahya

Hi Raven,

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven wrote:
>
> 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've promised Phillip to stop beating this topic to death, so I'll
just say I think you're right.


> I might just be crazy. Crazy and pregnant.

Are congratulations in order?

Regards,
Yahya


> --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
>

Hi Yahya and Philip
Glad to see that you are taking it easy on this topic.
The problem is that Shavian is not either a perfect phonemic alphabet
nor a perfect Shorthand. It is a Hybrid, taking some of the best
features of an ideal Shorthand and imposing on it a format that has a
lot of internal consistency and where the forms of each of the
letters help you to intuit the type of sound that it represents.
It is also Phonemic, in that it tries to represent all the basic
English Phonemes with a single letter.

And also like any work of Genius, the whole is greater than the sum
of its parts.
You can not extend or expand on perfection in one area without
considering the consequences to the other areas.
As I mentioned before, slow evolution within the Speech community, is
our only option.

Regards, Paul V.
________________________________attached_________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "yahya_melb" <yahya@...> wrote:
> > Well, okay. I'm not going to beat this to death. ...
>
> Well, I'll give it a rest after this, too.

> Perhaps I didn't make it clear that my comment about wanting these
> was strictly for my own informal use, looking for the greatest
> increase in efficiency. I don't see the point in using them in
> public documents, or mandating the learning and use of a particular
> set
>
> > 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"). ...
>
> I would agree with you, if a child HAD to learn these things.
> AFAICT, no child in any of my classes at school ever had to learn
> any standard abbreviations other than e.g. and i.e. It's fairly
> obvious from the results of their schooling that even those two
were
> two too many for some of them. So I don't propose that any
> *reader* of English should need to learn any abbreviations
> whatsoever for English spelling. However, certain *writers* of
> English, eg students and journalists, might find shorthand skills -
> including the ability to create recognisable abbreviations - useful
> in their work. For those people, training in suitable techniques
> would be desirable.

> > ... This is no better
> > than the current system of arbitrary spellings.
>
> If it were only 100 standard abbreviations, that would still be WAY
> better than the current, highly unphonemic spelling of the TO.
>
> > 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.