Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

From: "Lionel Ghoti" <ghoti@d...>
Date: Mon Mar 22, 1999 9:23 am
Subject: [shavian] changing "ha-ha" and "hung"

I too am deeply troubled by Ross DeMeyere's attempted one-man
orthographical insurrection. I've always found it odd that "hung"
(being voiced) should be tall and "ha-ha" (being voiceless) should
be deep, but if this was due to a clerical error then I agree with
Bob Richmond that Kingsley Read should have had plenty of
chance to correct the error, and decided not to do so --
presumably for very good reasons. The appendix of Michael
Holroyd's biography of Shaw tells something of the confusion
surrounding the production of Androcles and the Lion. E.g.,

: The delay [of the publication of Androcles] had been largely
: caused by contradictory instructions from Pitman, Penguin,
: the expert Phonetician and the Public Trustee. Eventually
: Barbara Smoker [the specialist editor of the Shavian-alphabet
: version of Androcles] 'walked out in a huff' leaving Hans
: Schmoller, the publisher's master typographer, floundering
: among the hieroglyphics of 'the world's strangest type-face'.

Who was the erring clerk? Schmoller? That might make sense,
his specialism being typography rather than linguistics, but, as
far as I can guess, any other member of the team involved in
the production of Androcles would have been too phonetically
knowledgeable to have made such an error. Whoever was
responsible, I find it hard to believe that an error made in some
version of the reading key could have led to an error throughout
the whole book before being detected by some qualified
person involved in its production. Surely Read and others with
knowledge of phonetics would have been shown initial copy
and proofs of the bi-alphabetical Androcles and its key, and
could have ordered whatever corrections would have been
necessary, in good time, if they had seen fit to do so.

To my mind, the phonemes represented by "hung" and "ha-ha"
are anyway exceptional and marked, like the "glide" phonemes
"yea" and "woe", in that they don't belong to an articulatory
similar tall-voiceless/deep-voiced pair like all of the other
consonants on the top two rows of the Shavian alphabet table
(p/b, t/d, etc.). As such, they are learnt as exceptions to which
extra thought must be given when spelling -- and so the "clerical
error" (if that is what it is) is not very likely to result in idle
spelling
errors on the part of the putative Shavian public.

From a purely mnemonic point of view, I find the traditional
arrangement of glyphs for "hung" and "ha-ha" the easiest to
remember: "hung", looping up, is a fish that has been hanged by
its fishy neck from a rope (head pointing upwards); "ha-ha" is that
same fish after it has been cut down from the scaffold, its head
stuck in the mud, pointing down, as it is laughed at cruelly by the
audience of the public execution.
Please let us not debate whether or not fish have necks.

Ross, you must tell us who David Fox is, and what sort of
organisation or place Friars is. Why haven't we heard of him
before?

There's someone else I'd like to consult: Sid (sidban2@e...).
About a week ago he sent a message to the mailing list in which
he said he wrote to Kingsley Read for three years before his death.
I'd like to know, Sid, if Mr Read said anything to you about "hung"
and "ha-ha".

I'm in two minds about whether the glyphs for the two phonemes
should be reassigned: I think Ross's proposal is phonetically
sound, and represents the ideal arrangement; but, given that
Kingsley Read and others apparently chose to publish using the
system we've all learnt, and that virtually all of the existing
literature
written in the Shavian alphabet uses that system, I at least want to
know a little more about why this was before casting my vote.
Let's have some more discussion on this.

By the way, does anyone know anything of Barbara Smoker, rebel,
vegetarian and professional campaigner? As far as I can tell from
Holroyd's Shaw biography, Smoker was 34 in 1957, which would
make her about 76 now. Is she in the land of the living, and can she
be contacted? She would surely have some opinion about this
vexing matter of laughing at hanged fish.

On tenterhooks,

Lionel Ghoti

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> From: rsrichmond@a...
> Date: Sun Mar 21, 1999 5:10 pm
> Subject: [shavian] changing "ha-ha" and "hung"
>
> It has always seemed odd to me, contrary to the rest of the Shaw
> Alphabet, that in the single pair of characters "ha-ha" and "hung"
> that the voiceless sound should have a descender and the voiced
> sound an ascender, and I'm not surprised to learn that an error
may have occurred here. If however there was an error, it would
appear
> that Kingsley Read did not attempt to fix it, and this seems odd
> given his careful attention to every detail of the project.
>
> The entire printed Shaw Alphabet text of Androcles and the Lion,
in
> all three type styles, as well as both sides of the Reading Card,
> are printed with "ha-ha" having a downward loop and "hung" having
an upward loop.
>
> The only other publication in Shaw Alphabet using the Stephen
Austin
> matrices that I am aware of, Stanley Marx's printing
> of "Jabberwocky" in New York in 1963 (more about this publication
in
> another post), uses the same convention.
>
> Kingsley Read's later Quickscript retained the upward-
looped "hung",
> while substituting an entirely different character for "ha-ha".
> Read's daughter Mavis Read Mottram hand-lettered both the Shaw
> Alphabet and Quickscript for the University of Reading's catalog
of
> its Kingley Read archive in 1983, several years after Read's
death,
> and retains the original convention also.
>
> Making a change in the Shaw Alphabet thus contravenes the entire
> published history of the alphabet. I do not feel that either the
> present Shaw Alphabet community or the Friars has the authority to
> do this.
>
> I urge Ross Demeyere to reconsider this proposed alteration, at
this
> early time when it can still be undone, or at least to submit it
to
> the entire online Shaw Alphabet community for approval before
doing
> it. Meanwhile I will not support this proposed alteration on my
Web
> site, and will if necessary change my present font-supported
format
> to GIF graphics in order to prevent it.
>
> Bob Richmond
> http://members.aol.com/RSRICHMOND/shavian.html

From: rsrichmond@a...
Date: Mon Mar 22, 1999 9:43 pm
Subject: [shavian] poor dour doers and booer boors

Paul Vandenbrink and Dennis Falk (Quozl) note the problem of
spelling diphthongs followed by "r" sounds, when using the Shavian
Alphabet. There are at least three diphthongs that create problems
here.
The Androcles orthography spells all these with the diphthong
plus "array": thus
"poor" is poo-er (p. 129), "fire" is fy-er (p. 54), and "hour" is ow-
er (page
108).

This is a very murky area of English phonetics. Our ears are
uncertain as to
whether such words have one syllable or two - it depends on the
number of
morphemes in the word. But we do not always pronounce one-morpheme
and two-morpheme words the same way.

Try to enShaw these horrors: The dour Scotsmen were indeed doers of
the word.
After the umpire called the strike, the booers in the stands went on
to throw bottles and trash on the field, generally behaving like
boors.

I'd have to write doo-r, doo-er and boo-er, boo-r. But this
distinction is inconsistent with the Androcles orthography.

I hadn't noticed this problem before! Brits on the list, how do you
pronounce these odd pairs of words (ignoring if you please the un-
cricket behavior of some
baseball fans!)?

Bob Richmond
____________________attached_______________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
>
> Hi Lee
> I agree. Although Shavian has done a tremendous job of providing a
> letter for all of the Common sounds of English, there are a few
> niggling situations, where another letter might be useful.
> But you have to draw the line somewhere.
>
> For example, a letter for the unvoiced w sound (wh). Most people
can
> hear the difference between whirl and world, but not everybody
> bothers making that distinction.
> Now as for the "oor" sound found in Coors beer, Boers, tours,
sure,
> fleur de lis and Moors. It is just not a common sound. A lot of
the
> time, it involves a foreign pronunciation. Also unlike the other
> Rhotic letters, I don't have sense that the Vowel Ooze merged with
> the Array sound. It seems more like the Dipthong vowels in the
words,
> liar, buyer, tower, power, Tom Sawyer, fewer where the Vowel sound
is
> longer, and is also represented by two Shaw letters.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> ___________________attached___________________________________
>
> From: "Lee A. Miller" <LeeM1023@e...>
> Date: Mon Mar 22, 1999 5:01 am
> Subject: [shavian] Re: Missing letters?: "oor"
>
> I don't think Shaw intended the alphabet to be exhaustive. 40
> characters is
> adequate to represent most of the sounds, but obviously not all
the
> sounds that
> occur in all variants of English.
>
> In my US midwestern English, "oor" tends to be "oo-arr" (i.e.,
ooze-
> array).
>
> Lee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Falk <quozl@w...>
> To: shavian@egroups.com <shavian@egroups.com>
> Cc: Dennis Falk <quozl@w...>
> Date: Sunday, March 21, 1999 10:47 PM
> Subject: [shavian] Missing letters?: "oor"
>
>
> Something I had noticed with Shavian I'd like to offer a thought
on,
> if I may:
> Shavian is supposed to contain every sound in English in single
> >letters, including dipthongs (incorrectly labeled "ligatures" in
the
> >Shavian alphabet key, as far as I'm concerned), including
every "r"
> >dipthong-- Except, it appears, "oor".... Am I mistaken, or is
this
> the
> >only "r" dipthong one has to spell "u" + "r"? "Urge" is
> pronounced "rr",
> >not "oor"...
> >
> >Any other observations?
> >
> >D.M.Falk, aka Quozl...

From: Philip Newton <philip.newton@d...>
Date: Tue Mar 23, 1999 8:40 am
Subject: [shavian] dour, doer

Dear Shavia,

I claim the privilege of answering the query on how to
pronounce "dour" and "doer", "boor" and "booer". I was born in
Germany of a British father and German mother and acquired traits of
an American accent through school;
however, I dare say I can speak British well enough if occasion
demands, since that is the accent I spoke when I was a child (and
even now, when I'm around my father).

I pronounce "dour" and "boor" (and "poor") with the "oo" in "wool"
(and in one syllable), whereas "doer" and "booer" (and, if you
want, "pooer") have the "oo" in "ooze" (and have two syllables).
Hence, I suppose I would write "dour" as dead+wool+array and "doer"
as dead+ooze+err.

Cheers,
Philip

________________attached____________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "rsrichmond" > From:
rsrichmond@a...
> Date: Mon Mar 22, 1999 9:43 pm
> Subject: [shavian] poor dour doers and booer boors
>
> Paul Vandenbrink and Dennis Falk (Quozl) note the problem of
> spelling diphthongs followed by "r" sounds, when using the Shavian
> Alphabet. There are at least three diphthongs that create problems
> here.
> The Androcles orthography spells all these with the diphthong
> plus "array": thus
> "poor" is poo-er (p. 129), "fire" is fy-er (p. 54), and "hour" is
ow-
> er (page
> 108).
>
> This is a very murky area of English phonetics. Our ears are
> uncertain as to
> whether such words have one syllable or two - it depends on the
> number of
> morphemes in the word. But we do not always pronounce one-morpheme
> and two-morpheme words the same way.
>
> Try to enShaw these horrors: The dour Scotsmen were indeed doers
of
> the word.
> After the umpire called the strike, the booers in the stands went
on
> to throw bottles and trash on the field, generally behaving like
> boors.
>
> I'd have to write doo-r, doo-er and boo-er, boo-r. But this
> distinction is inconsistent with the Androcles orthography.
>
> I hadn't noticed this problem before! Brits on the list, how do
you
> pronounce these odd pairs of words (ignoring if you please the un-
> cricket behavior of some
> baseball fans!)?
>
> Bob Richmond
> ____________________attached_______________________________________
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
> <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lee
> > I agree. Although Shavian has done a tremendous job of providing
a
> > letter for all of the Common sounds of English, there are a few
> > niggling situations, where another letter might be useful.
> > But you have to draw the line somewhere.
> >
> > For example, a letter for the unvoiced w sound (wh). Most people
> can
> > hear the difference between whirl and world, but not everybody
> > bothers making that distinction.
> > Now as for the "oor" sound found in Coors beer, Boers, tours,
> sure,
> > fleur de lis and Moors. It is just not a common sound. A lot of
> the
> > time, it involves a foreign pronunciation. Also unlike the other
> > Rhotic letters, I don't have sense that the Vowel Ooze merged
with
> > the Array sound. It seems more like the Dipthong vowels in the
> words,
> > liar, buyer, tower, power, Tom Sawyer, fewer where the Vowel
sound
> is
> > longer, and is also represented by two Shaw letters.
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> >
> > ___________________attached___________________________________
> >
> > From: "Lee A. Miller" <LeeM1023@e...>
> > Date: Mon Mar 22, 1999 5:01 am
> > Subject: [shavian] Re: Missing letters?: "oor"
> >
> > I don't think Shaw intended the alphabet to be exhaustive. 40
> > characters is
> > adequate to represent most of the sounds, but obviously not all
> the
> > sounds that
> > occur in all variants of English.
> >
> > In my US midwestern English, "oor" tends to be "oo-arr" (i.e.,
> ooze-
> > array).
> >
> > Lee
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis Falk <quozl@w...>
> > To: shavian@egroups.com <shavian@egroups.com>
> > Cc: Dennis Falk <quozl@w...>
> > Date: Sunday, March 21, 1999 10:47 PM
> > Subject: [shavian] Missing letters?: "oor"
> >
> >
> > Something I had noticed with Shavian I'd like to offer a thought
> on,
> > if I may:
> > Shavian is supposed to contain every sound in English in single
> > >letters, including dipthongs (incorrectly labeled "ligatures"
in
> the
> > >Shavian alphabet key, as far as I'm concerned), including
> every "r"
> > >dipthong-- Except, it appears, "oor".... Am I mistaken, or is
> this
> > the
> > >only "r" dipthong one has to spell "u" + "r"? "Urge" is
> > pronounced "rr",
> > >not "oor"...
> > >
> > >Any other observations?
> > >
> > >D.M.Falk, aka Quozl...

From: "sidney tanaban" <sidban2@e...>
Date: Tue Mar 23, 1999 1:51 pm
Subject: [shavian] Recollections

Hi!
I found your comments very interesting. I remember that there were
two other alphabetic symbols in Shaw's alphabet. One was for the KH
sound in the Scottish pronunciation and I am not sure but the other
may have a sound in the Wales language. Is it possible for someone
who has the older Shaw's alphabet to put that on the screen?

About pronunciation: Mr Read commented
in a letter he sent to me that he was unhappy about the numerous
discussions about how to write a word. There were difficulties when
people wrote in their particular dialect without being aware of a
more international way of pronouncing English. I think it becomes
apparent, particularly in a global village, that we adapt the way we
write the Shaw's alphabet to a pronunciation that would be used by
international radio broadcasts such as Voice of Moscow or Voice of
America. I would be curious what kind of reference these programs do
use when they want to determine what the majority of English
listeners will understand. The book Androcles and the Lion would be
suitable enough. However, since not everyone may have this book,
we might consider recommending a dictionary that no one will argue
with. In this way we will not get tied down in investing our ego in
how we pronounce words. If anyone wants to write to me in the
Shavian alphabet I would be delighted. I think it is by reading the
writing of others that we
can get a "complete" feeling of its usage.
My address is 430 E. 15th Ave.,
#2, Eugene, Oregon 97401.
I think we need not change the script that Mr. Read left us but I
think we should be given the creative opportunities to
develop new fonts and even letters if they can be shown to be useful.
Obviously, it is by how many people choose to use the new fonts or
scripts that will determine if they are useful or not. Mr. Read was
quite open to doing this as he would not have gone on and developed
QuikSkript.
However,
there is a point when we have to decide what alphabet we should use
to discuss these issues. If beginners do not use the traditional
Shavian alphabet then they may feel it is not worth the candle.

I am curious about the history of Kingsley Read. I wish now that I
knew his date of birth. If anyone does know this, please let me
know. Unfortunately, I lost contact with his descendants. He was
about 95 when he died. He was involved in the theater and the
Shavian plays.

Sidney

Hi Lionel
I am surprised that there were so many typo's in just the first 13
pages, but I would be even more surprised if there were none.
Creating an entire Play in a new phonetic alphabet is a time
counsuming and painstaking process, that would inevitatably resault
in a few inconsequential errors. I just wish more copies of the Bi-
Alphabetic Androcles and the Lion were available.
Regards, Paul V.


From: "Lionel Ghoti" <ghoti@d...>
Date: Wed Mar 24, 1999 9:47 am
Subject: [shavian] Errors in Androcles

I'm glad that the threatened rift in the Shavian internet community
concerning "huNG" and "Ha-ha" seems to have healed for the
time being, but now that Ross DeMeyere has brought the matter
of the switched glyphs to our attention I imagine it will keep
nagging at the perfectionist part of many of our minds for some
time to come -- and rightly so. Maybe correcting them is
something we could consider later, if and when we know more
about the number of non-internet Shavian users, and about the
decisions and/or mistakes made in the production of the Shavian
reading key and _Androcles_and_the_Lion_.

On a related matter, I said in my previous message that I thought
any major errors in the reading key could easily have been
corrected before _Androcles_ was published. But that has made
me think of a number of errors in the Shavian text of _Androcles_
which I have spotted, which should have been picked up as
glaring mistakes by anyone copy-editing or proof-reading the
text of _Androcles_, as long as they were adequately familiar
with the alphabet, and as long as they weren't in a terrible hurry.

In the examples below, I'm assuming that anyone checking my
references will have the same page-numbering. I'm reading the
hardback Public Trustee's edition. I've typed the errors as they
would appear if viewed in a Shavian font; I know this is hard to
read in plain text, so I've put a much more friendly HTML-and-GIF
version on my web site at:

http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/den/shavian/errors.html

I assume the errors were duplicated in the Penguin paperback
edition. If someone with a paperback _Androcles_ cannot find
them, could you please let me know?

Here are some errors from the first few pages of _Androcles_:

Page 32, line 7 Roman: "pull" Error: pul Should be: pUl
Compare: page 32, line 6

Page 36, line 11 Roman: "good-looking" Error: /gUd-lUkiN
[Unnecessary namer dot]

Page 36, line 13 Roman: "centurion" Error: /sentjUDian
[Unnecessary namer dot] Compare: page 38, line 9

Page 44, line 4 Roman: "Lavinia" Error: /ravinia
Should be: /lavinia Compare: page 44, line 1


If there are such daft errors in just the first 13 Shavian pages of
_Androcles_, how highly should we regard the book as a model
of the Shavian alphabet?



Fr. Lionel Ghoti O.Pisc.

This rooster entirely supports Bob's objections to this proposed change in the Hung and Ha-Ha characters of the Shaw alphabet. Carrying this out would serve no worthwhile purpose other than a misguided attempt to provide complete symmetry regarding voiced and unvoiced sounds and their respective symbols, and it would actively disrupt everything printed and written in the Shaw alphabet to this point. Except for linguists and others with professional interest and training in the language, I seriously doubt that most English speakers give much thought to voiced vs. unvoiced sounds as we write.

Paige
----- Original Message -----
From: paul vandenbrink
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:37 AM
Subject: [shawalphabet] More from Dr. Richmond on the Shaw Letter Hung - Ha-Ha Glitch



From: rsrichmond@...
Date: Sun Mar 21, 1999 5:10 pm
Subject: [shavian] changing "ha-ha" and "hung"

Uh-oh, we've got a serious problem here.

Ross DeMeyere writes:
>>Last week I received a letter from David Fox at the
Friars in the UK. He brought to my attention that in
the original reading key someone made a clerical error
and swapped the characters for hung and haha.<<

DeMeyere has then gone on, single-handed, to make a change in his
font for the Shaw Alphabet.

I have no idea who the Friars may be, but neither friars nor
broilers, much less us old stewing chickens, have the authority to
make a change in the Shaw Alphabet.

It has always seemed odd to me, contrary to the rest of the Shaw
Alphabet, that in the single pair of characters "ha-ha" and "hung"
that the voiceless sound should have a descender and the voiced
sound an ascender, and I'm not surprised to learn that an error may
have occurred here. If however there was an error, it would appear
that Kingsley Read did not attempt to fix it, and this seems odd
given his careful attention to every detail of the project.

The entire printed Shaw Alphabet text of Androcles and the Lion, in
all three type styles, as well as both sides of the Reading Card,
are printed with "ha-ha" having a downward loop and "hung" having an
upward loop.

The only other publication in Shaw Alphabet using the Stephen Austin
matrices that I am aware of, Stanley Marx's printing
of "Jabberwocky" in New York in 1963 (more about this publication in
another post), uses the same convention.

Kingsley Read's later Quickscript retained the upward-looped "hung",
while substituting an entirely different character for "ha-ha".
Read's daughter Mavis Read Mottram hand-lettered both the Shaw
Alphabet and Quickscript for the University of Reading's catalog of
its Kingley Read archive in 1983, several years after Read's death,
and retains the original convention also.

Making a change in the Shaw Alphabet thus contravenes the entire
published history of the alphabet. I do not feel that either the
present Shaw Alphabet community or the Friars has the authority to
do this.

I urge Ross Demeyere to reconsider this proposed alteration, at this
early time when it can still be undone, or at least to submit it to
the entire online Shaw Alphabet community for approval before doing
it. Meanwhile I will not support this proposed alteration on my Web
site, and will if necessary change my present font-supported format
to GIF graphics in order to prevent it.

Bob Richmond
http://members.aol.com/RSRICHMOND/shavian.html







Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Hey, this is new to me. If it has survived all of these iterations,
then it's right. Right? I'm with you, I wonder if it might be best to
leave as is.

--Star

--- paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:

>
> From: rsrichmond@...
> Date: Sun Mar 21, 1999 5:10 pm
> Subject: [shavian] changing "ha-ha" and "hung"
>
> Uh-oh, we've got a serious problem here.
>
> Ross DeMeyere writes:
> >>Last week I received a letter from David Fox at the
> Friars in the UK. He brought to my attention that in
> the original reading key someone made a clerical error
> and swapped the characters for hung and haha.<<
>
> DeMeyere has then gone on, single-handed, to make a change in his
> font for the Shaw Alphabet.
>


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

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

Well, I see I haven't been watching what is happening closely enough. I did not notice the date on the message below or I wouldn't have responded.

Paige
----- Original Message -----
From: C. Paige Gabhart
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] More from Dr. Richmond on the Shaw Letter Hung - Ha-Ha Glitch


This rooster entirely supports Bob's objections to this proposed change in the Hung and Ha-Ha characters of the Shaw alphabet. Carrying this out would serve no worthwhile purpose other than a misguided attempt to provide complete symmetry regarding voiced and unvoiced sounds and their respective symbols, and it would actively disrupt everything printed and written in the Shaw alphabet to this point. Except for linguists and others with professional interest and training in the language, I seriously doubt that most English speakers give much thought to voiced vs. unvoiced sounds as we write.

Paige
----- Original Message -----
From: paul vandenbrink
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:37 AM
Subject: [shawalphabet] More from Dr. Richmond on the Shaw Letter Hung - Ha-Ha Glitch



From: rsrichmond@...
Date: Sun Mar 21, 1999 5:10 pm
Subject: [shavian] changing "ha-ha" and "hung"

Uh-oh, we've got a serious problem here.

Ross DeMeyere writes:
>>Last week I received a letter from David Fox at the
Friars in the UK. He brought to my attention that in
the original reading key someone made a clerical error
and swapped the characters for hung and haha.<<

DeMeyere has then gone on, single-handed, to make a change in his
font for the Shaw Alphabet.

I have no idea who the Friars may be, but neither friars nor
broilers, much less us old stewing chickens, have the authority to
make a change in the Shaw Alphabet.

It has always seemed odd to me, contrary to the rest of the Shaw
Alphabet, that in the single pair of characters "ha-ha" and "hung"
that the voiceless sound should have a descender and the voiced
sound an ascender, and I'm not surprised to learn that an error may
have occurred here. If however there was an error, it would appear
that Kingsley Read did not attempt to fix it, and this seems odd
given his careful attention to every detail of the project.

The entire printed Shaw Alphabet text of Androcles and the Lion, in
all three type styles, as well as both sides of the Reading Card,
are printed with "ha-ha" having a downward loop and "hung" having an
upward loop.

The only other publication in Shaw Alphabet using the Stephen Austin
matrices that I am aware of, Stanley Marx's printing
of "Jabberwocky" in New York in 1963 (more about this publication in
another post), uses the same convention.

Kingsley Read's later Quickscript retained the upward-looped "hung",
while substituting an entirely different character for "ha-ha".
Read's daughter Mavis Read Mottram hand-lettered both the Shaw
Alphabet and Quickscript for the University of Reading's catalog of
its Kingley Read archive in 1983, several years after Read's death,
and retains the original convention also.

Making a change in the Shaw Alphabet thus contravenes the entire
published history of the alphabet. I do not feel that either the
present Shaw Alphabet community or the Friars has the authority to
do this.

I urge Ross Demeyere to reconsider this proposed alteration, at this
early time when it can still be undone, or at least to submit it to
the entire online Shaw Alphabet community for approval before doing
it. Meanwhile I will not support this proposed alteration on my Web
site, and will if necessary change my present font-supported format
to GIF graphics in order to prevent it.

Bob Richmond
http://members.aol.com/RSRICHMOND/shavian.html








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Yes, if you look closely you will see that what Paul has posted is one of
the first postings ever made in the old Shavian group. One of the 'gems' we
definitely want to preserve at all costs. I suppose, correct me if I'm wrong
Paul, that the idea was to "bring some of the old stuff into the new
archive"?



If I'm right in my assumption: no need to do it. I'm looking into ways of
importing messages from one group to another, to mean that we don't have to
rely on the old group for the message history. I doubt Yahoo would have any
serious objections to the idea (if they could find any reason against they'd
be being plain stubborn); after all it doesn't involve closing the old group
or otherwise affecting it at all, therefore not at all "violating the rights
of the administrator" (who wouldn't care anyway because he's been missing
for nearly five years, before Yahoo even took eGroups over). It only
involves a straight copy and paste of messages at their end.



Hugh B



_____

From: C. Paige Gabhart [mailto:pgabhart@...]
Sent: 12 November 2004 17:27
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] More from Dr. Richmond on the Shaw Letter Hung -
Ha-Ha Glitch



Well, I see I haven't been watching what is happening closely enough. I did
not notice the date on the message below or I wouldn't have responded.



Paige

----- Original Message -----

From: C. Paige <mailto:pgabhart@...> Gabhart

To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:31 AM

Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] More from Dr. Richmond on the Shaw Letter Hung -
Ha-Ha Glitch



This rooster entirely supports Bob's objections to this proposed change in
the Hung and Ha-Ha characters of the Shaw alphabet. Carrying this out would
serve no worthwhile purpose other than a misguided attempt to provide
complete symmetry regarding voiced and unvoiced sounds and their respective
symbols, and it would actively disrupt everything printed and written in the
Shaw alphabet to this point. Except for linguists and others with
professional interest and training in the language, I seriously doubt that
most English speakers give much thought to voiced vs. unvoiced sounds as we
write.



Paige

----- Original Message -----

From: paul <mailto:pvandenbrink@...> vandenbrink

To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:37 AM

Subject: [shawalphabet] More from Dr. Richmond on the Shaw Letter Hung -
Ha-Ha Glitch




From: rsrichmond@...
Date: Sun Mar 21, 1999 5:10 pm
Subject: [shavian] changing "ha-ha" and "hung"

Uh-oh, we've got a serious problem here.

Ross DeMeyere writes:
>>Last week I received a letter from David Fox at the
Friars in the UK. He brought to my attention that in
the original reading key someone made a clerical error
and swapped the characters for hung and haha.<<

DeMeyere has then gone on, single-handed, to make a change in his
font for the Shaw Alphabet.

I have no idea who the Friars may be, but neither friars nor
broilers, much less us old stewing chickens, have the authority to
make a change in the Shaw Alphabet.

It has always seemed odd to me, contrary to the rest of the Shaw
Alphabet, that in the single pair of characters "ha-ha" and "hung"
that the voiceless sound should have a descender and the voiced
sound an ascender, and I'm not surprised to learn that an error may
have occurred here. If however there was an error, it would appear
that Kingsley Read did not attempt to fix it, and this seems odd
given his careful attention to every detail of the project.

The entire printed Shaw Alphabet text of Androcles and the Lion, in
all three type styles, as well as both sides of the Reading Card,
are printed with "ha-ha" having a downward loop and "hung" having an
upward loop.

The only other publication in Shaw Alphabet using the Stephen Austin
matrices that I am aware of, Stanley Marx's printing
of "Jabberwocky" in New York in 1963 (more about this publication in
another post), uses the same convention.

Kingsley Read's later Quickscript retained the upward-looped "hung",
while substituting an entirely different character for "ha-ha".
Read's daughter Mavis Read Mottram hand-lettered both the Shaw
Alphabet and Quickscript for the University of Reading's catalog of
its Kingley Read archive in 1983, several years after Read's death,
and retains the original convention also.

Making a change in the Shaw Alphabet thus contravenes the entire
published history of the alphabet. I do not feel that either the
present Shaw Alphabet community or the Friars has the authority to
do this.

I urge Ross Demeyere to reconsider this proposed alteration, at this
early time when it can still be undone, or at least to submit it to
the entire online Shaw Alphabet community for approval before doing
it. Meanwhile I will not support this proposed alteration on my Web
site, and will if necessary change my present font-supported format
to GIF graphics in order to prevent it.

Bob Richmond
http://members.aol.com/RSRICHMOND/shavian.html














Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG967k0c5/M)8184.5584357.6650215.3001176/D=gr
oups/S05136382:HM/EXP00366848/A$26682/R=0/SIGedksnhv/*http:/www.n
etflix.com/Default?mqso`185402> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M)8184.5584357.6650215.3001176/D=groups/S:HM/A$26682/randp5426776>



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.

Sorry Page

I was just going through some of the first few posts, and transfering
the pertinent ones over to the new forum, to get things going and
give newcomers a little bit of background on where we are with the
Shaw Alphabet. By the way, pertinent for me tends to be points of
view, that I heartily agree with.
Please feel free to bring across any old Posts that have useful
information.
I will try to put the words "from Archive" in the subject line to
avoid future confusion.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I am only up to post number 60, by the way.
______________________attached________________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "C. Paige Gabhart"
<pgabhart@A...> wrote:

> Well, I see I haven't been watching what is happening closely
enough. I did not notice the date on the message below or I wouldn't
have responded.
>
> Paige
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: C. Paige Gabhart
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] More from Dr. Richmond on the Shaw
Letter Hung - Ha-Ha Glitch
>
>
> This rooster entirely supports Bob's objections to this proposed
change in the Hung and Ha-Ha characters of the Shaw alphabet.
Carrying this out would serve no worthwhile purpose other than a
misguided attempt to provide complete symmetry regarding voiced and
unvoiced sounds and their respective symbols, and it would actively
disrupt everything printed and written in the Shaw alphabet to this
point. Except for linguists and others with professional interest
and training in the language, I seriously doubt that most English
speakers give much thought to voiced vs. unvoiced sounds as we write.
>
> Paige
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: paul vandenbrink
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:37 AM
> Subject: [shawalphabet] More from Dr. Richmond on the Shaw
Letter Hung - Ha-Ha Glitch
>
>
>
> From: rsrichmond@a...
> Date: Sun Mar 21, 1999 5:10 pm
> Subject: [shavian] changing "ha-ha" and "hung"
>
> Uh-oh, we've got a serious problem here.
>
> Ross DeMeyere writes:
> >>Last week I received a letter from David Fox at the
> Friars in the UK. He brought to my attention that in
> the original reading key someone made a clerical error
> and swapped the characters for hung and haha.<<
>
> DeMeyere has then gone on, single-handed, to make a change in
his
> font for the Shaw Alphabet.
>
> I have no idea who the Friars may be, but neither friars nor
> broilers, much less us old stewing chickens, have the authority
to
> make a change in the Shaw Alphabet.
>
> It has always seemed odd to me, contrary to the rest of the
Shaw
> Alphabet, that in the single pair of characters "ha-ha"
and "hung"
> that the voiceless sound should have a descender and the voiced
> sound an ascender, and I'm not surprised to learn that an error
may
> have occurred here. If however there was an error, it would
appear
> that Kingsley Read did not attempt to fix it, and this seems
odd
> given his careful attention to every detail of the project.
>
> The entire printed Shaw Alphabet text of Androcles and the
Lion, in
> all three type styles, as well as both sides of the Reading
Card,
> are printed with "ha-ha" having a downward loop and "hung"
having an
> upward loop.
>
> The only other publication in Shaw Alphabet using the Stephen
Austin
> matrices that I am aware of, Stanley Marx's printing
> of "Jabberwocky" in New York in 1963 (more about this
publication in
> another post), uses the same convention.
>
> Kingsley Read's later Quickscript retained the upward-
looped "hung",
> while substituting an entirely different character for "ha-ha".
> Read's daughter Mavis Read Mottram hand-lettered both the Shaw
> Alphabet and Quickscript for the University of Reading's
catalog of
> its Kingley Read archive in 1983, several years after Read's
death,
> and retains the original convention also.
>
> Making a change in the Shaw Alphabet thus contravenes the
entire
> published history of the alphabet. I do not feel that either
the
> present Shaw Alphabet community or the Friars has the authority
to
> do this.
>
> I urge Ross Demeyere to reconsider this proposed alteration, at
this
> early time when it can still be undone, or at least to submit
it to
> the entire online Shaw Alphabet community for approval before
doing
> it. Meanwhile I will not support this proposed alteration on my
Web
> site, and will if necessary change my present font-supported
format
> to GIF graphics in order to prevent it.
>
> Bob Richmond
> http://members.aol.com/RSRICHMOND/shavian.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.