Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

I noticed a couple of words where the pronunciation has probably
changed or simplified over the years.

actually AkcUali
AkSMlI
agony Agoni
AgonI
Do we want to create a list of generally accepted exceptions to the
old pronunciations.

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Blakeslee
<blakesleej@y...> wrote:
> I created a list of all of the words occurring in
> "Androcles and the Lion" and their transliterations as
> they appear in the Penguin paperback. Please let me
> know if you see any errors or missed items.
>
> I removed namer dots from words that can occur as
> common nouns (e.g. centurion, emperor). Use of the
> apostrophe is inconsistent in the Roman text; here I
> attempted to write in the Roman apostrophes where they
> are dropped in the book. Hyphenated words are
> considered one word in the list.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff

I noticed a couple of words where the pronunciation has probably
changed or simplified over the years.

actually AkcUali
AkSMlI
agony Agoni
AgonI
Do we want to create a list of generally accepted exceptions to the
old pronunciations.

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Blakeslee
<blakesleej@y...> wrote:
> I created a list of all of the words occurring in
> "Androcles and the Lion" and their transliterations as
> they appear in the Penguin paperback. Please let me
> know if you see any errors or missed items.
>
> I removed namer dots from words that can occur as
> common nouns (e.g. centurion, emperor). Use of the
> apostrophe is inconsistent in the Roman text; here I
> attempted to write in the Roman apostrophes where they
> are dropped in the book. Hyphenated words are
> considered one word in the list.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff

Paul,

Where did you get your phonemic transcriptions?
Where did P.A.D.McCarthy & Co. get the transcriptions used in Androcles?
I have never seen a dictionary or pronunciation guide referenced.
McCarthy describes his ordeal with Shavian in Hass, Alphabets for English.

Here are the NBC English pronunciations from www.m-w.com

actually = 'ak-ch(&-w)&-lE, ák-sh(&-w)&-lE; 'aksh-lE,
ANSI akchølé akshølé akshøwølé akshlE
Shavian AkcalI AkSalE AkSlE
Shavian AkcalI AkSalE AkSlE
I noticed a couple of words where the pronunciation has probably
changed or simplified over the years.
I don't think pronunciation has changed since 1958. I doubt if dictionary
pronunciation
guides have changed. There was always a variety of ways the word could be
pronounced and understood.

Webster notes the alternate sh and ch pronunciations but has no exact matches
for your transcriptions. Your AkcUali is nearly the same as Webster's
AkcawalI

There are some problems with schwa and schwi. If a syllable is unstressed,
Webster generally uses one of these unstressed options.
<very> is 'verE corresponding to the IPA /'veri/.
Many people prefer verI, using the short I to denote the shortness of the
final vowel. <agony> is 'ag&nE in Webster. Shaw: AgonI

The difference you illustrate (AgonI - Agoni) seems to be more of a
difference in convention than a difference in pronunciation. How do you represent
schwi? Do you represent is shortness or its vowel quality? --Steve


Paul wrote:
actually AkcUali
AkSMlI
agony Agoni
AgonI

These are the pronunciations from Daniel Jones'
dictionary (eleventh ed. 1958) transcribed into
Shavian:

AktjUali, Aktjwali, AktjUli, AkcUali, Akcwali, Akculi

The fourth alternative corresponds to MacCarthy's.

It seems there is almost always a correspondence
between MacCarthy's transliteration and one of the
alternatives given by Jones. In fact where there is
not, I am tempted to call it a typographical error,
e.g. ArFval, Asembal were probably supposed to be
arFval, asembal.

The transliterations I show are just the first
occurrences in the book, so all the typos that might
be there won't show up.

I have already caught some errors of my own and will
upload a new corrected file soon.

Regards,
Jeff

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a...
wrote:

> Here are the NBC English pronunciations from
www.m-w.com
>
> actually = 'ak-ch(&-w)&-lE, �k-sh(&-w)&-lE;
'aksh-lE,
> ANSI akch�l� aksh�l� aksh�w�l� akshlE
> Shavian AkcalI AkSalE AkSlE
> Shavian AkcalI AkSalE AkSlE



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

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Blakeslee
<blakesleej@y...> wrote:
> These are the pronunciations from Daniel Jones'
> dictionary (eleventh ed. 1958) transcribed into
> Shavian:
>
> AktjUali, Aktjwali, AktjUli, AkcUali, Akcwali, Akculi
>
> The fourth alternative corresponds to MacCarthy's.
>
> It seems there is almost always a correspondence
> between MacCarthy's transliteration and one of the
> alternatives given by Jones. In fact where there is
> not, I am tempted to call it a typographical error,
> e.g. ArFval, Asembal were probably supposed to be
> arFval, asembal.
>
> The transliterations I show are just the first
> occurrences in the book, so all the typos that might
> be there won't show up.
>
> I have already caught some errors of my own and will
> upload a new corrected file soon.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a...
> wrote:
>
> > Here are the NBC English pronunciations from
> www.m-w.com
> >
> > actually = 'ak-ch(&-w)&-lE, ák-sh(&-w)&-lE;
> 'aksh-lE,
> > ANSI akchølé akshølé akshøwølé akshlE
> > Shavian AkcalI AkSalE AkSlE
> > Shavian AkcalI AkSalE AkSlE
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

Thanks Jeff

I am glad to hear that Akculi and Akcwali are both valid
pronunciations. It makes my pronunciation of AkSMlI or AkSulI,
not seem so far off off the mark. I will check it out in my NYC
American
English Dictionary.
I guess there will always be a few particularly problematic words.
We really need to keep a list.
It is good for me to know that ArFval, Asembal were probably
supposed to be
> arFval, asembal.

Regards, Paul V.







--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Blakeslee
<blakesleej@y...> wrote:
> These are the pronunciations from Daniel Jones'
> dictionary (eleventh ed. 1958) transcribed into
> Shavian:
>
> AktjUali, Aktjwali, AktjUli, AkcUali, Akcwali, Akculi
>
> The fourth alternative corresponds to MacCarthy's.
>
> It seems there is almost always a correspondence
> between MacCarthy's transliteration and one of the
> alternatives given by Jones. In fact where there is
> not, I am tempted to call it a typographical error,
> e.g. ArFval, Asembal were probably supposed to be
> arFval, asembal.
>
> The transliterations I show are just the first
> occurrences in the book, so all the typos that might
> be there won't show up.
>
> I have already caught some errors of my own and will
> upload a new corrected file soon.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a...
> wrote:
>
> > Here are the NBC English pronunciations from
> www.m-w.com
> >
> > actually = 'ak-ch(&-w)&-lE, ák-sh(&-w)&-lE;
> 'aksh-lE,
> > ANSI akchølé akshølé akshøwølé akshlE
> > Shavian AkcalI AkSalE AkSlE
> > Shavian AkcalI AkSalE AkSlE
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

Hi Paul,

Originally, I to was shocked and amazed that "air" had three meanings, especially the "ash" and "roar" part. I came across it in several dictionaries. I forgot which one (I'll let you know which one later, after I research it).

Anyways, thank you for the compliment about deciphering the rhotic letters.

best of regards,

Carl

paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:

Hi Carl

You did very well at deciphering the Rhotic letters. I am still
considering "Ash" + "Array" -> "Air"
Sounds like Long John Silver in Treasure Island
Arr, Matey {What does Arr mean in this context?}
Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I looked at your response. I always use "Yew" as "yea"
and "ooze". And I was right when I said "Ian" was the most
confusing compound. How did I do in deciphering the Rhotic letters?
>
> best of regards,
>
> Carl
> paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carl
>
> I responded to your new article in the Ikon board at
> www.shavian.org.about how to use all the compound Shavian letters.
> I am in Calgary visiting relatives, so it took me a while to get
> back to you.
> Remember, I am responding in terms of an American English
> pronunciation.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> P.S. Let me know if you have any questions?
>
> _______________________attached___________________
>
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, carl easton
<shavintel16@y...>
> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I just barely posted a new article in the Ikon board at
> www.shavian.org. It is entitled how to use all the compound
Shavian
> letters. I would like to hear your responds to it.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > best of regards,
> >
> > Carl
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
Learn
> more.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn
more.




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! � What will yours do?

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- "Hugh Birkenhead" wrote:


> > > As for the 'hung'/'haha' dispute, I simply do
> > > not accept there was any error made at all.
> >
> > Have you considered membership in the Flat Earth
>> Society?
>
> No thanks. I take it you're their recruiting officer...

I have forwarded your application for consideration.
We may require an interview.

> Better put the kettle on before reading further.

Kettle on.

> The status of 'err' and 'air' as errors is INDISPUTABLE,

So is ha and hung, except by ostriches.

> being a visible mismatch of glyphs;

As ha and hung is a misplacement of sound-assignment.

> you only have to break the letters in half (as they are
> compounds) to tell.

You have only to say the word 'hang' aloud.
It begins unvoiced, ends voiced.


> 'Err' is two 'EGG' letters joined together suffixed by
> 'roll', whereas 'air' is the same but with two 'ADO'
> letters.

Yes.

> Clearly it was intended that dualling of 'egg' and 'ado'
> should signify increased vowel length - 'err' in British
> English is like a lengthened 'up' sound (the rhoticism is
> observed in some British dialects and obviously in most
> American ones), while 'air' is a lengthened 'egg' sound.

One error is as bad as another. Incidentally, 'air' is lengthened
and rounded off with a schwa (or an r); 'err' is merely
lengthened (in Britain, in America the majority pronunciation
is probably 'ere'). And I believe that the compound r-letters
were an attempt to please both rhotic and non-rhotic speakers,
rather than simply indicate increased vowel length, the other
long vowels are not similarly strengthened.

> Kingsley Read had a perfect opportunity to correct previous
> mistakes in Quikscript, which he devised several years after
> Shavian was made available. Surely, if he wished to keep many
> of the same basic letter shapes as before, he would have taken
> his chance to correct errors?

You assume Kingsley Read to be an infallible prophet. Why?

> With 'err' and 'air', he did - firstly he removed compound
> letters with any indications of vowel length entirely (notice
> a lack of distinct 'err' and 'air' characters),

Yes, an improvement; there are some others as well, and some
that are not.

> but more importantly, he made it possible to use the letters
> 'et' and 'utter' (equivalent to Shavian 'egg' and 'ado') with
> following 'roe' (equivalent to 'roll') to signify the sounds of
> 'air' and 'err' respectively.

Yes, I believe Read's goal was to produce a superior shorthand,
which QuickScript may well be. He could not have foreseen that
so many people would be using keyboards today.

> Now you put forward that 'hung' and 'ha-ha' is an
> indisputable error, just as in the above case.

Yes, as should be clear to all. How is it possible to defend a
voiced letter in the unvoiced row, and an unvoiced letter in
the voiced row, when it is easier, simpler, more logical, more
consistent, more sensible, more reasonable, and plain silly not
to do so?

> This assertion cannot be proven in the slightest.

I believe you are a university student. You shall therefore
have no difficulty with the following quiz:

Please check one of the two possible answers.

The sound represented by the letter `h' is
voiced
unvoiced

The sound represented by the letters `ng' is
voiced
unvoiced

Apples belong to the category "apples,"
oranges to the category "oranges"
yes
no

Logic is of no importance whatsoever,
nor for that matter is common sense.
yes
no


> - Firstly, and most obviously, there is no clear mismatch of
> glyphs. All we have are two characters, unique, not derived
> from others. We have nothing to compare them against in
> the context of the alphabet.

Compare the sounds these letters are taken to represent.

> - Secondly, we notice that the two characters are NOT
> phonetically related to each other as with all other pairs
> in the 'tall'/'deep' categories;

So, what does that have to do with anything? They are simply
in the wrong row.

> it is safe to assume that their forms bear resemblance to one
> another merely for symmetry and convenience.

Yes. But why not put them in the right place?

> Trying to apply the logic of the other tall/deep pairs to these
> two characters is pointless seeing as they are so set apart.

Why? Set apart? You mean because they are not phonetically
related they may then strangely contradict the unvoiced/tall
voiced/deep arrangement? Please explain why.

> The ONLY argument suggesting an erroneous switch is that
> 'hung' is tall yet voiced, but 'haha' is deep yet unvoiced;

Isn't that ENOUGH? What more REASON do you need?
'haha' being unvoiced, should be tall; 'ng', being voiced,
should be deep. Why is this difficult? Black is not white.

The ONLY reason that ha and hung are in the wrong place
is that an error was OBVIOUSLY made. Yes, I'm afraid so.
There is NO good reason why they should be as they are now.

> seeing as these characters are clearly unrelated leftovers
> given arbitrary letterform assignments, what makes anyone
> think Read would have thought to apply a tall=unvoiced and
> deep=voiced rule?

Why wouldn't he have? What is the point of establishing
order, which can be called design, if one arbitrarily does not
follow through? It's like having a car with one wheel of an
odd size, just to be different. I think you should provide an
argument WHY he chose to deliberately not put them in the
right place, assuming it was not an accident but intention.
It is the deviation that should be explained.

There is however the possibility as I mentioned earlier that
Read did not really care (as you apparently do not) about this
systematic arrangement of voiced and unvoiced letters; perhaps
he thought it too mechanical. He certainly all but discarded it in
QuickScript. Perhaps this was the contribution of some other
competion finalist that he was forced by the judges to take into
consideration in the formation of the final alphabet, and happily
forgot about in his later efforts. I for one, and it doesn't
bother me if in this group I am the only one — if the Shaw
alphabet ever attracts greater attention there will be numerous
others — think this separation and distinction of component parts
a stroke of genius, well, maybe that's going too far, but at
least a REALLY good idea. To have an alphabet easier for children
to learn, which I think it would do, in an age when we are told that
fewer and fewer people read, just has to be a good thing.

> - Thirdly, as I mentioned already, if an error was so clearly
> made with 'hung' and 'haha', then an equally serious error
> was also made with the tall YET VOICED 'yea',

Yes.

> and its related compound vowel 'yew' (which is a vowel so
> surely should be short like all the rest).

Yes. But why should vowels be short? Isn't that an argument
for consistency? If the assignment of letter to sound is to be
based upon whimsy, why not let them deviate as well? Could
that be part of the, gasp!, system?

> Even if you flip hung and haha round, you are still left with
> this one 'bad egg' in the tall category. Obviously, 'woe' and
> 'yea' weren't accidentally flipped, because both are voiced
> sounds. So what error could possibly have been made HERE?

Yes. There are accidents, and there are blunders. The 'w' and 'y'
letters will not stand the test of general acceptance (beyond this
group, that is), being as they are forward and backward slashes,
long-established graphic signs (I can't remember what the word
for non-letter signs are), useful in their own right. The slashmarks,
pre-existing, well-known, and in general use now for URL
addresses, are not going to be sacrificed just so the Shaw alphabet
can become popular — ain't goin' to happen. New
letters will have to be found for w and y anyway, provided the
Shaw alphabet ever comes into anything approaching general or
even limited use. The same argument probably applies to the
inverted u as well.

> Just perhaps, and this is just an off-the-wall suggestion, could
> yea and woe have been put together with one as tall and the
> other as deep merely for reasons of symmetry and convenience?

Cute. They were put together because they are both glides,
just as the `m' and `n' are mirror reflections of
each other, both being nasals (which arrangemet Read
also jettisoned in QuickScript). Read could have matched 'w'
with the unvoiced 'hw'and in choosing not to do so failed to
follow the stated brief of Shaw's will.

> - Fourthly, look at Androcles,

Androcles is not infallible.

> the only literary publication ever produced in Shavian.

Nor is it Holy Writ.

> This book contains the only existing technical documentation for
> Shavian that was written by Shavian's creators themselves, not
> one of us lowly serfs; these are, in case you have trouble finding
> them: the Public Trustee's foreword, James Pitman's introduction,
> Peter MacCarthy's notes on spelling, the suggestions for writing
> by Kingsley himself, and of course the reading key. In ANY of these
> sections, do you find ANY tag, note, direction, rule or other such
> marking defining talls as unvoiced and deeps as voiced? To save
> you time: nope. Not a sausage. Just to clarify this one more time:
> *there is NO rule that talls are unvoiced and deeps are voiced*.

There is no need to spell out the obvious. They made no mention
that vowels were necessarily short either, but amazingly, they
consistently are. Do you assume that Read (or other unkown
person) jotted all sound-notations on cards, threw them up in the
air, and those that fell to his left would be made tall, those to his
right would be deep. I think you must — that, or some other
method of random selection. Why, one more time, go to the
trouble of maintaining a layered platform for word display, and
revoking randomness by designating tall, short or deep position by
sound-value rather than whimsy, in pairs, yet deliberately allow, to
insist, that one pair deviate from the norm.

> - And finally, as has been mentioned MANY times apparently
> without being read once, THE SUPPOSED ERROR WAS NOT
> CORRECTED IN QUIKSCRIPT.

So what? How can this POSSIBLY matter? I believe I have argued
sufficiently well if tiresomely and repetitively why these two
letters should be put in their proper place; I would like for you
now to provide an argument why they shouldn't be, a reasonable,
positive argument, one based on something other than what
Read did or did not do subsequently.

> Quikscript letter 'ing' is a dead ringer for Shavian letter 'hung'.
> Funny that.

So what again? Is that really an argument? A mistake repeated is
therefore not a mistake?

> If Read felt strongly enough to change so many things, such as
> correcting 'air' and 'err', making 'fee'/'vow' look like
> 'thigh'/'they', and altering a great many of the other letterforms
> including 'haha', why did he not seize this perfect opportunity
> to restore 'hung' to be the deep, downward curling letter he had
> actually designed it to be in Shavian? Answer: because the letter
> hung WAS as he actually designed it to be in Shavian.

I don't think so, and even if it were, Kingsley Read was not
Moses. He (if with others) put together a remarkable alphabet.
He deserves our due regard; there is no need to worship him.

QuickScript is hardly perfect. One blunder straight off the mark
was the choice of a simple vertical stroke for the 't', besides the
retention of the 'w' letter as forward slash. You appear to
regard anything that is as heavenly ordained.

> > > The solution to this is obvious, in my mind: if one finds
> > > Shavian's inconsistencies too much to work with, there is
> > > already an alternative: it's called Quikscript.
> >
> > It is a pretty good alternative for writing by hand, quicker and
> > easier. ShawScript looks better though, I think.
>
> Then write in Shawscript. Qut don't claim to write in Shawscript
> qut actually qe writing 'hung' where you should qe writing 'haha',
> therefore not using qonafide Shawscript at all. Imagine how silly
> and qewildering to others it would qe to qegin such a one-man
> revolution in the conventional alphaqet.

I shal rite as I damn wel pleze, thenk yew veri much.

> > > > no amount of diversion can alter the fundamental and
> > > > obvious fact that the sound represented by the letter
> > > > 'h' is unvoiced, that by 'ng' is voiced, and there
> > > > is no good reason why they should be displayed
> > > > incorrectly. Is there? Why be deliberately wrong?
> > > > Makes no sense.
> >
> > And will never.....
>
> I don't doubt that it makes no sense to those who believe almost
> religiously that an error was in fact made. I think you're alone on
> that one.

> Hugh B

And those who religiously deny reality?

dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink" wrote:
>
> Hi D'shep

> You are correct hw is the unvoiced equivalent of the voiced
> Shaw "Woe" letter, and in a perfect world it would be assigned to
> the Tall Yea letter. I notice the hw sound mostly in compound
> sounds. (i.e. quiet, quick, quite, swipe) Maybe in whoosh, whew and
> whirl, too.

> Regaards, Paul V.


> > That's the point I'm trying to make, 'y' and 'ng' are not
> > unvoiced, 'h' is; ergo, they are in the wrong place.
> >
> >
> > > The only thing that can be changed is the sound
> > > assignment.
> >
> >
> > As I have suggested. Simply swap the ha/hung
> > keywords. What could be simpler?
> >
> >
> > The 'yea'-sign could be used for 'hw' and something else
> > found for the palatal approximant, perhaps the 'Ian' letter
> > that no one likes.
> >
> >
> > Why is this an insurmountable difficulty?


Well, thank you. Contrary to what many of you now probably
believe, I do not enjoy playing the pedant. Just as much as any
of you I would like to see the Shaw alphabet become a reality,
but to do that I am very much afraid that it will have to pass
the ridicule test. Think about that.

regards,
dshep

Dshepx, another essay for you

> > - Secondly, we notice that the two characters are NOT
> > phonetically related to each other as with all other pairs
> > in the 'tall'/'deep' categories;
>
> So, what does that have to do with anything? They are simply
> in the wrong row.

As I already explained, there is no 'right' and 'wrong' row.

> Why wouldn't [Read] have [applied a tall=unvoiced and deep=voiced rule]?
> What is the point of establishing
> order, which can be called design, if one arbitrarily does not
> follow through? It's like having a car with one wheel of an
> odd size, just to be different. I think you should provide an
> argument WHY he chose to deliberately not put them in the
> right place, assuming it was not an accident but intention.
> It is the deviation that should be explained.

NO. Innocent until proven guilty; 'innocent', i.e. the default, is "keep it
as it is". You're advocating ALTERATION, i.e. 'guilty', i.e. a change from
the default. So YOU have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an error was
made. You still haven't done so, and you won't be able to, because there is
NO EVIDENCE to support what you're saying.

> There is however the possibility as I mentioned earlier that
> Read did not really care (as you apparently do not) about this
> systematic arrangement of voiced and unvoiced letters; perhaps
> he thought it too mechanical. He certainly all but discarded it in
> QuickScript. Perhaps this was the contribution of some other
> competion finalist that he was forced by the judges to take into
> consideration in the formation of the final alphabet, and happily
> forgot about in his later efforts. I for one, and it doesn't
> bother me if in this group I am the only one - if the Shaw
> alphabet ever attracts greater attention there will be numerous
> others - think this separation and distinction of component parts
> a stroke of genius, well, maybe that's going too far, but at
> least a REALLY good idea. To have an alphabet easier for children
> to learn, which I think it would do, in an age when we are told that
> fewer and fewer people read, just has to be a good thing.

You're admitting it might not actually be a "clerical error" (where the two
characters were swapped) at all, instead you're indicating an error on
READ's part, in that he didn't follow his own "rule" of tall=unvoiced,
deep=voiced. This is nuts. If you're calling Read's design skills into
question, you might as well just go design yourself another alphabet.

> > - Thirdly, as I mentioned already, if an error was so clearly
> > made with 'hung' and 'haha', then an equally serious error
> > was also made with the tall YET VOICED 'yea',
>
> Yes.

WHAT?!? Stop press! ANOTHER clerical error! Did these printers ever go to
school?

> > Even if you flip hung and haha round, you are still left with
> > this one 'bad egg' in the tall category. Obviously, 'woe' and
> > 'yea' weren't accidentally flipped, because both are voiced
> > sounds. So what error could possibly have been made HERE?
>
> Yes. There are accidents, and there are blunders. The 'w' and 'y'
> letters will not stand the test of general acceptance (beyond this
> group, that is), being as they are forward and backward slashes,
> long-established graphic signs (I can't remember what the word
> for non-letter signs are), useful in their own right. The slashmarks,
> pre-existing, well-known, and in general use now for URL
> addresses, are not going to be sacrificed just so the Shaw alphabet
> can become popular - ain't goin' to happen. New
> letters will have to be found for w and y anyway, provided the
> Shaw alphabet ever comes into anything approaching general or
> even limited use. The same argument probably applies to the
> inverted u as well.

Now you're saying that the actual LETTERFORMS are errors too. Not clerical
flips this time (thankfully sparing the printers more ridicule), but errors
made by Read himself. Any other characters you've got it in for? You're
going to tell me you just can't stand 'tot' next because it looks like the
number 1. How about 'oak', it's gotta be an error because it's not a
reflection of another letter, and it could be confused with '0'. What the
heck, ALL the letters are duff because they just look like chicken
scratches! Shavian really isn't the alphabet for you, is it.

> > Just perhaps, and this is just an off-the-wall suggestion, could
> > yea and woe have been put together with one as tall and the
> > other as deep merely for reasons of symmetry and convenience?
>
> Cute. They were put together because they are both glides,
> just as the `m' and `n' are mirror reflections of
> each other, both being nasals (which arrangemet Read
> also jettisoned in QuickScript). Read could have matched 'w'
> with the unvoiced 'hw'and in choosing not to do so failed to
> follow the stated brief of Shaw's will.

Now you're saying Read failed to follow the stated brief of Shaw's will.
Explain, citing verbatim conditions of the will which have not been met by
the alphabet.

> There is no need to spell out the obvious. They made no mention
> that vowels were necessarily short either, but amazingly, they
> consistently are. Do you assume that Read (or other unkown
> person) jotted all sound-notations on cards, threw them up in the
> air, and those that fell to his left would be made tall, those to his
> right would be deep. I think you must - that, or some other
> method of random selection. Why, one more time, go to the
> trouble of maintaining a layered platform for word display, and
> revoking randomness by designating tall, short or deep position by
> sound-value rather than whimsy, in pairs, yet deliberately allow, to
> insist, that one pair deviate from the norm.

ONE pair? I thought you said 'yea' was an error as well.

If you can't grasp it, it's as simple as this: talls and deeps are the same
phoneme, but unvoiced and voiced respectively - APART FROM yea/woe and
hung/haha. Yea/woe are both voiced glides, but hung/haha are TOTALLY
unrelated, besides the fact that they are in complementary distribution. The
last four talls/deeps are just stuck on the end. They don't follow the
pattern of 'same consonant phoneme, voiced and unvoiced'. They are just
there for CONVENIENCE AND SYMMETRY, i.e. they LOOK COOL.

> > - And finally, as has been mentioned MANY times apparently
> > without being read once, THE SUPPOSED ERROR WAS NOT
> > CORRECTED IN QUIKSCRIPT.
>
> So what? How can this POSSIBLY matter? I believe I have argued
> sufficiently well if tiresomely and repetitively why these two
> letters should be put in their proper place; I would like for you
> now to provide an argument why they shouldn't be, a reasonable,
> positive argument, one based on something other than what
> Read did or did not do subsequently.

TWO letters? You said a moment ago it was three, maybe four, possibly
more... (sigh)... HOW MANY LETTERS DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE?

I am of course arguing that the letters STAY in their proper places, and
need no other evidence but the alphabet as we all know it. You are
advocating MOVING them, so YOU need to provide the factual, non-anecdotal
evidence that you as yet haven't brought forward.

> > Quikscript letter 'ing' is a dead ringer for Shavian letter 'hung'.
> > Funny that.
>
> So what again? Is that really an argument? A mistake repeated is
> therefore not a mistake?

Do you SERIOUSLY think, while Read corrected other niggles, changed whole
letterforms, altered the phonemic makeup of Quikscript compared to Shavian,
not to mention had plenty of followers whose criticisms he called on heavily
while devising the new alphabet, when he actually wanted to bring a
letterform in from his first alphabet, he managed to make the SAME ERROR
with hung as he allegedly did in Shavian?

Or was it just those retarded printers again... but hang on, surely
Quikscript wasn't ever printed with typefaces...

[Theme from Dragnet] Tonight's question, ladies and gentlemen: the hung/haha
scam - were the typefaces twisted and turned, OR [theme from Dragnet again]
was it Read's reckless wrongdoing?!?!? YOU decide!!

> QuickScript is hardly perfect. One blunder straight off the mark
> was the choice of a simple vertical stroke for the 't', besides the
> retention of the 'w' letter as forward slash. You appear to
> regard anything that is as heavenly ordained.

See, you're already finding 'errors' in Quikscript that are in urgent need
of 'correction'. I think joining their group would land you in the same
predicament as you're in here.

> > I don't doubt that it makes no sense to those who believe almost
> > religiously that an error was in fact made. I think you're alone on
> > that one.
>
> > Hugh B
>
> And those who religiously deny reality?

You took the blue pill, didn't you.

I have presented you with FIVE clear cut examples of evidence suggesting NO
error, citing reference to Androcles, reference to Quikscript and reference
to adjoining characters in the same alphabet.

All along you have campaigned with a wavering stance on what is to blame
(either clerical or designer error), a constantly changing set of characters
you believe to be errors (hung, haha, yea, yew, woe, whatever else) and
basically only ONE 'argument': that there happen to be 2 out of 10 tall
characters that are voiced, regardless of whether they were actually
designed to be that way or not.

It seems clear to me that you are just not happy with the Shaw Alphabet that
exists because you believe the vertical alignment of characters relative to
page lines to be essential to comprehension and/or wider acceptance. You are
welcome to your opinion. When a group of Esperanto speakers became upset
with what they saw as errors in the language, they did the right thing and
created their own offshoot, Ido. True, it's not doing anywhere near as well,
that's because most people are happy with Esperanto and, surprise surprise,
aren't bothered about nitpicking points. The same applies here: if you wish
to construct yourself a modified form of Shavian, go modify what you want to
modify, create yourself a new Yahoo Group (http://groups.yahoo.com/start)
and let people who agree with you join up. I don't think there's any point
campaigning here on this topic when your observations will (for the most
part) fall on deaf ears, because we've been over it so many times before.

Hugh B