Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Philip Newton wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Ethan Lamoreaux <ethanl@...> wrote:
>
>> while the letter A has no standard pronunciation, it is rare, if not unheard of, for an isolated A to be pronounced as AW or AU. Of course, feel free to post examples if you know of any.
>>
>
> The one that came to mind immediately was "water". And "was", for that
> matter, has short-O for me, but likely has AH or AW for people who
> have no separate short-O phoneme.
>
> Also, L following the A can often change the sound to AW, as in also
> (AW), alter (short-O), always, already, walk, talk (all AW).
>
> Cheers,
>
Okay, I forgot about the Yl combination. I pronounce water and was as
wytD and wuz, also I don't pronounce the L in walk and talk, but still
pronounce it wYk and tYk rather than wyk and tyk.

--
Ethan

He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust --Psalm 91:4a

Hi Carl
Madhukar from India, suggests that rather than just limiting
ourselves to using an improved spelling system, we go onward and
write in the English of the future. Global English, or Globish for
short.
This gets around the problem of regional English accents.
Regards, Paul V.
___________________________attached_________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Madhukar Gogate wrote:
Another view from India.

David Crystal, in his Encyclopedia of the English Language,
estimates almost 34 million people in India use English, and ranks
the nation fourth in its number of English-speakers, after the US,
Great Britain, and Nigeria.

It appears unlikely the English will reform their spelling in the
near future. But the rest of the world cannot wait, and it is time
to rebel. We need a language revolution.

A link language on a parallel route with ordinary English.
My viewpoint on spelling reform is different from those whose mother
tongue is English. I can understand their concern to make spelling
reforms in English. I sympathize with them if the odd spellings hurt
their literacy programs.

For me, English is a second language. We in India, for obvious
reasons, have no patriotic songs or prayers in English.
Sentimentally, we are nearer to our mother tongues, which connect us
to our societies. We have illiteracy problems, not because of odd
English spellings. Our scripts are somewhat fonetic, but the
population explosion beats every development.

Since English is not my mother tongue, I (and other Indians) use it
usually in written form. When spelling reformers tell me that "of"
is pronounced with the sound of v in victory, it beats me.
Why is f not pronounced like f in fee?
But we must not criticize each other.

Pronunciations change with distance and time. India is multilingual,
and accepts English as a tool for development (technology, world
contacts). I and many people in India (whom I contacted) do want
current English spellings to continue. We have to acquire welth and
helth. We have to communicate. My engineering business will be hurt
if I use the terms siment, brik, bilding and brij instead of cement,
brick, building, bridge.

I advocated an optional Roman script for 15 Indian languages written
in 12 different scripts. I did not suggest canceling current
scripts. Why destroy existing lines of communication? Why hurt
sentiments? While English has spelling absurdities, Indian languages
have gender absurdities. No language is perfect. The Roman option
was proposed to harness all English-printing machines for Indian
languages, and to case reading unfamiliar languages. Computers now
have solved many problems. With the flick of a button, one can
change scripts! I failed to convince people.
The Roman option (with proper syrnbol-sound relationships) did not
click. A lesson is to be learnt. People don't discard their current
writing systems.

Billions are spent on making books, signboards to conform with the
current systems. So, let British and American spelling differences
continue. A proper approach is to respect people and their
spellings, and start a new language with a new script at an informal
level. I will call that new language, Globish.

What is Globish?
It is Global English, the language of the future.
It is English, with reformed spellings, easy enuf for common people,
using small symbols a, b, c, d, e, f, etc, no capitals,
three dots at the end of a sentence, no diacritics, with grammar and
vocabulary as in simple modern English.
A Forward Slash "/" or "<" is used to start names, brand names, etc,
which cannot be respelled.
No Latin. No French. No borrowings. Plain Modern English.
One can easily navigate from English to Globish.
hI iz a Joli gUd felO... = He is a jolly good fellow. It is easy to
teach Globish. Danger, denjar - - No entry, nO entri...

Treat Globish as different from English just as we consider Italian
and Latin different.
They were the same language once,
but the Italians cut their mothers apron string and grew up
into a Modern Language.
Similarly, decide on certain symbol-sound relationships for Globish
and follow them. English u has different sounds: unit, push, up,
busy. Take one of the relation-ships in Globish. Others are bound to
look funny, but with a little practice would be easy to figure out
Why do this exercise? Globish would be easier to popularize in the
world. Those who want to do serious work must learn English too.
Laymen will be told that siment, brik in Globish are written in
English as cement, brick A poet may say that he would write a few
poems in Globish. Some editor may encourage crossword puzzles in
Globish. Globish would grow, as a route parallel to English.

We must take steps to promote an easy link language to foster world
brotherhood. Global English (Globish) is suggested.

I would like to keep away from reforms within Traditional English
Spelling.
That discussion becomes endless and fruitless. Millions of people
all over the world will not accept changes. No airport will change
arrival to arival simply because the redundant r is not acceptable
to the vast majority of English writers.

English is a world language, with all the strengths of that status
and paradoxically with certain weaknesses. The world is not
interested in obliging England and America to reform spellings.

However, a parallel Shavian route may interest the whole of mankind.
It would even show that English-speakers are willing to shed some
ego, and accept a new world language evolving from the speech of all
the world's English speakers.

Hi Philip
I think that part of the problem about abbreviations
is that we use this word to describe a lot of different
language phenomena.

We also have a similar function that we call a Contraction,
where we use an apostrophe to indicate
the fact that a word has a shortened pronunciation.

I think we need more words to describe the different ways to
abbreviate words, and then when we have the terminology,
we can then decide on how we wish to handle those
situations in Shavian spelling.

I can think of 4 different kinds of Roman Abbreviations, offhand.

First the use of special character or single letter to represent
a word not usually a name. (i.e. @, $, %, &, x as in xmas)
Shavian has the 5 standard
abbreviations (i.e. v = of, n = and, H = The, t=to, f = for)

Second, The abbreviation of name to a single Capital letter.
Third, the abbreviation of name thru the removal of some less
significant letters. (i.e. Mr. Miss. Dr. Abbrev. Advert. Apt.
bldng. Appt. No. Etc. tho, thru)
Fourth, the abbreviation of long name made up of more than one word,
into a series of Capital Letters. (i.e. U.S. of A., P.C., CIA, U.N.,
E.R., IUC RVSP, P.S.)
Fifth, the abbreviation of long name made up of more than one word,
into a series of Non-Capital Letters, and then given its own unique
pronunciation. In a sense a new word has been created and it is no
longer really an abbreviation anymore. So I don't include it with
the other four.
(i.e. Scuba, Snafu, Radar, Cmos, 86'd)

So which ones of these 4 types of abbreviations can we use with
Shavian
Spelling system.

I would skip, Contractions, and Abbrev. types 3 and 4.
Very Common Abbrev. 4 transliterated phonetically from Roman letters
might be acceptable,
but I would definately avoid creating anything new based on
existing
Shavian Letter names (scary thought)

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. See why more appropriate Shaw letter names might be helpful
in the matter of Shavian Abbreviations.
__________________________attached____________________________

-- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
>
> I was looking at this question about the creation of
> Abbreviations for Shavian (beyond the 5 Single Letter
Abbreviations in
> common use, that is ). Personally, I think abbreviations typically
> evolve over time. A long clumbersome word over time gets
arbitrarily
> shortened and it either becomes common usage and is recognised as
such
> or it doesn't. For example Television -> TV
> Information -> Info Advertisement -> Advert -
> Ad
> Homosexual or Homogenized -> Homo Personal
> Computer -> PC Politically Correct -> PC
> Recreation Vehicle -> RV If that is the case, each spelling system
> should be allowed to evolve it's own short cuts. The word and its
> Abbrev. have to be popular enough to be quickly recognised.
Personally I
> don't even know if Global English Culture is Homogeneous enough
to make
> most English Abbrev.'s universal. We should probably make up a
list of
> common Easily recognised Abbrev.s. to get a handle on the
situation.
> Regards, Paul V.
_____________atAct____________________________
> hQ R
> abrIviESanz t bI rendDd in /SYvWn? Az H /SYvWn letDz kPaspondiN t H
> /iNliS letDz, P Az H iniSal letDz v H wxdz speld in /SEvWn? fP
agzympl,
> asVm "UHM" iz H abrIviESan fP H "/unwoSt /hVman /mAsiz". iz
H /SEvWn
> abrIviESan "/uhm" (P "/u/h/m") fP "/unwoSt /hVman /mAsiz"
P "/V/h/m" fP
> "UHM"? wot abQt Akranimz HAt R prOnQnst Az wxdz? iz
CMOS "/k/m/o/s" fP
> "/komplimentDi /metal /oksFd on /Silikon" or "/sImos" fP "see-
moss"? (n
> hQ meni nEmD dots?)

Hi Paul,

I'll look into Globish.

Best of Regards,

Carl

paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
Hi Carl
Madhukar from India, suggests that rather than just limiting
ourselves to using an improved spelling system, we go onward and
write in the English of the future. Global English, or Globish for
short.
This gets around the problem of regional English accents.
Regards, Paul V.
___________________________attached_________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Madhukar Gogate wrote:
Another view from India.

David Crystal, in his Encyclopedia of the English Language,
estimates almost 34 million people in India use English, and ranks
the nation fourth in its number of English-speakers, after the US,
Great Britain, and Nigeria.

It appears unlikely the English will reform their spelling in the
near future. But the rest of the world cannot wait, and it is time
to rebel. We need a language revolution.

A link language on a parallel route with ordinary English.
My viewpoint on spelling reform is different from those whose mother
tongue is English. I can understand their concern to make spelling
reforms in English. I sympathize with them if the odd spellings hurt
their literacy programs.

For me, English is a second language. We in India, for obvious
reasons, have no patriotic songs or prayers in English.
Sentimentally, we are nearer to our mother tongues, which connect us
to our societies. We have illiteracy problems, not because of odd
English spellings. Our scripts are somewhat fonetic, but the
population explosion beats every development.

Since English is not my mother tongue, I (and other Indians) use it
usually in written form. When spelling reformers tell me that "of"
is pronounced with the sound of v in victory, it beats me.
Why is f not pronounced like f in fee?
But we must not criticize each other.

Pronunciations change with distance and time. India is multilingual,
and accepts English as a tool for development (technology, world
contacts). I and many people in India (whom I contacted) do want
current English spellings to continue. We have to acquire welth and
helth. We have to communicate. My engineering business will be hurt
if I use the terms siment, brik, bilding and brij instead of cement,
brick, building, bridge.

I advocated an optional Roman script for 15 Indian languages written
in 12 different scripts. I did not suggest canceling current
scripts. Why destroy existing lines of communication? Why hurt
sentiments? While English has spelling absurdities, Indian languages
have gender absurdities. No language is perfect. The Roman option
was proposed to harness all English-printing machines for Indian
languages, and to case reading unfamiliar languages. Computers now
have solved many problems. With the flick of a button, one can
change scripts! I failed to convince people.
The Roman option (with proper syrnbol-sound relationships) did not
click. A lesson is to be learnt. People don't discard their current
writing systems.

Billions are spent on making books, signboards to conform with the
current systems. So, let British and American spelling differences
continue. A proper approach is to respect people and their
spellings, and start a new language with a new script at an informal
level. I will call that new language, Globish.

What is Globish?
It is Global English, the language of the future.
It is English, with reformed spellings, easy enuf for common people,
using small symbols a, b, c, d, e, f, etc, no capitals,
three dots at the end of a sentence, no diacritics, with grammar and
vocabulary as in simple modern English.
A Forward Slash "/" or "<" is used to start names, brand names, etc,
which cannot be respelled.
No Latin. No French. No borrowings. Plain Modern English.
One can easily navigate from English to Globish.
hI iz a Joli gUd felO... = He is a jolly good fellow. It is easy to
teach Globish. Danger, denjar - - No entry, nO entri...

Treat Globish as different from English just as we consider Italian
and Latin different.
They were the same language once,
but the Italians cut their mothers apron string and grew up
into a Modern Language.
Similarly, decide on certain symbol-sound relationships for Globish
and follow them. English u has different sounds: unit, push, up,
busy. Take one of the relation-ships in Globish. Others are bound to
look funny, but with a little practice would be easy to figure out
Why do this exercise? Globish would be easier to popularize in the
world. Those who want to do serious work must learn English too.
Laymen will be told that siment, brik in Globish are written in
English as cement, brick A poet may say that he would write a few
poems in Globish. Some editor may encourage crossword puzzles in
Globish. Globish would grow, as a route parallel to English.

We must take steps to promote an easy link language to foster world
brotherhood. Global English (Globish) is suggested.

I would like to keep away from reforms within Traditional English
Spelling.
That discussion becomes endless and fruitless. Millions of people
all over the world will not accept changes. No airport will change
arrival to arival simply because the redundant r is not acceptable
to the vast majority of English writers.

English is a world language, with all the strengths of that status
and paradoxically with certain weaknesses. The world is not
interested in obliging England and America to reform spellings.

However, a parallel Shavian route may interest the whole of mankind.
It would even show that English-speakers are willing to shed some
ego, and accept a new world language evolving from the speech of all
the world's English speakers.






---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

Hi Carl
There is a good article on Globish on Wikipedia.
And there is a French site, that has some English
stuff on Global English as well as a lot of French
articles.
http://www.jpn-globish.com/
Scroll down untiil you get to the English Articles.

They are trying to limit English to just 1500 words.
I think that is way too small.
Basic English used 800 and that was vastly inadequate.
I would think about 1800 verbs, 200 adjectives, 40 Adverbs
1000 nouns as well as all the common English prepositions,
conjunctions, interjections and pronouns. Say another 200.
So we are looking at 3,240 to start, and we should allow
an additional
20 new words every year.
Names would be Capitalized and not considered part of the core
vocabulary.
Other loan words should marked with an asterisk.
Regards, Paul V.
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@...>
wrote:
> I'll look into Globish.

Hi Paul,

I did look into Globish. Coincidently, from Wikipedia. And I even printed out the 1500 word list. When I have more time I'll post that list in Shavian.

Best of Regards,

Carl

paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
Hi Carl
There is a good article on Globish on Wikipedia.
And there is a French site, that has some English
stuff on Global English as well as a lot of French
articles.
http://www.jpn-globish.com/
Scroll down untiil you get to the English Articles.

They are trying to limit English to just 1500 words.
I think that is way too small.
Basic English used 800 and that was vastly inadequate.
I would think about 1800 verbs, 200 adjectives, 40 Adverbs
1000 nouns as well as all the common English prepositions,
conjunctions, interjections and pronouns. Say another 200.
So we are looking at 3,240 to start, and we should allow
an additional
20 new words every year.
Names would be Capitalized and not considered part of the core
vocabulary.
Other loan words should marked with an asterisk.
Regards, Paul V.
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@...>
wrote:
> I'll look into Globish.






---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger�s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

Which publisher holds the rights to Pygmalon by Bernard Shaw?
I think it would be well, fitting to transliterate it into the Shavian
alphabet.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Tim Rice wrote:
>
> Which publisher holds the rights to Pygmalon by Bernard Shaw?
I think it would be well, fitting to transliterate it into the
Shavian alphabet.

Yes, Tim, Pygmalion would be fitting - but even more so if Shavian
had experienced such a wonderful transformation! ;-)

What about any of GBS' other works, eg Man & Superman? Mrs Warren's
Profession? Arms and the Man? Candida? The Millionairess? Do you
think Pygmalion is more especially deserving than any of these? You
can find a list of GBS' plays, with links to articles on many of the
more important, on Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw#Drama

In the US at least (and probably in Australia, since the signing away
of Australia's independence in creative endeavours by our sorry
excuse for a Prime Minister) Pygmalion is no longer in copyright, and
you can download the etext for free at Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3825

Regards,
Yahya

On 11/6/06, yahya_melb <yahya@...> wrote:
> What about any of GBS' other works, eg Man & Superman? Mrs Warren's
> Profession? Arms and the Man? Candida? The Millionairess? Do you
> think Pygmalion is more especially deserving than any of these?

I don't know any of those, but I think that yes, Pygmalion is probably
more deserving due to its theme of language and pronunciation.

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

Hi Yayah
I'd like to produce a slightly edited version of
Pygmalion ( Pig->Male->Young ) = Shoat? :)
But, it should be converted into a Novel format,
as well as being in Shavian script.

We can keep the speeches the same.
Most people just don't like to read something in
the form of a Play.
We should put it together as a group.
Each of us will take a voice. I could be the Moderator.
The Guy in the background, making wry comments.
Philip could be Henry Higgins.
Star could be Liza and Hugh could Henry's over practical colleague.
There is a part for Liza's father.
Anybody else game?
It would take a bit of time but it would be fun.
Regards, Paul V.
______________________attached_____________________________


--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "yahya_melb" <yahya@...> wrote:
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Tim Rice wrote:
> >
> > Which publisher holds the rights to Pygmalon by Bernard Shaw?
> I think it would be well, fitting to transliterate it into the
> Shavian alphabet.
>
> Yes, Tim, Pygmalion would be fitting - but even more so if Shavian
> had experienced such a wonderful transformation! ;-)
>
> What about any of GBS' other works, eg Man & Superman? Mrs
Warren's
> Profession? Arms and the Man? Candida? The Millionairess? Do
you
> think Pygmalion is more especially deserving than any of these?
You
> can find a list of GBS' plays, with links to articles on many of
the
> more important, on Wikipedia at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw#Drama
>
> In the US at least (and probably in Australia, since the signing
away
> of Australia's independence in creative endeavours by our sorry
> excuse for a Prime Minister) Pygmalion is no longer in copyright,
and
> you can download the etext for free at Project Gutenberg:
> http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3825
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>