Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
>
> Ethan wrote:
>
> You need to respond using html email if you wish to retain the
> original fonts, and thus the correct letter forms. Since I don't
> have a Mac, I'm not familiar with Mail.app, but I assume it can
> write html since it displays it.
>
> ð`¿ ð`'ð`©ð`¯ ð`·ð`¤ð`¢ð`±ð`Ÿ ð`¿ð`Ÿ
> ð`¿ð`¯ð`¦ð`'ð`´ð`›, ð``ð`µ! <-- Unicode Shavian
>
> Unicode works even in plain text, as long as your operating
> system is configured correctly, and you have a unicode Shavian
> font installed.
>
> ... ... ... ...
>
> Yes, thank you. I'm embarrassed to say this is the second time
> I've blundered through this process, but if one possesses a
> selectively erratic memory such as mine one is obliged to repeat
> mistakes.
>
> The natural tendency I think is to at least wish to respond to
> some discussion via the reply possibility provided at the Yahoo
> site for this group. This does not allow however the use of
> Shavian fonts, or perhaps not any other font for that matter.
> Those of you skilled in these matters understand why. Nor
> does the rich-text option appear to work, at least not for me.
> One may type in Shavian, and see it displayed, but it does not
> transmit (at least not for me). So, the only way, as you point
> out (and have pointed out previously), is to send an e-mail,
> copying any material one wishes to respond to, as I've done
> above.
>
> And, as James Vipond wrote:
>
> The Shavian part of your message displays all right in Apple
> Mail.app, unless someone else tries to quote it, as I am doing.
>
> So, it will be interesting to see if this also happens to your
> sentence above in Unicode Shavian. This particular passage
> came as intended in the subscriber's e-mail, but is rendered in
> Martian at the Group web-page, and, what I found to be
> interestingly curious, refused to be copied. I could not copy
> that sentence and paste it in a word-processing document.
>
> Also, text that I have managed to get into the Group archives
> sometimes, somehow, acquires extra, meaningless letters, or
> hollow rectangles. These disappear when copied and pasted
> into a word-processing document. I'm sure there is a simple
> explanation.
>
> ever curiouser,
> dshep
>

Okay, as a test of Yahoo's Unicode compatibility, I'm responding to
this message using the web interface. So far it's all showing up
correctly, both in the message display and in the text box I'm typing
in right now. Though I expect it'll get scrambled once I post it.

dshep wrote:
> Ethan wrote:
>
> /You need to respond using html email if you wish to retain the /
> /original// fonts, and thus the correct letter forms. Since I don't /
> /have a Mac, I'm not familiar with Mail.app, but I assume it can /
> /write html since it displays it./
>
> /𐑿 𐑒𐑩𐑯 𐑷𐑤𐑢𐑱𐑟 𐑿𐑟 𐑿𐑯𐑦𐑒𐑴𐑛, 𐑑𐑵! <-- Unicode Shavian/
>
> /Unicode works even in plain text, as long as your operating /
> /system is// configured correctly, and you have a unicode Shavian /
> /font installed./
>
> ... ... ... ...
>
> Yes, thank you. I'm embarrassed to say this is the second time
> I've blundered through this process, but if one possesses a
> selectively erratic memory such as mine one is obliged to repeat
> mistakes.
>
> The natural tendency I think is to at least wish to respond to
> some discussion via the reply possibility provided at the Yahoo
> site for this group. This does not allow however the use of
> Shavian fonts, or perhaps not any other font for that matter.
> Those of you skilled in these matters understand why. Nor
> does the rich-text option appear to work, at least not for me.
> One may type in Shavian, and see it displayed, but it does not
> transmit (at least not for me). So, the only way, as you point
> out (and have pointed out previously), is to send an e-mail,
> copying any material one wishes to respond to, as I've done
> above.
>
> And, as James Vipond wrote:
>
> /The Shavian part of your message displays all right in Apple// /
> /Mail.app, unless someone else tries to quote it, as I am doing./
>
> So, it will be interesting to see if this also happens to your
> sentence above in Unicode Shavian. This particular passage
> came as intended in the subscriber's e-mail, but is rendered in
> Martian at the Group web-page, and, what I found to be
> interestingly curious, refused to be copied. I could not copy
> that sentence and paste it in a word-processing document.
>
> Also, text that I have managed to get into the Group archives
> sometimes, somehow, acquires extra, meaningless letters, or
> hollow rectangles. These disappear when copied and pasted
> into a word-processing document. I'm sure there is a simple
> explanation.
>
> ever curiouser,
> dshep
>
This response is posted via Thunderbird, my local email client running
under Linux. I expect it will show the quoted Unicode correctly.

Now, as for the messed up text you mentioned, many things could cause
it. Some apps don't want to show higher unicode characters such as
Shavian. Or perhaps it's a font issue. The extra, meaningless letters
are usually caused by some process misinterpreting the unicode and
corrupting it. One clue as to whether it's a font problem or a unicode
display problem, is the number of characters. If there seems to be way
too many characters, for instance if every word seems twice or three or
four times as long as it should be, that's a text interpretation
problem. But if you see empty blocks and they appear to be the correct
length for words, it's probably a font problem.

--
Ethan

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

meN makOtO wrote:
>
> whether report:
>
> the reign in speign falls meignli on the pleign...
>
Whether what? Whether the reign falls, or whether it doesn't? But if
you mean weather, surely you must know that some people still say
whether and weather differently! Please note the Shavian spellings
below. This is how I say it (unless I'm being lazy!)

Whether the weather be fine,
Or whether the weather be not;
We'll weather the weather,
Whatever the weather,
Whether we like it or not.

In html: (Shaw Sans No. 2)
hweHD H weHD bI fFn,
P hweHD H weHD bI not;
wIl weHD H weHD,
hwutevD H weHD,
hweHD wI lFk it P not!

In Unicode:
𐑣𐑢𐑧𐑞𐑼 𐑞 𐑢𐑧𐑞𐑼 𐑚𐑰 𐑓𐑲𐑯,
𐑹 𐑣𐑢𐑧𐑞𐑼 𐑞 𐑢𐑧𐑞𐑼 𐑚𐑰 𐑯𐑪𐑑;
𐑢𐑰𐑤 𐑢𐑧𐑞𐑼 𐑞 𐑢𐑧𐑞𐑼,
𐑣𐑢𐑳𐑑𐑧𐑝𐑼 𐑞 𐑢𐑧𐑞𐑼,
𐑣𐑢𐑧𐑞𐑼 𐑢𐑰 𐑤𐑲𐑒 𐑦𐑑 𐑹 𐑯𐑪𐑑!

--
Ethan

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

crookedcricker wrote:
>> Ethan wrote:
>>
>> You need to respond using html email if you wish to retain the
>> original fonts, and thus the correct letter forms. Since I don't
>> have a Mac, I'm not familiar with Mail.app, but I assume it can
>> write html since it displays it.
>>
>> ð`¿ ð`'ð`©ð`¯ ð`·ð`¤ð`¢ð`±ð`Ÿ ð`¿ð`Ÿ
>> ð`¿ð`¯ð`¦ð`'ð`´ð`›, ð``ð`µ! <-- Unicode Shavian
> Okay, as a test of Yahoo's Unicode compatibility, I'm responding to
> this message using the web interface. So far it's all showing up
> correctly, both in the message display and in the text box I'm typing
> in right now. Though I expect it'll get scrambled once I post it.
And as you can see, it has been scrambled. Apparently Yahoo does not
support utf-8, which is the standard. The mess it makes is what you get
any time you try to interpret utf-8 as 8-bit iso-8859-1, which is the
old "extended ascii" standard. Yahoo is only about a decade behind...

--
Ethan

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

Hi Ethan
Sorry to trouble you further.
Do you have any Idea of the relative proportions.
Is your use of Urge (stressed) relatively rare compared
to your use of the more ubiquitous Array?
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. I would guess that you say "pMD" instead of "pP" in
your Western American accent.
________________attached__________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Ethan Lamoreaux <ethanl@...>
wrote:
>
> paul vandenbrink wrote:
> > A lot of people complain to me that Shavian spelling
> > generates too many Homonyms, a lot more than Roman spelling,
anyway.
> > So now I can point to that large list of words where Shavian
spelling
> > would actually distinguish words that are Homonyms in Roman
spelling.
> >
> > Unfortunately, while I totally agree on the benefit of making
the
> > Ado/Up split, the Array/Err split is more problematic with my
> > own undistinguished Canadian pronunciation.
> > While, I do hear the Err(Urge) sound in a few words (i.e. Urge,
> > purge, endured, concur, infer, insure, sure, Sir),
> > and also a few from your list (i.e. permit) but then again the
Err
> > (Urge) sound only shows up when I am using permit verb in the
command
> > sense.
> > "Per-mit me to take your order."
> > I think that also in the American pronunciation the stressed Err
(urge) sound
> > is uncommon and usually replaced by the unstressed Array (er)
sound.
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> > P.S. Any other Americans who wonder where the Err went.
> > "Err, excuse me for asking."
> > ________________attached_____________________
> >
> I consider myself fairly typical of American speakers, and I
always use
> both stressed (URge) and unstressed (bettER) varieties of that
sound.
> PerMIT (verb) and PERmit (noun) are two different words the way I
> pronounce them.
>
> Unrelated remark: In my pronunciation, insure and sure are
pronounced
> inSMD n SMD.
> Thus, I pronounce "surely" and "Shirly" differently: SMDlI vs
GSxlI. HO
> hwen Fm lEzI, HXz lFklI t bI litl kontrAst.

correction:

to wurdbendur's reply,

> HAt FdIa in itself mE bI sumwot eksentrik!

dshep asserted:

> V mE wel bI rFt. bat His woz /SY'z On raAkSan
> ta kritasizm rasIvd in lEtD lFf ta cyrJaz
> (kamplEnts?) ov insesant didAktasizm -- HAt
> iz -- dramAtik presantESanz wiH a moral, Ivan
> if in a lFtD ven, az apOzd ta plEz (F sapOz)
> HAt lIv kwescanz anrazolvd.

> /SY yrgVd in raspons HAt TWtD SUd indId bI
> dFdAktik, HAt woz its cIf rIzan ta egzist, its
> dVti ta sasFati -- a vV HAt veri probabli iz
> kwFt Qt ov fASan tadE.

> F'v misplEst mF kopi, bat /SY'z egzAkt kwOt (on
> His and uHD mAtDz) kAn bI fQnd in Ha bUk
> "on lAngwiJ" (a kalekSan ov /SY'z letDz ta
> vArias nVzpEpDZ).

But...

By accident, while looking for something else, I found the
book mentioned above in a drawer. Things turn up in the
strangest places. Glancing through it I was unable to find
the relevant passage, and because it consists almost entirely
of Shaw's harangues about the shortcomings of the English
alphabet I must have seen the reply quoted above some other
place, perhaps even in a newspaper article, now long gone.

Since stumbling across Shaw's (or should we say, Read's)
alphabet years ago, i have always read anything about Shaw
that pops up (there's not much to read about Read). This
particular remark of Shaw's came in response to a critic that
had dismissed one of his plays as "merely didactic", something
Shaw was not about to leave unchallenged. This stuck in my
mind as I recall having to look up the exact meaning of
"didactic", having only a vague idea of what was meant.

Shaw was not, I don't think, a religious man, but his plays d0
have a moral, of sorts, if disguised in good-natured humour,
and in some aspects bear a certain resemblance to the once
popular morality plays of the middle ages. In "Androcles",
kindness is rewarded, and it may have been the simple
transparency of the play that this particular critic, whoever
it was, found insufficiently sophisticated for our supposedly
more cynical or suspicious age. After all, most of Shaw's work
dates from the first half of the previous century, a world ago.
Compare it with that of a more recent Nobel Prize winner, also
British, Harold Pinter. Times and outlooks change.

apologetically,
dshep

weathered retort:

> the reign in speign falls meignli on the pleign...


Liza Doolittle:

"Ha rFan in spFan fyYlz mFanlI yon Ha plFan"

Henry Higgins:

"nO, nO, nO!"
"Ha rEn in spEn fYlz mEnli on Ha plEn."




Lisa could well laugh last. I last heard this
spoken and sung a few years ago by an amateur
troupe, and it struck me that eventually, perhaps
not too far into the future, the speech contrasts
that play a vital role in Pygmalion may wither
away as the standards defended by Professor
Higgins as both natural and desirable come to
be seen as old-fashioned and archaic. It is not
at all unusual nowadays to hear on the BBC:
There was more violence t'die in Baghdad..."

The funny thing that happened in the performance
mentioned above was that the person who played
Professor Higgins from time to time slipped out of
the vowel range called for in the role, perhaps in
the excitement of being on stage, and spoke in what
I can only assume to be his normal manner, that is
to say, embarrassingly (at least in this situation) much
like the person playing Liza, who was not really at
home in Broad Cockney, so that there were moments
when the two sounded alike more than not, thus
inadvertently undermining some of the intended
tension. Had not the audience been familiar with
the play we might have wondered what all the fuss
was about. It was fun anyway.

archaically,
dshep

> paul vandenbrink wrote:

> > Unfortunately, while I totally agree on the benefit of making the
> > Ado/Up split, the Array/Err split is more problematic with my
> > own undistinguished Canadian pronunciation.
> >
> > While, I do hear the Err(Urge) sound in a few words (i.e. Urge,
> > purge, endured, concur, infer, insure, sure, Sir), and also a few
> > from your (Ethan's) list (i.e. permit) but then again the Err
(Urge)
> > sound only shows up when I am using permit verb in the
> > command sense. "Per-mit me to take your order."
> >
> > I think that also in the American pronunciation the stressed Err
> > (urge) sound is uncommon and usually replaced by the unstressed
> > Array (er) sound.

Just as the word "abut" contains both the unstressed and stressed
versions of the uh-vowel), so the word "murmur" contains both
the stressed and unstressed variants of the er-vowel, whether rhotic
or not. There are still dictionaries that describe this distinction in
the following manner: aBUT and MURmur. I'll bet you do not
actually lay equal emphasis upon both syllables of these words
even if you think you do. In isolation perhaps, but not in the
natural melody of a sentence.

melodiously,
dshep

paul vandenbrink wrote:
> Hi Ethan
> Sorry to trouble you further.
> Do you have any Idea of the relative proportions.
> Is your use of Urge (stressed) relatively rare compared
> to your use of the more ubiquitous Array?
> Regards, Paul V.
> P.S. I would guess that you say "pMD" instead of "pP" in
> your Western American accent.
>
It's no trouble, really! That's what the list is here for.

I've never paid much attention to the proportions of Urge vs. Array (or
Better, as I like to call it.) It seems like I type Better more often,
but Urge gets its fair share of use as well.

As for the word Poor, I pronounce it to rime (if Coleridge could do it,
I can too!) with Boar and Bore, and the same as Pour: pP (𐑐𐑹). I
don't pronounce my words quite the same as westerners (not southwestern,
but say, Californian) do, but it's close. Mine is mostly midwestern
American, though I did grow up with some foreign influences; My mom came
from Florida, and her family came from New York, and I had relatives who
spoke Finnish a lot, though I doubt that had much influence. Also I
grew up listening to Canadian radio and TV (and a British uncle who
lives in Canada) as well as other Canadians from northern Ontario, Sault
Ste. Marie area.

--
Ethan

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

Hi Shep
I enjoyed didactic plays and literature in my youth,
but once I became convinced that I knew everything,
my enthusi=ism ebbed. Lately arguments to the contrary prey on my
mind shrilley echoed by someone who sounds remarkably like my wife.
Never too late to renew your enthusi-ism.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. keep the faith
++++++++++++++++++++++++attached+++++++++++++++++
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, dshep <dshep@...> wrote:
>
>
> correction:
>
> to wurdbendur's reply,
>
> > HAt FdIa in itself mE bI sumwot eksentrik!
>
> dshep asserted:
>
> > V mE wel bI rFt. bat His woz /SY'z On raAkSan
> > ta kritasizm rasIvd in lEtD lFf ta cyrJaz
> > (kamplEnts?) ov insesant didAktasizm -- HAt
> > iz -- dramAtik presantESanz wiH a moral, Ivan
> > if in a lFtD ven, az apOzd ta plEz (F sapOz)
> > HAt lIv kwescanz anrazolvd.
>
> > /SY yrgVd in raspons HAt TWtD SUd indId bI
> > dFdAktik, HAt woz its cIf rIzan ta egzist, its
> > dVti ta sasFati -- a vV HAt veri probabli iz
> > kwFt Qt ov fASan tadE.
>
> > F'v misplEst mF kopi, bat /SY'z egzAkt kwOt (on
> > His and uHD mAtDz) kAn bI fQnd in Ha bUk
> > "on lAngwiJ" (a kalekSan ov /SY'z letDz ta
> > vArias nVzpEpDZ).
>
> But...
>
> By accident, while looking for something else, I found the
> book mentioned above in a drawer. Things turn up in the
> strangest places. Glancing through it I was unable to find
> the relevant passage, and because it consists almost entirely
> of Shaw's harangues about the shortcomings of the English
> alphabet I must have seen the reply quoted above some other
> place, perhaps even in a newspaper article, now long gone.
>
> Since stumbling across Shaw's (or should we say, Read's)
> alphabet years ago, i have always read anything about Shaw
> that pops up (there's not much to read about Read). This
> particular remark of Shaw's came in response to a critic that
> had dismissed one of his plays as "merely didactic", something
> Shaw was not about to leave unchallenged. This stuck in my
> mind as I recall having to look up the exact meaning of
> "didactic", having only a vague idea of what was meant.
>
> Shaw was not, I don't think, a religious man, but his plays d0
> have a moral, of sorts, if disguised in good-natured humour,
> and in some aspects bear a certain resemblance to the once
> popular morality plays of the middle ages. In "Androcles",
> kindness is rewarded, and it may have been the simple
> transparency of the play that this particular critic, whoever
> it was, found insufficiently sophisticated for our supposedly
> more cynical or suspicious age. After all, most of Shaw's work
> dates from the first half of the previous century, a world ago.
> Compare it with that of a more recent Nobel Prize winner, also
> British, Harold Pinter. Times and outlooks change.
>
> apologetically,
> dshep
>