Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Everybody

I think the poll is missing a couple of potential responses.
I myself would like to have the option of saying.

- I don't think it is practical to change the Shavain Alphabet after
45 years.
- I think that the letter Hung should be a Short letter like the
other nasal letters Mime and Nun.

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
>
>
> Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
> shawalphabet group:
>
> Hung and ha-ha?
>
> o They're fine the way they are.
> o I believe there was a clerical error.
> o I feel Read should have made 'hung' tall to begin with.
> o I think we should switch the letters before we try to spread
the alphabet any further.
>
>
> To vote, please visit the following web page:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/surveys?id1650
>
> Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
> not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
> web site listed above.
>
> Thanks!

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:56:32 -0000, Hugh Birkenhead
<mixsynth@...> wrote:
>
> 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 second this. Please argue this elsewhere and keep this list for
"traditional" Shavian.

> 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.

Yes, and I'm starting to grow sick of it. It's seriously making me
consider just dropping Shavian altogether since while I don't use it
much, I do use it a little and I would like to use it the way I
learned it rather than getting bogged down into arguments about how it
sucks and could be improved.

Possibly it can be improved. Maybe Quikscript, or ANSI or Unifon or
whatever is even better. Fine. Those who like those can use them. But
please don't try to change Shavian at this point in time. And please
(to the general "you") stop campaining for a different way of
representing English or a Brilliant New Way to Improve the Shaw
alphabet.

Yours frustratedly,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:35:48 -0000, paul vandenbrink
<pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Everybody
>
> I think the poll is missing a couple of potential responses.
> I myself would like to have the option of saying.
>
> - I don't think it is practical to change the Shavain Alphabet after
> 45 years.

Good point; if this were multiple-choice, I would have voted for that
one as well.

FWIW, I think it might have been nifty to have unvoived Ha-Ha be tall,
but I think this detail is really not that important, especially since
the Ha-Ha/Hung pair is not a voiced/unvoiced one as with most of the
other tall/deep consonants, just a pair of consonants that happen to
go well together in English since they're in complementary
distribution.

> - I think that the letter Hung should be a Short letter like the
> other nasal letters Mime and Nun.

That would also have worked, since it's a nasal like mime and nun.

There could have been several different design choices. This is the
one we were handed. Let's use it. Or create a reformed Shavian and
advocate that, but don't call it Shavian.

> Regards, Paul V.

Thanks, Paul.

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

Ian,

I hope this comes thru.
The file name is readscripts.gif
and is available in the file section of both Saundspel and Shavian.

Notice that h (horse) is no longer a deep letterform.
ng (hung) is still a tall and still the same symbol.

The quickscript changes were based on the difficulties that
Shaw users were having.

Read thought that people would find Quckscript easier to write.

For some reason, those trying to learn Shavian had trouble with y and Y.
I think that the c-tail and the mirrored c-tail are very easy and rational.

The symbol for eel (eat), remains ii but the shape is different.



--Steve

Philip Newton incurred the wrath of Bob on Dec 16, by saying

>
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:35:48 -0000, paul vandenbrink
><pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Everybody
>>
>> I think the poll is missing a couple of potential responses.
>> I myself would like to have the option of saying.
>>
>> - I don't think it is practical to change the Shavain Alphabet after
>> 45 years.
>
>Good point; if this were multiple-choice, I would have voted for that
>one as well.

There weren't enough independent variables in this one to make it
multiple-choice (by which, I assume, you meant "you can pick more than
one"). Thus, few people will find an option that fully explains how
they feel. I tried to pick them so that no one could simultaneously
hold two opinions (except in cases where one opinion implies another,
e.g., "I think we should change it" implies "I think there's a problem",
though the reverse is not true.)

>
>FWIW, I think it might have been nifty to have unvoived Ha-Ha be tall,
>but I think this detail is really not that important, especially since
>the Ha-Ha/Hung pair is not a voiced/unvoiced one as with most of the
>other tall/deep consonants, just a pair of consonants that happen to
>go well together in English since they're in complementary
>distribution.
>
>> - I think that the letter Hung should be a Short letter like the
>> other nasal letters Mime and Nun.
>
>That would also have worked, since it's a nasal like mime and nun.

Since more than one person had a similar idea, and since I have a
feeling that the two votes cast so far really meant "I don't think we
should try to change (even though it would be nice)" rather than the
meaning I had in mind.

I could redo the poll as follows:

o I find no fault with the way they are
o I think Read should have made 'ha-ha' tall and 'hung' deep
o I think Read should have done something with these glyphs other than
switch them or leave them as they are
o I think we should try to fix the problem before we try to spread the
alphabet any further.

Redoing the poll would cancel all votes cast prior to my changing it.

On second thought, maybe I can't redo the poll. It looks like only a
moderator can do that. Even though I created it. Go figger.

--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz

I agree wholeheartedly with Hugh about the whole 'error' and reform
issue.
Regards,
Jeff

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:13:16 -0800 (PST), Bob Schmertz
<rschmertz@...> wrote:
>
> Since more than one person had a similar idea, and since I have a
> feeling that the two votes cast so far really meant "I don't think we
> should try to change (even though it would be nice)" rather than the
> meaning I had in mind.

Not quite so strongly for me -- more along the lines of "I don't think
we should try to change (though the alternative would have worked as
well)". That is, I'd say that switching hung and ha-ha would have made
a viable alternative which might be a little better, but not
sufficiently that I'd say the alternative is actually _preferable_.

> I could redo the poll as follows:
>
> o I find no fault with the way they are
> o I think Read should have made 'ha-ha' tall and 'hung' deep
> o I think Read should have done something with these glyphs other than
> switch them or leave them as they are
> o I think we should try to fix the problem before we try to spread the
> alphabet any further.

I could still imagine voting for the first two, though the second
wouldn't work for me since I wouldn't use "should" there -- "could"
would be better.

I'm fine with the way they are now. Had they been the other way
around, I would also have been fine with it.

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

Can we still discuss keyboards? *eg* As soon as I move, I'm planning to
take shavian out into my community. I will send photographs :) I am
interested in different ways to drive people's interest, such as
posting signs in shavian with famous quotes. Though it won't be too
long before I'm accused of terrorism for it, but hey, what's 20yrs in
prison without familial contacts?

--Star, who is planning her Shavian crusade.

--- Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:56:32 -0000, Hugh Birkenhead
> <mixsynth@...> wrote:
> >
> > 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 second this. Please argue this elsewhere and keep this list for
> "traditional" Shavian.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, and I'm starting to grow sick of it. It's seriously making me
> consider just dropping Shavian altogether since while I don't use it
> much, I do use it a little and I would like to use it the way I
> learned it rather than getting bogged down into arguments about how
> it
> sucks and could be improved.
>
> Possibly it can be improved. Maybe Quikscript, or ANSI or Unifon or
> whatever is even better. Fine. Those who like those can use them. But
> please don't try to change Shavian at this point in time. And please
> (to the general "you") stop campaining for a different way of
> representing English or a Brilliant New Way to Improve the Shaw
> alphabet.
>
> Yours frustratedly,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
>


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

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com

In addition to placing this poll in the poll section of shawalphabet, please
create an automated monthly message inviting all newbies to take it.

The monthly reminder which will include the updated poll results might be to
update your previous opinion.

I am in favor of having a corrected Shaw based scheme but I am not in favor
of calling it
Shavian. Classic Shavian should remain as it is.

Shavian II or whatever we decide to call it could include changes that were
not the result of a transposition error. This would sidestep the issue of
whether or not Read considered it a mistake to make h (hung) a tall character or
not.

I know that Read had a script before Shavian and showed it to Shaw in the
mid-1940's. I do not know anything about this notation or whether or not a
voiced-unvoiced distinction was part of its design.
Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
shawalphabet group:

Hung and ha-ha?

o They're fine the way they are. YES for Shavian I, NO for Shavian II
o I believe there was a clerical error. Perhaps not but still revised for
Shavian II
o I feel Read should have made 'hung' tall to begin with. YES
o I think we should switch the letters before we try to spread the alphabet
any further. Shavian I is of interest historically. In case it is
critiqued, we should have a back up that will survive the scrutiny.

----The list moderator wrote:
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/surveys?id1650

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

This is a response to a response to an article that claimed that when people
mispell words they do not mispell them phonemically. The misspelling is often
less phonemic than the traditional spelling. This was taken as an argument
against phonemic spelling whose advocates have always argued that phonemic
spelling is transparent.
Not all poor spellers spell phonemically.
In fact, some do not have a clear concept of sound spelling.

Does everyone find phonemic spelling easier?
Not necessarily, you first have to have mastered sound spelling.

So the answer to "Does everyone find phonemic spelling easier?" is no.
However, most people do find phonemic spelling easier.

A phonemic spelling would spell <GIANT> jíønt /'jI&nt/ /jai-@nt/
<g-ai-nt> is just one letter away from a phonemic spelling so it may not be
the best example.

--Steve
> (The article does raise one question which advocates of simpler
> spelling must answer, and which I've never heard any simpler-spelling
> advocate even try to answer: if spelling phonemically would reduce or
> eliminate spelling-errors, why do so many spelling-errors depart even
> further from phonemic correctness than tradspel does? If poor spellers
> spell phonemically, and if a phonemic spelling-standard would therefore
> help them, why do we see poor spellers [e.g.] spelling "giant" most
> unphonemically as "gaint"?)

I'v red sumtimes sumthing saying that this is not so. But eeven if it is: if
peeple misspel words in direction of a less foneemic spelling, it can just
meen that they don't beleev the english word wil be fonetic. Becauz it so
offen isnt so.
Kate wrote:

> (The article does raise one question which advocates of simpler
> spelling must answer, and which I've never heard any simpler-spelling
> advocate even try to answer: if spelling phonemically would reduce or
> eliminate spelling-errors, why do so many spelling-errors depart even
> further from phonemic correctness than tradspel does? If poor spellers
> spell phonemically, and if a phonemic spelling-standard would therefore
> help them, why do we see poor spellers [e.g.] spelling "giant" most
> unphonemically as "gaint"?)
The Sunday Times, December 12: Letters

As easy as it sounds

Richard Woods (It's tough, it's cool, it's . . . spelling, Focus, last week)
asks the question that upstages spelling bees: Could English, a language that
millions of foriners hav to acquire, be made easier to spell and therefor
easier to lern?

Anser, yes. Challenge assumptions that are continually cited about spelling
reform and it could then be possibl to impruve English spelling for faster
automatic visual recognition bi readers, with a mor predictabl relationship to the
spoken language for international users, a mor consistent visibl relationship
of related words. That way only 2.6% of letters in everyday text are changed,
so present readers are hardly inconvenienced. A spelling sistem is a
conventionalised representation of the spoken language, not a fotograf, as with global
Spanish. The simplest spelling is the easiest everywhere - eg banana, with
three "a" sounds. --Valerie Yule, Victoria, Australia

Anser, yes. Chalønj øsumpshønz that är cøntinúøly síted øbaut speling
réform....




ENGLISH ECCENTRICITY:

I too had remarked on the impossibility of holding such a competition in
another country, my example being Germany.

As a former teacher of German I was constantly pointing out the logic of
German spelling compared with the vagaries of English. One example I often used
was the German for diarrhoea, Durchfall. After a few days far more children
could remember how to spell the German, but not the English, word. -- Malcolm
Brown, Shelf, Halifax

Webster: diar·rhea British spelling diarrhoea
Pronunciation: "dI-&-'rE-&
SB: What good are words we can't spell? díøréø
Spanglish: daiariea

If there are too many oddities in the spelling, children will not remember
how to spell it.


COMPUTER AGE: So, A A Gill (Culture, last week) thinks that the inability to
spell in the age of the compewter and spillchecker does not matter a jot.
While my machine has crashed and will take some time to be repaired, I bog to
differ.
Sue Stirling, Moniaive, Dumfriesshire