Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Carl
Glad to hear that you know where I am coming from.
Thanks to the new Shaw fonts, it is a lot easier to
learn to type the Shavian Alphabet than it is to learn how to draw
them.
My 5 level introduction, takes advantage of the correspondence
between the the keyboard mapping of the Shaw Latters and their
Roman letter equivalent.
I don't know if it the best way to learn Shavian Letters.
(I kept a Shaw Diary, myself, when I first started)
But, it is fast, and easy to practice for anyone familar with word
processing on a computer.
Regards, Paul V.
___________________________attached__________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thank you for applying the 48 Shavian Letters into the 5 level
format of teaching. It makes sense and you explained it clearly me
to understand the reasoning behind it. Actually, I think the "5
level" makes more sense for the the more technologically savvy
people, to which more an more of the world is becoming. And of
course, I think that is way cool, to do.
> I also like your suggestion for American English speakers with
the "on" and "ian" letters. And lately, before I've even read your
reply, I've been forcing myself to avoid using those exact letters
to avoid, in my own personal writing with the Shavian Alphabet.
(i.e. I've been keeping a journal, just with Shavian.)
>
> Best of regards,
>
> Carl
>
> paul vandenbrink <vandenbrinkg@...> wrote:
> Hi Carl
> Actually, I quite like the way you first suggested
> to do it.
> But if I was going to start from scratch.
> For the first Level or Group.
> I would list all the simple Shaw consonants that have the same
> Keyboard mapping as their equivalent Roman Letter. That is a group
> of 16. I would teach them as voiced and un-voiced pairs and show
the
> Tall Deep contrast.
> > > p,b
> > > f,v
> > > t,d
> > > k,g
> > > s,z
> > > m,n
> > > l,r
> > > h,w
> Then for the Second Level, Common English Vowels
> I would do the simple Vowels, the soft,
> the long and the Dipthong letters derived from them.
> I would discuss the Difference between the Schwa (Ado)
> and the Up sound right at the beginning.
> This would be another 17 Letters.
> > > Ado
> > > Up
> > > Ash, ?, Ice
> > > Egg, ?, Age
> > > Ah, Awe, Out
> > > If, Eat, Yew (V Keyboard Mapping)
> > > On, Oak, Oil
> > > Wool, Ooze (M Keyboard mapping),?
> The Third Level would be the 6 r-sound vowels (Compound Letters)
> Array, Err(Urge), Air, Ear, Or, Are
> And I would also re-discuss Yew as a compound letter
> as well as the Ew Dipthong in Level 2.
> The fourth Level would discuss some more Oddball Letters,
> Additions unfamilar to the Romans.
> Church (c Keyboard mapping) and Sure
> Judge and Measure(Genre)
> They and Thigh
> Yea (j Keyboard Mapping)
> Hung (Ing)
> Which gives us 7 more Consonant Letters.
> The fifth Level would have one exceptional letter.
> Ian is not recommended for American English speakers, but
> they need to be able to recognise it.
> And a similar warning against the Overuse of On by Americans.
> This is my recommended order for fast pathing a new Shaw Learner.
> I would take care to show the the uniformity of shapes
> within each of the groups.
> Regards, Paul V.
> P.S. in response to an earlier question about why I do not group
Yew
> with the rhotics?
> It seems to me that the Yew represents 2 different sounds. The
first
> is a compound of Yea+Ooze and secondly the Ew Dipthong included
with
> the vowels in Level 2. And of course, the second Simpler sound
gets
> preference.
> ______________attached________________
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Those are some good ideas. I'd like to see how you'd set up all
> 48 letter in the Shavian, into that 5 level format. I guess people
> today are more spoiled than I was. When I learned Shavian I had to
> print off a copy of what the letters look like and represented
> soundwise, from www.omniglot.com. And learn the letter at the same
> time as how to write/draw (handwrite) them. I had to wade through
> all the nuances of each letter and how they all work together to
> write English phonemically.
> > I like to idea of teaching Shavian by levels (i.e. from most
> important letters to least important letters.) I think it is a
more
> effective than the way I originally taught myself Shavian 5 years
> ago when I was 21years old.
> >
> > I agree, Paul, that all 48 Shaw letters are distinct
> phonetic sounds. I only use the term ligature in the visual sense
> of each letter.
> >
> > I'm very curious on how one could teach Shavian in 5 levels
> (i.e. what does the list of letters look like) I also like your
> idea of pairing the letters up. So, Paul, when you send your
reply,
> could you, please include a list of letters in the 5 level format.
> >
> > Best of Regards,
> >
> > Carl (Shavian Enthusiast)
> >
> > paul vandenbrink <vandenbrinkg@> wrote:
> > Hi Carl and Yahya
> >
> > I like the idea of Teaching Shavian in 5 levels, especially if we
> > are introducing the letters through typing rather than drawing.
> > I think by giving students a Shaw font, and letting them see the
> > letters right away, it gives them a Jump-start on learning the
> Shae
> > Alphabet. Hand Writing should come later.
> >
> > I think these 8 letter pairs make a good size bite.
> > > > p,b
> > > > f,v
> > > > t,d
> > > > k,g
> > > > s,z
> > > > m,n
> > > > l,r
> > > > h,w
> >
> > They are very common consonant sounds in English. They also
> include
> > Tall, Short and Deep letters, which is important to teach right
> > upfront. It is also useful to use them to show how Consonont
> > clusters work.
> >
> > I would also like to get away from calling these composite sounds
> > ligatures. They all are actually single distinct sounds,
> > that I would
> > tend to include in with the other simple Vowel Letters.
> > For example, I use the Letter Yew to also represent the Dipthong
> > "ew" in words such as new, few, cute, fuel and skew.
> >
> > And I note in the pronunciation key of www.dictionary.com
> > they find it necessary to distnguish the 4 r-based vowel sounds.
> > [air] air, careful, wear
> > [eer] ear, hero, beer
> > [er] teacher, afterward, murderer
> > [ur] early, bird, stirring
> > I guess [or} isn't common in American pronunciation as people say
> > saw-ree instead of sore-ee (Sorry about that)
> >
> > Just because Diagraphs were the only practical way of writing
> these
> > r-based vowel sounds in the Roman Alphabet,
> > doesn't mean we should buy into
> > the fallacy, that they are really in fact 2 distinct sounds
> written
> > togather
> > strictly because they are common juxtapositions.
> > I consider them to distinct sounds, no different in principle
than
> > the five common English Dipthongs (Ai, Ei, Oi, Ow, Ew)

Hi Carl
The On and Ah sound for the majority of Americans speakers
is really the same sound. I had trouble deciding when to use on
and when to use Ah, because I couldn't hear any difference
between them even in my own speech.
I decided to just use Ah for that sound for
4 different. but valid reasons. One logical, 2 of expediance,
and one because the British On sound is much rarer than the Ah sound.
P.S. I am glad that that choice works for you.
Regards, Paul V.
____________________attached_________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
I also like your suggestion for American English speakers with
the "on" and "ian" letters. And lately, before I've even read your
reply, I've been forcing myself to avoid using those exact letters
to avoid, in my own personal writing with the Shavian Alphabet.
(i.e. I've been keeping a journal, just with Shavian.)

On Nov 28, 2007 8:16 PM, paul vandenbrink <vandenbrinkg@...> wrote:
> the British On sound is much rarer than the Ah sound.

I'm surprised - I would have thought that "ah" is fairly rare compared
to "on". (Especially if you treat "are" as separate, and also if you
use northern English which doesn't have "ah" in words such as "glass,
past, master, chance".)

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

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Please let me know if you need instructions on how to use
the Rich Text Editor in Yahoo groups to embed Shavian letters into
your Forum postings. I can provide detailed instructions.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

/pYl, plIz giv mI H detEld instrukSonz for embediN H /SY leterz intM mF
pOstiN v mesaJez. F ges F never understUd hQ t dM His. n it sImz t
hAv ben a veri loN tFm sins Aniwon els HAz dun it.
-------------------------------k.d.

/pYl, plIz giv mI H detEld instrukSonz for embediN H /SY leterz intM mF
pOstiN v mesaJez. F ges F never understUd hQ t dM His. n it sImz t
hAv ben a veri loN tFm sins Aniwon els hAz dun it.
-------------------------------k.d.
p.s. duz His tFp fEs, SY sAnz number 2, hAv a rekwFrd jMs in His, Or wil H /AndroklIz font wOrk Az wel?
F'm sendiN His Az a ric tekst fFl vIa mF I-mEl akQnt.
hQ kAn H SY leterz bI embeded if H mesaJ iz kompOzd wiHin H websFt?
/johM Yferz a number v cqsez, Iven a non-rOmAn won At H end. wF kAnt HE hAv At lIst won fonetik font on Qr grMp's websFt?
=====================

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

kirk desimus wrote:
>
> /pYl, plIz giv mI H detEld instrukSonz for embediN H /SY leterz intM mF
> pOstiN v mesaJez. F ges F never understUd hQ t dM His. n it sImz t
> hAv ben a veri loN tFm sins Aniwon els hAz dun it.
> -------------------------------k.d.
> p.s. duz His tFp fEs, SY sAnz number 2, hAv a rekwFrd jMs in His, Or
> wil H /AndroklIz font wOrk Az wel?
> F'm sendiN His Az a ric tekst fFl vIa mF I-mEl akQnt.
> hQ kAn H SY leterz bI embeded if H mesaJ iz kompOzd wiHin H websFt?
> /johM Yferz a number v cqsez, Iven a non-rOmAn won At H end. wF kAnt
> HE hAv At lIst won fonetik font on Qr grMp's websFt?
> =====================>
lUks lFk GwiNdiNz t mI!

tEk kX, j'Yl!

--
Ethan

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

Hi Kirk
My apologies. I should make up a standard explanation
and post it every six months or so.

Let me describe the method first in general and then go into
the nitty gritty details in my next post.

First you have to Sign in to the Shaw Alphabet Yahoo forum.
Then you have to get into the Post Message page by clicking on to
Post or Reply inside someone else's message.
Then near the top of the page you will see a Yellow "New!"
New! Compose your message with Rich-Text Editor (Beta).

Then click on "Rich-Text Editor" which will change the editor
into one which allows the insertion of HTML formating commands.
They are sometimes called Tags.
Then practice toggling back and forth to display the text with
the HTML formating and without. Without looks just like normal.

You Toggle by clicking on the box next to "View HTML Source"
It should show a check mark when it is on.
Formating Commands are always enclosed between the < and > signs.
Then Toggle back to normal

Then Type in your message as normal, including the parts in Shavian.
Shavian is written with Roman Letter equivalent letters
which you are currently using.
Then toggle to view the HTML formatting commands.
Find the spot where you want to start the Shavian letters.
Make sure you don't change any existing HTML formating commands.
You are just going to insert a new command to change the font.
Then insert the followin HTML command to change the active Font to
Shavian.
<font face="Shaw Sans No. 2" size="4"> to the front of the Shavian
text.
Toggle back the normal view. See previous instructions on Toggling.
The remainder of the text will now appear in Shavian Letters.

If you want to close off a passage of Shavian text and embed it
in the middle of a Roman Alphabet message,
you can toggle to the HTML display and insert
</font> to the end of the Shavian Letters.

If you toggle back to normal (Uncheck "View HTML Source)
You will see your text in Shavian where you put the
tags.

When it looks good send it to the forum.

You may have to try it a few times before it makes sense.
Don't worry. HTML formatting is not for the faint hearted.

TEnks fP Yl jR welkum kyments.
rigRdz, /pYl /vI.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Make sure you have loaded the Shaw Sans No. 2 Font on to
your Windows before you try this.
P.P.S. Please feel free to ask for more details, if I have glossed
over something.
__________________attached___________________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "kirk desimus" <kfs111@...> wrote:
> Paul V.
> P.S. Please let me know if you need instructions on how to use
> the Rich Text Editor in Yahoo groups to embed Shavian letters into
> your Forum postings. I can provide detailed instructions.
>
> MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
>
> /pYl, plIz giv mI H detEld instrukSonz for embediN H /SY leterz intM
mF
> pOstiN v mesaJez. F ges F never understUd hQ t dM His. n it sImz
t
> hAv ben a veri loN tFm sins Aniwon els HAz dun it.

Hi Yahya
I have to agree with Philip in this matter.
In my opinion, all three combinations are so similar that a
hypothetical reader would pronounce them "correctly"
for whatever word they're in no matter which one he used.

And as most dictionary's I've seen use the AWE+Loll
merge, I'd go with that transcription, myself.
I think it is like case of the Syllabic R-sounds.
There are only so many vowels that will merge with Syllabic
L sound and still sound like one syllable instead of two.
For example, "ill" sounds like one syllable, but "eel" sounds like
two.

This only applies to regular English words. Foreign Words have their
own pronunciation. (System of Pronunciation)


--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya" <yahya@...> wrote:
>
> > On 8/21/07, ed_shapard wrote:
> > > This wasn't a rule that I came up with upon reflecting on the
way
> I speak. I spelled a whole lot of words with AH+Loll and On+Loll,
but
> every time I looked them up in a dictionary, the phonetic spelling
> always had the AWE+Loll combination. After being sceptical myself,
it
> occured to me that the Loll sound changes the sound of AH and On
> whenever it is merged with them. I think it changes both AH and On
> into AWE; perhaps different shades of the AWE sound, but AWE
> nonetheless. And if we accept that it does, then AH+Loll and
On+Loll
> not only don't exist, but can't exist!
> > >
> > > Let me know if you can find a dictionary that says otherwise.
>
> It never occurred to me to validate my pronunciation against a
> dictionary! ;-) Besides, the days of prescriptive dictionaries is
> well past; a useful dictionary is descriptive, reflecting actual
> usage. If you want to find a reflection of general current
> Australian pronunciation, I suppose one of the many Macquarie
> dictionaries would serve. But I doubt you'd find "doll, loll,
boll"
> with any other sound than On+Loll.
>
>
> > AHD4 says otherwise, for one. See, for example,
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=loll (search for "American
> Heritage Dictionary"), which has the word "loll" spelled with
On+Loll.
> >
> > Also, "Baal" has one pronunciation with Ah+Loll according to
AHD4 --
> though admittedly, that's a loanword.
> >
> > Some other examples I tried to come up with that might have
On+Loll
> turned out to have Oak+Loll instead (so my pronunciation there is
> apparently non-standard), but I wouldn't call Ah+Loll or On+Loll
> impossible combinations in AHD4 English, though they seem to be
rare.
> (I like AHD4 in connection with Shavian because the pronunciation
it
> uses is fairly close to what was used as the basis of Shavian.)
> >
> > > In my
> opinion, all three combinations are so similar that a hypothetical
> reader would pronounce them "correctly" for whatever word they're
in
> no matter which one you use; and he wouldn't have to think about it
> either.
> >
> > I find that "Baal" and "ball" sound very different, and I'd have
to
> stop and think.
>
> I agree these are different; in Australian speech, the
words "Baal,
> ball (or bawl), boll" form a minimal triad, with sounds AH+Loll,
> AWE+Loll, On+Loll respectively.
>
>
> > Perhaps it's different for people who merge "short o" and "ah"
(for
> whom "father" and "bother" rhyme, for example).
>
> Which never happens in Australian speech.
>

Hi Phil D.
You are correct. I do remember you.
It is just Ph. D brings back still tender memories
of my time in the University of Calgary, where I quickly realized
that my rate of progress made getting an advanced degree impossible
without increased longevity.
Ah, the value of an over analytical mind.
Do you mind if I refer to you as Phil D. to avoid confusion
inestimable Philip the Elder. I believe he has a 1/3 of century or
so.
Regards, Paul V.
______________________attached__________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Ph. D." <phil@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe you were thinking of me. I developed several
> fonts for the Shaw Alphabet some years ago.
>
> --Phil D.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: paul vandenbrink
>
> Hi Philip N.
> Apologies for referring to you as Philip D.
> I won't make that mistake again.
> (* F must hAv kynfVzd V wiT H AmbigVasli Absant *)
> (* daSep. hI sIms t hAv gytan Qt v tuch. *)
> Regards and thanx, Paul V.
>

Regards, Philip
Americans are nothing, if they are not consistent.
They definately minimize a lot of English vowel distinctions
in casual speech.
__________________attached________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Newton"
<philip.newton@...> wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2007 8:16 PM, paul vandenbrink <vandenbrinkg@...> wrote:
> > the British On sound is much rarer than the Ah sound.
>
> I'm surprised - I would have thought that "ah" is fairly rare
compared
> to "on". (Especially if you treat "are" as separate, and also if you
> use northern English which doesn't have "ah" in words such as "glass,
> past, master, chance".)
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
>