Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

spiritjMal lFt in H dork stilnes v nFt.

F awOk TiNkiN v a konversESon H dE befOr n TYt, 'jes, Her or mAni mOral
n Iven spiritjMal konsepts in H bFbel.'

but todE, TQzandz v jIrz lEter,

som v H sivil lYz, lFk mEraJ hAv evolvd veri diferent sOSial kustomz. n
sO wI hAv novelz, lFk "H /davinci kOd" HAt dQt H lFklihUd HAt Ani
30-jIr-Old JMiS mAn bAk Hen wud stil bI siNgel.

His got mI TiNkiN abQt H diferens betwIn spekjMlESon n revelESon. n H
diferens betwIn gesiN n nOiN.

H bFbel kontEnz frAgments v prIvius--rIli EnSient revelESonz, but
frAgments bF Her veri nEcur lIv gAps HAt hjMmAnz (n mOst klerJimen) or
kontinjMali trFiN t eksplEn. wFl oHer histOrik rIserc mE help, dIper
eksplAnESonz jMZMali rekwFr pjUr spekjMlESon [lFk H /nOdFt wUmAn hM
mErId /kEn--Or wF non v hiz broHerz n sisterz, nIsez n nefjMz, grAnd
nIsez n nefjMz v H prIvius senturi befOr hiz birT yr not Iven menSond in
H /hIbrM histOri ?]

AniwE, His lEdi lIviN a bFbel-studi klAs tOld mI HAt /JIzus' lAst wOrdz,
"it iz finiSd" waz prUf-pozitiv HAt nO oHer rFtiNz kUd bI Aded t H bFbel
from HAt tFm on!

duz HAt stEtment sIm Az sili t jM Az it duz t mI?

_________________r.t.

pAk H sMtkEs


wen mF nIsez n nefjM wer abQt 8-jIrz-Old HE jMzd t plE a gEm kYld "pAk H
sMtkEs" wiH Her foHer.

...

tEkiN turnz, H first person mFt sE, "F'l pUt a tMTbruS in H sMtkEs."

...

H sekond mFt sE, "F'l Ad a tQel t H tMTbruS in H sMtkEs."

...

H Tird wUd sE, "F'l Ad a mIrOr t H tMTbruS n H tQel."

...

H 4T wUd Ad AnoHer Ftem, but Ic won wUd hAv t menSon everiTiN els HAt
hAd ben pUt in. if Her waz Ani Ftem HE kUdnt remember HE wer Qt v H gEm.

...

bF H tFm H list got up t abQt 12, won Or 2 kUd nO loNger remember Hem
Yl.

...

wat waz surprFziN waz HAt H juNgest, H 8-jIr-Old, kUd Yfen remember up t
25 v H Ftemz. AnoHer unjMZMal TiN waz HAt wen her moHer tOld her t get a
pensil n rFt dQn a fOn number wFl SI kontinjMd H konversESon wiH H oHer
person on H lFn, H 8-jIr-Old didnt boHer t rFt it dQn sins it waz
nAcural n Izi fOr her t Just remember it.

...

H adult YlwEz won H sMtkEs gEm bekYz v a `sIkwens sistem HAt hAd ben
memOrFzd jIrz befOr. it waz An Alfabet list v Animalz beginiN wiH "Ep" n
endiN wiH "zIbra."

...

Ic nM Ftem Aded t H list waz imIdiatli asOsiEted wiH H nekst Animal.

...

first H Ep waz viZMalFzd Az bruSiN hiz tIT. H bEr waz sIn in H mental
pikcur Az kErIiN awE H kAmper'z sAndwicez HAt hAd ben rApd in a tQel.

Hen H kAt (Akcuali a kiten) waz surprFziN himself At hiz first
diskoveriN H mIrOr n waz frFtend At sudenli sIiN AnoHer kAt n Hen lUkiN
behFnd H mIrOr n wonderiN wEr it kEm from?

...

His, v kOrs, waz jMziN H `prinsipel v asOsiESon v H list v Animalz wiH H
rAndom list v Ftemz. it iz muc Izier t remember H AkSon v wat An Ep iz
dMiN wiH a tMTbruS HAn trFiN t remember Onli H obJekt itself.

...

wiH H Animal list it waz Az Izi t rekYl everi Ftem bAkwordz Az wel Az in
a fOrword sIkwens.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

won memOri ekspert hMz bUk F red tYt HAt rememberiN iz bEsd upon 4
meTodz: intenSon, konsentrESon, viZjMalizESon, n asOsiESon.

v H first, intenSon, His ekzAmpel waz given: 2 v jUr felO wOrkerz Ask t
borO som moni. won nIdz 25 sents fOr H kOk maSIn. hI wil pE jM bAk
tomorO. H oHer nIdz $50 fOr grOserIz n promisez t return it in 2 wIkz
wen hI gets pEd At H end v H monT. jM lOn Hem bOT wat HE Askd fOr. wic
person or jM lIst lFkli t fOrget?

''''''

HAt iz wEr jUr intenSon t remember iz H stroNgest fAktOr.

'''''

konsentrESon iz H 2nd meTod. hQ mAni tFmz hAv jM ben introdMsd t somwon
n fQnd jUrself unEbel t remember H nEm 2 minuts lEter--espeSiali if it
waz a komon nEm lFk /bil Or /Jon?

''''''

repetiSon iz won wE t konsentrEt. prOnQns H nEm t jUrself--espeSiali if
it hAz An unjMZMal sQnd. Az sMn Az jM hAv An opOrtMniti rFt it dQn Just
t sI wat it lUks lFk.

'''''''

3 oHer wEz wUd bI t imAJin som stroN rIzon wF it wUd bI a nEm wOrT
rememberiN--a biznes rIzon perhAps?--a prospektiv kustomer Or klFent?

'''''''

viZjMalizESon. After H introdukSon n jM mMv on, imAJin jM or trFiN t
deskrFb H person t a pOrtrat skec ortist hM wOrks fOr H polIs
deportment.

'''''''

F mEd a skec v several pIpel F went t hF skMl wiH. F kAn stil remember
HIz mAni jirz lEter egzAktli wat HE lUkd lFk; but oHer frendz HAt hAd
ben Iven klOser F nO loNger remember muc abQt hQ HE lUkd. wen jM drY a
personz fEs jM hAv t fOkus, mentali meZuriN Ic fIcur, H SEp v H nOz
(front n prOfFl), H slAnt v H nostrilz, H leNT v H cin; hQ wFd waz H
mQT? wat SEp wer H Fz? hQ Tik wer H F-brQz? H hEr: hQ hF Or lO waz H
hErlFn? wat kolOr hEr n Fz? AniTiN unjMZMal abQt H SEp v H Irz?

'''''''

asOsiESon. in wat wEz did H person remFnd jM v somwon els jM nO? hM els
dM jM nO HAt hAz H sEm Or a similar nEm? kAn jM rFm H nEm wiH Ani oHer
wOrd? jM ornt lFkli t fOrget a nEm if jM rFt it intM a funi, dramAtik,
Or trAJik limerik lFk H won abQt H sMisFdal nEbOr, /elvin bolet, hM
ended hiz lFf wiH a stIl-kEsd bulet.

'''''''

F hAv ben in som sitjMESonz sO stresful HAt F AkSUali forgot mF On nEm.
wons F waz introdMsiN mF moHer t a grMp v frendz n fOrgot her lAst nEm.
v kOrs, SI hAd cEnJd it a number v tFmz Over H jIrz--everi tFm SI got
mErId agAn. n Hen it hAd ben kwFt a loN tFm agO HAt F hAd mMvd intM mF
On aportment.

'''''''

wons F wOk up in H mOrniN TiNkiN abQt a popjMlar komIdiAn HAt F'd sIn
mAni tFmz on tIvI n in a number v mMvIz. F kUd hAv Izali lUkd up H nEm
in An indeksd bUk v film revjMz but F waz frustrEted At not bIiN Ebel t
imIdiatli rekYl it. F kUd remember hiz fEs, hiz jMnIk mAnerizmz, H sQnd
v hiz vqs, H sigor hI YlwEz hAd wiH him on stEJ. refjMziN t lUk it up,
it tUk YlmOst 3 dEz befOr F fFnali rememberd it. sO F desFded t kreEt a
mental pikcur v him HAt wUd AkSMali fOtogrAf hiz nEm intM mF memOri--a
pikcur F'd never fOrget agAn.

'''''''

sO F viZjMalFzd him sitiN At a piAnO on stEJ plEiN a soN HAt a number v
pIpel stAndiN arQnd H piAnO wer siNiN aloN wiH him. on H left sFd F pUt
komIdianz: /grEsi Alen, /stIv Alen, /fred Alen, wiH AktOrz /Alen lAd,
/Alen juN, n /Alen Ylda. on H oHer sFd v H piAnO F pUt kiN /henri H 8T
hOldiN hAndz wiH tenis cAmp, /bili JIn kiN; AktOr /ben /kiNzli, siNer
/nAt kiN kOl, JAz mjMziSon, /kiN oliver, rFter /stIven kiN, direktOr
/kiN vidOr, rEdiO intervjMer, /lEri kiN, stAndiN wiH hiz orm arQnd
/mortin lMTer kiN hM waz hOldiN a kiN JEmz bFbel in hiz hAnd.

'''''''

nQ F kUdnt fOrget HAt komIdianz nEm ever agAn, Iven if F wonted tM.

'''''''

1. intenSon. 2. konsentrESon. 3. viZjMalizESon. 4. asOsiESon.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

817 :-)

H vqs on H telefOn tOld mI F must hAv dFld H roN number.

"or jM Sur?" F insisted.

H strEnJer replFd, "hAv F ever lFd t jM befor?"


''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''\
''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ft

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
> <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The biggest difficulty is for people to learn how to use it.
> > It is very functional as it is.
>
> Yes, it works fine for a small band of enthusiasts.
>
>
> > The biggest difficulty is for people to learn how to use it.
>
> All the more reason to put it right.
>
I would have to argue that Mr. Read intended for the letters to be as
they are; They are the same as in Quick Script, Mr. Read's later
revision. of the pair ('ng' and 'h') were indeed misprinted, Mr. Read
didn't mind: I really doubt that the publisher world have made the
same mistake twice.
>
> > It needs to more accessible,
>
> My point entirely.
>
>
> > Shuffling the letters around will not encourage wider
> > interest and acceptance of the Shavian Alphabet, because
> > then it would be marginally more rational way of writing
> > Shavian with the change.
>
> I believe it will at least help to do so.
> Is rationality unimportant too?
>
>
> > Maybe for Linguistic professors it would have some
> > significance. (The) Average person can not even distinguish
> > the difference between a voiced and an unvoiced consonant.
>
> But linguistics professors and other sceptics will be the harshest
> critics and therefore obstacles to the adoption of any such
> wild-eyed scheme as using an entirely new alphabet. This group
> is made up of enthusiasts, who look at the Shaw alphabet and see
> a good idea; the other 99.99 per cent of the English-speaking
> world will only see something weird.
>
Well, your statement about the other 91.99% is only true until they
know what it is. Hon many linguists are there on this group? So, the
voiced/ unvoiced differentiation had to be explained to at least a few
of our number, doubtless.

Besides that, the relationship butteries 'p' and b' is not the same as
that of 'ng' and 'h'. 'p' and 'b' are the sane, apart frown voicing,
whereas 'ng' and 'h' are different in another way. Could Mr. Read have
done this to emphasize that the relationship doesn't hold?

Besides that, the deep/tall voiced/unvoiced relationship actually
makes Shavian harder for people like my wife who have dyslexia. So I
would also have tray that religiously keeping to the voiced/unvoiced
deep/tall pair as not important If it were a priority for linguists,
then the IPA would follow that pattern.

But we ultimately need to ask ourselves if a 40+-year-old alphabet
should a changed on a technicality.I think the argument is about as
weighty as Lather's 95 theses being reprinted 40 years later because
someone couldn't decide if the fourth and fifth theses more in the
correct order. It plain doesn't matter, unless someone has a bizarre
form of OCD.

So, for those of us who believe that Shavian is more than a toy I
suggest that the historical Shavian alphabet be THE SHAVIAN ALPHABET
used THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE SITE, that the "corrected" version be named
something else, and that it be given a new group, and the submission
for The Wonderful Wizard of Oz be revised to follow the Shavian
alphabet seen elsewhere for the past 40+ years, and at any website
concerning the alphabet, and also the alphabet that Mr. Read intended
and invented. For without such unity, Shavian is a were toy, to be
played with as a bag of wooden blocks.

If anyone wants to see Shavian taken seriously, then keep Shavian one.
> dshep
>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
> "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@f...> wrote:
>
> > dshep
>
> > I'm not sure why you attach so much value to swapping two
> > letters merely for consistency ...
>
> Because the better it is the more appeal it will have to anyone
> otherwise less than impressed, and unenthusiastic about extending
> any effort at all towards something so utopian (and I would swap
> 'err' and 'air' as well).
>
> > only a linguist (and a petty one at that) would care for.
>
> Dealing with the Shaw alphabet involves linguistics,
> like it or not.
>

AN A PETTY ONE AT THAT

Show me a linguist who cares, then argue this point, as I don't see
anyone who would.

> > I'm quite sure most people new to Shavian don't care
> > that deeps are mostly voiced and talls are mostly unvoiced
> > – they just want to know what symbol equates to what
> > sound in English. Your comment suggesting greater
> > accessibility as a result of such a change makes no sense,
> > in my view.
>
> Then why bother with Shavian? There are simpler alternatives
> using familiar letters or modifications thereof, Pitman's Initial
> Teaching Alphabet, for one. And what kind of system is it where
> symbols are 'mostly' one thing or the other, eh?
>
> > As for criticism of Shavian: what improvement to this situation
> > of widespread skepticism would be made by us, an admittedly
> > small band of 'enthusiasts', squabbling amongst ourselves about
> > such fundamental concerns as what letters there are in the alphabet
> > and which 180 degree orientation they have?
>
> Because if we don't, others, less kindly disposed, will, and in a
> dismissive manner.
>
> > How do we even HOPE to take it any further if we still can't just
> > accept that Shavian, while not perfect, is a massive
> > improvement from what we have now, and push it FORWARD?
>
> Because we shall certainly fail to reach a wider audience (assuming
> this is thought worthwhile) unless the Shaw alphabet can be put
> in such a form that will overcome easy criticism, expected scepticism,
> and yes, general amusement — the noble but misguided efforts of
> cranks. Think about it — changing the alphabet, what a ridiculous
> idea. I repeat: make the public an offer it would be unreasonable to
> refuse (because it is logical, and logic requires, sorry,
> consistency).
>
>
> > We have been faced with this argument SO many times, and every
> > time it's merely because all we have to do, it seems, is try to
> > fiddle with the alphabet rather than actually using it. When's the
> > last time any of us here actually wrote anything in Shavian?
>
>
> Well, I would have put my observations in Shawscript except that then
> they wouldn't have annoyed anyone.
>
>
> > The original brief of the Shavian eGroup was: conversation IN and
> > ABOUT the Shaw Alphabet. For years we have seen plenty of 'about'
> > but absolutely no 'in'. We ought to ask ourselves, what's the point
> > in being here at all if the alphabet remains a subject for analysis
> > and not a tool of communication?
>
> The better it is, the easier it will be to use. I repeat, the best
> allies we could have for the propagation of the Shaw alphabet
> are secondary and high-school English teachers, but they will
> be loath to mention it in their classes as long as it contains a
> built-in contradiction, a flaw that any alert pupil will notice
> and happily point out for the amusement of his mates, thus
> undermining any prospect of eliciting genuine interest and
> general acceptance by a larger public. Convice the sceptics first,
> and other will follow.
>
> > Is this group going to continue to be one big circular argument?
> >
> > Hugh B
> >
>
> I don't see any circularity, just blank refusal to examine the inner
> structure of the Shaw alphabet, and recognize it for what it is..
>
> with regards,
> dshep
>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- 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?
>

Because the unvoiced and voiced letters are different types, and
therefore it is important to demonstrate that by not following the
rule for those letters.

> > 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
>
>

So, the linguistic study of pronunciation became common sense... when?

> > - 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, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...>
wrote:
>

> 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.
>

hear, hear!

> > retention of the 'w' letter as forward slash. You appear to
> > regard anything that is as heavenly ordained.
>

Shavian's w is not a slash: I aw not aware of much punctuation that
ends up BELOW the line.
> 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?

And, don't forget that Mr. Read has hw is Quickscript. does he apply
the deep/tall rule? no: he just adds a little tick to the bottom, so I
guns it's another mistake: wh is really a check mark! Uhm... I'm telling!
> Hugh B
>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "tithhmi" <tithhmi@...> wrote:
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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...

...
etc etc
...

Best quote in this entire and interminable argument:
> I shal rite as I damn wel pleze, thenk yew veri much.
!!! ;-)

Sadly, if we persist in our "rite to rite" as we please,
we will never share a common alphabet beyond the limits
imposed by the keyboards available to us, nor agree on
spelling or anything else; we will therefore forego the
demonstrable benefits of standardisation. Need I remind
anyone how utterly illogical and arbitrary many of the
choices enshrined in standards actually are?

The purpose of using the Shavian alphabet *as it is* is
to realise the benefits of standardisation - immediately.
Is it unreasonable. or illogical, to ask that any new
contributions to the corpus of texts in Shavian actually
be written *in* Shavian?

So, I too shall write as I damn well please; and that
will be, when in TO, in TO; and when in Shavian, in
Shavian. Damn me for an uminaginative fool ...! ;-)

Regards,
Yahya

F agrI. wat F dOnt understAnd iz wF sO mAni frendz in H SY grMp
kontinjM rFtiN in fOren eNgliS (TO).

abQt mF Onli jMs v it nQ iz adresiN An envelOp--not mAni pOstal wOrkerz
or Ebel t rId fonetikli. Iven H signacur on mF drFverz lFsens iz
in /rId/SY.

At H mOment Fm jMziN a nM kompjMter HAt duznt jet hav Ani /SY fonts YlHO
it hAz 251 oHer fonts instYld: rOmAn, goTik, lAtin, grIk, wiNdiNz, but
not won v Hem iz fonetik. sAd! F hAv t get permiSon from
H kAmpus mAnaJer befOr F kAn instYl won.

````````````````````````````````````` ros demorlO

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya" <yahya@...> wrote:
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "tithhmi" tithhmi@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- 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...
>
> ...
> etc etc
> ...
>
> Best quote in this entire and interminable argument:
> > I shal rite as I damn wel pleze, thenk yew veri much.
> !!! ;-)
>
> Sadly, if we persist in our "rite to rite" as we please,
> we will never share a common alphabet beyond the limits
> imposed by the keyboards available to us, nor agree on
> spelling or anything else; we will therefore forego the
> demonstrable benefits of standardisation. Need I remind
> anyone how utterly illogical and arbitrary many of the
> choices enshrined in standards actually are?
>
> The purpose of using the Shavian alphabet *as it is* is
> to realise the benefits of standardisation - immediately.
> Is it unreasonable. or illogical, to ask that any new
> contributions to the corpus of texts in Shavian actually
> be written *in* Shavian?
>
> So, I too shall write as I damn well please; and that
> will be, when in TO, in TO; and when in Shavian, in
> Shavian. Damn me for an uminaginative fool ...! ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>