Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Ah, what fun! Our favourite food-fight emerges for its annual
regurgitation, however—I would like to point out—through no desire or
encouragement on my part. Rather, it appears that a perusal of the
archives has been made to detect and condemn heresy: thou shalt not
impugn or in any way question the efforts of Saint Read, whose works
are perfect and untainted by blemish of any kind.

So, bristling with excitement as you surely must be, into the breach
yet again:

I have always found this reflexive defence of original intentions
somewhat curious, as Read himself felt free to depart from Shaw's
prescribed choice of letters, choosing instead an alternative source
for his phonological table. And then, not content with his own
efforts, he devised a second and even a third derivative. If he felt
free to take liberties with his own ideas as well as those of his
(and our) patron, then why shouldn't we?

At the risk of repeat censure and ostracism that are sure to follow,
Let me remind everyone that I greatly admire Read's first alphabet
for its visual qualities; I think it to be stunningly beautiful, and
represents to my mind to be by far the best alternative alphabet or
spelling reform ever devised. It is the linguistic organization that
I dare suggest could be improved in order to attract more followers,
which it might do if it were rendered more compelling to those who
are, shall we say, less than convinced about the need for a new
alphabet.

The usual response to this assertion is to deny the importance, even
the relevance, of linguistics: "only a linguist would care" and "how
many of us are linguists?" being common replies. This is surely an
inaccurate observation; anyone attempting to master Shavian becomes
of necessity an amateur linguist as a basic, if perhaps unconscious,
grasp of the concept of phonemes is required to be able to select the
proper Shavian letter for use, especially in the case of vowels. A
native English speaker is able to do this with little effort,
although stress has shown itself to be sometimes a problem. Shaw,
however, in his day aware that English was on its way to be the world
language, had hoped that a new, more sensible alphabet would make it
(English) more readily accessible to the world, besides simplifying
the writing of it for native speakers. Incidentally, Shaw, for
similar purposes, also urged grammatical simplification and for all
his efforts was deemed a hopeless dreamer.

It is true that simplification may appear to be an unnecessary
concern; people everywhere seem to be able easily to learn to speak
at least some English. Writing, though, is another matter.

So I shall posit once again the question, what is the purpose of
Shavian?

There are several alternatives one could answer by which to measure
the value of Shavian, if any—among which are:

1. The Shavian alphabet, Read's invention, is a means by which an
English-speaker willing to exert some slight effort may learn to
write in a more efficient manner, chiefly for personal use.

2. The Shavian alphabet permits people to engage in rewarding and
pleasurable on-line conversation or written correspondence with other
devotees.

and/or

3. The Shavian alphabet is a radical innovation that could
transform world communication.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but may indicate a
different primacy of importance for different people. Most everyone
in this group I dare say have tried to some extent alternative 1—I
hope with success; some of you participate in alternative 2—indeed,
the last few months have witnessed a steady back-and-forth of
commentaries all written using the Shavian alphabet. Keep at it, I say!

But, because of personal eccentricities, I am interested in the third
alternative, that of offering to people around the world a simplified
means of using a language, one that has become the world's language
(in which some competence is becoming necessary for almost everyone),
without having to master its intricacies. To this end, as I have
fruitlessly argued before, it would help if this alphabet's internal
organization were arranged as ruthlessly logical and consistent as it
could be made to be in order to present as few obstacles as possible
to comprehension or use even from the youngest and most uneducated
adherent, wherever they may be. Departures from reason only confuse
the learner, and hinder the instructor from making a good case. I am
thinking specifically of the third-world, where a grasp of English
can be tenuous outside the elite schools.

This line of thought impresses no one however, and I am presented
with fanciful excuses that it was not accident but that Read had some
reason, some hidden purpose that defies explanation (perhaps simple
whimsy) for inverting the two pairs of letters, ha/hung and air/err.
To remedy these oversights however is so ridiculously simple that to
refuse to even consider doing so strikes me as strange, and I can
only assume that it is because the unwelcome act of pointing out such
things generates its own inevitable irritant. Sorry.

To those for whom alternatives one and two represent the only
interest, such an insistence upon simplification, unrelenting order
and transparent design is exaggerated and unwarranted. With that
limitation indeed it is—I quite agree. It is only when one looks
beyond and considers the possibilities inherent in this attractive
alphabet that the imagination soars. But then, I understand this to
be a quixotic quest.

So in anticipation of next year's recurrence,
I am quixotically yours,
dshep

Haiku: 3 columns brushstrokes, read down, right to left
Transcription:

Furuike ya
kawazu tobikomu
mizu no oto

Shavian English version, spelt out, as the ox ploughs:

> ado-nun oak-loll-dead peep-on-nun-dead
so-peep-mime-up-judge gag-on-roar-fee ado
so-peep-loll-ash-sure.

or even:

dead-nun-on-peep dead-loll-oak nun-ado <
ado fee-roar-on-gag judge-up-mime-peep-so
.sure-ash-loll-peep-so

WARNING!
The following contains tiresome tit-for-tat. Members are advised to
find some other more profitable use of their time.

......................................
Reply to complaint 2365:

>> Yes, it (Shavian) 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.

Read's intentions were inspired, but not sacrosanct. Why should they be?
He evidently did not think so. Many of the letters in Quickscript are
pretty much the same, some are not. The misprint, I suggest, occurred
initially, not later, and need not have involved the letter itself,
but the letter's identification. Publishers make mistakes all the
time, and would have easily done so with a strange script. If the
most common mistake in the past was misspelt words, today it is the
substitution of a wrong word (though correctly spelled, thanks to
spell-checkers).

>> 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.

The Shavian alphabet has been mentioned in numerous journals and
publications including the Cambridge Encyclopedia of English, but
always as a curiosity. It is not that no one knows that it exists, it
is that so few people care. Through their interest, everyone in this
group becomes, by default, an amateur linguist--as you will be. The
arrangement of deep and tall letters calls attention to the
distinction between voiced and unvoiced consonants, just as the
difference between these and the letters that are neither marks
another distinction, that between consonant and vowel/sonorant. But
not completely, and that is the vexing point: almost there but not
quite. Had there not been any organization at all, with tall and deep
letters distributed randomly as with our standard alphabet, then this
question--the question of incompleteness--would not arise.

>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?

The letters /h/ and /ng/ were almost certainly paired for no other
reason than convenience--they have no natural partners, or at least
none recognized at the time. Today they could be paired with the
glottal stop and /nk/.

>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.

Shavian may well be difficult for those who suffer from dyslexia
because of letter similiarity, I couldn't say. The tall/deep contrast
however is a fundamental characteristic of Shavian and whether one
has a uniform system of tall/deep distinction or not would probably
not matter one way or the other for such persons--one would be as bad
as the other. The IPA is intended to identify speech-sounds, not to
be used as a written script.

>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.

Our critics would all too happily point out that an alphabet that has
been used for 2000+ years need not be changed either, for any reason.
Unfortunately, that really is a weighty argument.

>So, for those of us who believe that Shavian is more than a toy

If I thought Shavian a toy I would not care how the letters were
arranged.

>I suggest that the historical Shavian alphabet be THE SHAVIAN
>ALPHABET used THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE SITE...

Then do so--I don't believe I have interfered nor care to with your
ability to write in whichever way you wish.

... ... ... ...

>For without such unity, Shavian is a were toy, to be
>played with as a bag of wooden blocks.

If it is not to be a toy but an instrument then it should be honed to
the maximum extent possible. If it is to remain a harmless pastime
then it doesn't matter.

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

I take it seriously. Why else would I concern myself with its
potential?

......................................
Reply to complaint 2366:
(Yes, there's more; member advisory still in effect)

>> Dealing with the Shaw alphabet involves linguistics,
>> like it or not.

AN A PETTY ONE AT THAT

Why is it petty? Details are important.

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

I believe I have argued the point, at far too great length--n'est-ce
pas?
That the Shaw alphabet requires some involvement with, and hence some
interest in, linguistics seems to me inescapable. Use of language
inevitably involves linguistics; most of the time, thankfully,
without having to think about it too much--unconsciously in fact.

......................................
Reply to complaint 2367:
(What, more?)

>> 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.

What exactly do you mean? What would you be demonstrating?
Confusion?

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

How else is pronunciation to be studied? Do you disparage common sense?

......................................
Reply to complaint 2368:
(Despair not! The end is in sight!)

>> 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 (SAINT) 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!

You failed to include my reply to our headmaster's strictures, who
got a little carried away at this point. I admitted nothing of the
sort, though airing an alternative possibility. I believe actually it
was a simple typo such as happens all the time, one that could have
happened more easily than most as the proofreader (all done by hand
and eye in those days) had to deal with a strange script with which
he would not have been familiar.

Incidentally, design involves both visual and organizational aspects.
As pointed out earlier, I greatly admire Read's visuals, which is
where his skill lay.

> > 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.

It is as close to a forward slash as anything could be, wouldn't you
say?: / w And the backward slash is even closer: \ j
I doubt a slash of any kind should be called punctuation.

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!

Quickscript/Quikscript/Qwikscript/Kwikskript (however it is spelled)
abandons the pairing system; while some letters remain tall, some
deep, there is no longer a functional distinction so I suppose Read
just selected the simplest possible alteration to mark the /hw/.

curioser and curioser,
dshep
...................................

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com,
--- John Burrows <burrows@...> wrote:
>
>
> Haiku: 3 columns brushstrokes, read down, right to left
> Transcription:
>
> Furuike ya
> kawazu tobikomu
> mizu no oto
>
> Shavian English version, spelt out, as the ox ploughs:
>
> > ado-nun oak-loll-dead peep-on-nun-dead
> so-peep-mime-up-judge gag-on-roar-fee ado
> so-peep-loll-ash-sure.
>
> or even:
>
> dead-nun-on-peep dead-loll-oak nun-ado <
> ado fee-roar-on-gag judge-up-mime-peep-so
> .sure-ash-loll-peep-so


/b


/bASO ?

ylsO Old,
/dSep

Several days I asked if somebody could tell me what fonts to download
- and from where - so I can read Shaw Alphabet on a Mac with the
latest (Leopard) operating system. Could somebody reply?

Bob Richmond
Knoxville TN

On 2008 Mar 27, at 12:22 pm, Robert Richmond wrote:

> Several days I asked if somebody could tell me what fonts to download
> - and from where - so I can read Shaw Alphabet on a Mac with the
> latest (Leopard) operating system. Could somebody reply?
>
> Bob Richmond
> Knoxville TN
>






Alan Wood lists four fonts with the Shavian range on his site:

* Andagii, http://www.i18nguy.com/unicode/unicode-font.html
* Code2001, http://www.code2000.net/
* ESL Gothic Unicode, http://www.30below.com/~ethanl/fonts.html
* MPH 2B Damase, http://alanwood.net/downloads/index.html

These are TrueType fonts, so you can use them in Mac OS X without
conversion.

James Vipond
jvipond@...

From my trusty Chambers':

punctuate
to mark with points; to mark off (a piece of writing) with full
stops, commas, question marks, etc; to intersperse; to emphasize.

punctuation
the act or art of dividing sentences by points or marks

F ges HAt inklMdz slASmyrks, sO--sori 'bQt HAt.

/// \\\
/dSep

Okay, I probably ought to apologize to the rest of the group for
bringing this up again. I haven't been very active in the group for
a few years, and I just recently saw the 'Wizard of Oz' with the
corrected Shavian alphabet, so it made sense when I though I saw
a 'March x, 2008' on one of those messages, and though the thread to
be current. But then, I saw posts that I wrote, and realized that
2008 was really 2004.
I will work on producing a pdf of 'the Wizard of Oz' in the original
Shavian alphabet, but I hope that everyone will pardon me this
accident, and drop the subject today -- 28 March 2008..

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

*pokes her head out of the ether to see if it's safe to come out*
It is rather odd that we would have such a heated argument. dshep, I believe next on the docket is either rhotic/non-rhotic or stressed up/ado. I thought we agreed to disagree on the whole hung/haha discrepancy.

I know I've been quiet, having a baby makes keeping up with shavian a little difficult. but I just installed the host of fonts on my new computer, and should be able to keep up again.

--Star

==========

"Having imagination, it takes you an hour to write a paragraph that, if you were unimaginative, would take you only a minute. Or you might not write the paragraph at all."
-- Franklin P. Adams


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

----- Original Message ----
From: dshep <dshep@...>
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 10:18:07 PM
Subject: [shawalphabet] shavian refinement

Ah, what fun! Our favourite food-fight emerges for its annual regurgitation, however—I would like to point out—through no desire or encouragement on my part. Rather, it appears that a perusal of the archives has been made to detect and condemn heresy: thou shalt not impugn or in any way question the efforts of Saint Read, whose works are perfect and untainted by blemish of any kind.


So, bristling with excitement as you surely must be, into the breach yet again:


I have always found this reflexive defence of original intentions somewhat curious, as Read himself felt free to depart from Shaw's prescribed choice of letters, choosing instead an alternative source for his phonological table. And then, not content with his own efforts, he devised a second and even a third derivative. If he felt free to take liberties with his own ideas as well as those of his (and our) patron, then why shouldn't we?


At the risk of repeat censure and ostracism that are sure to follow, Let me remind everyone that I greatly admire Read's first alphabet for its visual qualities; I think it to be stunningly beautiful, and represents to my mind to be by far the best alternative alphabet or spelling reform ever devised. It is the linguistic organization that I dare suggest could be improved in order to attract more followers, which it might do if it were rendered more compelling to those who are, shall we say, less than convinced about the need for a new alphabet.


The usual response to this assertion is to deny the importance, even the relevance, of linguistics: "only a linguist would care" and "how many of us are linguists?" being common replies. This is surely an inaccurate observation; anyone attempting to master Shavian becomes of necessity an amateur linguist as a basic, if perhaps unconscious, grasp of the concept of phonemes is required to be able to select the proper Shavian letter for use, especially in the case of vowels. A native English speaker is able to do this with little effort, although stress has shown itself to be sometimes a problem. Shaw, however, in his day aware that English was on its way to be the world language, had hoped that a new, more sensible alphabet would make it (English) more readily accessible to the world, besides simplifying the writing of it for native speakers. Incidentally, Shaw, for similar purposes, also urged grammatical simplification and for all his efforts was deemed
a hopeless dreamer.


It is true that simplification may appear to be an unnecessary concern; people everywhere seem to be able easily to learn to speak at least some English. Writing, though, is another matter.


So I shall posit once again the question, what is the purpose of Shavian?


There are several alternatives one could answer by which to measure the value of Shavian, if any—among which are:


1. The Shavian alphabet, Read's invention, is a means by which an English-speaker willing to exert some slight effort may learn to write in a more efficient manner, chiefly for personal use.


2. The Shavian alphabet permits people to engage in rewarding and pleasurable on-line conversation or written correspondence with other devotees.


and/or


3. The Shavian alphabet is a radical innovation that could transform world communication.


These are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but may indicate a different primacy of importance for different people. Most everyone in this group I dare say have tried to some extent alternative 1—I hope with success; some of you participate in alternative 2—indeed, the last few months have witnessed a steady back-and-forth of commentaries all written using the Shavian alphabet. Keep at it, I say!


But, because of personal eccentricities, I am interested in the third alternative, that of offering to people around the world a simplified means of using a language, one that has become the world's language (in which some competence is becoming necessary for almost everyone), without having to master its intricacies. To this end, as I have fruitlessly argued before, it would help if this alphabet's internal organization were arranged as ruthlessly logical and consistent as it could be made to be in order to present as few obstacles as possible to comprehension or use even from the youngest and most uneducated adherent, wherever they may be. Departures from reason only confuse the learner, and hinder the instructor from making a good case. I am thinking specifically of the third-world, where a grasp of English can be tenuous outside the elite schools.


This line of thought impresses no one however, and I am presented with fanciful excuses that it was not accident but that Read had some reason, some hidden purpose that defies explanation (perhaps simple whimsy) for inverting the two pairs of letters, ha/hung and air/err. To remedy these oversights however is so ridiculously simple that to refuse to even consider doing so strikes me as strange, and I can only assume that it is because the unwelcome act of pointing out such things generates its own inevitable irritant. Sorry.


To those for whom alternatives one and two represent the only interest, such an insistence upon simplification, unrelenting order and transparent design is exaggerated and unwarranted. With that limitation indeed it is—I quite agree. It is only when one looks beyond and considers the possibilities inherent in this attractive alphabet that the imagination soars. But then, I understand this to be a quixotic quest.


So in anticipation of next year's recurrence,
I am quixotically yours,
dshep








<!--

#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
-->

<!--

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
-->

<!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}

#ygrp-reco {
margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}
#ygrp-reco #reco-head {
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;}

#reco-grpname{
font-weight:bold;margin-top:10px;}
#reco-category{
font-size:77%;}
#reco-desc{
font-size:77%;}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
-->







____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping