Toggle Shavian
Hi Steve
I know that S.L. Pugmire wrote an article
for the British Lancet Periodical about a new Alphabet.
It was published March 26, 1960.
It was called "An easier alphabet?" by PUGMIRE SL.
Does anyone have a soft copy?
Maybe it is in the old files at Shavian.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Supposedly it is online at Pubmed.
PMID: 14435269 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE for Pre1966]
____________________attached_________________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Ph. D." <phild@a...> wrote:
> dshepx skribis:
> >
> > --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Ph. D." wrote:
> >
> > > stbetta@a... skribis:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Some years ago (before the Internet), I was looking
> > > for more information on the Shaw alphabet. I came
> > > across a book at the University of Michigan which
> > > had an article by James Pittman in it. He mentioned
> > > the alphabet competition, and said that Read's
> > > original submission had the voiced-unvoiced distinction,
> > > but the letters were not rotated. They were just raised
> > > or lowered with respect to the baseline. Pittman said
> > > the committee worked quite a bit with Read to make it
> > > fit their criteria. I wish I could remember the name
> > > of that book.
> > >
> > > --Ph. D.
> >
> >
> > That's interesting. I had suspected that because he so readily
> > abandoned this distinction that it had not been his idea to
> > begin with and instead had come from one of the other finalists,
> > but apparently this is not the case. The same letter merely
raised
> > or lowered however would be easily confused, wouldn't it? Or
> > would there have been a mirror-image reversal? Do you happen
> > to recall anything of what the committee's criteria were, or did
> > the article go into that kind of detail? And who might the
> > other finalists have been?
Toggle Shavian
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" wrote:
> Dshepx, another essay for you
OK
> > > - 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.
>
> As I already explained, there is no 'right' and 'wrong' row.
But of course there is. You have not explained anything of the sort.
Why would it not be "right" to have similar items assembled
together for ease of comprehension and "wrong" not to do so,
especially when nothing is lost in so doing, and nothing gained
by refusing?
> > Why wouldn't [Read] have [applied a tall=unvoiced and
> > deep=voiced rule]? 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.
>
> NO. Innocent until proven guilty; 'innocent', i.e. the
> default, is "keep it as it is". You're advocating ALTERATION,
> i.e. 'guilty', i.e. a change from the default. So YOU have to
> prove beyond reasonable doubt that an error was made.
> You still haven't done so, and you won't be able to, because
> there is NO EVIDENCE to support what you're saying.
I think this legal analogy inaccurate. A courtroom confrontation
is a matter of either/or, with winners and losers, and is final;
design — the imposition of rational order, form, in this case of
individual letters and organizational structure, is more often a
question of what, and how much, is always incomplete, and is
never without flaw.
This notion of original intent, ultimate truth, is an approach
more readily associated with, yes, legal, or even biblical
scholarship, but has little to do with arriving at an attractive
solution to a practical problem. The practical problem, or so I
would think, is how best to reach out to a greater number of
people and encourage them to begin using the Shaw alphabet.
The clearer this alphabet can be made to be, the easier it is to
understand and use, the more rational the arrangement of its
parts, the easier this task shall be. I am confident Kingsley Read
would agree.
And as for evidence, the only evidence required is that of the
senses: merely say aloud the word `hang' and analyse the
results.
> > 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 letters; perhaps he
> > 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 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 to be a good thing.
>
> 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.
Well, huff and puff.
I admit no such thing, I do believe it was an accidental error that
occurred somewhere between submission and publication as no
one, I maintain, would deliberately, arbitrarily, pointlessly, for no
reason at all, assign an unvoiced sound to be a deep letter, thus
contradicting, and I would add, compromising, the very structure
that defines the arrangement of consonants in this alphabet. I did
say that this arrangement might not have been his idea to begin
with, that he might have been obliged to compromise with the three
other finalists to produce the Shaw alphabet as it appeared, and that
could have explained why he so readily abandoned it in QuickScript.
But, please see message 227, the voiced/unvoiced distinction as it
turns out was apparently Read's idea, and thus all the more reason
to wonder why he would undermine his own invention. Why devise
such a clever system and then purposely contravene it? Makes no
sense, defies logic, and is just plain silly.
You will contest that, I understand, I do not understand why, but
you will (unless Read magically returns from the grave to explain
himself). And I shall reply that the whole point of deriving an
alternative alphabet is to produce something that can be readily
understood, that can be easily grasped by young (and older) minds
in as speedily and as uncomplicated a fashion as possible, an
ambition that can be but facilitated by insisting upon a construction
that is (here it comes again) as logical and as consistent, as
simple, as explainable, as defensible, as clearly outlineable —
if that is a word — as it can possibly be made to be. Lack of
logic will not, cannot, help (especially some wilful, unsupportable
deviation therefrom). How would you attempt to explain this
contradiction to a group of new readers, whether children or
others? Would they be impressed by, let alone believe, your
insistence that for some reason unbeknownst to man or beast
Master Read wished it so? The young would think it curious and
the old would laugh. You cannot escape or avoid the clear, obvious
fact that 'h' is unvoiced and 'ng' is not, nor can you adequately
explain why apples shouldn't be put with apples, and oranges with
oranges.
> > > - 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.
>
> WHAT?!? Stop press! ANOTHER clerical error! Did these
> printers ever go to school?
Not a clerical error. The 'w' and 'y' were unfortunate choices of the
designer, not the fault of the typographers. I'm sorry if that
shocks you.
> > > 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?
> >
> > 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.
>
> Now you're saying that the actual LETTERFORMS are errors too.
Some of the letter forms are blunders, mistakes, or more gently,
unwise choices — yes. Do you really think w and y, looking as
they do much the same as the forward and backward slashmarks,
could be maintained in their present form if the Shaw alphabet
were to become universal, or merely widely known and used? It is
true that Shaw did not care much for punctuation marks, but this
is a battlethe Shaw alphabet would surely lose; punctuation marks
and other grammatical markers serve a purpose, and useful objects
are not willingly jettisoned. The writing public,teachers,
journalists and the like, are not likely to grant the Shaw community
that favour.
> Any other characters you've got it in for? You're going to
> tell you just can't stand 'tot' next because it looks like
> the number 1.
I can stand it, but the QuickScript 't' was another unfortunate
choice, being indistinguishable from the numeral in handwritten
script. What will happen with QuickScript however, because it is
I think primarily a handwritten script, is that each user can and
will modify any individual letter as much as necessary to ensure
clarity, just as we do with our current handwriting. I am sorry if
my lack of reverence offends you.
> How about 'oak', it's gotta be an error because it's not a
> reflection of another letter, and it could be confused with
> '0'.
It can be, and that is unfortunate, especially as an alternative was
available. The Androcles 'o' is actually slightly pointed upwards,
and somewhat egg-shaped, but that feature has been lost in some
of the fonts. But, it could have followed the pattern set by the other
tense vowels by attaching a short horizontal stroke to the top of the
'o' letter, thus coupling long and short o in a more readily apparent
manner. I'm sure Read considered this alternative, but the power of
convention was probably just too strong in this case.
> What the heck, ALL the letters are duff because they just look
> like chicken scratches!
You will never hear me say so. The only reason I bother with this
mindless argumentation is that I think the Shaw alphabet is really a
handsome creation, I thought I had said so often enough — I think
it beautiful, and therefore worth fighting for. But beauty is not
enough in itself, we could use Arabic letters if that were our only
goal, it also has an internal structure of great clarity, clarity
that could so easily be even greater.
> Shavian really isn't the alphabet for you, is it.
Oh but it is. And worth the passion.
> > > 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 arrangement Read also
> > jettisoned 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.
>
> Now you're saying Read failed to follow the stated brief of
> Shaw's will. Explain, citing verbatim conditions of the will
> which have not been met by the alphabet.
OK. The relevant passage , verbatim, from the introduction to
"The Shaw Alphabet Edition of Androcles and the Lion"
a Penguin Special, number Q29, published 1962:
"Shaw imposed on his trustee the duty of seeking and publishing a
more efficient alphabet of at least forty letters ...
The Public Trustee was also directed to employ a phonetic expert
to transliterate my play 'Androcles and the Lion' into the proposed
British Alphabet assuming the pronunciation to resemble that
recorded of His Majesty our late King George V and sometimes
described as Northern English; to employ an artist or calligrapher
to copy the transliteration for reproduction... "
And in the same introduction: "He (Shaw) was an expert in stage
direction and, so it may be supposed, considered this pronunciation
to be the best basis for comprehension with acceptability in reading
as he had found it to be in spech from the stage."
— (Sir) James Pitman
George V, as can be heard on the admittedly rare recordings of his
public pronouncements, spoke the words 'what, which, when ,
where, why' and the like using the consonant cluster 'hw', not the
simple 'w' of 'wot', which was considered at the time uneducated,
as were all cases of h-dropping, as anyone familiar with Pygmalion
would know. Yes, times and speech have changed, but that was
what Shaw specified. But wait, there's more — in fact, the word
more itself he pronounced in a way that differed from 'morn'.
These two groups of words, the`short/shore' contrasts, have
now coalesced in many and perhaps most people's speech, but
Shaw, a playwright after all, would have known of that tendency
in RP,which was once identified as the speech used in the "better"
schools, then as BBC English, and now in a more democratic age
as the speech of Southern England, and chose not to endorse it,
specifying instead Northern English.
Kingsley Read did not follow these instructions and therefore
did not fulfil the terms of his brief, it's that simple. Instead it
seems that he consulted some source such as the "English
Pronouncing Dictionary", a reference book put together soon
after the beginning of the century by a pioneer in the field, Daniel
Jones. This book I am sure is still in print, in its umpteenth
edition no less, and has always been a popular source for anyone
wishing to know "correct" pronunciation. That is one possible
explanation. But whoever advised him, or wherever Read
gathered his materials, the Shaw alphabet as published faithfully
reflects RP, Received Pronunciation, not the more inclusive English
Shaw had requested. Read's alphabetcan be matched letter for
letter with the RP lists of his day — one telling point was the
omission in Read's alphabet of a special compound letter for the
vowel sound in words such as "poor", which the EPD's
editor at that time or thereabouts, A. C. Gimson, had left out.
Later it was reinstated.
Now, I am sure that you were familiar with the passage quoted
above, and could have assumed I was as well, so this was all a waste
of time. However, I can expect that you shall protest that it was
only from a book, though a book otherwise defended as inerrant.
Probably you shall demand an official court transcription,
affix'd with the Lord Chancellor's seal no less. And then I
shall reply that that is mere hysterics, and then you could
reply..........
Or you could protest that you had in fact heard George V speak, and
heard differently from I, and then I would relate a little something
known about difficulties people have about hearing sounds they do
not themselves use, and then...........
> > 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.
>
> ONE pair? I thought you said 'yea' was an error as well.
There is only one unvoiced/voiced tall/deep deviation, which I
contend was accidental, not intentional. The yea/woe pair, being
both voiced, can only be intentional, and unfortunate, resulting I
suspect from a desire to maintain an equal number of coupled pairs
in the reading key, ten of each. But as the compounds didn't even
out that nicely the tall and deep consonants needn't have either
—
I believe this was a case of forced symmetry. So yes, I think it
was a mistake to put them in that form. Read could have used
mirror-reversed shapes as he did for 'm' and 'n,' and neither one
necessarily had to be tall.
> If you can't grasp it, it's as simple as this: talls and
> deeps are the same phoneme, but unvoiced and voiced
> respectively
Talls and deeps (as coupled in pairs) are not of the same phoneme.
Phonemes are units of meaning, distinguished semantically, not by
manner of articulation.
> - APART FROM yea/woe and hung/haha.
> Yea/woe are both voiced glides, but hung/haha are TOTALLY
> unrelated, besides the fact that they are in complementary
> distribution.
That still doesn't excuse them from not being put in the right place.
The 'h' is a fricative, and therefore, it is reasonable to suggest,
they should be in the same page position as the other unvoiced
fricatives. Is consistency really such a bad thing to strive for?
> The last four talls/deeps are just stuck on the end. They
> don't follow the pattern of 'same consonant phoneme,
> voiced and unvoiced'.
Same consonant phoneme?
> They are just there for CONVENIENCE AND SYMMETRY, i.e. they
> LOOK COOL.
Arbitrariness can sometimes be charming, but is seldom convenient;
swap the keywords and they'll still look cool, not by one whit having
changed appearance.
> > > - 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 to provide an argument why
> > they shouldn't be, a reasonable argument, one based on
> > something other than what Read did or did not do
> > subsequently.
>
> TWO letters? You said a moment ago it was three, maybe four,
> possibly more... (sigh)... HOW MANY LETTERS DO YOU WANT
> TO CHANGE?
These are the two that stand out and can be easily remedied
(we agree about err and air, so they don't count, at least in this
discussion, or perhaps they do — you decide, I don't use them
anyway); w, y, and inverted v could wait for another day and
another font — but it is my guess that a change of these letters
would be forced upon us, like it or not, if the Shaw alphabet ever
achieved anything approaching even moderate popularity, and if
that is so then it wouldn't hurt to take the lead in the matter
beforehand and provide a substitute conceived in the same spirit
as Read's alphabet. At one time we had as a member a skilled
graphic designer, though I think he might have been chased
away, oddly enough in part because of the same debate we are
now having.
> I am of course arguing that the letters STAY in their proper
> places,
But they aren't all in their proper place, isn't that what we are
arguing about?
> > > 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?
>
> Do you SERIOUSLY think, while Read corrected other niggles,
> changed whole letterforms, altered the phonemic makeup of
> Quikscript compared to Shavian, ... he managed to make the
> SAME ERROR with hung as he allegedly did in Shavian?
Yes, obviously. Its still there. And not allegedly, actually.
> Or was it just those retarded printers again... but hang on,
> surely Quikscript wasn't ever printed with typefaces...
Calm down. Merely that mistakes are easier and could be expected
when the material is strange and unfamilar.
> [Theme from Dragnet] Tonight's question, ladies and
> gentlemen: the hung/haha scam - were the typefaces twisted
> and turned, OR [theme from Dragnet again] was it Read's
> reckless wrongdoing?!?!? YOU decide!!
The typefaces themselves are in the right place, the keywords (and
therefore the letters they define) are not. Ergo, an error. Tonight's
question should instead be, why accept, why condone, an easily
remedied error? And Read was not reckless. Mistakes happen even
with the best of intentions.
> > 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.
>
> See, you're already finding 'errors' in Quikscript that are in
> urgent need of 'correction'.
Yes, but hardly urgent. Handwriting in QuickScript will vary just as
it does in our normal handwriting. If anyone wishes to add a little
something to the 't' who's to care?
> I think joining their group would land you in the same
> predicament as you're in here.
And what predicament would that be? That of having
aroused your wrath?
> > > I don't doubt that it makes no sense to those
> > > who believe almost religiously that an error
> > > was in fact made. I think on you're alone that
> > > one.
Clarity and consistency do make sense to me, yes.
> >
> > And those who religiously deny reality?
>
> You took the blue pill, didn't you.
Sorry, don't fathom that.
> I have presented you with FIVE clear cut examples of evidence
> suggesting NO error, citing reference to Androcles, reference
> to Quikscript and reference to adjoining characters in the same
> alphabet.
All you've done and continue to do is deny the obvious.
> All along you have campaigned with a wavering stance on t
> what is to blame (either clerical or designer error),
It really doesn't matter what or who is to blame, that is of no
interest. And I doubt that anyone else would hazard that I have
wavered in my principal complaint — quite the contrary I should
think.
> a constantly changing set of characters
The same ones — ha and hung: errors that can be easily remedied.
The others are unfortunate choices that will require action if and
when the Shaw alphabet ever breaks out into the larger world
beyond the care and maintenance of its current gatekeepers.
> you believe to be errors (hung, haha, yea, yew, woe, whatever
> else) and basically only ONE 'argument': that there happen to
> be 2 out of 10 tall characters that are voiced, regardless of
> whether they were actually designed to be that way or not.
That is my argument, yes. I'm sure everyone is painfully aware of
it. And your argument is that Read wanted, yes, really wanted and
intended the letters ha and hung to be at loggerheads with the rest
of his alphabet. Silly, silly.
> It seems clear to me that you are just not happy with the Shaw
> Alphabet that exists because you believe the vertical
> alignment of characters relative to page lines to be essential
> to comprehension and/or wider acceptance.
Yes I do very much believe character alignment, and placement, and
position, and appearance, and mutual relation, all things visual, to
be very important indeed, as I have tried again and again to make
clear. Beauty and clarity, hand in hand. This is important. The Shaw
alphabet deserves a better future than jealous protection.
> You are welcome to your opinion.
Thank you.
> most people are happy with Esperanto and, surprise surprise,
> aren't bothered about nitpicking points.
I think I can figure that one out. But I've stated the reasons why
I think the Shaw alphabet could and should be made palatable,
useful, and attractive to a greater range and number of people.
It has such promise — those lovely curves, that basic clarity,
and I think it a worthwhile ambition to think so. What do you wish
for? Continuation as a harmless hobby?
> Hugh B
I am sorry, but you are engaged in an uphill battle — you may
fancy yourself to be arguing against me and my wilful disruption
of this group's tranquility, so happy before my intrusion. Or
perhaps against unfounded or wrong-headed ideas — but actually
you are arguing against logic. No matter what evidence you believe
yourself to be putting forth, you cannot escape a plain fact of
inconsistency no matter how hard you try, you may only excuse it.
regards,
dshep