Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Paul wrote: UNIFON is neither fish nor fowl. It doesn't have a sign
for "wh" or the Schwa sound. I guess it would be easier to learn if
already have been exposed to the Roman Alphabet.

Paul,

Unifon has a symbol for schwa (c) and for Wh (W). The second symbol is
not used because it it so rarely needed.

Many preschool children can identify the Roman letter shape with a name.
.menE prEskUl Kildrcn kan IdentifI Dc .rOmcn letcr SAp wiD c nAm. keyboard
Unifon/
MENE PRESKUL KILDR3N KAN IDENTIFI D3 .ROM3N LET3R
simulated display Unifon

/menI prIskul Cildran kan FdentifF Da
keyboard shavian

--Steve

Hi Steve
A side point.
I noticed that all these alternate alphabets rendered on my screen
in Roman letters are vaguely recognisable as English, due to a
sensible Keyboard mapping of upper and lower case characters.

Teaching a child a phonetic spelling is easy for us (Shavians) to
interpret, but I was wondering if any of the commonly used spell-
checkers are phonetically based.
Generally speaking, humans are better at pattern matching than
machines. We occasionally even notice patterns outside of our
programming.
If an ordinary Spell-checker would consistently bring forth the
correct T.O. spelling, from phonetic text, then the question of
whether learning Shavian Spelling first, or Pitman's I.T.A. first
results in you being a poor T.O. speller becomes moot. Even if the
i.t.a. did actually fail to assist in teaching many students how to
spell English in the T.O.

I think spell-checkers are based on more on statistical rather than
Phonetic principles.

Anyone familar with them?

Regards, Paul V.

__________________________attached_________________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Hugh wrote: All I know about the ITA is that it was tried here in
the UK,
> and was deemed a failure.
>
> Hugh: There was a radio interview a few years back with some of
the people w
> ho,
> while growing up, were part of the ITA trial in one or more
British schools.
> They told of horror stories such as permanent damage having been
done to
> their reading ability.
>
> SB: The i/t/a was not a failure. It accelerated code literacy but
it did not
> accelerate traditional literacy. The basic problem was the over
confidence
> of Pitman and the simplified spellers. No attempt was made to
optimize the
> method. Basically all that was done was to transcribe the 5 books
of the most
> popular basal reader. Classes that worked with the transcribed
basal readers
> were compared to classes that used the traditional basal readers.
Most of the
> teachers taught reading the way they had always taught it. The
method of
> instruction was not controlled.
>
> The radio programs are probably still available. I have the
transcript for
> the one that was done on the 40th Anniversary of the i/t/a. I
don't recall
> anyone who claimed that two years reading regularized English
damaged their
> ability to read. A number claimed that it damaged their ability
to spell as adults.
>
> There is no scientific evidence that this was the case. Yes, some
people
> that were exposed to the i/t/a are poor spellers.... but there are
even more poor
> spellers in the group that was not exposed to the i/t/a. This
possibility
> was extensively studied.
>
> This is probably more than you want to know. For even more check
out
> http://www.foolswisdom.com/users/sbett/ita1.htm
>
> One reporter called the i.t.a. a "cleer case of educashunal
lunacie". The
> reporter based her conclusion on the number of people who blame
the i.t.a. for
> their inability to spell English words. Scientific studies
failed to find such
> a connection [Downing, 1973]. Generally those who learned with
the i.t.a.
> became better spellers than those who learned to read and write
via a more
> traditional method but, when taught by the basal reader method,
the advantage was
> not significant . Poor spelling in English is quite common and
cannot yet be
> associated with a particular teaching medium or method . [spell-
test]
> The i.t.a. did fail to teach many students how to spell. However,
more
> students failed to learn how to spell using traditional
approaches. You probably
> can't teach unsystematic spelling systematically. You can,
however, do a better
> job if you at least mention the 4 or 5 most probable ways that
particular
> sounds are spelled in English. The i.t.a. introduced just one.
>
> Hugh wrote: I'm not sure of the ins and outs, but I don't think
any such
> 'transitional'
> alphabet scheme would be accepted again, at least not on this side
of the
> pond. It's a shame really, it could have worked, I'm sure - but
mistakes
> were made - so people won't be easily persuaded to try it again.
>
> Not only could it have worked. Recent studies shows that when the
method of
> instruction is optimized, it works extremely well.... 5 times
better than the
> five most popular phonics programs. (Flynn, 2002).
>
> Another transitional alphabet, Unifon, was found that regularized
spelling
> could be learned by preschool children in 3 weeks and mastered in
3 months.
> Children could read aloud a newspaper transcribed into Unifon and
could write
> almost any word they could pronounce correctly. With Unifon,
children
> transitioned at the end of 3 months instead of after 2 years as
with the i/t/a. By the
> end of the year, 95% of the children were reading traditional
English at a 3rd
> grade level. So the approach can accelerate literacy.
>
> As with most ideology based social experiments, the devil is in
the details
> and if you do a bad implementation when you have the money and
political
> support, you often do not get a second chance.
>
> --Steve

Hi Steve
You are correct there is a Schwa sound in Unifon. I thought the
reversed E represented an "ur" sound. I couldn't find the Wh letter
in the
40 letters in your card. But that is of minor importance. It seems
to be a reasonable set of letters.
I would like to see it include the Rhotic Letters from Shavian, but
that would be inconsistent with its basic design.
It is short and sweet.
Anyway, Shavian has 48 letters, of which I am currently using 45
due to the limitations of my America accent.
The i.t.a. Alphabet has 44, to provide some redundancy with the
currently used Roman Alphabet.
And Unifon has only 40.
I have a prejudice against minimizing the Alphabet. I would like to
ensure that a new Phonetic Alphabet, not only be phonetic, but
logical consistent and ergonomic and look good and provide a concise
final result.
I think the Original Shavian Alphabet, does the best at achieving
a concise final result. It is as good or better as the other 2
proposed Alphabets.

Regards, Paul V.

_______________________attached______________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Paul wrote: UNIFON is neither fish nor fowl. It doesn't have a
sign
> for "wh" or the Schwa sound. I guess it would be easier to learn
if
> already have been exposed to the Roman Alphabet.
>
> Paul,
>
> Unifon has a symbol for schwa (c) and for Wh (W). The second
symbol is
> not used because it it so rarely needed.
>
> Many preschool children can identify the Roman letter shape with a
name.
> .menE prEskUl Kildrcn kan IdentifI Dc .rOmcn letcr SAp wiD c nAm.
keyboard
> Unifon/
> MENE PRESKUL KILDR3N KAN IDENTIFI D3 .ROM3N LET3R
> simulated display Unifon
>
> /menI prIskul Cildran kan FdentifF Da
> keyboard shavian
>
> --Steve

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink" wrote:
>
> Hi Shep

> As far as the numeric digits go, I am sure it would be easy to
> find a recognisable form of the digit 0 and digit 1, that does
> not in any way resemble the letters tot and Oak. For example
> a zero (0) with a dot in the centre and a straight up slash or
> bar for a one. I have to consider this a red herring.
> Regards, Paul V.

Could be. As you point out , a naught with a slash is sometimes used
in serial numbers for example. In Germany, and perhaps other European
countries, a one is written (at least in handwriting) as a two-stroke
figure with a forward-leaning diagonal attached to the head of the
vertical stroke. So, an alternative already exists for the numerals,
and it really doesn't matter which of the two, letters or numerals,
defers to the other to avoid confusion. It is only the widespread use
of the binary code, which will almost certainly not be changed, and
the use of optical text-readers, which argues that it should be the
letters instead that are altered, especially if one is introducing and
encouraging the use of an entirely new alphabet upon the world.

regards,
dshep

George V

The name George V has appeared in these pages
occasionally and some might be amused by a bit
of trivia about the man Bernard Shaw selected as
the model for his alphabet. From "King George V"
an autobiography by Kenneth Rose, Weidenfeld,
1983.

"Remember, Mr Gandhi, I won't have any attacks
on my empire"

"I tell you what, Turner (the famous painter)
was mad, my grandmother (Queen Victoria)
always said so."

On the impressionists: "Here's something to
make you laugh, May (his wife)."

On a proposed state visit to Holland:
"Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and all the other dams!
Damned if I'll do it."

On an unfamiliar hymn book:
"I'll have all the bloody books burned, I'm not
(one of the Sovereign's official titles) Defender
of the Faith for nothing."

Lyoyd George (the prime minister of the time),
whom he indiscreetly termed "blackmailer",
sneered at "my little German friend". (George,
during the First World War, was forced to
change the family name to the more
English-sounding "Windsor')

Also according to Rose, George enjoyed a good
laugh, as when the visiting Greek Queen mistook
a statue of Lady Godiva for Queen Victoria. He also
read Hemingway and the unexpurgated Lady
Chatterly's Lover (which I believe was still banned
at the time). He also exerted pressure upon the
Government in a number of ways that Kings are
no longer expected to do (his son probably,
unwittingly, ending that custom).

(In what was perhaps the saddest of his interventions,
it was) George, not the Cabinet, who rejected asylum
for (his cousin) the Tsar (who was murdered soon after,
along with his family).

And as for Shaw, a member of the Fabian Society, and
a Socialist, if that is not redundant, there were reasons
other than speech for finding George sympathetic; the
King (again from Rose) strongly defended the miners
in the General Strike of the twenties, urging moderation,
an implied rebuke of the young Churchill, then a minister,
and warning the Cabinet about the lowness of
unemployment benefits. He also considered Christian
overseas missions intrusive and futile, deplored the
exclusion of Indians from British clubs, tried to help
conscientious objectors, and foretold his heir ruining
himself within a year of ascending the throne. (Such
attitudes) making him a thorough nuisance (to his
government). Unlike the know-alls, Churchill, Lloyd
George, Shaw(!), he early rated Mussolini "a mad dog."
And unlike his foreign secretary, and his own son, he
was repelled by Hitler.

There was a lighter side as well. George rejected (then
First Lord of the Admiralty Winston) Churchill's
proposal to name a warship after (the great 18th
century Prime Minister William) Pitt on the grounds
that none of my ships should be vulnerable to
"nicknames of ill-conditioned words rhyming with 'it').

dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:

> dshep,
>
> SB: If you are transcribing continuous speech you have to
> worry about sentence stress.
> If you are transcribing segmented overpronounced words,
> you don't.
>
> A phonemic transcription needs only to represent relative
> stress in multi-syllable words. Relative word stress can be
> ignored.
>
> SB: If you are transcribing continuous speech you have to
> worry about sentence stress. If you are transcribing
> segmented overpronounced words, you don't.
 

 
This would be an argument against happy as hap-ee, wouldn't it?
Even if someone gave the final syllable a little extra emphasis, as
dictionaries are now recording, this final sound would still not be
as distinct as that in 'be'.

regards,
dshep

--- 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?
>
> As I recall, Pittman said that the committee wanted each letter to
> be recognizable in isolation. Without a baseline, those letters
> could not be distinguished. I don't recall any other discussion of
> criteria nor mention of the other finalists. The finalists are
> listed in _Androcles_ as Pauline Barrett (Canada), J. F. Magrath,
> S. L. Pugmire, and Kingsley Read.
>
> I'm very busy right now, but if I get some time, I'll try to get
> back to the library and see if I can find that book again.
>
> --Ph. D.

Thank you for the time and information supplied. I'm embarrassed
to discover that the names of the other finalists are in fact listed
in "Androcles", which I hadn't noticed.

Pitman's insistence that each letter be recognizable in isolation
implies that they weren't as yet at the time, and this might have
provided the inspiration for spinning them round, the second
member of each pair, that is. I've always thought this arrangement
brilliant. Someone earlier however pointed out that this complicates
matters for those suffering from dyslexia, but I wouldn't know.

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" wrote:

> dshep
>
> > 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



> Besides the fact that the 'logic' of which you speak is
> dubious at best,

No it isn't. Not everyone would dismiss the value that a logical
order could provide in encouraging others to consider trying the
Shaw alphabet, and persuading them that its structure and
organization is something to take seriously, in short that it is
worth learning and using. Think of the Shaw alphabet more as
a useful instrument than an amusing toy.

> perhaps you missed what we've all been saying.

And no I haven't.

> We don't care.

So?

> The vast majority of people in this group just want
> this endless meddling with the Shaw Alphabet to STOP.

Vast? How can there be anything vast in such a small
group? Besides, the Shaw alphabet can't really be considerd
yours alone to zealously protect against interest and wonder,
is it? Don't you want others to be attracted to this alphabet?
To be curious about it and its inner workings? To use it?

> There have been occasions where valued members have
> grown so tired of the continual resurgence of moans
> like this that they have unsubscribed altogether. This isn't
> going to happen again.

Good. The more the better. I don't want anyone to leave.

> In Bob Schmertz's recent 'hung/haha' poll, where we
> were all asked what our positions were: 10 votes cast,
> 10 votes dead against your argument.
>
> Hugh B

Not exactly, I voted myself for option 3, as did several others.
The important thing is not whether or not an error was made,
but that it should have been the other way round to begin with,
and should be now


  o I feel Read should have made 'hung' tall to begin with.  
YES


regards,
dshep

Lao Tzu Tao Te Ching

verse 33

translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English
Vintage Books (Random House), 1972

Slightly different, again. The books that offer
commentary explain that the phrase about
"staying," expressed in various ways means
something along the lines of accepting one's
fate, except that they never quite put it as directly
as that. This is a sentiment found also in Buddhism,
and it would be interesting to know who influenced
whom.

(usage notes in message 169)

Those of you hoo are not amuzd by all this
and its treasonable methud uv transkription
need nut ov coarse reed it. Do sumthin funner
insted.


nOih uHDz iz wizdam;
nOih Ha self iz enlFtanmant.
mAstDih uHDz rakwFrz fOrs;
mAstDih ta self nIdz strehT.

NI NM nOz NI NAz enuf iz ric.
persaverans iz a sFn ov wilpQr
NI NM stEz Nwer NI is endUrz.
ta dF but not ta periS iz ta
bI atDnali presant.

/dSep

Hi Shep

Let me answer you question on Dylexia.
I happen to be familar with someone with a mild case of Dylexia.
He says (Most people with Dylexia are male by the way) that the
format of the Voiced/Unvoiced pairs does not cause a problem for him.
rotating a letter 270 degrees and lowering creates a distinctly
different letter to his eyes.
Not to say that he doesn't have any problem with the Shavian
Letters. A lot of the Vowel pairs are mirror images of each other.
He especially has trouble with some of the short Letters that are
mirror images. (i.e. mime/nun Ash/Egg/Ado/On Age/Ice)
Insufficient redundancy for him.

Regards, Paul V.

_________________attached_________________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@g...> wrote:
> Thank you for the time and information supplied. I'm embarrassed
> to discover that the names of the other finalists are in fact
listed in "Androcles", which I hadn't noticed.
>
> Pitman's insistence that each letter be recognizable in isolation
> implies that they weren't as yet at the time, and this might have
> provided the inspiration for spinning them round, the second
> member of each pair, that is. I've always thought this arrangement
> brilliant. Someone earlier however pointed out that this
complicates matters for those suffering from dyslexia, but I
wouldn't know.
>
> regards,
> dshep