Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@s...>
wrote:
>
> 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.

In the <w> position is the strange bent W we see in the Unifon chart, and the normal
W shape is in the <W> position. This is the "Wh" letter you're looking for. Personally,
I think these should be reversed. Using the common, simpler letter for the less
common sound, and the newly-invented, more complicated one for the more
common sound is just ridiculous.

>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.

The rhotic letters in Shavian are to be treated as ligatures anyway, so you could
consider it a typographic feature rather than an extra letter. That just doesn't apply
to Unifon because of its style, but it's basically the same idea. Though, despite
Read's intention, I think the importance of these ligatures has increased, and justly
so. I think they're helpful to point out that the ray/roar is part of the vowel, rather
than another consonant. I created an alphabet similar to Unifon that uses R ligatures
for this purpose.

> 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.

Despite how annoying these threads can get, I think this was a reasonable topic for
discussion. But I'm afraid it's degraded to the point that we're arguing about who's
right without considering what they're right about. I'd like to save everyone's sanity
here. Let me review the argument.

There appear to have been two reversals, accidental or not, made in Read's otherwise
flawless alphabet. There's been little dispute over the "air" vs. "err" reversal, and I
personally don't care much either way. When I learned shavian, I didn't associate
either of these with another vowel. I thought it would be more logical to use some
ligature that represents the actual diphthongs that are used here, but then I don't
know how other dialects pronounce these. As far as I can see, this reversal, if there is
one, doesn't really matter. Logic is great, but if it doesn't matter, don't worry about
it. Show me that it matters, and I'll think harder on it.

The hung - ha-ha (or ing-hay according to the ShawScript newsletter) reversal has
been the topic of so many agonizing debates, I'm not sure which side to take
anymore. There's no mistaking the fact that Ing is tall and voiced and Hay is deep
and voiceless, which flatly contradicts the tall-voiceless, deep-voiced system that
Read obviously intended for all the plosives and fricatives. Here's one point: Ing is
neither plosive or fricative. It's a nasal, which would be short if it were to be in line
with the others. These two sounds also aren't related, which is another reason Read
may have reversed them. But these reasons are flimsy, at best. Arguments against
them are like stabbing at wet paper—the wrong wet paper, I might add.

Here's another idea. Suppose Read reversed these to break up the coastlines of
words a bit. Consonant clusters are almost always all tall or all deep, except where
Ing is involved (Hay doesn't appear in clusters). Some of us would like to turn these
letters around just to straighten up these clusters, but the fact is that their more
distinct the way they are. Remember that once we get past the learning stage in
which we have to decode words by their sounds, we begin to recognize their overall
shape, especially the coastline created by tall and deep letters.

Let's also consider the positions where these letters are usually found. Hay is always
alone at the beginning of a syllable. Ing is always found at the end of a syllable, often
in clusters. It may be no coincidence that other deep letters tend to start syllables,
and tall letters tend to start them. This isn't to say that most words start tall and end
deep — I mean in the middle of a word. This is a pattern you may never have noticed
(I didn't at first), but you'll do well to recognize it. Let's look at some sample words,
just to demonstrate.

If I write the word "happy," (I'll spell it /hApi/ for the sake of tradition) you probably
expect it to be broken up as /hAp-i/. If I were to make that /p/ voiced, it might be
more natural to say /hA-bi/ if there were such a word. This happens in other words,
too. An * marks ones that aren't real words to prevent confusion.

*/fit-al/ vs. /fi-dal/ (*fittle vx. fiddle)
/pup-et/ vs. */pu-bet/ (puppet vs. *pubbet)
*/dAt-i/ vs. /dA-di/ (*datty vs. daddy)

And for reference, */a-hOld/ vs. /aN-gOld/ (ahold vs. angold — note that the hard G
will always be pronounced in this position)

Perhaps this has its merits, and perhaps not. The bottom line, I think, is that I have
no idea. It doesn't seem to matter anymore. There are equally good arguments for
both sides. But let's not try to fiddle with Shavian. If there were clerical errors, and
the Shavian that we use is not what Read intended, then let us fix it by all means, but
I don't think there are any. Any mistake must have been made by Read himself,
which also doesn't seem very likely. Actually, I suspect it's more likely a difference of
opinion that a mistake. If we must revise these, let us create our own alphabet,
inspired by Read's work, but not a part of it. As I always say, if you don't like how
things are done, you're free to do them as you please. I do. If your way has merit, it
will catch on. This was Shaw's intention for a new alphabet vs. T.O., and it seems to
be a good idea. I have no problem creating and supporting a new orthography if it's
sound and not forced down people's throats. So, to those who want changes, let's
get to work on that new alphabet. But this is probably not the place for it.

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

Maybe the better question is, how often do you see num834s and 13773rs
mixed together. Because then you have license plates, software license
numbers, etc. I have a 0 in my license plate on my car. Or is it an O?

And in these cases, "spelling it close enough" won't do at all!

Star Raven incurred the wrath of Bob on Dec 22, by saying

>
>Here's my thought on this (from the silence of left field):
>
>h0w 0f73n d0 y0u s33 num834s a5 pa47 0f a w0rd?
>
>--Star
>
>--- dshepx <dshep@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> --- 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.
>>

--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz

Hi Joe
You are introducing an interesting idea with coastlines. Smooth
Coastlines are more recognizable than Jagged coastlines.

I read that competent readers recognise words by and overall image
where the first and last letters, the relative length of word and
the coastline are the most important element of the sight picture.

As you point out, h doesn't form consonant clusters and is almost
invariable the first letter of the word, so it is irrelavent to the
smoothness of the coastline.
Surprizingly, although the Shaw letter "hung" like the other Nasal
letters can form a consonant cluster with either voiced or unvoiced
consonants, it probably forms consonant clusters most often with the
unvoiced consonant "K". So this smooths out coastline of the word.
(i.e. bank, sink, monkey, wrinkle)

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Hung should be really short letter like mime and nun, even if
you don't consider the above argument significant.
I don't know that voiced letters have to be automatically Deep, as
lots of voiced letters are short. But for practical reasons, it make
sense that hung is tall.
_________________________attached___________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <allegrox_2000@y...>
wrote:
>
> Despite how annoying these threads can get, I think this was a
reasonable topic for
> discussion. But I'm afraid it's degraded to the point that we're
arguing about who's
> right without considering what they're right about. I'd like to
save everyone's sanity
> here. Let me review the argument.
>
> There appear to have been two reversals, accidental or not, made
in Read's otherwise
> flawless alphabet. There's been little dispute over the "air"
vs. "err" reversal, and I
> personally don't care much either way. When I learned shavian, I
didn't associate
> either of these with another vowel. I thought it would be more
logical to use some
> ligature that represents the actual diphthongs that are used here,
but then I don't
> know how other dialects pronounce these. As far as I can see,
this reversal, if there is
> one, doesn't really matter. Logic is great, but if it doesn't
matter, don't worry about
> it. Show me that it matters, and I'll think harder on it.
>
> The hung - ha-ha (or ing-hay according to the ShawScript
newsletter) reversal has
> been the topic of so many agonizing debates, I'm not sure which
side to take
> anymore. There's no mistaking the fact that Ing is tall and
voiced and Hay is deep
> and voiceless, which flatly contradicts the tall-voiceless, deep-
voiced system that
> Read obviously intended for all the plosives and fricatives.
Here's one point: Ing is
> neither plosive or fricative. It's a nasal, which would be short
if it were to be in line
> with the others. These two sounds also aren't related, which is
another reason Read
> may have reversed them. But these reasons are flimsy, at best.
Arguments against
> them are like stabbing at wet paper—the wrong wet paper, I might
add.
>
> Here's another idea. Suppose Read reversed these to break up the
coastlines of
> words a bit. Consonant clusters are almost always all tall or all
deep, except where
> Ing is involved (Hay doesn't appear in clusters). Some of us
would like to turn these
> letters around just to straighten up these clusters, but the fact
is that their more
> distinct the way they are. Remember that once we get past the
learning stage in
> which we have to decode words by their sounds, we begin to
recognize their overall
> shape, especially the coastline created by tall and deep letters.
>
> Let's also consider the positions where these letters are usually
found. Hay is always
> alone at the beginning of a syllable. Ing is always found at the
end of a syllable, often
> in clusters. It may be no coincidence that other deep letters
tend to start syllables,
> and tall letters tend to start them. This isn't to say that most
words start tall and end
> deep ?I mean in the middle of a word. This is a pattern you may
never have noticed
> (I didn't at first), but you'll do well to recognize it. Let's
look at some sample words,
> just to demonstrate.
>
> If I write the word "happy," (I'll spell it /hApi/ for the sake of
tradition) you probably
> expect it to be broken up as /hAp-i/. If I were to make that /p/
voiced, it might be
> more natural to say /hA-bi/ if there were such a word. This
happens in other words,
> too. An * marks ones that aren't real words to prevent confusion.
>
> */fit-al/ vs. /fi-dal/ (*fittle vx. fiddle)
> /pup-et/ vs. */pu-bet/ (puppet vs. *pubbet)
> */dAt-i/ vs. /dA-di/ (*datty vs. daddy)
>
> And for reference, */a-hOld/ vs. /aN-gOld/ (ahold vs. angold ?note
that the hard G
> will always be pronounced in this position)
>
> Perhaps this has its merits, and perhaps not. The bottom line, I
think, is that I have
> no idea. It doesn't seem to matter anymore. There are equally
good arguments for
> both sides. But let's not try to fiddle with Shavian. If there
were clerical errors, and
> the Shavian that we use is not what Read intended, then let us fix
it by all means, but
> I don't think there are any. Any mistake must have been made by
Read himself,
> which also doesn't seem very likely. Actually, I suspect it's
more likely a difference of
> opinion that a mistake. If we must revise these, let us create
our own alphabet,
> inspired by Read's work, but not a part of it. As I always say,
if you don't like how
> things are done, you're free to do them as you please. I do. If
your way has merit, it
> will catch on. This was Shaw's intention for a new alphabet vs.
T.O., and it seems to
> be a good idea. I have no problem creating and supporting a new
orthography if it's
> sound and not forced down people's throats. So, to those who want
changes, let's
> get to work on that new alphabet. But this is probably not the
place for it.
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@g...> wrote:
> > > 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

Paul wrote:

> In T.O. they use the # sign or the Abbreviation "no." in

> front of an arbitrary sring of numbers used or a name or address.

> I don't know what conventions we should have for Shavian?



How about “nm.”? Or “nD.”?



Hugh B




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004

Steve



I wasn’t recommending its use as the Shavian font for this discussion group.
I merely put it forward as a font to be used when typing Shavian Unicode,
which isn’t something we’ll have to do often, at least until Unicode support
improves in Windows XP.



Where it comes to a standard “Romanji” font for this group, years ago, we
settled on Ghoti, after using Lionspaw for a long while. Since then, not
much Shavian has been written here at all. Ghoti appears to be the font that
is the easiest to read at all sizes, AND more importantly, it is available
in both PC and Mac formats.



As for the broken link, I think that was Outlook giving it a stupid target
address. Try this: HYPERLINK
"http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/"http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/.



Hugh B



_____

From: stbetta@aol.com [mailto:stbetta@...]
Sent: 22 December 2004 21:15
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [shawalphabet] Preferred font and Unicode Shavian



Hugh,



You have recommended that we use Andagii as the standard in this discussion
group.
However, the link you provided no longer works.



I think we had a poll on member preferences for a group standard.
Lionspaw is no longer my favorite because it is not compact enough.

I prefer a condensed Shavian font. Recommendations?

Hugh B. wrote: Yes you’re able to do it now [use Unicode for Shavian].
Attached to this message is the latest version of my keyboard layout for
Windows XP that allows you to type in Shavian Unicode.

Here’s how to install it:

Before starting, make sure you have a font with Shavian characters at the
correct Unicode points installed – “Andagii” (HYPERLINK
"mip://03555c60/www.alanwood.net/unicode/"www.alanwood.net/unicode/) or
Ethan’s “Shavian ESL Gothic Unicode”. [URL?]






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


HYPERLINK
"http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129ng1t8l/M=324658.5816620.6854924.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705136382:HM/EXP=1103836516/A=2343726/R=0/SIG=12ijnhv15/*http:/clk.a
tdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1103750116358138"
\nHYPERLINK
"http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129ng1t8l/M=324658.5816620.6854924.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705136382:HM/EXP=1103836516/A=2343726/R=1/SIG=12ijnhv15/*http:/clk.a
tdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1103750116358138" \n

HYPERLINK
"http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129ng1t8l/M=324658.5816620.6854924.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705136382:HM/EXP=1103836516/A=2343726/R=1/SIG=12ijnhv15/*http:/clk.a
tdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1103750116358138" \nGet
unlimited calls to

HYPERLINK
"http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129ng1t8l/M=324658.5816620.6854924.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705136382:HM/EXP=1103836516/A=2343726/R=1/SIG=12ijnhv15/*http:/clk.a
tdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1103750116358138"
\nU.S./Canada

HYPERLINK
"http://view.atdmt.com/VON/view/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=11037501
16358138"


HYPERLINK
"http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=324658.5816620.6854924.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2343726/rand=717288673"



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
HYPERLINK
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/s
hawalphabet/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HYPERLINK
"mailto:shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"shawalp
habet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the HYPERLINK
"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Yahoo! Terms of Service.


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.3 - Release Date: 21/12/2004



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 22/12/2004

DSHEP,

I agree that DeMeyere's made some attempt to rationalize his sound symbol
assignments and these can provide some memory hooks or mnemonics. However, it is
not a code that can be read without a key. It is not an attempt to optimize
word recognition.

SAMPA is not optimized either but it is a little better than keyboard Shavian.
SAMPA uses @ for schwa, a choice you seem to prefer.
Webster [www.m-w.com] is one of my favorites but is not entirely unigraphic.
Webster-Latin 1 is a unigraphic version of the above using the International
keyboard.

My choice for a readable rapid phonemic writing/typing system is probably
ENgliS.
ENgliS, like Shavian, has a schwa-a. The ax or ash sound is assigned to q.
and the ah or ox sound is assigned to Q. o is pronounced as in cost. O as
in coat.

"how muC did Dqt fyn kOt cost?" qskd D tQt. ENgliS
"hQ muC did HAt fFn kOt cYst?" Askt H tyt. DeMeyere
"hq muk did Dat fIn kOt cxst?" askt D tot. -- Malone's Unifon

Most people adept in English spelling hate all unigraphic fonts.
They are more familiar with digraphs. ENgliS uses digraphs for diphthongs:
a move that I think is legitimate for a one symbol per sound systems.
Why make owl and oil obscure?: Ql ql in Shavian, ql and Ql in Unifon.


Altho I preferred ENgliS, I did not think it was enough of an improvement
over Unifon to use as the keyboard for a font. When I digitizied the 1935
Goudy SSA font,
I used the Unifon keyboard positions.

I would like to see one unigraphic phonemic keyboard used for all phonemic
writing systems and associated fonts.

Which key assigments make the most sense to the general public
that will be learning the system.

graphic at www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/brontosauras.gif




---------------------
dshep wrote: Trying to make the necessary number of sounds
fit the keyboard is like stuffing square pegs into round holes,

SB: Yes there will always be a few arbitrary assignments but
some keyboards are better than others for those who have already
formed associations.

7 short vowels
a ago SAMPA @, Webster & a looks like an IPA turned e
q ax
e elf
i pin
Q olive not/naut = nQt/not
u up
v - half w - sound in hook

7 long vowels
c - aa - ah Y cr= R
o - awe as in taut
R - urge <Rj> earth turf = Rth tRf
A - ape E
E - eel I
Y - eye F
O - oh O
U - ewe V w= oo [M]

4 diphthongs / combinations pronounced as one syllable
Y - eye /cI/
ow - owl, out /q+w/ or /o+w/
oi - oil oyster /o + i/
U - eu, yu /y + w/





there is always something that looks odd, some arbitrary choice
to be made. One of the lost opportunities in the current system
is not using lower-case (or small) letters consistently for the lax
vowels and upper-case for the tense, but unfortunately there are
not enough of them. My Mac permits diacritic vowels, that could be
used for mapping purposes, as well as Œæ¹ (ash), but I don¹t know
if PCs do. And I think I would prefer @ as schwa, as is frequently
used, and save the Œa¹ for Œat,¹ and so would have something like:

bit, bet, bat, but, box, book, abut;
I, e, a, ^, o, u, @;

beet, bate, bite, bought, boat, boot;
E, A, I, Q, O, U;

bout, balm, boil;
ú, á, ó; or Ú, Á, Ó
DeMeyere's pages about Shavian.

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

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

> > 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
> > (and instigation) 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>


> Hi Shep
>
> Let me answer your 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 (180?)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.


Another disadvantage to having a y-chromosome.
I heard a talk recently by a biologist who stated that,
strictly speaking, men and their chromosomes aren't
really necessary in the grand scheme of things.

The only person I've ever known with dyslexia was a
publisher, but I never had the courage to ask how he
managed to cope with this disadvantage in his chosen
profession. I've never had any problems of that sort
myself, or I would have noticed it long ago, but I think
your friend makes a point when he finds the short
letters potentially confusing. I think they can be as well,
especially with all-short-letter words such as "many",
when one writes swiftly, something it should be possible
to do as the goal of handwriting should be to convey
thought to paper as quickly as the hand can move.

Written too hastily however the 'm' and 'n' can easily
become 'ash' and 'on', which is why I began adding
descendors to these two simply for clarity's sake. This
is not that necessary when using keyboard fonts as they
are always correctly formed, but unfortunately this was
interpreted as yet another perverse attempt on my part
to sabotage the purity and sanctity of the Shaw alphabet.

Some unknown medieval scribe hit upon this idea of
descendors and ascendors to render texts more legible,
as anyone knows who has looked at a page of early
Gospel, all letters the same size, closely crowded together
with no spaces between sentences or even words, texts
that have to be read by moving a finger along each row.

..............
dshep

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

> > 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>
>
> 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
> (180?) 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.

Another disadvantage to having a y-chromosome.
I heard a talk recently by a biologist who stated that,
strictly speaking, men and their chromosomes aren't
really necessary.

The only person I've ever known with dyslexia was a
publisher, but I never had the courage to ask how he
managed to cope with this disadvantage in his chosen
profession. I've never had any problems of that sort
myself, or I would have noticed it long ago, but I think
your friend makes a point when he finds the short
letters potentially confusing. I think they can be as well,
especially with all-short-letter words such as "many",
when one writes swiftly, something it should be possible
to do as the goal of handwriting should be to convey
thought to paper as quickly as the hand can move.

Written too hastily the 'm' and 'n' easily become 'ash'
and 'on', which is why I began adding descendors to these
two simply for clarity's sake. This is not that necessary
when using keyboard fonts as they are always correctly
formed, but unfortunately this was interpreted as yet
another perverse attempt on my part to sabotage the
purity and sanctity of the Shaw alphabet.

Some unknown medieval scribe hit upon this idea of
descendors and ascendors to render texts more legible,
as anyone knows who has looked at a page of early
Gospel, all letters the same size, closely crowded together
with no spaces between sentences or even words, texts
that have to be read by moving a finger along each row.

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

regards,
dshep

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven wrote:

>
> --- dshepx <dshep@g...> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- 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 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, that
> > 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


> Here's my thought on this (from the silence of left field):
>
> h0w 0f73n d0 y0u s33 num834s a5 pa47 0f a w0rd?
>
> --Star

V3r1 g00d. 1n sc1entific art1cles 1t can 0ccur 0ften en0ugh.
I was th1nk1ng ma1nly ab0ut 0pt1cal text-rec0rd1ngs that
aut0mat1cally c0nvert text t0 0ther languages (0r attempt t0).

regards,
dshep