Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Hugh
It is a big issue, abbreviations in Shavian.
I'd suggest using the Pound sign, # to indicate a string of numeric
digits.

However, if I was going to suggest abbreviations, I'd ensure that
they didn't resemble regular words. Say by removing any vowels that
don't begin the word itself. Ideally a good abbreviation should not
be pronouncable. And if the word is small, say 3 Shaw letters or
less,
it just doesn't make any sense to abbreviate it. Many more words can
be fully written with 3 Shavian letters than by 3 Roman letters.
Here is some examples of proposed Shavian abbreviations.
name -> nEm
numeral/number -> nmD.
address -> Adr.
street -> str.
avenue -> Avn.
appointment -> apn.
appartment -> apR.
abbreviation -> abr.
January -> JnV.
february -> fbr.
March -> mRc
April -> Epr.
May -> ME
June -> JMn
July -> Jl.
August -> Ygs.
September -> spt.
miscellaneous -> msl.
eccetera -> eks. (X)
Mister -> mst.
Mistress -> mstr.
Madam -> mdm.
Spinter -> spn.
Bachelor -> bcl.
Lord - lPd.
King -> kiN.
Baron -> bXn.
Doctor -> dkt.
Professor -> prf.
president -> prs.
prescription -> pDs.
chairman -> cXm.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. I don't see how T.O. can get by with all these 2 letter
abbreviations. Lots of duplication. I think an Shavian abbreviation
should be a minimum of 3 letters, with the exception of the 4
standard abbreviations that come with Shavian. (i.e. H, t, n, v)

P.P.S. The problem of No. as an abbrev. of number is twofold.
The No problem.
And the missing O in number
______________attached_____________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead"
<mixsynth@f...> wrote:
> 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

Sorry Star,
It looks like Bob and I ganged up on you.
Don't try and minimize the importance of numbers.
We are all ex-computer programmers and know which side
our bread is buttered on.
Luckily, because there is no Capital letters in Shavian,
The letter Oak is small enough to avoid being mistaken for a 0.

We don't wish to perpetuate the failures of T.O, to differentate
the symbols of some numbers from the letters of the Roman Alphabet.

Regards, Paul V.
____________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
wrote:
> 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@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 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

But numbers are ARABIC, not roman. Numbers are important, but in common
writing, say, in a novel or in a written work whose main focus is not
numbers, then no, zeros are not going to be mistaken... so neener.

--Star

and a happy/merry christmas!

--- paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:

>
> Sorry Star,
> It looks like Bob and I ganged up on you.
> Don't try and minimize the importance of numbers.
> We are all ex-computer programmers and know which side
> our bread is buttered on.
> Luckily, because there is no Capital letters in Shavian,
> The letter Oak is small enough to avoid being mistaken for a 0.
>
> We don't wish to perpetuate the failures of T.O, to differentate
> the symbols of some numbers from the letters of the Roman Alphabet.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> ____________________________
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
> wrote:
> > 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@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 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
>
>
>
>


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

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@s...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Hugh
> It is a big issue, abbreviations in Shavian.
> I'd suggest using the Pound sign, # to indicate a string of numeric
> digits.

That's probably a good idea since we all know it already, and nobody would be
confused by it. The only problem is with people who don't like to use symbols or
abbreviations, except in a few special cases. But it's probably still our best bet.

> However, if I was going to suggest abbreviations, I'd ensure that
> they didn't resemble regular words. Say by removing any vowels that
> don't begin the word itself. Ideally a good abbreviation should not
> be pronouncable. And if the word is small, say 3 Shaw letters or
> less,
> it just doesn't make any sense to abbreviate it. Many more words can
> be fully written with 3 Shavian letters than by 3 Roman letters.
> Here is some examples of proposed Shavian abbreviations.

Three sounds like a good number to me. That's normally where T.O. stops
abbreviating and just writes words out.

>eccetera -> eks. (X)

The correct word is "etcetera" (Latin et + cetera, "and so forth"). I would abbreviate
this "ets", though the Quikscript manusl says to use "nnn" as in "and-and-and" for
this word.

> Mistress -> mstr.

In most dialects, this usage has generally been replaced by "Misses", which I would
abbreviate "mss". And "mstr" is confusingly similar to "mister". Perhaps "msts" would
be better.

> Spinter -> spn.

I'm not familiar with that word.


> Regards, Paul V.
> P.S. I don't see how T.O. can get by with all these 2 letter
> abbreviations. Lots of duplication. I think an Shavian abbreviation
> should be a minimum of 3 letters, with the exception of the 4
> standard abbreviations that come with Shavian. (i.e. H, t, n, v)
>
> P.P.S. The problem of No. as an abbrev. of number is twofold.
> The No problem.
> And the missing O in number

> >eccetera -> eks. (X)
>
> The correct word is "etcetera" (Latin et + cetera, "and so forth"). I
> would abbreviate
> this "ets", though the Quikscript manusl says to use "nnn" as in "and-and-
> and" for
> this word.

Definitely. In all my Shavian texts I have used "ets". I don't think anyone
would find learning Shavian as easy if all the common abbreviations we use
were to be completely changed too (such as to "nnn") - at least "ets" is
faithful to the original "et cetera".

> > Mistress -> mstr.
>
> In most dialects, this usage has generally been replaced by "Misses",
> which I would
> abbreviate "mss". And "mstr" is confusingly similar to "mister". Perhaps
> "msts" would
> be better.

In all my Shavian texts, I have used simply "mr" and "mrs". Besides the
obvious fact that they're the same as everybody already knows them, no one
would have trouble understanding them, and they're phonetically accurate too
(MasteR, MistResS).

> > Spinter -> spn.
>
> I'm not familiar with that word.

Never heard of it myself. Someone enlighten us.

> > Regards, Paul V.
> > P.S. I don't see how T.O. can get by with all these 2 letter
> > abbreviations. Lots of duplication. I think an Shavian abbreviation
> > should be a minimum of 3 letters, with the exception of the 4
> > standard abbreviations that come with Shavian. (i.e. H, t, n, v)
> >
> > P.P.S. The problem of No. as an abbrev. of number is twofold.
> > The No problem.
> > And the missing O in number

"No." I imagine is from Latin "numero".

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

Carl and Paul,

I [and over 75% of the other voters] voted the same but the poll does not
indicate what our differences might be. The poll is missing some important
response categories.

Clearly /h/ as in hung is not voiced. But this is not sufficient reason to
change its tall-deep classificaiton. You first have to find a statement that
<all> tall characters are voiced.

My solution was to simply partition off the last three pairs.

--Steve

www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/shaw.htm
A different key map is used in the graphic below.
The symbols represent a modified IPA with C,J and y.
y/w and N/h are not included in the generalization
that all talls are unvoiced.
www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/shavian-sample-keyc.htm


Carl: I vote to keep it the same in value.


Paul worte: I think the poll is missing a couple of potential responses. I
myself would like to have the option of saying.

- I don't think it is practical to change the Shavain Alphabet after 45
years. I think that the letter Hung should be a Short letter like the other nasal
letters Mime and Nun.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/surveys?id1650

Hi Star
Except perhaps poetry, most written English writing (prose?) uses a
lot of numbers. English quantifies things a lot more than most
languages. You have this crazy empathsis on the bottom line, that is
taking over our Western civilization.
And there is nothing wrong with Arabic numbers, I am just glad
nobody is arguing we have to go back to Roman Numbers, for
consistency sake.
Arabic Numbers can be found embedded in many languages. It is almost
as ubiquitous as the English Punctuation symbols.

Regards, Paul V.
____________________attached______________________-

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
<celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
> But numbers are ARABIC, not roman. Numbers are important, but in
common
> writing, say, in a novel or in a written work whose main focus is
not
> numbers, then no, zeros are not going to be mistaken... so neener.
>
> --Star
>
> and a happy/merry christmas!
>
> --- paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
I don't wish to perpetuate the failures of the T.O, to differentate
> > the symbols of some numbers from the letters of the Roman
Alphabet.

Hi Hugh

Sorry my Latin is a bit rusty.
In response to your points
1. given that the correct word is "etcetera"
(Latin et + cetera, "and so forth").
I would also would abbreviate
this word as "ets."

I agree with the use of"Misses",
which I would
abbreviate as "msz.".
"Mister", I would
abbreviate "mst".

Oops, forgot the 2d "s" in "Spinster".
I gave an abbrev. for spinster just to provide a P.C. equivalent for
Bachelor.
Surprised, no one recognized "spn."
Bachelor is a very common abbrev. recognizable in almost any
format. For example, both B.A. and A.B. are abbreviations for a
Bachelor of Arts.
"Bachelor", I would abbreviate as "bcl"
It appears to be necessary to have another Abbbrev. to denote a
Master of Arts, or perhaps mst. would suffice for both Master and
Mister. Opinions?

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. My distaste for the abbrev. "no." whether it or not it is Latin
based, is that the "No." is a perfect valid sentence.
No?
Can I tell the difference between the abbreviation and such a
sentence?
No.
_______________________attached_____________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead"
<mixsynth@f...> wrote:
> > >eccetera -> eks. (X)
> >
> > The correct word is "etcetera" (Latin et + cetera, "and so
forth"). I
> > would abbreviate
> > this "ets", though the Quikscript manusl says to use "nnn" as
in "and-and-
> > and" for
> > this word.
>
> Definitely. In all my Shavian texts I have used "ets". I don't
think anyone
> would find learning Shavian as easy if all the common
abbreviations we use
> were to be completely changed too (such as to "nnn") - at
least "ets" is
> faithful to the original "et cetera".
>
> > > Mistress -> mstr.
> >
> > In most dialects, this usage has generally been replaced
by "Misses",
> > which I would
> > abbreviate "mss". And "mstr" is confusingly similar
to "mister". Perhaps
> > "msts" would
> > be better.
>
> In all my Shavian texts, I have used simply "mr" and "mrs".
Besides the
> obvious fact that they're the same as everybody already knows
them, no one
> would have trouble understanding them, and they're phonetically
accurate too
> (MasteR, MistResS).
>
> > > Spinter -> spn.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with that word.
>
> Never heard of it myself. Someone enlighten us.
>
> > > Regards, Paul V.
> > > P.S. I don't see how T.O. can get by with all these 2 letter
> > > abbreviations. Lots of duplication. I think an Shavian
abbreviation
> > > should be a minimum of 3 letters, with the exception of the 4
> > > standard abbreviations that come with Shavian. (i.e. H, t, n,
v)
> > >
> > > P.P.S. The problem of No. as an abbrev. of number is twofold.
> > > The No problem.
> > > And the missing O in number
>
> "No." I imagine is from Latin "numero".
>
> 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

I noticed two things tonight: 1) the officially abandoned "shavian"
Yahoo group is still getting some use, and 2) that the shavian group has
lots of files, while the new, shiny, whiz-bang shawalphabet group has
exactly two files.

The idea is to abandon the "shavian" group, whose moderator is MIA, and
keep the community going at the new place, something which is generally
happening. Eventually, we will presumably get to the point where no one
has posted to shavian for months; what will happen at that point is that
Yahoo will delete all traces of the old group. Obviously, we need to
save many (though probably not all) of the files from the old group.

It would be nice if the original creators of the files could track down
the files they uploaded to "shavian", and copy them to "shawalphabet".
This would, to the greatest extent possible, preserve the proper
attributions. Those who do this might even delete their old files from
from "shavian".

Going on in this vein, I'd recommend setting a 30-day deadline for
original file uploaders to re-post their files, after which other
members of the community who are willing to take responsibility for any
files will finish the process of uploading files that they may deem
valuable to the community and to newcomers.

--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote:
>
> Despite how annoying these threads can get, I think
> this was a reasonable topic for discussion.
.............

> There appear to have been two reversals, accidental
> or not,
.............

> 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.
.............

> 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.
.............
.............

Thank you for your undogmatic manner; even though you
reach the same unsurprising conclusion you do so without
outrage.

There is, I think, a fundamental question that should be asked
by anyone interested in the Shaw alphabet, and that is, what
is the point of this alphabet — what is it for? If it is merely
to be for the exchange of chit-chat among a small group of
devoted followers then any clarity of conception that it may
possess is of little importance, indeed, of none at all. Who is
to care? As has been noted, all one need do is commit to
memory whatever the sound-letter relationship happens to
be, just as one would do for any code, no matter how
consequent or however arbitrarily formed, and all will be fine.
An extended morse code would do almost as well.

If however there is hope or ambition for a greater role for the
Shaw alphabet out among a wider public then a more stringent
attitude should, I boorishly maintain, be taken about the nature
and ability of this alphabet to satisfy the concerns of a much
more sceptical audience. The number of years the alphabet has
remained unsullied by complaint, the prejudices and preferences
of the (vast) number of current users, and the existence of one
out-of-print book will in no way deter future critics, especially
educators (if the Shaw alphabet ever makes it to the schools)
from insisting upon whatever changes are deemed necessary
to ensure ease of instruction and comprehension. Ease of
instruction for the instructors, ready comprehension for the
instructed. And in the furtherance of these related aims, logic
matters; logic matters a great deal, as it is the framework upon
which usage builds and understanding rests.

Would it not be better for this group to take the lead in bringing
this alphabet up to the standards that almost certainly will be
required of it if it is to meet the demands of widespread use,
rather than clinging to the way in which individual members
happened to find it? If there is little interest in taking the Shaw
alphabet beyond its current function I fear its existence as a
curiousity is all but ensured, and a great potential benefit will
be squandered through short-sightedness. I say again, offer the
(English-speaking) world something too attractive to neglect,
too reasonable to avoid, and perhaps, just perhaps, it might catch
on.


This has certainly been a petty dispute, and I personally do not
care who is right or wrong in this or any other issue, or who's
fault any error was — I am interested in this alphabet and its
future. I would like to see it have a future, and parochial
reflexes overcome.


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


> Here's another idea. Suppose Read reversed these
> to break up the coastlines of words a bit.

The coastline idea is intriguing, but to me is too clever by half.
If it were true however I would be much impressed at the
unexpected degree of sophistication this would imply.


> Consonant clusters are almost always all tall or all deep, except
> where Ing is involved

Don't consonant clusters come as a mixed bag?

consonant clusters as prefixes:

with l (tall or deep and short):
bl, kl, fl, gl, pl, sl;

with r (tall or deep and short):
br, kr, dr, fr, gr, pr, tr, (th)r, wr;

with y (tall or deep and tall):
by, ky, dy, fy, hy, ly, my, ny, sy, ty, vy;

with w (tall or deep and deep):
kw, dw, gw, hw, sw, tw;


consonant clusters as suffixes (these do have a tendency to
couple in pairs of similar height, except for the anomaly
ng+k, which is yet another reason for.....oh, never mind):

with l (short and deep or tall)
lb, lk, ld, lf, lm, lp, ls, lt, lz;

with r, or r-substitute (short and deep or tall)
rb, rk, rd, rf, rl, rm, rn, rp, rs, rt, rz;

with k (short or tall and tall)
lk, rk, sk;

with b, maybe (tall or short and deep)
lb, mb, rb;

with p (tall or short and tall)
lp, mp, sp;

with s (tall and tall)
ks, ps, ts, ths;

with t (tall or short and tall)
kt, lt, mt, nt, pt, rt, st;

with z (deep or short and deep)
gz, lz, mz, nz, rz;

I'm sure there are more, and triple clusters besides


> (Hay doesn't appear in clusters).

You ignore the 'hw' (=when) and 'hy' (= hue) clusters, as do
many people today. They still exist however.


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

Couldn't they just as well be fid-el, bub-el, and dad-i?
Just asking.

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

regards,
dshep