Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Arc
Shaw Blue is colloquial term for an off-shoot or revised version of
the Original Shavian Alphabet. It incorporated support for a number of rarely used English sounds, that are not differentiated in the original form of the Shaw Alphabet. For example, wh, ll (vowel form of l), iu (ew dipthong). It ensured that every letter, could be classified as exclusively representing, either a vowel or a consonant sound.
It never became popular.
regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Arc Riley <arcriley@...> wrote:
>
> The namer dot (·) is very much in unicode, just not part of the shavian
> block, and is used every existing translation I've found. It should only be
> used for proper nouns, not at the start of a sentence.
>
> If you want more experience reading shavian download a free copy of Battle
> for Wesnoth (http://www.wesnoth.org/) which has been mostly translated.
> Always looking for volunteers to help with that effort.
>
> I have never heard of either the "Shaw Red" or "Shaw Blue" alphabets, nor
> has Google. Perhaps you're confusing the shaw alphabet with Pokemon?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:26 PM, rob_wheel12 <rob_wheel12@...> wrote:
>
> > Hello! I'm new on the Yahoo! ShawAlphabet Group. As I compared Shaw's and
> > Read's original Shaw Red with the new Shaw Blue alphabets, I noticed this:
> > To capitalize a word (like the 1st one in a sentence) or proper names, you
> > must place a raised *namer* character (a high dot in Shaw Red, an asterisk
> > in Shaw Blue). Characters currently encoded within the Shavian block only
> > go from U+10450 to U+1047F (a total of 48 characters); there's currently no
> > provisions for either namer signs nor for additional Shaw Blue characters!!
> > This situation MUST be rectified!
> >
> > The Shaw Blue (Revised) System has a bunch of brand-new characters for
> > sounds not provided for within the Original Shaw Red System; besides, the
> > forms for a few of the letters differ from those in Shaw Red (Ex.: <p> and
> > <b> have loops in Shaw Blue, but don't in Shaw Red). Alsoâ€"the word *and*
> > (also the sign <&>) is a slash-crossed Shaw Blue <n> (letter *nash*), while
> > *of* has a dot beside the Shaw Blue <v> (letter *vav*); *the* is written as
> > <dh> (*dhawn*), and *to* (the preposition) with <t> (*tawf*).
> >
> > If nothing is forthcoming as proposals go for a reserved subblock (U+1F570
> > - U+1F5CF), then let's utilize that (orâ€"at leastâ€"a good portion of it) to
> > house the additional Shaw Blue characters.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

QicRyt's Phonemicity





The biege fox story is contrived to use all of the phonemes of spoken English.


Dans fiu lyt & qic beiz su foxs wr jmpq loq in d er o'vr iik tin litl


dog, bt nt wid c’losl ru'm. Go luc hir nw at mi, tancfl wen i zwt


in’f, 4 de, d sly critrs, joi’sli foild u 'gin.
 


SB:  This is my transliteration into Saaspel. 

Would you convert QR into Sayspel in order to make reading it easier?



A few words are a little easier to read as word signs than in QR.  A few aren't.

fox and dog were supposed to be contrastive in GA they are fa:ks and daug. 

In UK English, fQx and dQg are not contrastive.  The vowel is pronounced the same in both words.  .

 

SaySpel


Danz fyu liit nd qic baajh zuu fokz wur jumping long in th er/air

oovr eech ttin litl dog, but not with colosl ruum.

Go luc hir nau at me, thancfl wen i shaut


inuf, fr thaa, th slii critrz, joiusli foild yu agaan.

fokz is not quite phonemic:  /' foks@z/   faaksiz

It is not phonemic in QicRyt either but Gus does not claim that QR
altho if it were written fox's it would be closer.  It would be a problem if QR sometimes
used the schwapostrophe for  possessive punctuation.


SB:  Gus has an analysis of this transcription.  Roy has never commented on it.
 



Truespel  http://www.truespel.com/en/



Danz fyue liet and kwik baezh zue faaksiz wer jumpeeng laung in thu air oever eech thhin litool daug, but naat withh kullaasool ruem.

Goe look heer nou at mee, thhaenkfool wen Ie shout

innuf, fer thae thu slie kriterz, joiyislee foild yue uggen.


Truespel is every easy to pronounce for those familiar with general american pronunciation.  Some words might be hard to read as word-signs. 
Spellings tend to be lengthy  thhaenkfool  vs. tankfl vs. thhankfl


IPA (there is more than one version of IPA for English)
This one has no upper case but the period is sufficient.

dænz fju laɪt ænd kwɪk beʒ zu fɑksəz wər dʒəmpɪŋ lɒŋ ɪn ðə ɛr ovər itʃ θɪn lɪtəl dɒg, bət nɑt wɪθ kəlɑsəl rum. go lʊk hɪr naw æt mi, θæŋkfəl wɛn aj ʃawt ə'nəf, fɔr ðe, ðə slaj krɪtərz, ʤɔɪəsli fɔjld ju əgɛn.




--Steve





The following modifies a like saundspel message sent 11/23/10:
QicRyt's Phonemicity



According to the SAMPA listing for American English, there are 17

vowel and 24 consonant sounds used by its speakers, totaling 41

sounds.

However, this listing contains duplications in 3 of its

consonant indications (such as tS), therefore making it accurate as to

indicating basic sounds for just 21 consonants instead of the 24

shown.

SB:  What if IPA had chosen c or ch to represent this phoneme?


It also duplicates 4 of the vowels and has individual one

letter symbols for diphthongs even tho each of these consists of 2

basic sounds. Doing this duplication results in 10 too many vowels and

3 too many consonants being indicated in the listing for it to reflect

only GA English’s basic sounds. There are really only 7 such basic

vowel sounds used in GA English: ah (as o in pot or a in part and pa),

a (as in pat), e (as in pet), i (as in pit), o (as in port), u (as in

put), uh (as u in putt).

The 21 basic consonant sounds are (with an a

suffix): ba, ca, da, dha, fa, ga, ha, la, ma, na, pa, ra, sa, sha, ta,

tha, va, wa, ya, za, zha.

These vowels and consonants then total 28

basic sounds. However, even these few (compared with SAMPA’s 41 for

them) can be reduced still further to just 24 by replacing the dh by

d, th by t, z by s and zh by sh, to reflect the future discarding of

their sounds by all of English’s speakers, done already by millions of

them in the American New York City area, and for most of those sounds

by almost all of the other many hundreds of millions of speakers of

English’s fellow Indo-European languages who have done likewise

centuries ago, and who, with others, are growing percentage-wise far

more than double the existing native speakers of English in the use of

the English language itself, as can be seen in the following

statistics: 250 million native speakers of English in 1960 and only 60

million non-native full-time users then compared to 330 million

natives now to 370 non-natives, and 375 million natives in 2040 to 725

million non-natives then.

SB:  I don't think this is a strong argument for using d for /D/. 
Aren't you trying to convince those who make a /D/ /d/ distinction to
use this convention?



The existing replacement of the letter z,

reflecting the above z sound, by the letter s in over 90% of the words

where the sound is used in English, already confirms the

reasonableness of the replacement. Doing this 'reduction' should

enable the remaining 24 sounds to be theorectically entirely

accommodated by English’s standard alphabet’s 26 letters (a, b, c, d,

e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z)


together with the actual or implied apostrophe (‘) available too, the

latter now so used (in it'd) or implied (in prism) for one of the

sounds (uh) in the contractions of many English words seen in TS.

However, this accommodation would be highly unlikely, as can be seen

from the following 14 (a, c, e, g, i, j, o, q, s, u, w, x, y, z)


letters which duplicate or reflect more than one of the above sounds

when spelled so in TS, leaving only 12 letters and the apostrophe (b,

d, f, h, k, l, m, n, p, r, t, v, ‘) with just one sound each there –

if we wish to continue to somewhat resemble TS for the benefit of its

adepts now controlling English's spelling.



The 7 English vowel sounds above are also supplemented by a number of

the mentioned diphthongs, each considered to be made up of 2 of those

basic vowel sounds. These latter combine their existing single letter

identities in QicRyt to become digraphs in indicating their diphthong

sound status, except for certain instances when desired otherwise for

simplicity in use or similarity to TS, and where context is sufficient

to indicate the correct pronunciation. These diphthongs are spelled as

follows in QicRyt: ei (as in TS’s veil, but just as e at word ends as

in cafe); ii (instead of TS’s ee as in its bee, but just i at word

ends as in taxi); oi (as in oil); ow (as in owl and as w in hw for TS

how); o’ is used to differentiate no't (TS note) from not and nt (TS's

knot and not or nut), and is spelled just as o at word ends as in go,

with the o sound in the mentioned TS's word port only used here before

the letter r, while the letter o when used elsewhere, unaccompanied by

another vowel, is pronounced as an ah sound; u' with just u used at

word ends as in flu and for yu when initial as in us for TS's use

(TS's ooze spelled as 'us), iu is used for further sound clarity in

defining words (like TS's fuel, fool and full to be thereby QicRyt

fiul, fu'l and ful); i only when alone or initial before a vowel sound

(as in i'r for TS's ire) and y otherwise (as in try) when not used as

a consonant, both used accordingly for ai as in TS’s aisle (QicRyt's

yl).



To make use of the remaining otherwise unused consonant letters of the

alphabet, the following of the above letters, reflecting more than one

sound each in TS, are restricted in QicRyt to the following sounds: c

having only the sound now in critic and g the same as to gag. The

letter j however has the joint sounds of d and zh as dzh (as already

used in TS), also k has the sounds of t and sh as tsh (replacing the

ch digraph generally used in TS for that sound combination). The

letter q has the cw sound as in qic for TS's quick only when used

initially in a word root (then similar to TS's use), but here it is

also used as part of the ing sounds as in goiq for TS's going when

after a vowel with i added too, tho spelled just q as in putq for both

i and ng (ing) in TS's putting when after a consonant not a basic

word, as TS's fling (fliq). The letter s has two sounds as in the

words is and us for current native speakers in TS usage, while the

letter z has here now also two sounds: sh as heard by the s in TS's

sure and zh as by the z in TS's azure, both letters (s and z) now

considered in Qicryt to be composed of just one sound each per the

above 'reduction' reason given, as are the former voiced dh and

voiceless th sounds (both now using the same undefined th spelling in

TS, similar to the above current use of s), now replaced by the d and

t sounds and letters respectively. The letter x has three sounds (the

first two also as TS's), with those of ecs and igs determined by

whether it is followed by a consonant (for the former) or vowel (for

the latter), and cz (axn for TS's action). The letters w and y have

already been discussed for their vowel sounds, but are used also for

their consonant sounds when they're at the beginnings of word roots or

syllables followed by spelled or implied vowels as for w: in wet or as

wr for TS's were, and for y: in yes or as yr for TS's your.



In determining QicRyt’s phonemicity, its ability to represent

English’s sounds by the use of single letters, we find that over half

of the alphabet's standard 26 letters, as used by QicRyt now per the

above 'reduction', is considered to have just one basic sound each

when used in any position with other letters to form words. These are

the following 15 letters: b, c, d, f, g, h, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, z,

most of which were mentioned above already in connection with TS's

resemblance. The schwapostrophe: ‘, shown or implied, is also

considered a letter here too with just one such sound, thereby making

the total to be actually 16 letters/symbols having just one sound

each. The other letters for the 8 remaining basic sounds of the only

24 (per the above 'reduction') now considered used by English, are

more than sufficiently handled by their positions in a word and the

above mentioned other letters, these entirely rule based as to the

individual sounds they're to be used for (with j, k, q and x even

really unneeded there, being merely useful in enhancing QicRyt's

brevity). The following letters have just two determinable sound

possibilities each within words: a, e, j, k, w and y, while i, o, q, u

and x have three such possibilities each, as defined above. As all of

their sounds and usages can be readily determined if their identities

are written per the rules, each of these 11 letters are therefore

valued here the same as each of the previous 16, with the result that

all writing done in QicRyt should be able to be readily understood by

just using only the bare 26 letters of the alphabet and the apostrophe

(totalling 27 symbols), with no special diacritics or capitalization

needed. As all of English's 24 basic sounds (tho more when diphthongs

are included as individual sounds as done by SAMPA) are able to be

determined strictly by their letters and positions held in a word, and

their stressed points indicated by their vowel letters capitalized

after the first syllable, if desired, QicRyt can be thus considered

totally (100%) phonemic!!



However, the four letters: d, s, t, z, might be considered somewhat

ambiguous at times to some, especially to those current native TS

adepts now unwilling to go along with the previously stated

'reduction' of the four consonant sound usages mentioned earlier (felt

here nevertheless to be justifiably established). For these, the

phonemicity would be considered here as being less than the above 100%

- to therefore be as low as: 24/28 = 85.7 or 86% (thereby giving no

value at all to any of the 4 letters), tho thus still being slightly

better than the 85% reputed for Spanish, or, if given 50% credit for

their close similarity in sound and appearance, thereby actually

limiting misunderstanding, they could instead be valued at: 26/28 =

92.9 or 93%, hence much better than Spanish and more than double the

low 45% phonemicity now held by TS.!!



Along with keeping fairly close to TS in its spelling, QicRyt also has

extraordinary brevity to attempt to make it worthwhile enough to get

TS adepts to consider it for the reform of TS. The following 22

letters/numerals/symbols: a, b, d, i, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, u, v, y, 1,

2, 3, 4, 8, 9, &, w/o, also represent actual words, with their sounds

used to create other words, such as b = be and 4 = four or for, with

b4 = before, as an example of such use..



The following paragraphs, containing all of English’s sounds, show

what can be done when using QicRyt:



In Traditional Spelling (TS):


Dan’s few light and quick beige zoo foxes were jumping long in the air

over each thin little dog, but not with colossal room. Go look here

now at me, thankful when I shout enough, for they, the sly critters,

joyously foiled you again.


Total letters: 183

Affinity to TS = 100%, Brevity = 00%, Clarity = 45% in phonemicity.



In QicRyt (QR):

Dans fiu lyt & qic beiz su foxs wr jmpq loq in d er o'vr iik tin litl

dog, bt nt wid c’losl ru'm. Go luc hir nw at mi, tancfl wen i zwt

in’f, 4 de, d sly critrs, joi’sli foild u 'gin.

Words that might be confusing at first:
1.. bays   baish  beizh  beige
2. sue ... zu ... zoo     s = /s/ or /z/
3. ick, itch, ... each    k = ch only
3.. tin ... thin                   t = /t/ or /T/ th
4. why not rum or ruum?  This looks like rue-um
5. tank full ... thankful
6. zwut? shwt?  zwt doesn't look much like shout.



ANALYSIS:  TS letters: 99, Total letters: 132


Affinity to TS = 75%, Brevity = 28%, Clarity = 100%, 93% or 86% in

phonemicity (actual percentage depending on attitude taken).



Gus

SB:  This is my transliteration into Saaspel. 
Would you convert QR into Sayspel in order to make reading it easier?

A few words are a little easier to read as word signs than in QR.  A few aren't.
fox and dog were supposed to be contrastive in GA they are fa:ks and daug. 
In UK English, fQx and dQg are not contrastive.  The vowel is pronounced the same in both words.  .
 
SaySpel
Dan'z fyu liit nd qic baazh zu foksuz wur jumping long in th er/air
oovr eech thhin litl dog, but not with culosl ruum.
Go luc hir nau at me, thancfl wen  shaut


inuf, fr thaa, th slii critrz, joiusli foild yu again.


ROY:  Nō
uthr speling riform [proposal] haz risēvd sō much jenyūin aprūvl [as Sayspel] in ritn or spōcn
form, within nd withaut th SSS, posibli dyūring th hōl histri ov English
!




SB:  Roy does
not provide a number but there are only 100 members of the Spelling
Society and perhaps 1000 outside who have commented on SaySpel. 



Gus argues that millions of SMS users who use briefer spellings in text count as giving QicRyt approval.



About 5000 read Pitman's Phonetic Journal and generally approved of the notation,  so Roy's claim may be slightly exaggerated. 



In recent times, however, more people have probably been exposed to
Saaspel than any other notation except for Pitman's ITA in the 1960's.


Truespel  http://www.truespel.com/en/

Danz fyue liet and kwik baezh zue faaksiz wer jumpeeng laung in thu air oever eech thhin litool daug, but naat withh kullaasool ruem.

Goe look heer nou at mee, thhaenkfool wen Ie shout

innuf, fer thae thu slie kriterz, joiyislee foild yue uggen.



The graphic is supposed to be an analogy of twisted English.

The 36 Sounds of
NBC-English

Alt. transcriptions of  Beautiful
PrincessWàns àpon
à taim thè biutifùl dotèr òv à
greit màjiciàn wontèd mor pèrlz tu pùt àmòng
hèr trezhèrz.  "Lwk thru thè sentèr
òv thè mun hwen ìt ìz blu." sed hèr
mòthèr ìn ansèr tu hèr queschàn, 
"Yu mait faind yur hartz dezair."

Whatever those were, neither my brain nor my computer could make heads or tails
of the "Beige fox" story you used below. The worst part about trying to use
English letters to "Spell out" the words, you end up with what is usually
unpronounceable. Is "liet" "Light" or "Leet"? What's Slii? Sly, or slee?

--Star

==========
"You don't need a hero to succeed in the field, you need a team."
--Michael Weston, Burn Notice


>
>From: Steve Bett <stbett@...>
>To: spelling reform <spellingreform@egroups.com>; ssscm <ssscm@egroups.com>;
>sound spell <saundspel@yahoogroups.com>; Shaw Alphabet
><shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com>
>Cc: english euro <euro-english@yahoogroups.com>; Saaspel@...
>Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 2:22:09 PM
>Subject: [shawalphabet] QicRyt's Phonemicity
>
>
>QicRyt's Phonemicity
>
>The biege fox story is contrived to use all of the phonemes of spoken English.
>Dans fiu lyt & qic beiz su foxs wr jmpq loq in d er o'vr iik tin litl
>dog, bt nt wid c’losl ru'm. Go luc hir nw at mi, tancfl wen i zwt
>in’f, 4 de, d sly critrs, joi’sli foild u 'gin.
>
>SB: This is my transliteration into Saaspel.
>Would you convert QR into Sayspel in order to make reading it easier?
>
>A few words are a little easier to read as word signs than in QR. A few
aren't.
>fox and dog were supposed to be contrastive in GA they are fa:ks and daug.
>In UK English, fQx and dQg are not contrastive. The vowel is pronounced the
>same in both words. .
>
>SaySpel
>
>Danz fyu liit nd qic baajh zuu fokz wur jumping long in th er/air
>oovr eech ttin litl dog, but not with colosl ruum.
>Go luc hir nau at me, thancfl wen i shaut
>inuf, fr thaa, th slii critrz, joiusli foild yu agaan.
>
>fokz is not quite phonemic: /' foks@z/ faaksiz
>It is not phonemic in QicRyt either but Gus does not claim that QR
>altho if it were written fox's it would be closer. It would be a problem if QR
>sometimes
>used the schwapostrophe for possessive punctuation.
>
>SB: Gus has an analysis of this transcription. Roy has never commented on it.
>
>
>Truespel http://www.truespel.com/en/
>
>Danz
>fyuelietandkwikbaezhzuefaaksizwerjumpeenglaunginthuairoevereechthhinlitooldaug,
>butnaatwithhkullaasoolruem.
>
>Goelookheernouatmee, thhaenkfoolwenIeshout
>innuf, ferthaethusliekriterz, joiyisleefoildyueuggen.
>
>Truespel is every easy to pronounce for those familiar with general american
>pronunciation. Some words might be hard to read as word-signs.
>
>Spellings tend to be lengthy thhaenkfool vs. tankfl vs. thhankfl
>
>
>IPA (there is more than one version of IPA for English)
>This one has no upper case but the period is sufficient.
>
>dænzfju laɪt ænd kwɪk beʒ zu fɑksəz wər dʒəmpɪŋ lɒŋ ɪn ðə ɛr ovər
>itʃ θɪn lɪtəl dɒg, bət nɑt wɪθ kəlɑsəl rum. go lʊk hɪr naw æt mi,
>θæŋkfəl wɛn aj ʃawt ə'nəf, fɔr ðe, ðə slaj krɪtərz, ʤɔɪəsli fɔjld ju
>əgɛn.
>
>
>
>--Steve
>
>
>
>The following modifies a like saundspel message sent 11/23/10:
>QicRyt's Phonemicity
>
>According to the SAMPA listing for American English, there are 17
>vowel and 24 consonant sounds used by its speakers, totaling 41
>sounds.
>
>However, this listing contains duplications in 3 of its
>consonant indications (such as tS), therefore making it accurate as to
>indicating basic sounds for just 21 consonants instead of the 24
>shown.
>
>SB: What if IPA had chosen c or ch to represent this phoneme?
>
>
>It also duplicates 4 of the vowels and has individual one
>letter symbols for diphthongs even tho each of these consists of 2
>basic sounds. Doing this duplication results in 10 too many vowels and
>3 too many consonants being indicated in the listing for it to reflect
>only GA English’s basic sounds. There are really only 7 such basic
>vowel sounds used in GA English: ah (as o in pot or a in part and pa),
>a (as in pat), e (as in pet), i (as in pit), o (as in port), u (as in
>put), uh (as u in putt).
>
>The 21 basic consonant sounds are (with an a
>suffix): ba, ca, da, dha, fa, ga, ha, la, ma, na, pa, ra, sa, sha, ta,
>tha, va, wa, ya, za, zha.
>
>These vowels and consonants then total 28
>basic sounds. However, even these few (compared with SAMPA’s 41 for
>them) can be reduced still further to just 24 by replacing the dh by
>d, th by t, z by s and zh by sh, to reflect the future discarding of
>their sounds by all of English’s speakers, done already by millions of
>them in the American New York City area, and for most of those sounds
>by almost all of the other many hundreds of millions of speakers of
>English’s fellow Indo-European languages who have done likewise
>centuries ago, and who, with others, are growing percentage-wise far
>more than double the existing native speakers of English in the use of
>the English language itself, as can be seen in the following
>statistics: 250 million native speakers of English in 1960 and only 60
>million non-native full-time users then compared to 330 million
>natives now to 370 non-natives, and 375 million natives in 2040 to 725
>million non-natives then.
>
>SB: I don't think this is a strong argument for using d for /D/.
>Aren't you trying to convince those who make a /D/ /d/ distinction to
>use this convention?
>
>
>
>The existing replacement of the letter z,
>reflecting the above z sound, by the letter s in over 90% of the words
>where the sound is used in English, already confirms the
>reasonableness of the replacement. Doing this 'reduction' should
>enable the remaining 24 sounds to be theorectically entirely
>accommodated by English’s standard alphabet’s 26 letters (a, b, c, d,
>e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z)
>
>together with the actual or implied apostrophe (‘) available too, the
>latter now so used (in it'd) or implied (in prism) for one of the
>sounds (uh) in the contractions of many English words seen in TS.
>However, this accommodation would be highly unlikely, as can be seen
>from the following 14 (a, c, e, g, i, j, o, q, s, u, w, x, y, z)
>
>letters which duplicate or reflect more than one of the above sounds
>when spelled so in TS, leaving only 12 letters and the apostrophe (b,
>d, f, h, k, l, m, n, p, r, t, v, ‘) with just one sound each there –
>if we wish to continue to somewhat resemble TS for the benefit of its
>adepts now controlling English's spelling.
>
>The 7 English vowel sounds above are also supplemented by a number of
>the mentioned diphthongs, each considered to be made up of 2 of those
>basic vowel sounds. These latter combine their existing single letter
>identities in QicRyt to become digraphs in indicating their diphthong
>sound status, except for certain instances when desired otherwise for
>simplicity in use or similarity to TS, and where context is sufficient
>to indicate the correct pronunciation. These diphthongs are spelled as
>follows in QicRyt: ei (as in TS’s veil, but just as e at word ends as
>in cafe); ii (instead of TS’s ee as in its bee, but just i at word
>ends as in taxi); oi (as in oil); ow (as in owl and as w in hw for TS
>how); o’ is used to differentiate no't (TS note) from not and nt (TS's
>knot and not or nut), and is spelled just as o at word ends as in go,
>with the o sound in the mentioned TS's word port only used here before
>the letter r, while the letter o when used elsewhere, unaccompanied by
>another vowel, is pronounced as an ah sound; u' with just u used at
>word ends as in flu and for yu when initial as in us for TS's use
>(TS's ooze spelled as 'us), iu is used for further sound clarity in
>defining words (like TS's fuel, fool and full to be thereby QicRyt
>fiul, fu'l and ful); i only when alone or initial before a vowel sound
>(as in i'r for TS's ire) and y otherwise (as in try) when not used as
>a consonant, both used accordingly for ai as in TS’s aisle (QicRyt's
>yl).
>
>To make use of the remaining otherwise unused consonant letters of the
>alphabet, the following of the above letters, reflecting more than one
>sound each in TS, are restricted in QicRyt to the following sounds: c
>having only the sound now in critic and g the same as to gag. The
>letter j however has the joint sounds of d and zh as dzh (as already
>used in TS), also k has the sounds of t and sh as tsh (replacing the
>ch digraph generally used in TS for that sound combination). The
>letter q has the cw sound as in qic for TS's quick only when used
>initially in a word root (then similar to TS's use), but here it is
>also used as part of the ing sounds as in goiq for TS's going when
>after a vowel with i added too, tho spelled just q as in putq for both
>i and ng (ing) in TS's putting when after a consonant not a basic
>word, as TS's fling (fliq). The letter s has two sounds as in the
>words is and us for current native speakers in TS usage, while the
>letter z has here now also two sounds: sh as heard by the s in TS's
>sure and zh as by the z in TS's azure, both letters (s and z) now
>considered in Qicryt to be composed of just one sound each per the
>above 'reduction' reason given, as are the former voiced dh and
>voiceless th sounds (both now using the same undefined th spelling in
>TS, similar to the above current use of s), now replaced by the d and
>t sounds and letters respectively. The letter x has three sounds (the
>first two also as TS's), with those of ecs and igs determined by
>whether it is followed by a consonant (for the former) or vowel (for
>the latter), and cz (axn for TS's action). The letters w and y have
>already been discussed for their vowel sounds, but are used also for
>their consonant sounds when they're at the beginnings of word roots or
>syllables followed by spelled or implied vowels as for w: in wet or as
>wr for TS's were, and for y: in yes or as yr for TS's your.
>
>In determining QicRyt’s phonemicity, its ability to represent
>English’s sounds by the use of single letters, we find that over half
>of the alphabet's standard 26 letters, as used by QicRyt now per the
>above 'reduction', is considered to have just one basic sound each
>when used in any position with other letters to form words. These are
>the following 15 letters: b, c, d, f, g, h, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, z,
>most of which were mentioned above already in connection with TS's
>resemblance. The schwapostrophe: ‘, shown or implied, is also
>considered a letter here too with just one such sound, thereby making
>the total to be actually 16 letters/symbols having just one sound
>each. The other letters for the 8 remaining basic sounds of the only
>24 (per the above 'reduction') now considered used by English, are
>more than sufficiently handled by their positions in a word and the
>above mentioned other letters, these entirely rule based as to the
>individual sounds they're to be used for (with j, k, q and x even
>really unneeded there, being merely useful in enhancing QicRyt's
>brevity). The following letters have just two determinable sound
>possibilities each within words: a, e, j, k, w and y, while i, o, q, u
>and x have three such possibilities each, as defined above. As all of
>their sounds and usages can be readily determined if their identities
>are written per the rules, each of these 11 letters are therefore
>valued here the same as each of the previous 16, with the result that
>all writing done in QicRyt should be able to be readily understood by
>just using only the bare 26 letters of the alphabet and the apostrophe
>(totalling 27 symbols), with no special diacritics or capitalization
>needed. As all of English's 24 basic sounds (tho more when diphthongs
>are included as individual sounds as done by SAMPA) are able to be
>determined strictly by their letters and positions held in a word, and
>their stressed points indicated by their vowel letters capitalized
>after the first syllable, if desired, QicRyt can be thus considered
>totally (100%) phonemic!!
>
>However, the four letters: d, s, t, z, might be considered somewhat
>ambiguous at times to some, especially to those current native TS
>adepts now unwilling to go along with the previously stated
>'reduction' of the four consonant sound usages mentioned earlier (felt
>here nevertheless to be justifiably established). For these, the
>phonemicity would be considered here as being less than the above 100%
>- to therefore be as low as: 24/28 = 85.7 or 86% (thereby giving no
>value at all to any of the 4 letters), tho thus still being slightly
>better than the 85% reputed for Spanish, or, if given 50% credit for
>their close similarity in sound and appearance, thereby actually
>limiting misunderstanding, they could instead be valued at: 26/28 =
>92.9 or 93%, hence much better than Spanish and more than double the
>low 45% phonemicity now held by TS.!!
>
>Along with keeping fairly close to TS in its spelling, QicRyt also has
>extraordinary brevity to attempt to make it worthwhile enough to get
>TS adepts to consider it for the reform of TS. The following 22
>letters/numerals/symbols: a, b, d, i, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, u, v, y, 1,
>2, 3, 4, 8, 9, &, w/o, also represent actual words, with their sounds
>used to create other words, such as b = be and 4 = four or for, with
>b4 = before, as an example of such use..
>
>The following paragraphs, containing all of English’s sounds, show
>what can be done when using QicRyt:
>
>In Traditional Spelling (TS):
>
>Dan’s few light and quick beige zoo foxes were jumping long in the air
>over each thin little dog, but not with colossal room. Go look here
>now at me, thankful when I shout enough, for they, the sly critters,
>joyously foiled you again.
>
>Total letters: 183
>Affinity to TS = 100%, Brevity = 00%, Clarity = 45% in phonemicity.
>
>In QicRyt (QR):
>Dans fiu lyt & qic beiz su foxs wr jmpq loq in d er o'vr iik tin litl
>dog, bt nt wid c’losl ru'm. Go luc hir nw at mi, tancfl wen i zwt
>in’f, 4 de, d sly critrs, joi’sli foild u 'gin.
>
>Words that might be confusing at first:
>1.. bays baish beizh beige
>2. sue ... zu ... zoo s = /s/ or /z/
>3. ick, itch, ... each k = ch only
>3.. tin... thin t = /t/ or /T/ th
>4. why not rum or ruum? This looks like rue-um
>5. tank full ... thankful
>6. zwut? shwt? zwt doesn't look much like shout.
>
>
>ANALYSIS: TS letters: 99, Total letters: 132
>
>Affinity to TS = 75%, Brevity = 28%, Clarity = 100%, 93% or 86% in
>phonemicity (actual percentage depending on attitude taken).
>
>Gus
>
>SB: This is my transliteration into Saaspel.
>Would you convert QR into Sayspel in order to make reading it easier?
>
>A few words are a little easier to read as word signs than in QR. A few
aren't.
>fox and dog were supposed to be contrastive in GA they are fa:ks and daug.
>In UK English, fQx and dQg are not contrastive. The vowel is pronounced the
>same in both words. .
>
>SaySpel
>Dan'z fyu liit nd qic baazh zu foksuz wur jumping long in th er/air
>oovr eech thhin litl dog, but not with culosl ruum.
>Go luc hir nau at me, thancfl wen shaut
>inuf, fr thaa, th slii critrz, joiusli foild yu again.
>
>ROY: Nō uthr speling riform [proposal] haz risēvd sō much jenyūin aprūvl [as
>Sayspel] in ritn or spōcn form, within nd withaut th SSS, posibli dyūring th
>hōl histri ov English !
>
>
>SB: Roy does not provide a number but there are only 100 members of the
>Spelling Society and perhaps 1000 outside who have commented on SaySpel.
>
>
>Gus argues that millions of SMS users who use briefer spellings in text count as
>giving QicRyt approval.
>
>About 5000 read Pitman's Phonetic Journal and generally approved of the
>notation, so Roy's claim may be slightly exaggerated.
>
>
>In recent times, however, more people have probably been exposed to Saaspel
>than any other notation except for Pitman's ITA in the 1960's.
>
>
>Truespel http://www.truespel.com/en/
>
>Danz
>fyuelietandkwikbaezhzuefaaksizwerjumpeenglaunginthuairoevereechthhinlitooldaug,
>butnaatwithhkullaasoolruem.
>
>Goelookheernouatmee, thhaenkfoolwenIeshout
>innuf, ferthaethusliekriterz, joiyisleefoildyueuggen.
>
>
>The graphic is supposed to be an analogy of twisted English.
>
>The 36 Sounds of NBC-English
>
>Alt. transcriptions of Beautiful PrincessWàns àpon à taim thè
>biutifùl dotèr òv à greit màjiciàn wontèd mor pèrlz tu pùt àmòng hèr trezhèrz.
>"Lwk thru thè sentèr òv thè mun hwen ìt ìz blu." sed hèr mòthèr ìn ansèr tu hèr
>queschàn, "Yu mait faind yur hartz dezair."
>
>
>
>

What anyone attracted to the Shaw Alphabet must contend with -- amused dismissal:

http://www.historytimes.com/history-books/book-serialisations/this-little-britain/183-shaws-potato

dshep

Does anyone out there know of a free online dictionary which shows Australian pronunciations, preferably one which doesn't use IPA? There's a project that I'd like to work on which is set in Australia and I want to make sure that I get the pronunciation correct. Thanks in advance for any info.

Going through past messages, I came across people wanting to publish Alice In Wonderland, Dracula and a 50th Anniversary version of Androcles in the new alphabet. Just last month, I finished hand transliterating various works of Poe for exactly that reason. It was definitely a baptism of fire and blood, this one. If I'd known that I'd also have to translisterate French, Spanish, German, Italian, Latin and Ancient Greek when I first started it, I definitely would have chosen a different author. I guess the question now is, who will be published first? The race is on! :-)

My approach is a little different, and I'm backing off from my claim of Dracula. However, my theory is this, a sort of primer for switching from TO to Shavian, in the case of a longer work, Dracula worked well due to chapter length, less well due to general set up, but you use the first 20 chapters (sections/what have you) and introduce one pair at a time. Say, starting with p/b, replacing the p sounds and b sounds in each word with the shavian letter to get the brain used to reading it. Then as the reader has more and more pieces introduced, they become more and more fluent. By the end of the book, it is entirely in Shavian with no TO. Of course, a longer word like: Interstellar or Alcatraz may look like a bit of a crazy jumble at first, but it's teaching the brain to see a new letter in place of the old one. In the cases of the small words, they would be introduced with their main letter, and the Namer Dot would be used right off the bat with a little
explanation, of course. I'm still, though not as actively as I'm working on another project right now, perusing looking for a book with good length chapters that I can use for my project. I don't really have hopes of publishing per se unless it's a PoD, but Perhaps eventually...

I'll browse around a bit tonight to see if I find a book I like better for set-up.
Think ol' Litigious J.K Rowling would ever let us do HP?
--Star

 
==========
"You don't need a hero to succeed in the field, you need a team."
--Michael Weston, Burn Notice


>________________________________
>From: rubik67 <rubik67@...>
>To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2011 3:24 PM
>Subject: [shawalphabet] Sounds like the race is on!
>
>
> 
>Going through past messages, I came across people wanting to publish Alice In Wonderland, Dracula and a 50th Anniversary version of Androcles in the new alphabet. Just last month, I finished hand transliterating various works of Poe for exactly that reason. It was definitely a baptism of fire and blood, this one. If I'd known that I'd also have to translisterate French, Spanish, German, Italian, Latin and Ancient Greek when I first started it, I definitely would have chosen a different author. I guess the question now is, who will be published first? The race is on! :-)
>
>
>
>
>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@> wrote:

> I don't really have hopes of publishing per se unless it's a PoD,
> but Perhaps eventually...

I looked into that, but the downsides appear to outweigh the benefits, such as a massive cash outlay up front, lack of respect POD among agents and mainstream publishers (general thoughts: "This is the only way you could get it published? Must be crap, then."), lack of editing unless you pay through the nose for it, lack of bookstore presence (same general attitude as agents and publishers), lack of promotion etc.

> I'll browse around a bit tonight to see if I find a book I like better for set-up.
> Think ol' Litigious J.K Rowling would ever let us do HP?
> --Star

As far as I know, it's not up to her, but Warner Brothers whom she sold the rights to, for the books as well as the movies.

I will encourage you to do the PoD. In my opinion the market for this will
be small, and either way, PoD is the way of the future in my mind. There are
still people deriding Wikipedia and internet in general as an unreliable
source of information. But I can tell you with confidence that not since
high school have I even looked at a print encyclopedia. And I'm not buying
my children a set.

All that said, the publishing industry holds that view described because
there business model is threatened, just like music and iTunes, and you see
how that worked out.

But some real advice now, how well did the original Androcles sell? Use that
as your gauge for if PoD is appropriate.

--Mitch

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:01 AM, rubik67 <rubik67@...m> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't really have hopes of publishing per se unless it's a PoD,
> > but Perhaps eventually...
>
> I looked into that, but the downsides appear to outweigh the benefits, such
> as a massive cash outlay up front, lack of respect POD among agents and
> mainstream publishers (general thoughts: "This is the only way you could get
> it published? Must be crap, then."), lack of editing unless you pay through
> the nose for it, lack of bookstore presence (same general attitude as agents
> and publishers), lack of promotion etc.
>
>
> > I'll browse around a bit tonight to see if I find a book I like better
> for set-up.
> > Think ol' Litigious J.K Rowling would ever let us do HP?
> > --Star
>
> As far as I know, it's not up to her, but Warner Brothers whom she sold the
> rights to, for the books as well as the movies.
>
>
>

Not to mention that not all have large deposits. Lulu or Cafe Press have none at all, and then there's kindle, nook, and other ereaders which have taken off in recent years, and it costs nothing to "pod" for them since it's all digital. Our market WILL be small, consisting of a few enthusiasts. Remember that I joined this group ten years ago after seeing the text in my senior english book.

In other news, I don't have to sell my work on a primer. It's done in my spare time and would help, as they say, "grow the brand."

Currently, I'm thinking about Treasure Island. I hate treasure island, but then, it's easier for a populus to read than one of favorites, Mostly because I love ol french swashbucklers like Dumas.

--Star



Sent from my Palm Pre on AT&T
On Apr 10, 2011 8:33 AM, Mitch "Narmical" Morris <Narmical@...> wrote:


 










I will encourage you to do the PoD. In my opinion the market for this will be small, and either way, PoD is the way of the future in my mind. There are still people deriding Wikipedia and internet in general as an unreliable source of information. But I can tell you with confidence that not since high school have I even looked at a print encyclopedia. And I'm not buying my children a set.


All that said, the publishing&nbsp;industry holds that view described because there business&nbsp;model is threatened, just like music and iTunes, and you see how that worked out.
But some real advice now, how well did the original&nbsp;Androcles sell? Use that as your gauge for if PoD is appropriate.


--Mitch

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:01 AM, rubik67 <rubik67@...> wrote:

















 














--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@> wrote:



> I don't really have hopes of publishing per se unless it's a PoD,

> but Perhaps eventually...



I looked into that, but the downsides appear to outweigh the benefits, such as a massive cash outlay up front, lack of respect POD among agents and mainstream publishers (general thoughts: "This is the only way you could get it published? Must be crap, then."), lack of editing unless you pay through the nose for it, lack of bookstore presence (same general attitude as agents and publishers), lack of promotion etc.





> I'll browse around a bit tonight to see if I find a book I like better for set-up.

> Think ol' Litigious J.K Rowling would ever let us do HP?

> --Star



As far as I know, it's not up to her, but Warner Brothers whom she sold the rights to, for the books as well as the movies.