Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

On 11/25/11, Philip Newton wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:36, Sergio Pokrovskij

[...]

Thank you, Philip, I've done the corrections according to your advice.

I also sought a Shavian pangram, but found only one:

𐑼𐑱𐑟 𐑝 𐑗𐑬𐑛𐑻-𐑣𐑱𐑑𐑦𐑙 ·𐑚𐑪𐑣𐑦𐑥𐑾𐑯𐑟 𐑓𐑽 𐑢𐑹𐑒,
𐑡𐑧𐑑 𐑑𐑶𐑤 𐑦𐑯 𐑺, 𐑢𐑭𐑑𐑻, 𐑓𐑲𐑮, 𐑯 𐑻𐑔,
𐑷𐑤 𐑓𐑹 𐑩 𐑒𐑳𐑐 𐑝 𐑒𐑪𐑓𐑰 𐑞𐑨𐑑 𐑩 𐑕𐑸𐑡𐑩𐑯𐑑 𐑚𐑮𐑵𐑛,
𐑖𐑫𐑼𐑤𐑦 𐑩 𐑐𐑤𐑧𐑠𐑼 𐑓𐑿 𐑓𐑹𐑜𐑴.

(Arrays of chowder-hating Bohemians fear work, yet toil in air,
water, fire, and earth, all for a cup of coffee that a sergeant
brewed, surely a pleasure few forgo.)

(I changed the transcription of "surely" and "pleasure", which
surprised me in their original spelling.)

Actually I'd prefer something simpler; but I realize that most
pangrams are pretty strange phrases.

In fact, I've just had a look at Wikipedia and found there several
English phonetic pangrams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pangrams#English_phonetic_pangrams

--
Sergio

On 11/27/11, Timothy:

[...]

> Or if the operating system you use is Windows or Linux, there are
> keyboard layouts available in the files section.

Yes, thank you. Yet I am an old Emacser, and I find it more
convenient to use the Emacs methods. Mainly because they are more
intelligent: switching to The Shavian or Russian layout occurs just in
the interesting text area ("buffer"), and leaves the other ones
unchanged (e.g. I can enter the editing commands without switching the
layouts).

Besides, the Emacs methods are more flexible: I can use the familiar
SAMPA notations, and they are automagically combined into Shavian
letters: Ar -> 𐑸, Or -> 𐑹, i@ -> 𐑾, i@r -> 𐑽 etc.

But of course Emacs is not an editor for the faint of heart ... Like
the Shavian script, actually.

The method is available at
http://pok.heliohost.org/emacs/shavian-ucs.el

The explanation is at

http://pok.heliohost.org/en/shavian/shavian.html
http://pok.heliohost.org/en/shavian/shavian.pdf

--
Sergio

Philip comments:
> In my opinion, the use of a shared standard is more valuable than
> having that standard be perfect.

Good point, and it would be, if there was a standard equally acceptable
wherever English is spoken. Is there? Also, thoughperfection is hardly a
realistic goal, correcting those obvious clunkers embarrassing to defend
is not or shouldn't be animpossible ambition.
> Also, having two systems which are very similar but for a few changes>
is more confusing, in my opinion, than having two clearly different
> systems.

Another good point, but as an example I would think of closely similar
systems having to accommodate one another, Shavian tolerates (or will
have to) more than one spelling convention because of different
pronunciations. This may not be an ideal situation but what is the
alternative, as English is a multi-nationallanguage? > Both of those
would speak against reforming Shavian, I think. (Unless
> you can get everyone on board and somehow completely discard the old
> system.)
I think that Shavian, like any other system intended for some purpose,
should be allowed to develop--a process which in myopinion also includes
reform. Not everyone and possibly not anyone will agree I have no
doubt--members of any group are bound to disagree about various aspects
of their common interests--reform being but one of them. We are not
likely toagree about variation either.
as ever,dshep

This is a test of various fonts. Please disregard

UTF-8 encoding

1. 𐑞𐑦𐑕 𐑦𐑟 𐑩 𐑑𐑧𐑕𐑑

2. His iz a test

3. His iz a test

4. His iz a test

5. His iz a test

6. His iz J test

7. Dis iz a test

8. His iz a test

9. His iz a test

I hope nobody would object if I interject.

> > In my opinion, the use of a shared standard is more valuable than
> > having that standard be perfect.
>
> Good point, and it would be, if there was a standard equally
> acceptable wherever English is spoken. Is there? Also, though
> perfection is hardly a realistic goal, correcting those obvious
> clunkers embarrassing to defend is not or shouldn't be an
> impossible ambition.

The issues of a standard pronunciation and a standard alphabet are quite
different.

I don't recall having to defend Shavian on behalf of any 'clunkers' to
anyone outside this group who expressed an interest. The only discussions
have been here, in this group or its predecessor, most of which have been
initiated by the same few individuals.

The situation is that the alphabet as recognised by this group is the
official Shaw Alphabet as detailed in 'Androcles', encoded in Unicode,
documented in academic literature and widely acknowledged by linguists
around the world.

Whether or not one considers characters in Shavian to be 'mistakes' isn't
really the point; to alter any basic phonemic assignations of any
characters for whatever reason is to create a different alphabet and will
require the creation and proliferation of a different standard.

Personally, bearing in mind the already niche status of Shavian, I prefer
the integrity of a single, recognised standard alphabet over going to the
effort of abandoning it and starting all over again just to swap a couple
of characters around.

Those who think differently are free to do so and create their own new
alphabet. The first step, I suggest, is to give it a name.

Kind regards,
Hugh

re: old problems



> I hope nobody would object if I interject.

Of course not. I know that my musings can annoy and perhaps annoy you especially but remember that this is a subject matter to be explored and enjoyed.



> The issues of a standard pronunciation and a standard alphabet
> are quite different.

In what way? Actually this is one of the more important objections raised against phonetic and phonemic alphabets—that they do not readily allow a variety of speech forms, dialects, accents etc. whereas the traditional alphabet does. (Some may consider this desirable.) Even a phonemic alphabet (at least this one) is based within certain bounds upon pronunciation, and suffers if there is not broad agreement (or at least flexibility) as to what (approximate) sound or group of sounds are meant to be represented. Whether or not this is thought regrettable depends upon what one thinks desirable—my standard may not be yours.

Some time ago during a period of enforced idleness I (re)discovered the archives of our original group (thank you Lionel!) and while skimming through it could not help but notice how often Americans questioned 1) when if ever to use the letter for an unstressed vowel and 2) the need for a 'short-o'. To this of course could be added the 'short-a' vs 'broad-a' of certain words, but perhaps as this latter is a well-known difference it occasioned no surprise, as did the former two. So, how does one spell, or how should one spell in Shavian—that is, is there to be a standard spelling within a standard alphabet for 1) murmur, 2) stop, and 3) path, for example? The answers depend upon where one lives and one's standard of pronunciation, and the (standard) alphabet used represents a slightly different spectrum depending upon its continent of use.



> I don't recall having to defend Shavian on behalf of any
> 'clunkers' to anyone outside this group...

I do. Usually, whenever I have attempted to interest linguistically knowledgable people in the merits of the Shavian alphabet they require only a few minutes to point out the discrepancies—that is, those unacquanted with this alphabet. Those who were responded by immediately reminding me of them, as well as other difficulties. The reasons often given in this group for why the situation is as it is frequently produces amusement. This is unfortunate I think as they could be Shavian's greatest allies if they could be persuaded of its usefulness.



> The only discussions have been here, in this group or its
> predecessor, most of which have been initiated by the same few > individuals.

Oui, c'est moi! But I only do it once a year so you should be able to put up with that.



> The situation is that the alphabet as recognised by this group is
> the official Shaw Alphabet...

Uh-oh! An 'Official' Alphabet? Established under whose authority? Yours? Even its creator Kingsly Read felt no such restraints.



> ... and widely acknowledged by linguists around the world.

In my experience I would substitute 'ignored' for 'acknowledged'.



> Whether or not one considers characters in Shavian to be
> 'mistakes' isn't really the point; to alter any basic phoneme
> assignations of any characters for whatever reason is to create
> a different alphabet and will require the creation and
> proliferation of a different standard.

A modified alphabet. A couple of simple swaps do not seem to me to be a major disruption. Why this is a source of such dismay mystifies me.



> Personally, bearing in mind the already niche status of
> Shavian, I prefer the integrity of a single, recognised standard
> alphabet over going to the effort of abandoning it and starting
> all over again just to swap a couple of characters around.

Because it is unfortunately a niche interest it would be therefore easy to adapt, to reform, to alter—no need to abandon anything and begin anew. There will be no outraged letters to editors.



> Those who think diffferently are free to do so and create their
> own new alphabet. The first step, I suggest, is to give it a new
> name.

At some time during the middle ages it was found expedient to begin to differentiate orthographically between vocalic and consonantal [i], giving us the letter [j]; later the same was done for vocalic and consonantal [v] giving us the letter [u]. Two simple alterations, not uniformly welcomed at the time of their introduction as they departed from established tradition, but which did not result in an alphabetical upheaval nor change of name. Just the same old alphabet with a couple of changes.


as ever,
dshep

I am also not interested in attempts to reform Shavian. (Quickscript extensions notwithstanding.) Shavian is what it is.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

I am delighted with the friendly discourse and hope it remains flameless. You (both) make great points and I find it informative.

downtown9


Дорогой Друг


On Dec 5, 2011, at 12:28 PM, dsh wrote:

>
>
> re: old problems
>
>
>
> > I hope nobody would object if I interject.
>
> Of course not. I know that my musings can annoy and perhaps annoy you especially but remember that this is a subject matter to be explored and enjoyed.
>
>
>
> > The issues of a standard pronunciation and a standard alphabet
> > are quite different.
>
> In what way? Actually this is one of the more important objections raised against phonetic and phonemic alphabets—that they do not readily allow a variety of speech forms, dialects, accents etc. whereas the traditional alphabet does. (Some may consider this desirable.) Even a phonemic alphabet (at least this one) is based within certain bounds upon pronunciation, and suffers if there is not broad agreement (or at least flexibility) as to what (approximate) sound or group of sounds are meant to be represented. Whether or not this is thought regrettable depends upon what one thinks desirable—my standard may not be yours.
>
> Some time ago during a period of enforced idleness I (re)discovered the archives of our original group (thank you Lionel!) and while skimming through it could not help but notice how often Americans questioned 1) when if ever to use the letter for an unstressed vowel and 2) the need for a 'short-o'. To this of course could be added the 'short-a' vs 'broad-a' of certain words, but perhaps as this latter is a well-known difference it occasioned no surprise, as did the former two. So, how does one spell, or how should one spell in Shavian—that is, is there to be a standard spelling within a standard alphabet for 1) murmur, 2) stop, and 3) path, for example? The answers depend upon where one lives and one's standard of pronunciation, and the (standard) alphabet used represents a slightly different spectrum depending upon its continent of use.
>
>
>
> > I don't recall having to defend Shavian on behalf of any
> > 'clunkers' to anyone outside this group...
>
> I do. Usually, whenever I have attempted to interest linguistically knowledgable people in the merits of the Shavian alphabet they require only a few minutes to point out the discrepancies—that is, those unacquanted with this alphabet. Those who were responded by immediately reminding me of them, as well as other difficulties. The reasons often given in this group for why the situation is as it is frequently produces amusement. This is unfortunate I think as they could be Shavian's greatest allies if they could be persuaded of its usefulness.
>
>
>
> > The only discussions have been here, in this group or its
> > predecessor, most of which have been initiated by the same few > individuals.
>
> Oui, c'est moi! But I only do it once a year so you should be able to put up with that.
>
>
>
> > The situation is that the alphabet as recognised by this group is
> > the official Shaw Alphabet...
>
> Uh-oh! An 'Official' Alphabet? Established under whose authority? Yours? Even its creator Kingsly Read felt no such restraints.
>
>
>
> > ... and widely acknowledged by linguists around the world.
>
> In my experience I would substitute 'ignored' for 'acknowledged'.
>
>
>
> > Whether or not one considers characters in Shavian to be
> > 'mistakes' isn't really the point; to alter any basic phoneme
> > assignations of any characters for whatever reason is to create
> > a different alphabet and will require the creation and
> > proliferation of a different standard.
>
> A modified alphabet. A couple of simple swaps do not seem to me to be a major disruption. Why this is a source of such dismay mystifies me.
>
>
>
> > Personally, bearing in mind the already niche status of
> > Shavian, I prefer the integrity of a single, recognised standard
> > alphabet over going to the effort of abandoning it and starting
> > all over again just to swap a couple of characters around.
>
> Because it is unfortunately a niche interest it would be therefore easy to adapt, to reform, to alter—no need to abandon anything and begin anew. There will be no outraged letters to editors.
>
>
>
> > Those who think diffferently are free to do so and create their
> > own new alphabet. The first step, I suggest, is to give it a new
> > name.
>
> At some time during the middle ages it was found expedient to begin to differentiate orthographically between vocalic and consonantal [i], giving us the letter [j]; later the same was done for vocalic and consonantal [v] giving us the letter [u]. Two simple alterations, not uniformly welcomed at the time of their introduction as they departed from established tradition, but which did not result in an alphabetical upheaval nor change of name. Just the same old alphabet with a couple of changes.
>
>
> as ever,
> dshep
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have been relatively quiet on this, but I have to agree with Michael on this note. I discovered Shavian in high school from a little blurb in my English book, and to have someone come across it and then find out that it's changed might not be the best choice. Previous descriptions have been highly accurate with my belief that Ha and Hung do not match the voice/voiceless pairing, therefore their seeming reversal is not out of place to me.

--Erin

 
==========
Stare long enough at the frog, eventually, the frog stares back at you, and then it gets bored and stares at something else.


>________________________________
> From: Michael Everson <everson@...>
>To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 3:39 PM
>Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] old problems
>
>
> 
>I am also not interested in attempts to reform Shavian. (Quickscript extensions notwithstanding.) Shavian is what it is.
>
>Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>
>
>
>

--- Michael Everson wrote:


> I am also not interested in attempts to reform Shavian. (Quickscript
extensions notwithstanding.) Shavian is what it is.


I'm sorry to hear you say so. You could be a force for the good. I think
the greater problem for the Shavian Alphabet is that it remains an
oddball interest for, well, enthusiasts, when the potential exists (or
so I believe) for it to play a useful role in a world of many Englishes,
perhaps especially in the third-world. In order to play that useful
role--to even be considered for such a task--it will (or so I suspect)
have to be rendered as direct andunderstandable as possible. Clarity and
simplicity are the hall-marks of good design.
I can tell now that you won't, but I hope that you might, reconsider--
dshep