Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, AJT <ajt91910@...> wrote:
>
> I am delighted with the friendly discourse and hope it remains
flameless.
> You (both) make great points and I find it informative.
>
> downtown9
>
> Ð"орогой Ð"руг

Hang on a bit, it could get worse. dshep

--- Star Raven wrote:
>
> 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.


Tell us again why there should be two glaring exceptions to an otherwise
rational arrangement.
jus' wundrin'dshep

On 5 Dec 2011, at 22:06, dshepx wrote:

> --- 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 *am* a force for the good, which is why I favour *stability* for Shavian.

You're welcome.

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

Oh, it's *on* now! Step back guys, the linguists are about to throw down, MLA style!


My learned colleague, I believe another member has already stated in a clear manner about the thought that could have gone into this. Additionally, had there been a "clerical error" where would it have occurred? Why was it not corrected through the many iterations of editing that a book must go through in order to be published? Surely the error would have been spotted in the advanced copy sent to the author for proof-reading. To assume that it is an error is to assume that the author, who painstakingly transliterated Androlocles to begin with was "phoning it in" when the book came back for proofing.

Or, sir, do you suggest that the error was made by the executor who, after combining the work of four "winners" then was not paying attention when the work went to the transliterator? Where would such a LARGE error occur that it would not have been caught?

And of course, no civilized argument is complete without a properly placed "Harrumph!"

Harrumph!
--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: dshepx <david@...>
>To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 5:16 PM
>Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: old problems
>
>
> 
>
>--- Star Raven wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>Tell us again why there should be two glaring exceptions to an otherwise rational arrangement.
>
>
>jus' wundrin'
>dshep 
> 
>
>
>

--- Michael Everson wrote:
>
> On 5 Dec 2011, at 22:06, dshepx wrote:
> _
> > --- Michael Everson replied:
> > > 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 *am* a force for the good, which is why I favour *stability* for
Shavian.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

I'm still sorry to hear you say so. I think growth and greater
acceptancepreferable to stability and stagnation.
Of course, I could be wrong--dshep

--- Star Raven wrote:

> My learned colleague, I believe another member has already stated in a
clear manner about the thought that could have gone into this.
Additionally, had there been a "clerical error" where would it have
occurred? Why was it not corrected through the many iterations of
editing that a book must go through in order to be published? Surely the
error would have been spotted in the advanced copy sent to the author
for proof-reading. To assume that it is an error is to assume that the
author, who painstakingly transliterated Androlocles to begin with was
"phoning it in" when the book came back for proofing.
>
> Or, sir, do you suggest that the error was made by the executor who,
after combining the work of four "winners" then was not paying attention
when the work went to the transliterator? Where would such a LARGE error
occur that it would not have been caught?
>
> And of course, no civilized argument is complete without a properly
placed "Harrumph!"
>
> Harrumph!

Harrumph indeed. You don't really want answers for all that, do
you?dshep

Can we break out the wigs and robes please? PLEASE?

--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@evertype.com>
>To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 5:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Re: old problems
>
>
> 
>On 5 Dec 2011, at 22:06, dshepx wrote:
>
>> --- 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 *am* a force for the good, which is why I favour *stability* for Shavian.
>
>You're welcome.
>
>Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>
>
>
>

--- Star Raven wrote:

> Can we break out the wigs and robes please? PLEASE?

In other words, stop.
Right?dshep

On 5 Dec 2011, at 22:43, Star Raven wrote:

> Can we break out the wigs and robes please? PLEASE?

Off with their heads!

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

--- Michael Everson, perhaps exasperated, wrote:
>
> On 5 Dec 2011, at 22:43, Star Raven moaned:
>
> > Can we break out the wigs and robes please? PLEASE?
>
> Off with their heads!


Excellent!dshep