Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

On 5 Dec 2011, at 22:55, dshepx wrote:

> > Off with their heads!
>
> Excellent!

Well, I do hope to publish Alice in Shavian next year. Though I'd still like to know if anyone is concerned about the fonts I am using.

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

In this case, I think it's only one question. *Where* would the clerical error be made that it was not caught and reviewed before publication.

--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@sheppard.se>
>To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 5:41 PM
>Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: old problems
>
>
> 
>
>--- 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
>
>
>

Clarification, I hope--
---Earlier, I wrote:

> 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. <

This implies that the letters 'j' and 'u' were invented at this
time--well, perhaps 'j' was, I can't remember. It was simply a
lengthening of the stem of the 'i' to avoid the confusion that could
arise where there was an accumulation of short vertical strokes such as
could occur in Latin manuscripts. 'J' was originally just a variant of
'i' and similarly, 'u' was a variant of 'v'. Both sets were positional
varieties, that is, it was not the sound or function of the letter that
determined which variant to use, but its position in the word. Either
letter could be both vowel and consonant. Here is an example:
"Reuiue vs, saue vs from euil, leaue vs not vnto our selues"
which is pronounced as we would today, and spelled
"Revive us, save us from evil, leave us not unto ourselves".
The rule then was if it began a word use the 'v', in the interior use a
'u', regardless of sound. The point I was trying to make was that such
changes can occur though they had to overcome resistance--tradition is
tradition--ifbenefit (clarity--by separating vowel from consonant, ease
of use, etc.) could be obtained. It is a natural process, sometimes
called progress.
dshep

--- Star Raven wonders:
>
> In this case, I think it's only one question. *Where* would the >
clerical error be made that it was not caught and reviewed
> before publication. > --Erin

You seem to be seeking archaeological evidence: where are the
bones?Mishaps occur all the time--in this case perhaps by a copyist
coping with strange letters which had to be done by hand, or by someone
in the print room. That someone manually setting type in an alphabet he
could not read may have transposed a couple of items does notstrike me
as improbable. Considering that there was very little money available
for the publication of 'Androcles', if the proofs were inadvertently set
up incorrectly then the pragmatic thing to do was to change the
guidelines (the printed, descriptive card) rather than the reverse as
would be done otherwise.
The entire first edition of 'Alice in Wonderland' was called back
andscrapped because the illustrator, at the time more famous than the
author, was displeased with the result. His reputation was at stake, so
he reasoned. A few examples were somehow spared, and are now more
valuable than the much improved re-issued edition--such is theway of
collectors. There was no reputation at stake with 'Androcles'however,
nor was there any funds for repair.
In any event, the elephant in the room is the fact that there is
anunexplainable deviation from an otherwise clear system of letter
shapes arranged in a manner to be of considerable pedagogical
usefulness, or so it seems to me: lax vowels of one stroke;
relatedtense vowels of two, both of short stature along with the
othersonorants; consonants tall or deep, respectively unvoiced and
voiced.A clear, easily understood rationale to facilitate the
acquisition of anew alphabet. Why, why indeed, deliberately insert
something that is undeniably at cross-purposes to such a well-defined
system? The arguments in favour of existing oddities are all examples I
think of grasping at straws. If the letters were of random shapes, like
our traditional alphabet, then it wouldn't matter--one would just have
to learn them as we did our original alphabet, but then the Shavian
alphabet would lose one of its two great strengths (the other being its
visual beauty) that distinguish it from all other spelling-reform
alternatives. There are quite a lot of them. None though I believe are
as aesthetically pleasing or even in its not quite optimal form as
well-structured as the Shavian alphabet.
So, while it may well be that seeking a more rational alphabet isfolly,
implementing it hugely difficult, and persisting in the midstof massive
disinterest is quixotic--it is rather fun. There might bea future too,
coupled with the simplified form of World Englishknown as Globish; but
more about that later, I'm sure everyone is thrilled to hear.
ho-ho,dshep

In this case, it would have been an easy fix. "Androcles" was
typeset on a Monotype hot-metal system. The casting
machine contains a mold for each letter in a matrix of rows
and columns. The type is set by an operator on a machine
which punches a paper tape which punches the x and y
coordinates of the molds. Later the paper tape is placed
in the casting machine to create the actual type. Since "hung"
and "ha-ha" are exactly the same width, it would have been
a simple matter to switch the two molds in the caster and
run the paper tape again.

--Ph. D.

dshepx wrote:
> You seem to be seeking archaeological evidence: where are the bones?
> Mishaps occur all the time--in this case perhaps by a copyist coping
> with strange letters which had to be done by hand, or by someone in
> the print room. That someone manually setting type in an alphabet
> he could not read may have transposed a couple of items does not
> strike me as improbable. Considering that there was very little
> money available for the publication of 'Androcles', if the proofs were
> inadvertently set up incorrectly then the pragmatic thing to do was to
> change the guidelines (the printed, descriptive card) rather than the
> reverse as would be done otherwise.
>

BUT there's a problem with this. Even had a clerical error been made, the book doesn't go to print the moment they receive the manuscript. It has to be proofed and signed off on. The "bones" in this case, would be the author's proof copy, which, if it were incorrect, would have been noted. This is something that the translator would have had to look at. Surely someone who had written it out a few hundred times would be familiar enough with it that he would have spotted the reversal on the first page. Taking the publishing industry into account, I can't believe a clerical error of that magnitude could have been made without being caught by someone, somewhere along the pre-publication line.

Alternately, perhaps the error was made during the initial printing of the winning alphabet that was sent to the transliterator. Again, did no one double check this?

--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: Ph. D. <phil@...>
>To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 7:16 AM
>Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Re: old problems
>
>
> 
>In this case, it would have been an easy fix. "Androcles" was
>typeset on a Monotype hot-metal system. The casting
>machine contains a mold for each letter in a matrix of rows
>and columns. The type is set by an operator on a machine
>which punches a paper tape which punches the x and y
>coordinates of the molds. Later the paper tape is placed
>in the casting machine to create the actual type. Since "hung"
>and "ha-ha" are exactly the same width, it would have been
>a simple matter to switch the two molds in the caster and
>run the paper tape again.
>
>--Ph. D.
>
>dshepx wrote:
> 
>>You seem to be seeking archaeological evidence: where are the bones?
>>Mishaps occur all the time--in this case perhaps by a copyist coping 
>>with strange letters which had to be done by hand, or by someone in 
>>the print room. That someone manually setting type in an alphabet 
>>he could not read may have transposed a couple of items does not
>>strike me as improbable. Considering that there was very little 
>>money available for the publication of 'Androcles', if the proofs were 
>>inadvertently set up incorrectly then the pragmatic thing to do was to 
>>change the guidelines (the printed, descriptive card) rather than the 
>>reverse as would be done otherwise.   
>>
>>
>
>
>

I have always (somewhat) lamented our loss of the wigs and robes, which
our English brethren still persist in wearing.

Paige

On 12/5/2011 5:43 PM, Star Raven wrote:
> 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@...>
> *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/
>
>
>
>

Maybe not the wigs, but the robes add some respectability. Of course, I find the House Commons arguments (and resulting cheers and jeers from the other members) absolutely hilarious. If Congress would only work like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-GkrHKcwvo

--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: Paige Gabhart <pgabhart@...>
>To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 11:55 AM
>Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Re: old problems
>
>
> 
>I have always (somewhat) lamented our loss of the wigs and robes, which our English brethren still persist in wearing.
>
>Paige
>
>On 12/5/2011 5:43 PM, Star Raven wrote:
> 
>>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 continues:

> BUT there's a problem with this. Even had a clerical error been made,
the book doesn't go to print the moment they receive the manuscript. It
has to be proofed and signed off on. The "bones" in this case, would be
the author's proof copy, which, if it were incorrect, would have been
noted. This is something that the translator would have had to look at.
Surely someone who had written it out a few hundred times would be
familiar enough with it that he would have spotted the reversal on the
first page. Taking the publishing industry into account, I can't believe
a clerical error of that magnitude could have been made without being
caught by someone, somewhere along the pre-publication line.
>
> Alternately, perhaps the error was made during the initial printing of
the winning alphabet that was sent to the transliterator. Again, did no
one double check this?

You presume that this was a normal publishing venture carried out in the
normal way; it was not. Firstly, Shaw's will was successively challenged
in court with the result that the money intended for this purpose went
to the other beneficiaries. Because James Pitman was an MP he was able
together with an interesting and persuasive person named Barbara Smoker
to wheedle and wrangle a pittance to hold the competition. Then there
was a period of in-decision, infighting, and confusion amongst the
committeeassembled to produce the book, the publisher, and the
court-appointed Public Trustee, resulting in the not-easilydissuaded Ms
Smoker's abrupt departure in disgust. As she had played a key-role,
perhaps more than anyone else in getting the dual-language edition of
'Androcles' started (plans to also publish some of Shaw's other plays
had to be scrapped), Pitman's busy involvement in his political career,
and the removal of the transliterator Peter Mac-Carthy to a university
post in Pakistan, there was reallyno one with ample time to see the
project through and itsuffered thereafter. It is a wonder that it
appeared at all. The small competition prize was divided
amongst the four winners, and it isn't clear that Kingsley Read received
anything additional for preparing his entry for final publi-cation. We
may fairly assume he had a day job that other-wise took up his time.
Hardbound copies were to be distri-buted free to the libraries of the
world and the paperbacks were sold, such as them that were, for 2/6.
There was no money left over for proof-reading, checking, correcting or
any other support activity and the publisher, Penguin, did not volunteer
its services.
So if a mishap occurred, and there is always the possi-bility of
that happening, no one was in a position to main-tain adequate control
and vigilance, or any vigilance at all except in their free time.
So, that hints at what might have happened, and could havehappened--a
mishap, an accident. an oversight somewhere in the process of
publication. Whether it did or not we shall never know. But now I am
going to call down your wrath even further by asserting that it doesn't
really matter. It is a flaw in my in-this-case-less-than humble opinion
that there is an exception to the established, clear, rational order
that distinguishes voiced from unvoiced consonants, whether intentional
or not, and that this flaw is allowed to stand.Why set up a system only
to mock it? Similarly, two of the compounds were transposed, or more
likely I suspect in both cases the identifying keywords were mixed up,
unless the designer had for some odd reason deliberately chosen the
less-likely explanation for their construction. Why would he do that?
There is a test that can perhaps usefully be applied here, a version of
Popper's refutability assertion: assume for a moment that all tall
letters were originally in fact unvoiced, all deep letters voiced;
moreover that all compounds were made up of the simplest and most
obvious way of combining their components. Assume this was the original
condition. Would anyone then object? What would you object about?The
thought would never occur.
Interestingly, some of you will admit (or not deny) the possibility
of the second mishap but not the first. But if one can occur then two
could.
You may now explode,dshep

--- "Ph. D." pointed out:
>
> In this case, it would have been an easy fix. "Androcles" was
> typeset on a Monotype hot-metal system. The casting
> machine contains a mold for each letter in a matrix of rows
> and columns. The type is set by an operator on a machine
> which punches a paper tape which punches the x and y
> coordinates of the molds. Later the paper tape is placed
> in the casting machine to create the actual type. Since "hung"
> and "ha-ha" are exactly the same width, it would have been
> a simple matter to switch the two molds in the caster and
> run the paper tape again.


Oh. I was under the impression it was done the old-fashioned way.Pity
then it wasn't caught and corrected.
thank you,dshep