Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

On 20 Apr 2013, at 09:16, Jean-François Colson <jf@...> wrote:

> Why couldn’t there be
>
> 10450 𐑐 SHAVIAN LETTER PEEP
> ⁓ 10450 FE00 Shavian style
> ⁓ 10450 FE01 QuikScript style
> ⁓ 10450 FE02 QuikScript style, full form
> ⁓ 10450 FE03 QuikScript style, half form

Because EVERY QS text would be stuffed with invisible control characters.

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

Le 20/04/13 11:01, Michael Everson a écrit :
> On 20 Apr 2013, at 09:16, Jean-François Colson <jf@...> wrote:
>
>> Why couldn’t there be
>>
>> 10450 𐑐 SHAVIAN LETTER PEEP
>> ⁓ 10450 FE00 Shavian style
>> ⁓ 10450 FE01 QuikScript style
>> ⁓ 10450 FE02 QuikScript style, full form
>> ⁓ 10450 FE03 QuikScript style, half form
> Because EVERY QS text would be stuffed with invisible control characters.
No. Only if the writer wishes to use them. And if Shavian and QS were
unified, that would be the only way to distinguish them in some cases.
Unicode says 0023 FE0E should be used for the text style of #, although
I have always used 0023 alone.
Those VS would be optional, they would be ignored by the fonts which
don’t support them, and having them clearly described in the standard
would prevent separate font makers from using them inconsistently.

The evolution of words for zero--

"𐑦𐑑 𐑦𐑟 𐑕𐑧𐑛 𐑞𐑨𐑑 𐑷𐑤 ·𐑒𐑱𐑥𐑚𐑮𐑦𐑡 𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑤𐑩𐑮𐑟

𐑒𐑷𐑤 𐑞𐑩 𐑕𐑲𐑓𐑩𐑮 𐑷𐑑 𐑨𐑯𐑛 𐑷𐑤 ·𐑪𐑒𐑕𐑓𐑩𐑮𐑛

𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑤𐑩𐑮𐑟 𐑒𐑷𐑤 𐑦𐑑 𐑯𐑷𐑑."

Attributed to the OED in
'The Book of Nothing', by
John Barrow (2000)

A comparison of four unicode fonts:


Andagii
𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?

ESL Gothic
𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?

Everson mono
𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?

MPH 2B Damase
𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?

Damase appears to be the same as Andagii,
except that punctuation in the latter reverts
automatically to Lucida Grande.

Every one of those displays as Everson Mono on my machine, since I received it in plain-text e-mail.

On 30 May 2013, at 14:26, dsh <david@...> wrote:

> A comparison of four unicode fonts:
>
>
>
> Andagii
> 𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
> 𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
> 𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?
>
> ESL Gothic
> 𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
> 𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
> 𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?
>
> Everson mono
> 𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
> 𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
> 𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?
>
> MPH 2B Damase
> 𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
> 𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
> 𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?
>
> Damase appears to be the same as Andagii,
> except that punctuation in the latter reverts
> automatically to Lucida Grande.
>
>

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

Well, that didn't work. Yahoo converted the
last two samples to ESL Gothic.

Here's another attempt:

Everson mono unicode
𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?

Everson mono
𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?


MPH 2B Damase
𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?

Same again. Everything replaced by ESL Gothic
at the Yahoo Shaw-group site. Earlier trials saw
replacement by Andagii.

Copy of my e-mail came as intended, unaltered.

Dear Mr. Sheppard:


I have become very interested in the Shavian alphabet in the form used to
write Esperanto.

I'm glad to see that someone else is also interested in the alphabet, as I
was feeling rather lonely in my interest. Since I'm also interested in
handwriting, I enjoy practicing the alphabet by doing things such as
writing captions or descriptions for photographs. I would like to exchange
things like that with others who have similar interests. Do you know if
there is such an exchange already in existence, or if there is an exchange
for any kind of correspondence in Shavian?

Best wishes,
Erik Felker



On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:37 AM, dsh <david@sheppard.se> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Well, that didn't work. Yahoo converted the
> last two samples to ESL Gothic.
>
> Here's another attempt:
>
> Everson mono unicode
> 𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
> 𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
> 𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?
>
> Everson mono
> 𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
> 𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
> 𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?
>
>
> MPH 2B Damase
> 𐑢𐑳𐑯𐑕 𐑩𐑜𐑧𐑯, 𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑑𐑲𐑥
> 𐑓𐑷𐑮 𐑤𐑲𐑤𐑩𐑒𐑕 𐑦𐑯 𐑚𐑤𐑵𐑥, 𐑛𐑦𐑝𐑲𐑯.
> 𐑢𐑪𐑟 𐑞𐑨𐑮 𐑩 𐑢𐑦𐑯𐑑𐑩𐑮?
>
>
>
>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Erik Felker wrote:
> I have become very interested in the Shavian alphabet in the form used
to
> write Esperanto.

Do you mean in the form devised by John Starling, called La Shava
Alfabeto?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_orthography
The Shavian alphabet was created specifically for English, one type of
it anyway, but Starling's proposal looks workable to me, and in view of
Shaw's desire (or so I interpret it) that a new alphabet was needed as
much for social reasons as for spelling reform then a new alphabet for a
new (relatively speaking) language, both of artificial construction (not
a slur), both idealistic in ambition (or so it seems to me) -- then why
not?
I've always thought a good use for the Shavian alphabet, perhaps the
best use at least in the beginning, was to offer to non-native speakers
a means of quickly acquiring a working knowledge of the de facto world's
language, perhaps with a simplified grammar (something which Shaw I
believe also advocated). Why not then use it as well for a language that
some parts of the world, hesitant about Anglo-American culture, might
prefer? Eventually the two usages could possibly merge, who knows?
> I'm glad to see that someone else is also interested in the
alphabet....
A fascinating subject, alphabets in general -- perhaps the greatest
invention of them all. Shavian is but an attempt to find a new way of
doing old things in an appealing manner; I suppose the same could be
said of Esperanto. Incidentally, the subsequent developments of
Esperanto such as Ido, Novial (which Shaw preferred), or even later
models such as Interlingua and other constructed languages all pretty
much have the same array of sounds -- which means Starling's alphabet
should work for them as well.
> Since I'm also interested in handwriting, I enjoy practicing the
alphabet
> by doing things such as writing captions or descriptions for
photographs....
I think this an excellent way to master Shavian or any of its variants.
There are other alternative ways to write English using any number of
spelling reform proposals , but Shavian provides I think the greatest
calligraphic pleasure. To be fair, the proponents of Quikscript think
their similar alphabet superior. > Do you know if .... there is
an exchange for any kind of correspondence in
> Shavian?....

I only know of this forum and that of the Quikscript community.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Read_Alphabet/
but, keep at it -- dshep

ð``ð`§ð`•ð`` ð``ð`§ð`•ð``

On Jun 6, 2013, at 6:54 AM, "dshepx" <david@...> wrote:

> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Erik Felker wrote:
> > Do you know if .... there is an exchange for any kind of correspondence in
> > Shavian?....
>
> I only know of this forum and that of the Quikscript community.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Read_Alphabet/

Speaking as a Quikscript user…

This is a problem on our side, as well — judging from the activity or lack thereof on the Read Alphabet list, you'd figure that the workflow of sending handwritten notes hasn't improved one iota since the 60s. While it's gotten tremendously easier to put short blobs of text on the Internet through (micro)blogging, sharing handwritten text is much more of a hassle.

A couple of different ideas present themselves:

- Share a folder in Dropbox (<http://db.tt/x0DM6XiG>). Scan/take pictures of handwritten text and place them in the folder as JPEG images. I haven't thought through the security implications of this, though, and I'm leery of sharing Dropbox folders with people I don't know all that well.

- Get JPEGs of text as above, but put them on that Pinterest site (<http://pinterest.com>) I've heard about. People share images there.