On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 05:14:22 EST, Stbetta@... <Stbetta@...> wrote:
>
> Phil wrote: You seem to be under the impression that "F" is the vowel sound
> in "eat"; rather than "ice".
>
> SB:
> No more than you are under the impression that "w"
> rather than "W" is the vowel combination in ian.
> These are just typos. Thanks for catching the error.
And thanks for catching mine. My comment was due to seeing "F" for
"eat" a couple of times in your posts; I hadn't considered that it
might have been a (repeated) typo.
> SB: Do you mean SEvWn.
Kind of. Though I really meant "๐๐ฑ๐๐พ๐ฏ" (but those characters
don't travel well and/or some mail programs have difficulty with
them).
> SEvian is easier and references the same sounds.
I suppose so, but really, the Shavian letters should be used IMO.
> SB: Are my
> ShawSans2 Shavian characters showing up?
> SEvWn SYvWn
They were in the message I received. However, in replying, your
message is converted to plain text so the HTML portion (which shows
the appropriate font and, hence, the correct characters) is lost in
your quoted text; also, I don't think I can insert HTML in messages
from Gmail.
> I think that most here agree that ENgliS is more intuitive and readable that
> DeMeyere's conventions.
I'm not sure whether that's important, since DeMeyere's conventions
aren't meant to be read.
Though if you talk about whether "array" or "ado"+"roar" should be
used to spell a given word, that would be a different thing.
FWIW, I think that the rhotic letters are a useful inclusion since
they permit both rhotic and non-rhotic speakers to write their speech;
writing the word "far" as "๐๐ธ" (fR) will let both groups read it
according to their respective pronunciation, whilea spelling "๐๐ญ๐ฎ"
(fyr) will be incorrect for non-rhotic speakers who do not have an "r"
sound in their pronunciation of that word.
> My goal is to have a single keyboard mapping convention that can be rapidly
> learned and typed for Shavian, IPA, or any other phonemic representation of
> English.
In that case, one would have to agree on the number of phonemes to
represent: whether 36 or 48 or some other number. I don't think it's
possible to invent a uniform keyboard mapping that will be convertible
to any system if those systems have different numbers of phonemes
(well, unless you use a system that has all the phonemes present in
any system, i.e. at least 48 but possibly even more; since it's easy
to discard differences that aren't present in a given system but not
possible to convert to a system that represents more phonemes).
> I think there are probably quite a few undecided lurkers but that is
> beside the point. This is a Shaw Alphabet group and one would
> expect that the messages be helpful to those trying to learn more
> about this specific proposed british alpahbet.
*nods* Thanks you.
> I think that any way we can make Shavian simpler would increase
> its popularity. I noticed that the Quickscript group has twice as
> many members.
Possibly. There have been discussions about simplifying Shavian off
and on for a while: for example, reducing the number of vowel
distinctions, since a number of dialects -- especially in the States
-- make fewer distinctions than the "Shavian dialect" does ("awe" and
"ah" and "on", for example).
> We can't make changes as radical as Read did and still call it
> Shavian but we can change the keyboard map.
Yes -- or everyone can use their own keyboard map -- since I think
that the *result* is what is important, and whether someone typed "x"
or "P" or "&" to get a given Shavian letter is not that important.
After all, it's the Shavian letters that are meant to be read.
> SB: My point was that a uniphonic (1 symbol per sound) writing system
> needs only 36 letters
That may be the debatable point :)
> and 36 letters are easier to learn than 48.
This is almost certainly true.
> English has X for KS Shavian has D for ado + r.
*nods* Though I think that the Shavian rhotic letters are good as a
compromise between rhotic and non-rhotic dialects. If you removed
them, then some people would write "far" as "fy" (๐๐ญ) while others
would write "fyr" (๐๐ญ๐ฎ); as it is, both groups can write "fR"
(๐๐ธ).
Speakers of non-rhotic dialects will then "merely" have to learn when
to write "y" and when to write "R" for what is, to them, the same
sound -- just as speakers of dialects with the cot/caught merger will
have to learn when to write "o" and when to write "Y", and others
[those who rhyme "crass" and "grass"] will have to learn when to write
"A" and when to write "y". And some (aitch-droppers) will have to
remember when to write "h" and when not.
> I can write array as either arE or DE in Shavian.
*nods* Though that may be a bad examples; I think that a word-final
one would be better. For example, spelling "butter" as "butD"
(๐๐ณ๐๐ผ) or "butar" (๐๐ณ๐๐ฉ๐ฎ) or "buta" (๐๐ณ๐๐ฉ). I don't
pronounce an "r" in that word at all.
> Does anyone know what the original keyboard assignments were for either the
> metal type or the IBM ball element?
That would indeed be useful to know.
(Though did typesetting machines for metal type use a keyboard as such?)
> A keyboard map constitutes a notation independent of its association with
> the Shavian symbols. Ross did not invent Shavian but he did invent the
> sound-symbol mapping conventions. /ai/ --> F --> ๐ฒ
*nods* His fonts did, indeed, supply a de-facto standard for keyboard
associations with Shavian letters.
> Shavian is perfectly capable of representing spoken English with
> fewer than 48 symbols. I can write mother as muHar rather than
> muHD
And I cannot :)
I suppose it depends on whether the rhotic letters (or the ado/up,
array/err pairs) are useful or not. I consider them useful, largely (I
imagine) because I speak a non-rhotic dialect; if you speak a rhotic
dialect and only communicate with other rhotic speakers, then it
doesn't matter as much.
> I don't think I have advocated anything more than an alternative
> set of keyboard conventions for representing Shavian. I have used
> other notations to illustrate a point.
That was not the impression I received. I may have misunderstood you.
I had the impression that you were showing various methods of
representing English and asking list members to decide which method
was superior or more readable, rather than showing various methods of
inputting Shavian letters.
> I certainly think that it is legitimate to use IPA, SAMPA,
> Kirshenbaum, and Webster notations to clarify features of
> Shavian. You have probably done so yourself.
Possibly. Probably not with Webster or Unifon, but IPA, (X-)SAMPA, and
Kirshenbaum ASCII IPA come in handy when talking about phones and
phonemes.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>