Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

SB: Shavian is perfectly capable of representing spoken English with fewer
than 48symbols. I can write mother as muHar rather than muHD
HUGH: As shown in Shaw Script magazine (click here for sample), “typewriter
Shavian” reduced the number of characters to just 43. Another Shaw Script page
(can’t remember which one) does mention that this reduction is only due to
the limitations of the typewriter – it can only type single-width characters. I
don’t imagine that Read actually WANTED to split the compound letters.
Thanks for the scan of the Shaw Script magazine. Too bad it was not higher
resolution. Do you have a copy of the magazine?

A typewriter limitation of 43 doesn't seem right since there would be at
least 52 possibilities available on a standard typewriter keyboard.

43 seems to correspond to Jone's IPA inventory for RP. If anyone is
interested, I will see if there is an exact correspondence. Jones did not include
tripthongs and RP was non-rhotic. air = e@ but ire would not be listed.
HUGH: Well, there has been no outright advocation, but there have been plenty
of detailed examples of “Unifon”, “Spanglish”, “Cut spelng” “Tengwar”,
whatever else... there’s no need to discuss these. If I must be honest, a lot of
the time it’s hard to find any mention of Shavian among all the various other
notations in your posts!
This is – and has always been – a discussion group for the Shaw Alphabet. I
still think far too much linguistic gobbledegook goes on here and not enough
actual use of Shavian. Now we have a standard font, and almost everybody’s
mailreader can handle HTML mail, there’s no excuse NOT to be communicating IN
Shavian!
Messages here should be on topic, they should relate to the Shaw Alphabet.
I don't think I have introduced Tengwar or ENgliS or IPA as a topic but I
have
responded to postings by others and have sometimes used other notations and
conventions to clarify issues. Discussions tend to go where members lead
them.
When no one responds, the string ends.

POLL questions:

1. Have you downloaded the default Shaw alphabet font, Shaw Sans 2? Y N

2. Can you read a Shavian transcription in your mail reader?
Y N

3. Have you memorized the Shape - Sound correspondences? 100% 75%
25% 0%

Steve Y Y 75%


Going back to keyboard systems for writing Shavian: I’m still wondering if
there is any way to find out what the keyboard layout was for the original IBM
Selectric typeball used to produce Shaw Script magazine. I’m going to find
out, one way or another!! If Kingsley Read could use it happily for years as he
was typing the Shaw Script texts, we would surely have no trouble using it
either.
I’m going to hold fire on any development of the Shavian keyboard standard
until we know more about “typewriter Shavian”.
Hugh B

Hugh:

People come and go from the Quikscript group just as I'm sure they do
from the Shavian group. We do have a large number who do not post. This
does not mean they are not monitoring the traffic, however. The QS
group has never posted anywhere close to the number of messages posted
in the Shavian group, and there seems to be a difference in the types of
posts. For the most part, we don't seem to have people wanting to
discuss the sorts of technical linguistic points that the Shavian group
does. My supposition is that people in the QS group are more interested
in learning and using the alphabet in their lives than they are in
talking about it. I readily admit I have no data to back this up other
than the fact they are interested enough to join and interested enough
to remain members receiving the posts that are submitted.

Paige


"I despise a world which does not feel that music is a higher revelation
than all wisdom and philosophy."
-Ludwig van Beethoven

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Birkenhead [mailto:mixsynth@...]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 8:19 AM
To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [shawalphabet] keyboard map for shavian

Steve wrote:

I noticed that the Quickscript group has twice as many members.

It does, only because that group has been at its current location for
many years now. Take a look at how many of those members regularly post
messages, and you'll find the figure to be much lower than the total
membership count. There are many more lurkers than actual posters.

Look at the old 'shavian' group membership - many many more members than
the new 'shawalphabet' group, but only because they were either no
longer active email addresses or simply lurkers who never participated.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:36:02 EST, stbetta@... <stbetta@...> wrote:
>
> POLL questions:

You could make this a poll in the Yahoo!Groups interface.

> 1. Have you downloaded the default Shaw alphabet font, Shaw Sans 2? Y N
>
> 2. Can you read a Shavian transcription in your mail reader?
> Y N
>
> 3. Have you memorized the Shape - Sound correspondences? 100% 75%
> 25% 0%

I'd also say "Y Y 75%". I mostly mess up "out" and "oil", since they
are merely mirror images of one another, and they're also fairly rare
phonemes. Occasionally also some other letters.

However, while I can *read* Shavian in HTML, I can't *write* it like
that here. I can write it in Unicode, but not everyone can read that.

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@f...> wrote:
> Well... some corporate logos perhaps? Those were the most effective, because
> they are recognisable to almost everybody. Simon had done Coca Cola,
> McDonalds, and a few others.
>
> Hugh B


The Coca-Cola and Burger King logos still exist in the Images section of the old
group, and now this group. I remember the McDonald's one, too.
If you look carefully, you'll notice that most of these (well, the ones that are left) were
done with the Lionspaw font. I'll probably use a mix of fonts where they're
appropriate, but it's far more likely that I'll just draw the letters to match whatever
logo I happen to be doing.
I already did a Pepsi logo, though it's not intended as an exact copy of any real one.
The lettering style is based on a logo. It then became the basis of my lettering on
one of my shirts, and eventually led to the Shaw Metro font I made.
I'm going to try to post that logo. It should be showing up at my deviantART page
soon.

http://wurdbendur.deviantart.com/

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:36:02 EST, stbetta@a... <stbetta@a...> wrote:
> >
> > POLL questions:
>
> You could make this a poll in the Yahoo!Groups interface.
>
> > 1. Have you downloaded the default Shaw alphabet font, Shaw Sans 2? Y N
> >
> > 2. Can you read a Shavian transcription in your mail reader?
> > Y N
> >
> > 3. Have you memorized the Shape - Sound correspondences? 100% 75%
> > 25% 0%
>
> I'd also say "Y Y 75%". I mostly mess up "out" and "oil", since they
> are merely mirror images of one another, and they're also fairly rare
> phonemes. Occasionally also some other letters.
>
> However, while I can *read* Shavian in HTML, I can't *write* it like
> that here. I can write it in Unicode, but not everyone can read that.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>

Well, I'll say "Y Y 100%", but some more explanation is needed. I've had the Shaw
Sans No. 2 font for quite a long time. This said, I can read anything in it that isn't
italic or bold. I'm using Safari on my Mac, which substitutes the next closest font
rather than distorting one to make it look italic of bold. It would be nice if these
styles (italic, bold, bold italic) were available for the Shaw Sans No. 2 font. I'm
working on another italic font now, and I think I may make others to go with it.
I usually send and read messages from the group page. I don't have POP access
through Yahoo mail, but I have it through GMail. Can I use that email account with
the group? Entouage allows me to send HTML messages through GMail.
As for the shape-sound correspondences, I sometimes confuse Out and Oil in writing,
but only after I haven't used them for a while. So I could say it's more than 75%, but
maybe less than 100%.

Joe wrote:
> The Coca-Cola and Burger King logos still exist in the Images section of
> the old
> group, and now this group

Yes they do. Those were just two examples of what he did. I still miss all
the rest though.

If you think you can make some similar images, using all the fonts you can
find including those cool ones you made, go right ahead!

Hugh B

Thanks for the scan of the Shaw Script magazine. Too bad it was not higher
resolution. Do you have a copy of the magazine?



You can always download the images and then use Windows Picture and Fax
Viewer or something like it to zoom in. That's what I did.


A typewriter limitation of 43 doesn't seem right since there would be at
least 52 possibilities available on a standard typewriter keyboard.

43 seems to correspond to Jone's IPA inventory for RP. If anyone is
interested, I will see if there is an exact correspondence. Jones did not
include tripthongs and RP was non-rhotic. air = e@ but ire would not be
listed.



Read mentioned (actually on this
<http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/vwp?.dir=/Shaw+Script&.dn
m=ShawAlphabet.jpg&.src=gr&.view=t&.hires=t> page) that the compound
letters were split because the typewriter couldn't type double-width
characters.



Messages here should be on topic, they should relate to the Shaw Alphabet.
I don't think I have introduced Tengwar or ENgliS or IPA as a topic but I
have
responded to postings by others and have sometimes used other notations and

conventions to clarify issues. Discussions tend to go where members lead
them.

When no one responds, the string ends.



Point taken.



POLL questions:



1. Have you downloaded the default Shaw alphabet font, Shaw Sans 2? Y N



2. Can you read a Shavian transcription in your mail reader?
Y N



3. Have you memorized the Shape - Sound correspondences? 100% 75%
25% 0%



Steve Y Y 75%

Better to put this in a proper poll
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/editsurvey).

But anyway: Y Y 100%

Hugh B

Hi group,



Please let me know what you think of the new group home page design
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/).



Thanks



Hugh B

The colors are certainly more friendly now. But the bright orange lines on
the message page clash with the blue links a bit. Can those rows be made a
little lighter?

Also, I’m trying out GMail now, so I might as well try the HTML messages
while I’m at it.

F sxtanli hOp His wil wxk. :p
𐑲 𐑕𐑻𐑑𐑩𐑯𐑤𐑦 𐑣𐑴𐑐 𐑞𐑦𐑕 𐑢𐑦𐑤 𐑢
𐑻𐑒. :𐑐

On 1/15/05 3:01 PM, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...> wrote:

> Hi group,
>
> Please let me know what you think of the new group home page design
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/).
>
> Thanks
>
> Hugh B

Phil,

Phil wrote: 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.

PN: Kind of. Though I really meant "" (but those characters
don't travel well and/or some mail programs have difficulty with
them). SB: They do not show up here.

> SB: SEvian is easier than SEvCn and references the same sounds.
SEvian SEvCn
ear iar or C These even look the same to me.

PN I suppose so, but really, the Shavian letters should be used IMO.

SB: Our disagreement seems to be in relation to the ligatures or joined
letters.
As shown above, ear can be written two ways, the only difference is that one
way
joins the phonograms and the other doesn't.

If you are printing a book then the ligatures should be used because they
look better and are more compact.
If you are writing informally, the separate [uncombined] phonograms are
sufficient.

Read added some joined phonograms for HERDER and AIR MERRY because these
speech sounds are problematic.

We could just agree not to distinguish sounds on the basis of stress and not
to make a AIRY MARRY MERRY distinction.

HERDER AIR MERRY would then be hardar er merI hardar hCdD er merI
or even hrdr er merI in some dialects of English.

Read decided to distinguish on the basis of stress and find a better way to
merge dialects.
The solution was flawed by the clerical error made in the production of
Androcles.

I made more of an issue of the err air transposition in Androdcles than
others because
I wanted to retain the option of not using the ligatures.

I want to write air as air/a&r Aar or as eir/E&r eir [x] there = Hx or
Heir and her heir as har ear or hD eD or hX X [X]

Due to the clerical error, the shapes do not correspond.
If D D is exclusively an unstressed <er> sound as in butter butar butD,
butar butD
then we need another way to represent the stressed D D. in murder mXdD mxdD

We need a distinct way to write AIR for another reason:
To get around the MERRY MARRY distinction. merI marI merI marI
Read probably meant to write MURRAY MARRY MERRY MARY
as mXI mxI mxI mxI
This would distinguish the stressed schwa and merge the other pronunciations.
He ended up with mxI mXI mXI mXI which in his estimation was just as good.

Webster merges u a up and ago [&p &'go] and uses a stress marker.
Webster distinguishes m&rE, marE, merE, and märE
while providing secondary pronunciations for each M-word.

This seems to be the opposite of what Read decided to do.

-------

> 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.

SB: Perhaps we will get to that point if everyone installs the default font.

PN: Though if you talk about whether "array" or "ado"+"roar" should be
used to spell a given word, that would be a different thing.

PN 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 "" (fR) will let both groups read it
according to their respective pronunciation, while a spelling ""
(fyr) will be incorrect for non-rhotic speakers who do not have an "r"
sound in their pronunciation of that word.

SB: The uncombined or unligatured options would be fy and fyr
WEBSTER: fä and fär

> SB: 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.

SB: I think there is agreement on the number of uncombined phonemes.
Where there is disagreement is on the number of phoneme combinations that
should be uniquely represented in an orthography.

You would not disagree with the 14 vowels and 22 consonant phonemes.
You would just think that others which could be represented with combinations
should be included.

PN: 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

SB: The minimum symbol set would represent some of your phonemes as combined
phonemes. e.g., J = dZ, Ice = aEs, etc.

(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.

PN: *nods* Thanks you.

> SB: 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: I suppose it is possible to have dozens of keyboard maps using one of the
key transposition programs. I want a standard keyboard map. I just want one
that is
more readable than DeMeyere's.

> SB: My point was that a uniphonic (1 symbol per sound) writing system
> needs only 36 letters

PN: That may be the debatable point :)

SB: Possibly but you would first have to find a speech sound that I cannot
represent as a combination of pure phonemes. I think I have shown that the 12
additional phonograms found in Shavian can easily be represented as
combinations of the 36 pure phonemes.

The 14 pure vowels in my list include /3/ and /&/ , the obscure vowels, which
can be merged if you have an independent way of marking stress. That brings
the total down to 34 plus a stress marker.

> 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" () while others
would write "fyr" (); as it is, both groups can write "fR"
().

SB: R R is the same as yr yr
Why is it any easier for both rhotics and non-rhotics
to write fR than to write fyr?

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 arE 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"
() or "butar" () or "buta" (). I don't
pronounce an "r" in that word at all.

> SB: 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?)
Some did.

> 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 --> F

*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 muHar m7HD

And I cannot :)

SB: Why does connecting the phonograms make such a difference?

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.