Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:37:28 EST, stbetta@... <stbetta@...> wrote:
>
> The only problem that I see with Shavian is that it is not the ideal
> transitional alfabet. It is rather a parallel phonemic writing system
> for English.

I, too, do not see Shavian as a "transitional" alphabet -- it doesn't
pave the way to anything, but is an end in itself. And it's nor
particularly similar to the current alphabet. Still, I don't see that
as a problem; it's simply a different goal from some other ways of
respelling English.

> 3. How likely is it that our preferred spellings can become permanent
> changes in the prestige orthography? Do they first become accepted variant
> spellings?

Interesting. Personally, I doubt whether spelling reform will become
successful if it aims to be similar to the current orthography -- or
if it will, it'll be a variant that will be so similar to tradspel
that it's probably not worth it. (For example, the changes in American
vs British spelling: is it worth re-spelling "centre" as "center" [to
better represent pronunciation] and "colour" as "color" [to save
superfluous letters] when you still have silent letters in "know" and
"debt" or a /I/ sound in the first syllable of "women" that is not
shown in writing?)

There should probably be a clean break: a new spelling system that's
based on its own merits and not by a consideration of how similar it
is to traditional spelling, or it will not be far-reaching enough.

> 3. By what process can the spelling changes approved by the majority become
> the preferred spelling? How can proposals become a permanent part of the
> traditional orthography?

I imagine that collaboration with national boards of education and/or
publishers of schoolbooks will be a necessary step, since without
their cooperation, children will continue to learn traditional
spelling at school.

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

Hi Steve
I agree with Steve.
Let me just expand on 2 of his comments.
First on the importance of clean break.
There is major benefit of looking at a piece of text, and just
knowing, whether it is the new orthography or the old T.O.
The mind has to switch gears to process the words efficiently.
All of these iterative spelling reforms, leave the reader holding the
bag. Through happenstance, the spelling reform differences might not
be obvious enough to switch the reader into the appropriate reading
system. This opens up the reader to a number of inobvious, subtle
errors.

Second on the question of propagating the system nationally.
Please do not underestimate the importance of our school system as a
means of introducing a new method of reading.
Unfortunately, a majority of students never read a serious piece of
fiction, unless it is part of their curriculum at school.
So Shaw transliterated books can easily be distributed at the School.
I also think it is important to create a newspaper or newsletter
written in Shavian to re-inforce Adult students.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Wouldn't whoever gave this paper in Germany, have to be able to
converse and answer questions in German.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton
<philip.newton@g...> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:37:28 EST, stbetta@a... <stbetta@a...> wrote:
> I, too, do not see Shavian as a "transitional" alphabet -- it
doesn't
> pave the way to anything, but is an end in itself. And it's not
> particularly similar to the current alphabet. Still, I don't see
that
> as a problem; it's simply a different goal from some other ways of
> respelling English.
>
> > 3. How likely is it that our preferred spellings can become
permanent
> > changes in the prestige orthography? Do they first become
accepted variant
> > spellings?
>
> Interesting. Personally, I doubt whether spelling reform will become
> successful if it aims to be similar to the current orthography -- or
> if it will, it'll be a variant that will be so similar to tradspel
> that it's probably not worth it. (For example, the changes in
American
> vs British spelling: is it worth re-spelling "centre" as "center"
[to
> better represent pronunciation] and "colour" as "color" [to save
> superfluous letters] when you still have silent letters in "know"
and
> "debt" or a /I/ sound in the first syllable of "women" that is not
> shown in writing?)
>
> There should probably be a clean break: a new spelling system that's
> based on its own merits and not by a consideration of how similar it
> is to traditional spelling, or it will not be far-reaching enough.
>
> > 3. By what process can the spelling changes approved by the
majority become
> > the preferred spelling? How can proposals become a permanent
part of the
> > traditional orthography?
>
> I imagine that collaboration with national boards of education
and/or
> publishers of schoolbooks will be a necessary step, since without
> their cooperation, children will continue to learn traditional
> spelling at school.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve

<< Sorry, I meant that I agree with Philip.>>
> I also agree with Steve on other things.

> Let me just expand on 2 of Philip's comments.
> First on the importance of clean break.
> There is major benefit of looking at a piece of text, and just
> knowing, whether it is the new orthography or the old T.O.
> The mind has to switch gears to process the words efficiently.
> All of these iterative spelling reforms, leave the reader holding
the
> bag. Through happenstance, the spelling reform differences might
not
> be obvious enough to switch the reader into the appropriate reading
> system. This opens up the reader to a number of inobvious, subtle
> errors.
>
> Second on the question of propagating the system nationally.
> Please do not underestimate the importance of our school system as
a
> means of introducing a new method of reading.
> Unfortunately, a majority of students never read a serious piece of
> fiction, unless it is part of their curriculum at school.
> So Shaw transliterated books can easily be distributed at the
School.
> I also think it is important to create a newspaper or newsletter
> written in Shavian to re-inforce Adult students.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> P.S. Wouldn't whoever gave this paper in Germany, have to be able
to
> converse and answer questions in German.
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton
> <philip.newton@g...> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:37:28 EST, stbetta@a... <stbetta@a...>
wrote:
> > I, too, do not see Shavian as a "transitional" alphabet -- it
> doesn't
> > pave the way to anything, but is an end in itself. And it's not
> > particularly similar to the current alphabet. Still, I don't see
> that
> > as a problem; it's simply a different goal from some other ways of
> > respelling English.
> >
> > > 3. How likely is it that our preferred spellings can become
> permanent
> > > changes in the prestige orthography? Do they first become
> accepted variant
> > > spellings?
> >
> > Interesting. Personally, I doubt whether spelling reform will
become
> > successful if it aims to be similar to the current orthography --
or
> > if it will, it'll be a variant that will be so similar to tradspel
> > that it's probably not worth it. (For example, the changes in
> American
> > vs British spelling: is it worth re-spelling "centre" as "center"
> [to
> > better represent pronunciation] and "colour" as "color" [to save
> > superfluous letters] when you still have silent letters in "know"
> and
> > "debt" or a /I/ sound in the first syllable of "women" that is not
> > shown in writing?)
> >
> > There should probably be a clean break: a new spelling system
that's
> > based on its own merits and not by a consideration of how similar
it
> > is to traditional spelling, or it will not be far-reaching enough.
> >
> > > 3. By what process can the spelling changes approved by the
> majority become
> > > the preferred spelling? How can proposals become a permanent
> part of the
> > > traditional orthography?
> >
> > I imagine that collaboration with national boards of education
> and/or
> > publishers of schoolbooks will be a necessary step, since without
> > their cooperation, children will continue to learn traditional
> > spelling at school.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>

Hi Star
The Schwi is a minimal vowel sound, but derived from
the "ee" sound. Even tho it is derived from "ee", it is more often
confused with the "Short i" because it is also Short. There is very
little difference between the 2 in any case.

You hear it in words like fam-i-ly, cred-it, fly-ing, intu-i-tive,
obscen-i-ty, prof-it, sig-nif-i-cant, where the i sound gets lost in
the shuffle.
You also hear it pretty commonly when the ing ending forms a distinct
syllable. (i.e. walk-ing, swim-ing, runn-ing, play-ing, dy-ing ...)

Let me know if you need any more examples.

Regards, Paul V.
_______________attached______________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
<celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
> Are we really timing this? Why not just learn to hear stress. The
Schwi
> as we are calling it, in some cases can be represented by the schwa
> that we know and for which we already have a symbol. Maybe I'm just
a
> party pooper, but I am not exactly sure what the schwi sound is, and
> why we can't use the if (eel?) sound where appropriate?
>
> --Star
>
> --- stbetta@a... wrote:
>
> > Wurdbender,
> >
> > While it may have been represented with the <if> sound in
Androcles,
> > it is
> > more commonly considered an allophone of the <IL> <eel> sound.
The
> > schwi is
> > very short, < 50 ms, but the vowel quality is more like <eel>.
> >
> > How the schwi is represented is a convention and it appears that
the
> > convention is a short-i.
> >
> > --Steve
> > The lack of a schwi in Shavian just means that you cannot indicate
> > stress
> > when there is an unstressed I. IPA considers the schwi to be an
> > allophone.
> > IPA also has a length marker which can distinguish /i:/ from /i/.
> > ri'si:v seems rather obvious in IPA.
> >
> >
> > Most systems I’ve seen consider it an allophone of the If sound,
> > and I
> > believe this is how it was spelled in Androcles when it was
necessary
> > to
> > differentiate it from the schwa.
> >
> >
> > I believe you received my cipher.
> > F bIlIv V rIsIvd mF sFfD
> >
> >
> > With the system I mentioned, I would spell this like such:
> > F bilIv V risIvd mF sFfD
> > www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett
> >
>
>
> =====
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad
>
> Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
> http://my.yahoo.com

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:20:29 -0000, paul vandenbrink
<pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
>
> P.S. Wouldn't whoever gave this paper in Germany, have to be able to
> converse and answer questions in German.

I'd be surprised -- firstly because the conference is organised by the
Simplified Spelling Society (who are in the UK, I believe) (website:
http://www.spellingsociety.org/, conference page:
http://www.spellingsociety.org/about/conf2005.html), and secondly
because it would seem strange to me to discuss spelling reform of the
English language in another language. People who have an interest in
(re-)spelling English should surely know enough English to speak and
understand the language.

Also, English, is a sufficiently international language that it's
commonly used in international meetings such as this, regardless of
the topic.

German may help getting there (e.g. with taxi drivers--though many
Germans understand at least some English), but I would expect that
during the conference, English will be the main language spoken, not
only during presentations.

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

Hi Philip
I was once unexpectedly and unpreparedly in Germany (Dusseldorf) for
3 days on my own. I was surprised how few people had any
understanding of English. Even hotel staff. I met some patient
people and we eventually communicated but it was not easy. I found a
Bookstore and got a German-English Dictionary, and then I was OK.
Of course this a bit more than 20 years ago.
It was suprising to me because,
In every other matter, Germany appeared more advanced than Canada
or even most of the states, at that time.
In the Netherlands, it was the opposite.

It would be interesting to go to Germany again, but I don't know if
I could get the time. What about you, Philip.
Hugh or myself could make up a paper and you could present it.
Or we could put it together as a group effort.

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Philip Newton
<philip.newton@g...> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:20:29 -0000, paul vandenbrink
> <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> >
> > P.S. Wouldn't whoever gave this paper in Germany, have to be
able to
> > converse and answer questions in German.
>
> I'd be surprised -- firstly because the conference is organised by
the
> Simplified Spelling Society (who are in the UK, I believe)
(website:
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/, conference page:
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/about/conf2005.html), and secondly
> because it would seem strange to me to discuss spelling reform of
the
> English language in another language. People who have an interest
in
> (re-)spelling English should surely know enough English to speak
and
> understand the language.
>
> Also, English, is a sufficiently international language that it's
> commonly used in international meetings such as this, regardless of
> the topic.
>
> German may help getting there (e.g. with taxi drivers--though many
> Germans understand at least some English), but I would expect that
> during the conference, English will be the main language spoken,
not
> only during presentations.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>

Hi everyone
I noticed on the page for the Shavian Alphabet on Omniglot.com
that it indicates the letter Shaw letter Fee can be used as an abbrev. for
"for". This is News to me.
Is it an error?
If so I can send a note to Simon to correct it.
Regards, Paul V.

P.S. Omniglot has new phonetic Alphabet for English, based on the Expanded
Latin Alphabet used by Icelandic, another Germanic Language.
It looks quite Scandanavian.
It is called RENGLISH. Take a look.
I don't know what the R stands for.
May Re-engineered.
It also has a site, http://www.slacknet.org/renglish/

I wish I could go! But I'm a poor college student who speaks no German. In
any case, I would be glad to contribute.


On 1/25/05 11:52 AM, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Philip
> I was once unexpectedly and unpreparedly in Germany (Dusseldorf) for
> 3 days on my own. I was surprised how few people had any
> understanding of English. Even hotel staff. I met some patient
> people and we eventually communicated but it was not easy. I found a
> Bookstore and got a German-English Dictionary, and then I was OK.
> Of course this a bit more than 20 years ago.
> It was suprising to me because,
> In every other matter, Germany appeared more advanced than Canada
> or even most of the states, at that time.
> In the Netherlands, it was the opposite.
>
> It would be interesting to go to Germany again, but I don't know if
> I could get the time. What about you, Philip.
> Hugh or myself could make up a paper and you could present it.
> Or we could put it together as a group effort.
>
> Regards, Paul V.

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/renglish.htm
Renglish

Paul,

I think the R stands for Russian English. Re-engineered is a good guess.
Russians may find the Latin transcription transparent. It is not easy to
read for TO adepts.
No. 1 may work for those familiar with the Russian alphabet.
This is probably what Shavian looks like to the uninitiated.

I continue to be impressed with No. 4. Franklins orthography for English.
http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/franklin-webster.htm

1. Cyrillic Version
Ал Хйюмънбееингз ар борн фри энд еекўъл ин Дигнити энд
Райтз. Ђей ар ендауед ўић Реезън энд Каншън энд шюдд якт
тъўордс ўун ънуђер ин ё Спирит ъв Бруђергхюдд.

2. RENGLISH transcription - Augmented Latin
Al Hjúmun Byyngz ar born fry and ykwul in Dignity and Rætz. Ðei ar endáed wiþ
Ryzun and Kanshuns and shúdd akt tuwords wun unùðer in é Spirit uv
Brùðerhúdd.

3. Webster Latin 1 diacritics
Ol hiumàn béings är bôrn fré and ékwàl in dignìty and rýts. Ðá är indaud wið
rézàn and känshàns and shud akt tówàrds wun ànûðr in à sprìt àv brûðerhud.

4. Franklin 26 phonogram transcription:
oal hiumµn biings ar born fri and ikwµl in digniti and rµits. Ðê ar indaud
wið rizµn and kanSµns and shud akt towµrds wµn µ'nµðer in e sprìt µv brµðerhud.

5. ENgliS
.ol hiuman bEings cr born frE and Ekwal in dignaty and rYts. DA cr indqwd
wiD rEzan qnd kcnSans and shwd akt tOwardz wVn anVDar in a spirit uv brVDarhwd.

Paul wrote:
P.S. Omniglot has new phonetic Alphabet for English, based on the Expanded
Latin Alphabet used by Icelandic, another Germanic Language.
It looks quite Scandanavian.
It is called RENGLISH. Take a look.
I don't know what the R stands for. Maybe Re-engineered.
It also has a site, http://www.slacknet.org/renglish/



Franklin & Webster http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/franklin-webster.htm
Noah Webster (1758-1843), along with his friend Ben Franklin (1706-1790),
advocated pronunciation guide spelling and promoted spelling reform. Webster
wanted to remove the irregularities from the traditional writing system.
Franklin, the revolutionary, wanted a major overhaul. Franklin thought that the
problems with the writing system were alphabet problems which could not be
repaired without a new alphabet. Although Webster may have shared Franklin's views
on the state of the alphabet, he initially did not accept Franklin's radical
proposal. However, the fact that someone he respected advocated doing more
than he thought practical may have provided the kind of encouragement he needed
to pursue his more limited reforms. [webster]

Thank you for your informative answer, Paul. I must not have that
sound, since in several of your instances, I use a schwa, while in
others, mainly the /-ing/ it is almost always a short i sound.

Chalk it up to the craziness of pronunciation.
--Star

--- paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Star
> The Schwi is a minimal vowel sound, but derived from
> the "ee" sound. Even tho it is derived from "ee", it is more often
> confused with the "Short i" because it is also Short. There is very
> little difference between the 2 in any case.
>
> You hear it in words like fam-i-ly, cred-it, fly-ing, intu-i-tive,
> obscen-i-ty, prof-it, sig-nif-i-cant, where the i sound gets lost in
> the shuffle.
> You also hear it pretty commonly when the ing ending forms a distinct
>
> syllable. (i.e. walk-ing, swim-ing, runn-ing, play-ing, dy-ing ...)
>
> Let me know if you need any more examples.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> _______________attached______________________
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
> <celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
> > Are we really timing this? Why not just learn to hear stress. The
> Schwi
> > as we are calling it, in some cases can be represented by the schwa
> > that we know and for which we already have a symbol. Maybe I'm just
>
> a
> > party pooper, but I am not exactly sure what the schwi sound is,
> and
> > why we can't use the if (eel?) sound where appropriate?
> >
> > --Star
> >
> > --- stbetta@a... wrote:
> >
> > > Wurdbender,
> > >
> > > While it may have been represented with the <if> sound in
> Androcles,
> > > it is
> > > more commonly considered an allophone of the <IL> <eel> sound.
> The
> > > schwi is
> > > very short, < 50 ms, but the vowel quality is more like <eel>.
> > >
> > > How the schwi is represented is a convention and it appears that
> the
> > > convention is a short-i.
> > >
> > > --Steve
> > > The lack of a schwi in Shavian just means that you cannot
> indicate
> > > stress
> > > when there is an unstressed I. IPA considers the schwi to be an
> > > allophone.
> > > IPA also has a length marker which can distinguish /i:/ from /i/.
> > > ri'si:v seems rather obvious in IPA.
> > >
> > >
> > > Most systems I’ve seen consider it an allophone of the If
> sound,
> > > and I
> > > believe this is how it was spelled in Androcles when it was
> necessary
> > > to
> > > differentiate it from the schwa.
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe you received my cipher.
> > > F bIlIv V rIsIvd mF sFfD
> > >
> > >
> > > With the system I mentioned, I would spell this like such:
> > > F bilIv V risIvd mF sFfD
> > > www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett
> > >
> >
> >
> > ====> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad
> >
> > Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
> > http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>


====http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250