Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Joe, Phillip, Hugh, and others,

One or more of the speakers will be German but their presentations will be in
English.
Also, perhaps half of the audience will be German speakers but they will also
be English speakers.

Phillip is right, lack of fluency will not be a problem.

> JOE: I wish I could go! But I'm a poor college student who speaks no
German.

PN: Hey, the "speaks no German" need not be a problem! As I said, you
should be able to get by at least with English until you get there,
and I expect the conference will be entirely in English anyway. The
"poor college student" may make this difficult, though :)
The task at hand is to come up with a paper related to Shavian.
This could be a group article.

What kind of angle could we take that would have some general appeal?

Here are some articles on Shavian that have been published in the Journal.
They might provide some ideas:

Graphology & Writing Systems:
The case for the The Shaw Alphabet.
http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j18/shawac.html
by Alice Coleman

George Bernard Shaw was critical of the illogicalities of written English,
not only of the vagaries of spelling but also of the time needed to write
necessary letters as well as unnecessary ones. He wrote his plays in Pitman's
shorthand and left money in his will for the development and publication of a
"proposed new alphabet" with the following attributes.

There were to be at least forty letters to enable "the said language to be
written without indicating single sounds by groups of letters or by diacritical
marks". One sound, one symbol.

The new symbols were to be streamlined, both to occupy less space than
traditional orthography and also to reduce the time taken to write them. They were
to be simple and easy to write, with a distinctness and legibility that would
increase the speed of reading.

The copyright of the Shaw Alphabet was made public property, to encourage
people to use it. Two versions of the key were published on the two sides of a
'bookmark', both reproduced here, together with a page from Androcles and the
Lion, which Shaw directed should be published with the existing alphabet in
parallel with a transliteration into the new one.

The Shaw Alphabet is undoubtedly ingenious. No symbol takes as long to write
as its equivalent in traditional orthography, and it was estimated that speeds
of 60 to 100 words a minute could be attained. Writing would be 80 to 100%
faster and reading 50-75% faster. Even these immense gains could be exceeded by
using single letters for the most common words in the English language, the,
of, and, to, which together account for 17% of words, on average.

Another advantage is space saving. The Shaw Alphabet occupies about 36 per
cent less page-area than the traditional equivalent, with a corresponding
economy in paper, ink, etc. Further savings are suggested in the form of one or two
letters for 18 other commonly encountered words.

Dyslexics need very distinct shapes. They are confused by the same shape
occurring in different positions, and even if taught phonically, take time to
master the mirror-image letters b and d. The Shaw Alphabet is full of similar
shapes that would be confusing to a dyslexic, e.g. B, F, P and U are represented
by the same form in different positions.


http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j23/shawread.html
article by Kingsley Read

http://www.spellingsociety.org/pubs/newsletters/n1.html
Androcles and the Lion by Chris Upward
Shaw Alphabet Competition by Bob Brown

Advantages and Disadvantages of New Letterforms by Chris Jolly
http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j1/jolly.html

Advantages of new letter forms
1. unambiguous;
2. economy of letters
3. gradual introduction is possible
4. possibly less open to ridicule
5. assists in our understanding of phonemes.

Disadvantages of new letter forms
1. unfamiliarity, learning needed;
2. existing keyboards cannot print;
3. printers' typefaces would need new letters;
4. dictionary order.

To is fine by me, the simplest abbreviations, that is, a single
consonant and a single vowel can still be understood in abbreviation,
but when you get into more complex words, that is, multiple consonant
sounds with a single vowel, we can't use single letter to represent
there.

But that's just my insanity,
--Star

--- Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@...> wrote:

> Star wrote:
> > I don't think I'd be so fond of so many abbreviations. The three
> that I
> > am familiar with, and, of, and the, all make sense to me, these
> others
> > seem like they woundn't read well.
>
> How about 'to'? That's the fourth common abbreviation.
>
> When I first started using Shavian I used to abbreviate 'for' (f) and
> 'with'
> (w). I stopped doing that when I found the discussion group, because
> nobody
> else there was doing it! I don't see any reason whatsoever why we
> shouldn't
> use any of the abbreviations laid out in Androcles. Maybe even make
> some
> more of our own - provided they are obvious and the meaning is still
> clear.
> Perhaps we should make new ones only by consensus.
>
> Hugh B
>
>


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

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I'm fully aware it goes back to the reversal... I was just being cheeky.
Sorry.



Hugh B



_____

From: Joe [mailto:wurdbendur@...]
Sent: 26 January 2005 18:50
To: Shaw Alphabet
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Alternate Transcriptions






On 1/26/05 12:13 PM, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@...> wrote:

Ahem... this is the SHAW ALPHABET group. It would be nice to keep the
airwaves free of ENgliS, Unifon, Spanglish and other such orthographies.

Yes, I agree.


Also DShep's examples have h and N the wrong way round.

Hugh B


He's done that intentionally. This goes back to the old argument about the
reversal... Lets not drag that back up.

Regards,
Joe
/JO



_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shawalphabet/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.

Hugh Birkenhead skribis:
>
> See pages 145/146 of Androcles - Peter MacCarthy's notes on
> spelling. If you do not have it handy:
>
> "NOTE: It would be possible to extend the number of word-signs
> beyond the four provided for the design. [...] for (f), be (b), with (w),
> he (h), are (r), so (s), do (d) [...] that (tht), was (wz), have (hv), not
> (nt), this (ths), but (bt), from (fm), had (hd), has (hz), been (bn),
> were (wr), and so on."


I'm willing to use the four standard shortcuts, but I would refuse
to use any more. Shavian is a phonemic spelling system, not a
system of short-hand. If you come up with a hundred (or more) one-
and two-letter codes, you are no longer spelling phonemically.
It starts to look like that crap teenagers use in instant messaging:
r u ok? c u l8er, dood.

--Ph. D.

philip.newton@... writes:
No; not only do I not think I can afford it (even if they pay part of
speakers' expenses, it seems), I'm not really enamoured by what seems
to be their goal: reforming English spelling within the confines of
the Latin alphabet. It's not really something I can back up.
The Simplified Spelling Society differed from the Phonemic Spelling Council.
The ultimate goal might have been the same but the the simplified spellers
thought that the general public would never accept a one symbol per sound
system.

If you could explain how Shavian could make any headway, you might find some
support within the society. The goal of the society is to accelerate literacy
by improving the orthography.

I think the general public might accept dictionary key spelling in two
stages. The simplified spellers end up with hundreds of stages with their piecemeal
approach.

The simplified spellers claim their goal is to accelerate literacy but it is
hard to see how moving from a writing system that is 7% phonemic to one that
is 25% phonemic would help much in this respect.

The first step is to teach the simpler dictionary key spelling first. If the
child has to master phonemic spelling, then there is some understanding of
the issues involved and some familiarity with a different way of spelling.

I think these two things are essential for spelling change.

-Steve

Hi Steve
A paper could be developed, showing the manifest benefits of the
Shavian Alphabet.
Many of its proported disadvantages, (see attached) are no longer a
problem due to the easy availability of a Technological platform,
where English speakers can communicate in Shavian. And the
availability on the internet of phonetic dictionaries
(www.dictionary.com) even make the potential standardization of
spelling possible.

We couls call it, "Shavian Script on an Personal Computer Platform".
Rather like Leonardo Da Vinci's amazing inventions, designed but
never implemented, the Shavian Alphabet now comes of age.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I think the problem for Dylexics involves images rotated 180
degrees. Most Shaw Letter pairs are rotated 270 degrees.
For those letters at least, Dylexics should have less problems
with Shaw than the T.O.
Need a test to confirm.


____________________attached__________________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> The task at hand is to come up with a paper related to Shavian.
> This could be a group article.
>
> What kind of angle could we take that would have some general
appeal?
>
> Here are some articles on Shavian that have been published in the
Journal.
> They might provide some ideas:
>
> Graphology & Writing Systems:
> The case for the The Shaw Alphabet.
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j18/shawac.html
> by Alice Coleman
>
> George Bernard Shaw was critical of the illogicalities of written
English,
> not only of the vagaries of spelling but also of the time needed
to write
> necessary letters as well as unnecessary ones. He wrote his plays
in Pitman's
> shorthand and left money in his will for the development and
publication of a
> "proposed new alphabet" with the following attributes.
>
> There were to be at least forty letters to enable "the said
language to be
> written without indicating single sounds by groups of letters or
by diacritical
> marks". One sound, one symbol.
>
> The new symbols were to be streamlined, both to occupy less space
than
> traditional orthography and also to reduce the time taken to write
them. They were
> to be simple and easy to write, with a distinctness and legibility
that would
> increase the speed of reading.
>
> The copyright of the Shaw Alphabet was made public property, to
encourage
> people to use it. Two versions of the key were published on the
two sides of a
> 'bookmark', both reproduced here, together with a page from
Androcles and the
> Lion, which Shaw directed should be published with the existing
alphabet in
> parallel with a transliteration into the new one.
>
> The Shaw Alphabet is undoubtedly ingenious. No symbol takes as
long to write
> as its equivalent in traditional orthography, and it was estimated
that speeds
> of 60 to 100 words a minute could be attained. Writing would be 80
to 100%
> faster and reading 50-75% faster. Even these immense gains could
be exceeded by
> using single letters for the most common words in the English
language, the,
> of, and, to, which together account for 17% of words, on average.
>
> Another advantage is space saving. The Shaw Alphabet occupies
about 36 per
> cent less page-area than the traditional equivalent, with a
corresponding
> economy in paper, ink, etc. Further savings are suggested in the
form of one or two
> letters for 18 other commonly encountered words.
>
> Dyslexics need very distinct shapes. They are confused by the same
shape
> occurring in different positions, and even if taught phonically,
take time to
> master the mirror-image letters b and d. The Shaw Alphabet is full
of similar
> shapes that would be confusing to a dyslexic, e.g. B, F, P and U
are represented
> by the same form in different positions.
>
>
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j23/shawread.html
> article by Kingsley Read
>
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/pubs/newsletters/n1.html
> Androcles and the Lion by Chris Upward
> Shaw Alphabet Competition by Bob Brown
>
> Advantages and Disadvantages of New Letterforms by Chris Jolly
> http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j1/jolly.html
>
> Advantages of new letter forms
> 1. unambiguous;
> 2. economy of letters
> 3. gradual introduction is possible
> 4. possibly less open to ridicule
> 5. assists in our understanding of phonemes.
>
> Disadvantages of new letter forms
> 1. unfamiliarity, learning needed;
> 2. existing keyboards cannot print;
> 3. printers' typefaces would need new letters;
> 4. dictionary order.

Hi Hugh
There is whole unresolved area, where Shavian Abbrev. are concerned.
Not just the standard ones. But how to write abbreviated names, like
U.N. , U.S.A. and IBM.
Did you want me to present a possible solution.
Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead"
<mixsynth@f...> wrote:
> Star wrote:
> > I don't think I'd be so fond of so many abbreviations. The three
that I
> > am familiar with, and, of, and the, all make sense to me, these
others
> > seem like they woundn't read well.
>
> How about 'to'? That's the fourth common abbreviation.
>
> When I first started using Shavian I used to abbreviate 'for' (f)
and 'with'
> (w). I stopped doing that when I found the discussion group,
because nobody
> else there was doing it! I don't see any reason whatsoever why we
shouldn't
> use any of the abbreviations laid out in Androcles. Maybe even
make some
> more of our own - provided they are obvious and the meaning is
still clear.
> Perhaps we should make new ones only by consensus.
>
> Hugh B

Hi Philip
I also have a problem haphazardly extending the recognised
abbreviations. First it could interfere with recognition of
single letter abbreviations of common names and places.
I might say, "I went to the Y". Short for YMCA
If Y was a single letter abbreviation, then it would potentially be
confusing.

On the other hand, the fact that Shaw Abbreviates or has single
letters to represent (a, the) (and, or) (I, you) (to, of ....)
suggests to me that the last group of common prepositions could
usefully include the other prepositions "for", "from", "with", "like"
and "as". Practically, only one letter abbreviations are practical,
anyway, so it's not going to happen.
I wouldn't like to see abbreviations of words or nouns.

Anyway, I agree that adding abbreviations beyond the basic 4,
requires the consensus of the whole Shavian group.

Regards, Paul V.


--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Ph. D." <phild@a...> wrote:
> Hugh Birkenhead skribis:
> > "NOTE: It would be possible to extend the number of word-signs
> > beyond the four provided for the design. [...] for (f), be (b),
with (w),
> > he (h), are (r), so (s), do (d) [...] that (tht), was (wz), have
(hv), not
> > (nt), this (ths), but (bt), from (fm), had (hd), has (hz), been
(bn),
> > were (wr), and so on."
>
>
> I'm willing to use the four standard shortcuts, but I would refuse
> to use any more. Shavian is a phonemic spelling system, not a
> system of short-hand. If you come up with a hundred (or more) one-
> and two-letter codes, you are no longer spelling phonemically.
> It starts to look like that crap teenagers use in instant messaging:
> r u ok? c u l8er, dood.
>
> --Ph. D.

When it comes to well-known abbreviations like these, there are a few
different options that are used. Since many are recognized in speech, some
will simply spell out the names of the Roman letters. I don't like this
approach so much since it requires deciphering a Roman > Shavian code, which
depends partially on dialect, since letter names tend to vary.

The second option that I've seen commonly is to invent a new abbreviation in
Shavian, referring to the actual pronunciation of the words rather than the
Roman letters. Thus, USA becomes Vsa (VnFtad stEts v amerika), IBM becomes
ibm (intDnASanal biznes maSInz), etc.

I normally prefer to just keep the Roman letters for well-known
abbreviations of names. I rarely abbreviate common nouns, though.

Regards,
Joe
/JO


On 1/27/05 11:41 AM, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:
> Hi Hugh
> There is whole unresolved area, where Shavian Abbrev. are concerned.
> Not just the standard ones. But how to write abbreviated names, like
> U.N. , U.S.A. and IBM.
> Did you want me to present a possible solution.
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead"

Hi Joe

I wouldn't go as far as the second option, unless I could somehow
mark the abbreviation as nonpronouncable, as it is. Maybe, we need an
abbreviation marker, equivalent to the period after the letter in T.O.
Otherwise abbrev. could be confused with a valid word that happened
to have that spelling.
Because Shavian as compared to T.O, eliminates a lot of redundant or
silent letters, it much more likely that a random string of letters
will be a pronouncable word.

My method of handling abbreviations is based on your first option
which involves simply spelling out the names of the Roman letters in
standard format.
Anyway, my suggestion is to only use these abbreviations for
recognizable or common proper names, like the names of a country and
then to write them out the Roman Alphabet phonetically.
That is the way it is pronounced, in any case.
Since it is used only for proper names, an abbreviation of this kind
would always have a namer dot.
(i.e. /VkE /VesE /Ven /eSpISIE /nEtO)

For unrecognized proper names, I would additionally use a namer dot
in front of every letter representing an abbreviation. This is in
lieu of the periods that are used in T.O.
(i.e. /JE /pI /mPgan, /JE /lO, /es n /el, /F /bI /em)
It seems redundant to use a period as well as the namer dot.
Opinions?

I would also avoid using Ad-hoc abbreviations.
Some times newly introduced terms as well as terminology common to a
particular technical or scientific speciality are abbreviated to save
space in a technical paper. The abbreviation is introduced at the
beginning of a paper and referred to by an abbreviation thereafter.
New terminology should be written out in full.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I guess in my mind, I am distinguishing between pronouncable
abbreviations and the unpronouncable Strings of letters, that we
sometimes use to keep things straight in a complicated Tecnical paper.
__________________________attached_____________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joe <wurdbendur@g...> wrote:
> When it comes to well-known abbreviations like these, there are a
few
> different options that are used. Since many are recognized in
speech, some
> will simply spell out the names of the Roman letters. I don't like
this
> approach so much since it requires deciphering a Roman > Shavian
code, which
> depends partially on dialect, since letter names tend to vary.
>
> The second option that I've seen commonly is to invent a new
abbreviation in
> Shavian, referring to the actual pronunciation of the words rather
than the
> Roman letters. Thus, USA becomes Vsa (VnFtad stEts v amerika), IBM
becomes
> ibm (intDnASanal biznes maSInz), etc.
>
> I normally prefer to just keep the Roman letters for well-known
> abbreviations of names. I rarely abbreviate common nouns, though.
>
> Regards,
> Joe
> /JO
>
>
> On 1/27/05 11:41 AM, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> > Hi Hugh
> > There is whole unresolved area, where Shavian Abbrev. are
concerned. Not just the standard four. But how to write abbreviated
names, like
> > U.N. , U.S.A. and IBM.