Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Yes, in my own transliterations I've often written /Vsa for USA, /nsE for
NSA, /jV for EU, etc. It seemed to make sense at the time and probably still
does, if you want to use Shavian and nothing but.



Hugh B



_____

From: Joe [mailto:wurdbendur@...]
Sent: 28 January 2005 01:50
To: Shaw Alphabet
Subject: Re: [shawalphabet] Re: Omniglot.com



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"

_____

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.

Paul

All you have to do is the same as you do in, e.g., T.O. - i.e. (there's
three good examples) separate the initial letters with full stops (periods).

Hugh B

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul vandenbrink [mailto:pvandenbrink@...]
> Sent: 28 January 2005 07:30
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: Omniglot.com
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

When you name a letter, you're supposed to just write the letter with a
namer dot before it, as explained in the ShawScript newsletter (at least I
think that where it was). So, any time you write an abbreviation with the
intent that each letter should be pronounced individually, you should
probably use a namer dot before each. In this case, the periods or full
stops become redundant. Either one would work alone, I suppose, but I¹m not
fond of periods in the middle of a sentence. It would also eliminate the
confusion about double periods, since most people don¹t realize the period
for the abbreviation shouldn¹t merge with the final one when it¹s at the end
of a sentence. But rather than writing the name of a Roman letter, I¹ll
normally just write the letter itself expecting that we¹ll all know what it
is.

That said, a pronounceable acronym is usually equally, if not more
recognizable in speech. For example, most people pronounce NASA, though
it¹s usually listed among unpronounceable acronyms. So, we would do just as
well to write /nAsa, with one namer dot to indicate that it¹s a simple name
rather than the abbreviation, for which I would write /n/X/s/A.

Read also apparently opposed the use of abbreviations for Latin expressions
(like i.e., e.g.), at least in QuikScript. It makes sense in Shavian as
well since most people substitute English for the Latin here. If you must
use Latin abbreviations, I would suggest writing them in Roman to
distinguish them.

Regards,
Joe
/JO


On 1/28/05 12:31 PM, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@fearfulsilence.com> wrote:
> Paul
>
> All you have to do is the same as you do in, e.g., T.O. - i.e. (there's
> three good examples) separate the initial letters with full stops (periods).
>
> Hugh B

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joe <wurdbendur@g...> wrote:
> That said, a pronounceable acronym is usually equally, if not more
> recognizable in speech. For example, most people pronounce NASA,
> though it¹s usually listed among unpronounceable acronyms. So,
> we would do just as well to write /nAsa, with one namer dot to
> indicate that it¹s a simple name rather than the abbreviation,
> for which I would write /n/X/s/A.

Suppose you wanted to write about the former Columbia Broadcasting
System. Since the Latin letters CBS no longer stand for the network's
full name, would the Shavian rendering be [kick][bib][so]? Or would
the first letter be different?

I think that's how I would write it. Of course, I'm more likely to
recognize the Roman letters, so I might just use those.


On 1/29/05 10:42 AM, "James H. Vipond" <jvipond@...> wrote:

> Suppose you wanted to write about the former Columbia Broadcasting
> System. Since the Latin letters CBS no longer stand for the network's
> full name, would the Shavian rendering be [kick][bib][so]? Or would
> the first letter be different?

Hi Hugh

Yes. They are good examples indeed.
2 of them are derived from Latin and can not even be called English
abbreviations. Now only if these abbrev. were left in the original
T.O.
and embedded in the Shavian Script would a novice user be able to
derive their meaning.
Shavian is not a code that requires implicit references back to the
T.O., for a clear understanding.
It is supposed to be a stand-alone Alphabet that any English Speaker
can interpret as clear precise English words.
By that test, e.g. (e.J.) and i.e. (F.I.) do not qualify as Shavian
abbrev. By the way, I am not even sure how to pronounce these abbrev.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I happen to live in T.O. It's a common Candian Abbrev.
It stands for Toronto, Ontario, Canada.


--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead"
<mixsynth@f...> wrote:
> Paul
>
> All you have to do is the same as you do in, e.g., T.O. - i.e.
(there's
> three good examples) separate the initial letters with full stops
(periods).
>
> Hugh B
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: paul vandenbrink [mailto:pvandenbrink@s...]
> > Sent: 28 January 2005 07:30
> > To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: Omniglot.com
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Hi Joe
Thanks for your analysis. If I had read you note earlier, I would not
have sent my last note. I totally agree with your position.

Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joe <wurdbendur@g...> wrote:
> When you name a letter, you're supposed to just write the letter
with a
> namer dot before it, as explained in the ShawScript newsletter (at
least I
> think that where it was). So, any time you write an abbreviation
with the
> intent that each letter should be pronounced individually, you
should
> probably use a namer dot before each. In this case, the periods or
full
> stops become redundant. Either one would work alone, I suppose,
but I¹m not
> fond of periods in the middle of a sentence. It would also
eliminate the
> confusion about double periods, since most people don¹t realize the
period
> for the abbreviation shouldn¹t merge with the final one when it¹s
at the end
> of a sentence. But rather than writing the name of a Roman letter,
I¹ll
> normally just write the letter itself expecting that we¹ll all know
what it
> is.
>
> That said, a pronounceable acronym is usually equally, if not more
> recognizable in speech. For example, most people pronounce NASA,
though
> it¹s usually listed among unpronounceable acronyms. So, we would
do just as
> well to write /nAsa, with one namer dot to indicate that it¹s a
simple name
> rather than the abbreviation, for which I would write /n/X/s/A.
>
> Read also apparently opposed the use of abbreviations for Latin
expressions
> (like i.e., e.g.), at least in QuikScript. It makes sense in
Shavian as
> well since most people substitute English for the Latin here. If
you must
> use Latin abbreviations, I would suggest writing them in Roman to
> distinguish them.
>
> Regards,
> Joe
> /JO
>
>
> On 1/28/05 12:31 PM, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@f...> wrote:
> > Paul
> >
> > All you have to do is the same as you do in, e.g., T.O. - i.e.
(there's
> > three good examples) separate the initial letters with full stops
(periods).
> >
> > Hugh B

T.O. is a good example. But at least the T is a T and the O an O.
This is NOT the case always. E.g. with another Canadian province,
namely BC (British Columbia).
The second C is not a C at all but a K.

This equally applies to ABC, NBC (where the C is a K - Korporation).
So ABK (for ABC), NBK (for NBC). In CBS's case, it should be KBS.

There should be a system for abbreviations. This is very much needed
for pragamatic reasons. Abbreviations are used on a daily basis.
Take ok (ol korrect)
ko - knock out
How to represent these?

In banks: Debit - DR
Credit - CR
How could we represent those in Shavian?

USA actually starts with a Y and the final "a" is not an a but s schwa
"e". So USA would be y.s.e. (Yunayted steyts av emerika)
How about UK, USSR (same problem)

DC - District of Columbia -- DK?

UNICEF - actually the C is a TCH (Children) and not a C

Names of countries:
NZ - New Zealand
PRC - Peoples' Republic of China
FYROM - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

A "stand-alone alphabet" needs to address such issues and be more
involved in such practical matters that WILL pop up on every corner.


--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
>
> Hi Hugh
>
> Yes. They are good examples indeed.
> 2 of them are derived from Latin and can not even be called English
> abbreviations. Now only if these abbrev. were left in the original
> T.O.
> and embedded in the Shavian Script would a novice user be able to
> derive their meaning.
> Shavian is not a code that requires implicit references back to the
> T.O., for a clear understanding.
> It is supposed to be a stand-alone Alphabet that any English Speaker
> can interpret as clear precise English words.
> By that test, e.g. (e.J.) and i.e. (F.I.) do not qualify as Shavian
> abbrev. By the way, I am not even sure how to pronounce these abbrev.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> P.S. I happen to live in T.O. It's a common Candian Abbrev.
> It stands for Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
>
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead"
> <mixsynth@f...> wrote:
> > Paul
> >
> > All you have to do is the same as you do in, e.g., T.O. - i.e.
> (there's
> > three good examples) separate the initial letters with full stops
> (periods).
> >
> > Hugh B
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: paul vandenbrink [mailto:pvandenbrink@s...]
> > > Sent: 28 January 2005 07:30
> > > To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [shawalphabet] Re: Omniglot.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

Quote from your introduction: ONE (capiotals from me) book, a
bi-alphabetical version of "Androcles and the Lion" (cover shown left)
was produced, with copies sent to LIBRARIES all over the
English-speaking world. It was HOPED that the alphabet would gain
support through its INHERENT benefits; despite attracting plenty of
attention at the time, the alphabet SADLY faded into obscurity...
Unquote

One book? No further editions?
To the "libraries" of the English speaking world. And they probably
gave it the necesaary code, filed it on the stacks and never took a
look at it...
Hoped? No marketing needed? Advertisements? Some illustartions? You
just hope and it is done?

Conclusion? Not enough was done. "Androcles and the Lion" is not your
day-to-day literature and I hadn't even read it in Latin letters, let
alone be bothered to read it in Shavian....

The point is, surely far more extensive literature should have been
printed for the general public before the general public warmed up to
the idea of Shavian's "inherent benefits".

By dropping it after publishing Androcles, you have deprived millions
of readers these "inherent benefits" by not giving them enough materials.

For the "man in the street", how about even an 8-page monthly
bi-alphabetical tabloid or magazine giving us some contemporary news
in Shavian.

How about an illustrated children's guide to teach the average kid the
basics.

The Shavian movement has only itself to blame. Shaw must be turning in
his grave seeing what has happened to his dream of reform.

Probably English is still being written more or less the same way it
was when Shaw's grand grand grand father was born!

So much for inherent benefits.
All "I" see is inherent benefits of TS and it's apparent staying power
as it goes on happily not even changing one simple rule since
Webster's "cosmetic" and very "symbolic" reform. And that was ages ago.

Shavian, a stand alone alphabet. That's lovely.

But is it readily adaptable to French, German, Italian, Spanish,
Portuguese and their needs. Has any attempt been made to address the
needs of these languages for a uniform alphabet. If Shavian is such an
alphabet, I would love to see Shavian applied for the above languages.

Will it stand the test?
Will we need to add some more letters to the alphabet.

More ambitiously, would it be sufficient enough for use in languages
that use Cyrillic (Greek, Russian, Bulgarian... ) or Arabic script
(meaning also Farsi, Urdu etc.)