Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

lghoti wrote:
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joe <wurdbendur@g...> wrote:
>
>>Would you happen to be THE Lionel Ghoti who disappeared so long ago?
>
> If so,
>
>>welcome back!
>
>
> I'm afraid so, and ta very much!
>
> I have just uploaded my old Ghoti Filleter program (the
> transliterator) to my web site. You can get it at:
>
> www.saytheword.org.uk/shavian/fillet.html
>
> ...if you think that it's worth the hassle of installing the Borland
> Database Engine too.
>
> A couple of nights ago, I dug up the whole of my old Shavian site and
> uploaded that too. It's at:
>
> www.saytheword.org.uk/shavian

Look who shows up after all this time! Welcome back, we thought you
were gone for good!

Now I can remove that "seems to have disappeared" notice from my web
page and update your link.
--
·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 - Ethan

A Shavian spell-checker would check to make sure that your spellings
represent acceptable pronunciations. It doesn't defeat the purpose if you
accidentally type something that isn't a valid word. It would just have to
accept some variety where it exists in pronunciation.

Or course, a spell checker shouldn't have to be run after a conversion,
assuming that all the words in the library are spelled correctly in the
first place. If the user has to enter words manually, on the other hand,
then it may be necessary.

Regards,
Joe
/JO


On 2/4/05 5:42 PM, "Star Raven" <celestraof12worlds@...> wrote:

>
> Perhaps the brute force answer is the easiest: word=word, but if it
> matches one on the list or has no match, then bring up a dialogue box
> to that effect. Going back the other way, Shaw to TO, I can see the
> complicated algorhythm, but not from TO to shaw. There are fewer
> spellings.
>
> Also, a spell checker should of course be run before using such a
> program, but on the other hand, a shavian spell checker defeats the
> purpose of shavian, doesn't it? I mean, hasn't that been the subject of
> so many of our previous debates?
>
> --Star

Hi Joe & Star

The first thing that you learn when you write a program is that you
can't completely predict the type of input you are going to get.
You can't assume the material is completely spell-checked and clean
of all variant spellings going in. There are more than a Million T.O.
words and each has a different spelling, not even including all the
grammatical variants (i.e. plural, verb tense)
So Even if the transliteration works properly.
Garbage in, Garbage out.

And so we do need to flag un-recognizable words. So I think we need a
Shavian spell checker. It could just flag each unmatched word with a
leading asterisk. It is better that it is a stand-alone program, as
it would be useful tool for a number of other purposes.

And you are correct, Joe, a single word in T.O. might have two or
even three Shavian Spellings, due to accent variation.
Are these the Homonyms that Lionel Ghoti is talking about choosing
from a menu.

Ideally, for the transliteration program, we would put everything
into a General American accent (Rhotic) form simply because there is
less variation and it is already documented in a number of American
Dictionaries. It is also a better match in that it uses only subset
of the Shaw alphabet. This program only uses the simpliest possible
pronunciation. There is no variation.

Eventually a General British Accent Option might also be developed,
but at the moment there is no such thing as a General British Accent.
(Who is that Nondescript British Englisher with an unidentifiable
accent?)
The one and only Lionel Ghoti.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. I don't see how a shavian spell checker defeats the
purpose of writing in the shavian alphabet.
It is not confirming that you spelled the word accurately from
speech.
It is just checking to see if there is a known English word that can
be pronounced in that particular way. It would include all common
variants and not flag any of them as unacceptable.

______________attached__________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joe <wurdbendur@g...> wrote:
> A Shavian spell-checker would check to make sure that your spellings
> represent acceptable pronunciations. It doesn't defeat the purpose
if you accidentally type something that isn't a valid word. It would
just have to
> accept some variety where it exists in pronunciation.
>
> Or course, a spell checker shouldn't have to be run after a
conversion,
> assuming that all the words in the library are spelled correctly in
the
> first place. If the user has to enter words manually, on the other
hand,
> then it may be necessary.
>
> Regards,
> Joe
> /JO
>
>
> On 2/4/05 5:42 PM, "Star Raven" <celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Perhaps the brute force answer is the easiest: word=word, but if
it
> > matches one on the list or has no match, then bring up a dialogue
box
> > to that effect. Going back the other way, Shaw to TO, I can see
the
> > complicated algorhythm, but not from TO to shaw. There are fewer
> > spellings.
> >
> > Also, a spell checker should of course be run before using such a
> > program, but on the other hand, a shavian spell checker defeats
the
> > purpose of shavian, doesn't it? I mean, hasn't that been the
subject of
> > so many of our previous debates?
> >
> > --Star

I wouldn't use the General American accent exactly. It's important to keep
the rhotic distinction, but we also need to distinguish all of the on, awe,
ah vowels. For a spell checker, variations in these might be included as
exceptions. For a converter, text needs to distinguish as many phonemes as
possible.
While it's true that you can't predict a user's input, you can predict what
a program will return. We have to expect that all of the words in our
library will be spelled in a predictable way. If that's the case, it's only
necessary to spell-check the words that the user has entered. Of course, it
might be just as easy to check the whole thing.

As for flagging unrecognizable words, I don't think it matters how it's
done. What's important is that the program picks them out and asks the user
for input. The flagging shouldn't be visible in the text.

Regards,
Joe
/JO


On 2/6/05 1:41 AM, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@...> wrote:

> Hi Joe & Star
>
> The first thing that you learn when you write a program is that you
> can't completely predict the type of input you are going to get.
> You can't assume the material is completely spell-checked and clean
> of all variant spellings going in. There are more than a Million T.O.
> words and each has a different spelling, not even including all the
> grammatical variants (i.e. plural, verb tense)
> So Even if the transliteration works properly.
> Garbage in, Garbage out.
>
> And so we do need to flag un-recognizable words. So I think we need a
> Shavian spell checker. It could just flag each unmatched word with a
> leading asterisk. It is better that it is a stand-alone program, as
> it would be useful tool for a number of other purposes.
>
> And you are correct, Joe, a single word in T.O. might have two or
> even three Shavian Spellings, due to accent variation.
> Are these the Homonyms that Lionel Ghoti is talking about choosing
> from a menu.
>
> Ideally, for the transliteration program, we would put everything
> into a General American accent (Rhotic) form simply because there is
> less variation and it is already documented in a number of American
> Dictionaries. It is also a better match in that it uses only subset
> of the Shaw alphabet. This program only uses the simpliest possible
> pronunciation. There is no variation.
>
> Eventually a General British Accent Option might also be developed,
> but at the moment there is no such thing as a General British Accent.
> (Who is that Nondescript British Englisher with an unidentifiable
> accent?)
> The one and only Lionel Ghoti.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> P.S. I don't see how a shavian spell checker defeats the
> purpose of writing in the shavian alphabet.
> It is not confirming that you spelled the word accurately from
> speech.
> It is just checking to see if there is a known English word that can
> be pronounced in that particular way. It would include all common
> variants and not flag any of them as unacceptable.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Paul Vandenbrink wrote:


> DShep and everybody else too
>
> Please accept my apologies.
> I had no intention of insulting anyone.
> And I take back any comments that may
> so be construed.
> Name-calling! G-d Forbid.
>
> Regards, Paul V.



Thank you,

Keep in mind that even as we differ in our views
as to what could or should be done to increase
the prospects of greater interest in and subsequent
use of the Shaw alphabet in a wider world, the goal
to encourage such remains mutual, does it not?


regards,
dshep

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:51:32 -0500, Ethan <ethanl@...> wrote:
>
> lghoti wrote:
> >
> > A couple of nights ago, I dug up the whole of my old Shavian site and
> > uploaded that too. It's at:
> >
> > www.saytheword.org.uk/shavian
>
> Now I can remove that "seems to have disappeared" notice from my web
> page and update your link.

Good point! I've done the same on shavian.org.

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

Q. Who is that Nondescript British Englisher with an unidentifiable accent?
A. ' ... the pronunciation to resemble that recorded of His Majesty our
late King George V and sometimes described as Northern English.' (from
Shaw's Will)


-- or have I got it all wrong? If so, it comes of starting to read a
thread in the middle. Incidental thanks too for 'rhotic', a word to be
punned with.
jb

Hi Dshep

Our goal is the same. Without a doubt.
The primary purpose of this site is to explain
and encourage the use of the original Shavian
Alphabet. And of course to provide the tools (fonts)
and wherewithal
to use the Shavian Alphabet on the computer and off.

A secondary purpose, although it sometimes
seems to get out of hand and overwhelms the Primary purpose,
is to develop and standardize all the ancillary functions
that we would like the Alphabet & Spelling system to perform.
(i.e. standardized spellings, abbreviations, spelling foreign
words)
Please remember all this stuff is ancillary to Shavian Phonetic
Alphabet, and in some cases is even contra indicated.
Just because T.O does it, doesn't meen there will an equivalence
in the Shavian Alphabet. Let's keep a sence of perspective here.

Regards, Paul V.
______________attached______________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "dshepx" <dshep@g...> wrote:
> Keep in mind that even as we differ in our views
> as to what could or should be done to increase
> the prospects of greater interest in and subsequent
> use of the Shaw alphabet in a wider world, the goal
> to encourage such remains mutual, does it not?
>
>
> regards,
> dshep
>
> --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Paul Vandenbrink wrote:
> > DShep and everybody else too
> >
> > Please accept my apologies.
> > I had no intention of insulting anyone.
> > And I take back any comments that may
> > so be construed.
> > Name-calling! G-d Forbid.
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.

Hi John
You are correct that the original Standard pronunciation of the
Shavian alphabet was modelled after the Rhotic accent of His Majesty
our late King George the fifth, long my he mumble.
But times have changed and the Scots have infiltrated Northen English
beyond the point of no return, so we have assigned the dubious
distiction of having a nondescript British pronunciation to that
paragon of virtue, that apex of humility, the illustrious Lionel
Ghoti who gave his all, and somewhat more, for the renaisssance of
Shavian Alphabet.
All questions of British pronunciation require his nod.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Excuse me if I wax poetic, but an overdose of these Damn Anti-
Depressive pills is hard to overcome.
________________attached______________________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, John Burrows <burrows@t...>
wrote:
> Q. Who is that Nondescript British Englisher with an
unidentifiable accent?
> A. ' ... the pronunciation to resemble that recorded of His
Majesty our
> late King George V and sometimes described as Northern English.'
(from
> Shaw's Will)
>
>
> -- or have I got it all wrong? If so, it comes of starting to read
a
> thread in the middle. Incidental thanks too for 'rhotic', a word
to be
> punned with.
> jb

Hi Joe
Let me respond to 2 of your points.
First, Most American speakers do not distinguish "on" and "ah" at all.
Americans generally pronounce the "ah" sound for both letters.
For many British speakers in the South of England, the "ah" sound is
pronounced in most cases where an American would pronounce "Ash".
Because of these obvious differences, any transliterator will have an
obvious accent. If you wish to keep all these distinctions then it
would be best to use British Pronunciation as a base. And as you said
a Rhotic pronunciation, you can't use RP English.
So what would that be? I am not familar with Brish Accents.

Second, I agree that erroneous transliterations should not be flagged
in the output Shaw text from the converter/tranlitorator/fileter.
That's what the Spell-Checker is for.
Errors found through use of the Spell-Checker, should be added back
into the exception table for the convertor.
That way you have continuous refinement and improvement of the
Transliteration process.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. Now we have a Fileter, I need to check it out before suggesting
improvements. Anybody tried it out yet under Window 98 Second Edition?
_____________attached_____________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Joe <wurdbendur@g...> wrote:
> I wouldn't use the General American accent exactly. It's important
to keep the rhotic distinction, but we also need to distinguish all
of the on, awe, ah vowels. For a converter, text needs to
distinguish as many phonemes as possible.

> As for flagging unrecognizable words, I don't think it matters how
it's done. What's important is that the program picks them out and
asks the user
> for input. The flagging shouldn't be visible in the text.
>
> Regards,
> Joe
> /JO
>
>
> On 2/6/05 1:41 AM, "paul vandenbrink" <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
>
> > Hi Joe & Star
> >
> > The first thing that you learn when you write a program is that
you
> > can't completely predict the type of input you are going to get.
> > You can't assume the material is completely spell-checked and
clean
> > of all variant spellings going in. There are more than a Million
T.O.
> > words and each has a different spelling, not even including all
the
> > grammatical variants (i.e. plural, verb tense)
> > So Even if the transliteration works properly.
> > Garbage in, Garbage out.
> >
> > And so we do need to flag un-recognizable words. So I think we
need a
> > Shavian spell checker. It could just flag each unmatched word
with a
> > leading asterisk. It is better that it is a stand-alone program,
as
> > it would be useful tool for a number of other purposes.
> >
> > And you are correct, Joe, a single word in T.O. might have two or
> > even three Shavian Spellings, due to accent variation.
> > Are these the Homonyms that Lionel Ghoti is talking about choosing
> > from a menu.
> >
> > Ideally, for the transliteration program, we would put everything
> > into a General American accent (Rhotic) form simply because there
is
> > less variation and it is already documented in a number of
American
> > Dictionaries. It is also a better match in that it uses only
subset
> > of the Shaw alphabet. This program only uses the simpliest
possible
> > pronunciation. There is no variation.
> >
> > Eventually a General British Accent Option might also be
developed,
> > but at the moment there is no such thing as a General British
Accent.
> > (Who is that Nondescript British Englisher with an unidentifiable
> > accent?)
> > The one and only Lionel Ghoti.
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> >
> > P.S. I don't see how a shavian spell checker defeats the
> > purpose of writing in the shavian alphabet.
> > It is not confirming that you spelled the word accurately from
> > speech.
> > It is just checking to see if there is a known English word that
can
> > be pronounced in that particular way. It would include all common
> > variants and not flag any of them as unacceptable.