Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

It's not really necessary, but it could make typing faster and easier.
And it could be easier on our shift keys. The current arrangement
works, but we can do better. Still, I'm looking forword to a time when
we can all use Unicode and decide what layout we want for ourselves.

Our ultimate goal at the moment is making it easier to learn, which
does bring up the question of whether moving the punctuation around may
hurt more than it helps.

Regards,
Joseph Spicer
·𐑡𐑴𐑕𐑧𐑓 𐑕𐑐𐑲𐑕𐑼

On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:20 PM, Star Raven wrote:

> Here's the problem that I see with all of this. We have 48 "letters" of
> the shaw alphabet. There are 26 letters of the Roman Alphabet. That
> means, allowing for shifting, 52 possible letter combos. Even adding
> extra characters such as /wh/ and the Namer dot, I still don't see the
> neccessity to use the numbers or moving the punctuation.
>
> So why all the crazy talk?
> --Star

But here's the problem I see: What did shifting do in the old days? It
moved the mechanism of the typewriter up so that it could type the
capital letter. What does the shift key do now? There's no Mechanism to
shift. Yet we have two of them. So, what other reason could we have for
a shift key?

Without it, we would have the whole of the capital Roman Alphabet on
the top and the lower case on the bottom. That would mean no shifting,
but it would also mean a numerous set of keys. The purpose of the shift
key is to allow for all the punctuation, upper case, &c. that are used
in English writing while still providing a workspace that requires the
least amount of movement of the hands in general. How is the use of the
shift key, which lies a mere muscle twitch away, better than the
stretching/reaching of the whole hand and arm to reach the top row of
number keys? The set up of the keyboard is fine, numbers are where they
can be used easily, and it is compact enough to fit on my laptop, which
is important. It's the positioning of the letters in the letter keys
that we have that we have to work on. For instance my old set up:

Letter Q W E R T Y U I O P
Normal (.) kick ha peep tot lol mum fee sh ch
Shift gag ng bib deed roar nun vow zh j

A S D F G H J K L
Normal out wool on if ash ado egg ah ian
Shift oi ooze oh eat ice up age awe

Z X C V B N M
Normal are air array yea they whip so
Shift or urge ear yew thigh woe zoo

Here it includes all of the shavian letters set up with the tall and
deep letters on the top, each deep letter the shifted version of their
tall (voiceless) counterpart. The only short letters on the top are /r/
and /l/ which leaves the home row for vowels, which were semi-arranged
by common usage. On the bottom row are the rhotic vowels, the
combination letters, and within easy reach of the right hand are single
consonant letters that did not fit on the top row. The Namer Dot has
found a home where it is neither in the way nor out of reach, and Ian
which has no real counterpart has been moved to "l" (unshifted) as it
is not only a vowel, but a dipthong.

My real problem here is with the Romanji set up. It connects the two
alphabets (whatever you want to call them) and can easily confuse you
if you don't remember where the other letters are. There are only so
many A's for instance that /ah/ must be relegated to another letter.
The better key maps that I have seen have a separation between the
roman and shavian, which improves the learning curve.

Just my $2 (inflation)
--Star

--- Joseph Spicer <wurdbendur@...> wrote:

> It's not really necessary, but it could make typing faster and
> easier.
> And it could be easier on our shift keys. The current arrangement
> works, but we can do better. Still, I'm looking forword to a time
> when
> we can all use Unicode and decide what layout we want for ourselves.
>
> Our ultimate goal at the moment is making it easier to learn, which
> does bring up the question of whether moving the punctuation around
> may
> hurt more than it helps.
>
> Regards,
> Joseph Spicer
>
·�����
�����
>


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

Numfar! Do the Dance of Joy!



__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html

Star Raven wrote:
> Here's the problem that I see with all of this. We have 48 "letters" of
> the shaw alphabet. There are 26 letters of the Roman Alphabet. That
> means, allowing for shifting, 52 possible letter combos. Even adding
> extra characters such as /wh/ and the Namer dot, I still don't see the
> neccessity to use the numbers or moving the punctuation.
>
> So why all the crazy talk?
> --Star

Just trying to eliminate a few all-too-common shift key combinations.
If you do much typing at all in Shavian, you quickly find out how much
extra strain is caused by using the shift key so much. While it's
probably not a good idea to switch all the number/symbol keys around,
there are a few other keys which are likely candidates, and which would
cause little interruption to established habits.

>>--
>>·����
>
> ·����� - Ethan
> Lamoreaux
>
>>����� �
>
> �������:
>
>>
> ������������������������
>
>>
> ������������������������
>
>>���� ��
>
> �����
> ��
>
> "·���������
> � � ����"

Star, your computer sure does a number on my signature! What software
and operating system are you using?

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

𐑮𐑰𐑕𐑲𐑑 𐑞 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑:
𐑐𐑚𐑑𐑛𐑒𐑜𐑓𐑝𐑔𐑞𐑕𐑟𐑖𐑠𐑗𐑡𐑘𐑢𐑙𐑣𐑤𐑮𐑥𐑯𐑦𐑰𐑧𐑱𐑨𐑲𐑩𐑳𐑪𐑴𐑫𐑵𐑬𐑶𐑭𐑷𐑸𐑹𐑺𐑻𐑼𐑽𐑾𐑿
𐑹𐑛𐑼𐑛 𐑨𐑟 𐑜𐑦𐑝𐑩𐑯 𐑦𐑯 "·𐑨𐑯𐑛𐑮𐑩𐑒𐑤𐑰𐑟 𐑯 𐑞 𐑤𐑲𐑩𐑯"

paul vandenbrink wrote:
> Thanks, Ethan
> We will Skip over the Backslash
> So that leave us with 4 easy to use new keys (non-shift),
> the square brackets, Semi-colon and apostrophe,
> and 2 slightly less
> accessible keys, the Tilde and the Plus key that we can make use
> of. I will lay off the Hyphen key for the moment, because it is
> commonly used for Roman letters. I do not know how prevalent it would
> be in Shavian writing. I suspect probably 50% less so, due to the
> shorter words. Modern typesetting is much better at fitting words on
> a line, in anycase.
> The other 6 Keys are rarely used under any circumstance and so can be
> allocated to Common Shavian Vowel Letters, current in awkward non-
> intuitive positions requiring the Shift Key.
>
> Agreed?
> Can we proceed to the tweaking?
>
> Regards, /pYl /vI.

Yes, by all means, proceed. I agree we could use a better 'qwerty
compatible" keymap.

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

𐑮𐑰𐑕𐑲𐑑 𐑞 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑:
𐑐𐑚𐑑𐑛𐑒𐑜𐑓𐑝𐑔𐑞𐑕𐑟𐑖𐑠𐑗𐑡𐑘𐑢𐑙𐑣𐑤𐑮𐑥𐑯𐑦𐑰𐑧𐑱𐑨𐑲𐑩𐑳𐑪𐑴𐑫𐑵𐑬𐑶𐑭𐑷𐑸𐑹𐑺𐑻𐑼𐑽𐑾𐑿
𐑹𐑛𐑼𐑛 𐑨𐑟 𐑜𐑦𐑝𐑩𐑯 𐑦𐑯 "·𐑨𐑯𐑛𐑮𐑩𐑒𐑤𐑰𐑟 𐑯 𐑞 𐑤𐑲𐑩𐑯"

Hi Star

It is nice to be back. Good to hear from you.
It has been a while.
The Keyboard mapping that we are currently using to type Shaw letters
is quite adequate, especially for the 24 Consonant letters.
There is a pretty good match up between Key and letters.
But the mapping of the Shaw Vowel letters is more of mess, because there
are only 5 Roman Vowel keys, and and even if you use Y, X and Q to
represent Shaw Vowel letters it isn't enough to represent 24. We would
need 4 more keys to represent all the Shaw Vowel letters and compounds,
in a systematic manner, even using the Shift.
Obviously, there is never going to be a perfect mapping, but I would
like to see if we can reduce the number of funny correspondances a
newcommer has to learn to type Shaw letters. Upper case M for OOze,
Upper case C for IR. Upper case W for EE-ah (Ian). Although that is one
combination letter, I wouldn't mind dropping it , altogether.
I'd rather see Upper case W represent the wh sound, anyway.

Regards, Paul V.
___________________________attached_____________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
<celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
> Here's the problem that I see with all of this. We have 48 "letters"
of
> the shaw alphabet. There are 26 letters of the Roman Alphabet. That
> means, allowing for shifting, 52 possible letter combos. Even adding
> extra characters such as /wh/ and the Namer dot, I still don't see the
> neccessity to use the numbers or moving the punctuation.
>
> So why all the crazy talk?
> --Star
>
>

Paul,

You should know me by now. I don't and have never belielved that the
roman alphabet should have any correspondance to Shavian. There is no
correlation in reading, and often it helps us to learn the new code
when it doesn't represent the code we are trying to forget.

Just a thought,
--Star

=========
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

Hi Star

Hmmn, I do know you Star, but not so well that I can predict your
response to every interesting question.
I wouldn't think you would object to a little bit of tweaking of the
Keyboard Mapping, at least until you know what I am suggesting?
Specifically, that is.
Do you so object?

By the way, I don't see the Shaw Alphabet as totally seperate from
the Roman Alphabet. It was created in reaction to the limitations of
the Roman Alphabet in writing real spoken English.

The Shaw Alphabet preserves some of the Stong features of the Roman
Alphabet. Let me list a few. I am sure there are more.
As such it is much easier for people conditioned to Roman Alphabet to
use.

Correspondences
1. Both Alphabets have Tall, Deep and Short Letters,
with Vowels, Semi-vowels and common Nasal sounds mostly found in the
Short letters.
2. The S and Z correspond to the So and the Zoo Letters
3. The i corresponds with "if"
4. The o corresponds with "Oak"
5. The letters are designed to fit in manner that minimizes the length
of the word slong the line. The letters generally fit in a rectangle
that is quit a bit longer along the vertical axis. Most alphabets,
fit in a more squared shape. Take a look at Modern Hebrew for an
example of what
I mean.
6. A distinctive amount of blank space between words.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. Go to www.omniglot.com is you want to see a really different
alphabet. Arabic and Korean Hangul come to mind, but there are many
others that have much less correspondences.
They don't even look like what an Alphabet should be.
_________________attached______________________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Star Raven
<celestraof12worlds@y...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> You should know me by now. I don't and have never belielved that the
> roman alphabet should have any correspondance to Shavian. There is
no
> correlation in reading, and often it helps us to learn the new code
> when it doesn't represent the code we are trying to forget.
>
> Just a thought,
> --Star
>
> =========>
> 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

Hi, I'm pretty new here, so I apologize if I repeat
something that has already been said.

One of the benefits, as I see it, of Shavian is that
it is not immediately legible by those who have not
yet been baptized into the world of Shaw. I know this
is not a secure encryption method and is little more
than a Caesar Shift Cypher but it's nice to know that
the guy sitting next to me in the boardroom cannot
read what I'm writing.

Following that logic to the keyboard, wouldn't a
layout that does not resemble the QWERTY/DVORAK
designs be optimal? A fresh start, that when changed
to another font is unreadable, seems ideal to me.

Perhaps this is a feature that most Shavian users do
not care about, but it is a thought.



__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html

Hi Josh

I think it is a useful to be able to write confidentially,
but that is not the primary value of the Shavian Alphabet.
I don't see normal confidentiallity is compromised.
People unfamilar with Shaw certainly won't be able to read over your
shoulder with any speed or confidence in their understanding.
They would have to puzzle it out.

You are correct. someone who is familar with English Phonetics
would find our Shavian written out in Roman letters quite readable,
if he made intuitive leap that it was written in Phonetic Shorthand.
Which he might very well do just by examining it. Unfortunately, for
the poor cryptographer, he is like a fish out of water. Shavian
spelling has much less redundancy for him to chew on. His letter
frequency tables would be less than useless.
The patterns of Shavian are much obvious than those of Roman
spelling. There is no TH or Wh combination starting sentences. There
is no common ing, s, es or ed endings in Shavian spelling. They are
not as ubiquitous.

Given that there are relatively few Phonetic Wizards in the General
Population, I would simply suggest that you wish to store or print
something of in Shavian, you make sure it saved in the Shaw font
first. You might even make an alternate font that while retaining the
general look of Shavian is tailored to you particular pronunciation
pattern. Even if it were switched back to another Roman font I
suspect the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to figure it out
reliably.

If you look at www.shawalphabet.com
you will see such a font variation. I also added extra variant vowel
letters that indicated if the Vowel sound was accentuated by a
Glottal stop.
For example in the E sound at the end of the word Hawai'i.

Regards, Paul V.
____________attached______________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Josh Goke <jocago_atl@y...>
wrote:
> Hi, I'm pretty new here, so I apologize if I repeat
> something that has already been said.
>
> One of the benefits, as I see it, of Shavian is that
> it is not immediately legible by those who have not
> yet been baptized into the world of Shaw. I know this
> is not a secure encryption method and is little more
> than a Caesar Shift Cypher but it's nice to know that
> the guy sitting next to me in the boardroom cannot
> read what I'm writing.
>
> Following that logic to the keyboard, wouldn't a
> layout that does not resemble the QWERTY/DVORAK
> designs be optimal? A fresh start, that when changed
> to another font is unreadable, seems ideal to me.
>
> Perhaps this is a feature that most Shavian users do
> not care about, but it is a thought.

Hi Josh

About the keyboard layout: my layout is only based on the *principle* of the
Dvorak keyboard, i.e. maximized hand alternation, frequently used letters on
easy-to-reach keys, etc. It does not bear any real resemblance to Dvorak
'proper', though, and I don't believe it should.

Hugh B

> -----Original Message-----
> From: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Josh Goke
> Sent: 10 June 2005 15:36
> To: shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [shawalphabet] RE: SUM(Alternative Keyboard Layout Discussion)
>
> Hi, I'm pretty new here, so I apologize if I repeat
> something that has already been said.
>
> One of the benefits, as I see it, of Shavian is that
> it is not immediately legible by those who have not
> yet been baptized into the world of Shaw. I know this
> is not a secure encryption method and is little more
> than a Caesar Shift Cypher but it's nice to know that
> the guy sitting next to me in the boardroom cannot
> read what I'm writing.
>
> Following that logic to the keyboard, wouldn't a
> layout that does not resemble the QWERTY/DVORAK
> designs be optimal? A fresh start, that when changed
> to another font is unreadable, seems ideal to me.
>
> Perhaps this is a feature that most Shavian users do
> not care about, but it is a thought.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Discover Yahoo!
> Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>