Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Hi Hugh & Ethan

Let me add my condolences to the families and friends, and also add
the hope this threat to London and the rest of the UK will be
identified and contained as soon as possible.
Unfortunately, even at this time, not all the victims have been
identified.

It is sad that the very things that make our Western Culture
(Democracies),
successful and civilized are being used to attack us.
Our openness and our acceptence of foreigners and their culture
is being used to bring Destruction and Terror down upon us.

The countries from which many of these Terrorists come from are very
authoritorian and limit both their own Citizens freedom and outside
access to their countries. Just as an example, it is impossible to
visit Saudi Arabia except by invitation or as a specially vetted
Religous Pilgrim.

I hope that our members will continues in the work to make the
written English language (spelling) and thus our culture easier to
learn in the hope that understanding will eventually contribute to
long term peace. It seems surprising to me, but in many places in the
world, English is considered the language of compromise and peace.
___________attached_________________________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead"
<mixsynth@f...> wrote:
> Thankyou, Ethan.
>
> I am deeply saddened by the needless loss of life that seems to
keep on
> happening over and over again. If the terrorists think a few bombs
will make
> Londoners crumble, they need only look at the Blitz, the IRA bombs,
and all
> other failed attempts to break their spirit.
>
> They're used to it there. The 'terrorists' are wasting their time.
>
> Hugh B

Hi Carl
How's it going? I have been away and have gotten a bit of touch.
What is the name of your Yahoo Forum.
There is a lot of stuff on Truth Seeking on the Wikipedia.
Are you approching the search for truth from a Religous, Philosophical,
Linguistic (General Semantics) or Common Sense Point of view?
Keep me informed.
I hope you will also persist in showing new people the awesome benefits
of the Shavian Phonetic Alphabet.
Fond Regards, Paul V.
_________________attached_________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Carl G. Easton"
<shavintel16@y...> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I just started a new discussion group on Truth-seeking. It's a group
> that just about anything can be discussed. And of course I'll still
> send some messages about Shavian at this site. Because I'm still
> interested in Shavian. I just needed to branch out more.
>
> Best of Regards,
>
> Carl

Hi Paul,

The new discussion groups address is www.truth-seeking@yahoogroups.com . The approach of this group is many and varied. It is open to all faiths, simply because every intelligent individual possesses certain fragments of Truth. And that of course is one of the goals of Truth-seekers is to collect as many fragments of Truth, as possible.

And of course I will still promote Shavian. It is my favorite phonemic/phonetic alphabet along with Deseret.

Best of Regards,

Carl

paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink11@...> wrote:
Hi Carl
How's it going? I have been away and have gotten a bit of touch.
What is the name of your Yahoo Forum.
There is a lot of stuff on Truth Seeking on the Wikipedia.
Are you approching the search for truth from a Religous, Philosophical,
Linguistic (General Semantics) or Common Sense Point of view?
Keep me informed.
I hope you will also persist in showing new people the awesome benefits
of the Shavian Phonetic Alphabet.
Fond Regards, Paul V.
_________________attached_________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "Carl G. Easton"
<shavintel16@y...> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I just started a new discussion group on Truth-seeking. It's a group
> that just about anything can be discussed. And of course I'll still
> send some messages about Shavian at this site. Because I'm still
> interested in Shavian. I just needed to branch out more.
>
> Best of Regards,
>
> Carl




---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "shawalphabet" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
shawalphabet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------



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

Ten Axioms
Do we all agree with these? --Steve
source page: _http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/n/n5pt1.php_
(http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/n/n5pt1.php)

Ten Axioms on English Spelling
Edited and expanded by Chris Upward




1. Alphabets provide the simplest way to write most languages.
SB: syllabaries are strong competitors when there are less than 5 vowels.
ref: _www.omniglot.com_ (http://www.omniglot.com) , _www.wikipedia.com_
(http://www.wikipedia.com) keyword: syllabary
2. The alphabet works by the principle that letters represent speech sounds.
SB: Most writing systems contain more than just sound signs.
They also include a few meaning signs (word-signs, logograms).
3. Literacy is easily acquired if the spelling tells readers the
pronunciation, and the pronunciation tells writers the spelling.
SB: Literacy is more easily acquired under these conditions. In fact
illiterates can learn highly phonemic writing systems in 3 months or less. Laubach
(1960) said that 3 months was the average for 95% of the 300 languages his
organization developed literacy materials for. Swadesh and Pike (1939)
claimed to have taught illiterate Indians in rural Mexico how to read and write
their own language and Spanish in two months. (reported in a Unesco paper).
4. Pronunciation changes through time, undermining the match between
spelling and sound.
SB: See Webster quote
5. Spelling systems need modernizing periodically to restore the
sound-spelling match.
SB: One of the arguments that Samuel Johnson gave for not matching spelling
to speech was that speech changed to quickly. Had Johnson provided a
dictionary pronunciation key it would be possible to see how much English has
changed since 1755.
6. By not systematically modernizing over nearly 1,000 years, English
spelling has lost touch with the alphabetic principle of spelling matching sound.
7. Neglect of the alphabetic principle makes English spelling exceptionally
difficult.
8. The difficulty of English spelling wastes time and produces unacceptably
low levels of literacy in English-speaking countries.
9. To improve literacy, English needs to modernise its spelling, as other
languages do.
10 There are no quick or easy solutions. As a first step, the idea of
"managing" English spelling, i.e. controlling it rather than letting it continue on
its own arbitrary way, should be adopted.
SB: The initial step is probably to acknowledge the problem. Spelling
scholars rarely mention it. Only about 50% of the books that are supposed to
help you improve your spelling acknowledge the problem.

Hi Steve
I agree pretty much with the principles that you laid out.
However, 7 through 10 are not exactly principles. They are an
analysis of the situation, and a consideration on what might be the
best solution.
Since points 7 through 10 are available or should be re-written
in axiomatic form;
Let me suggest a few additions. The first would be an Axiom,
the others are talking about an Ideal Alphabet.
1. An Alphabet should maximize the number of letters to represent
all significant and distinguishable Consonant and Vowel sounds.
In other words, Diagraphs, should be eliminated in an Ideal alphabet.
For example, even the Shavian Alphabet has the "hw" Diagraph. And the
Roman Spelling has hundreds of common Diagraphs.
2. In an ideal alphabet, Vowel letters would be easily
distinguishable from Consonant letters. Interestingly, both the
Shavian and the Roman Alphabet appear to to make this distinction.
At least in Lower case Roman Letters, the vowel letters are
smaller,simpler centrally located symbols. (a,e,i,o,oo,u,w)
Only the letter "c" seems to break this rule. It resembles a Vowel
letter instead of the Consonant letter that it actually is.
3. As a collorary to point 2, it would be helpful, if the Schwa sound,
which is a minimal vowel sound, was represented by a smaller than
normal letter, as it already is in the Shavian Alphabet. For example,
a period or Apostrophe. The Apostrophe only serves a Haphazard
inconsistent function in Roman Spelling. It either indicates a new or
reduced pronunciation (I'd, can't, haven't, it's, hav'ta) of some
common English word pair. (A Contraction in other words); Or it
sometimes indicates an nonstandard syllable boundary, before or after
a Vowel (Hawai'i, O'clock, O'connor, O'Reilly).

Although, we have been talking about all Alphabets,
for simplicity, I will use Simplified English for the following
example.
If you used a period to represent the Schwa in Simplified Spelling,
you would get sentences like this.
Thu kwik braun foks jumpt o'ver thu leizy dog.
Thu klaun slipt on . b.nan. .
Thu rat ran .raund thu lit.l ger.l.
Shee ran .wei, skreeming.

Regards, Paul V.
P.S. Thank goodness, Shavian makes full use of the Schwa sound
through the letter, Ado. Many Alphabets ignore the Schwa sound.

P.P.S. Although I agree with point 5, I would like to add that a
clear easy to use Phonetic Alphabet would tend to retard
the normal evolutionary changes in a languages pronunciation,
in direct proportion to the percentage of the English speaking
population which use that Alphabet.
I would expect that
Adjustments in spelling would only rarely be needed, and could be
relegated to 50 year intervals.
_____________________attached_____________________________
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, stbetta@a... wrote:
> Ten Axioms
> Do we all agree with these? --Steve
> Ten Axioms on English Spelling
> Edited and expanded by Chris Upward
>
> 1. Alphabets provide the simplest way to write most languages.
> SB: syllabaries are strong competitors when there are less than 5
vowels.
> ref: _www.omniglot.com_ (http://www.omniglot.com) ,
_www.wikipedia.com_
> (http://www.wikipedia.com) keyword: syllabary
> 2. The alphabet works by the principle that letters represent
speech sounds.
> SB: Most writing systems contain more than just sound signs.
> They also include a few meaning signs (word-signs, logograms).
> 3. Literacy is easily acquired if the spelling tells readers the
> pronunciation, and the pronunciation tells writers the spelling.
> SB: Literacy is more easily acquired under these conditions. In
fact
> illiterates can learn highly phonemic writing systems in 3 months
or less. Laubach
> (1960) said that 3 months was the average for 95% of the 300
languages his
> organization developed literacy materials for. Swadesh and Pike
(1939)
> claimed to have taught illiterate Indians in rural Mexico how to
read and write
> their own language and Spanish in two months. (reported in a
Unesco paper).
> 4. Pronunciation changes through time, undermining the match
between
> spelling and sound.
> SB: See Webster quote
> 5. Spelling systems need modernizing periodically to restore the
> sound-spelling match.
> SB: One of the arguments that Samuel Johnson gave for not matching
spelling
> to speech was that speech changed to quickly. Had Johnson
provided a
> dictionary pronunciation key it would be possible to see how much
English has
> changed since 1755.
> 6. By not systematically modernizing over nearly 1,000 years,
English
> spelling has lost touch with the alphabetic principle of spelling
matching sound.
> 7. Neglect of the alphabetic principle makes English spelling
exceptionally
> difficult.
> 8. The difficulty of English spelling wastes time and produces
unacceptably
> low levels of literacy in English-speaking countries.
> 9. To improve literacy, English needs to modernise its spelling,
as other
> languages do.
> 10 There are no quick or easy solutions. As a first step, the idea
of
> "managing" English spelling, i.e. controlling it rather than
letting it continue on
> its own arbitrary way, should be adopted.

Paul,

My introduction to this list was not accurate.
I now think the list was devised by Bob Brown in the early 1990's and revised
a few years later by Chris Upward. Upward's list (below) was endorsed by the
spelling society.

I would call them position statements rather than axioms. They are presumed
to
be self evident ... almost articles of faith. However, some linguists and
some English teachers take issue with them.

Six Axioms on English Spelling.
source: _www.spellingsociety.org_ (http://www.spellingsociety.org)
1. The letters of the alphabet were designed to represent speech sounds;
that is the alphabetic principle.

SB: In other words, letters are supposed to be sound signs in an
alphabetical system.

In the English writing system, some letters are seen as markers and
others as etymological indicators. The plural <s> and the past tense <d>
are morphemes or meaning elements rather than precise indicators of
pronunciation.

Conservatives do not want to remove any superfluous letters because the
sequence has been learned as a sight word. Many argue that there needs to be no
close connection between written symbols and speech. Semagrams (sight-words)
will work. In addition, the lack of a connection means that the same
writing system can be used by those speaking different dialects.

2. The alphabetic principle makes literacy easy, allowing the reader to
pronounce words from their spelling, and the writer to spell them from their
sounds.

SB: The threshold of practical literacy has been defined as the ability to
read a newspaper with understanding equivalent to having the article read
aloud.

A consistent phonemic writing system accelerates literacy. Writing systems
that are over 85% phonemic can be learned in 3 months instead of 3+ years
(Laubach, 1965). Pupils in Spain, Italy and dozens of other countries with more
transparent orthographies achieve a level of literacy in 1 year that is
unmatched in English speaking countries until the 4th year (P.Seymour, 2002).
_Research_ (http://www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/reading-research.htm)

3.
As pronunciation changes through the ages, the alphabetic principle tends to
be corrupted; the spelling of words then needs to be adapted to show the new
sounds.

SB: This is the key to understanding how recorded speech can lose its
connection to the spoken language. What the writing system often records is the
speech of an earlier time.


4.
Unlike other languages, English has not systematically modernized its
spelling over the past 1,000 years, and today it only haphazardly observes the
alphabetic principle.

Or as Webster says, "Letters, the most useful invention that ever blessed
mankind, lose a part of their value by no longer being representatives of the
sounds originally annexed to them." The effect is, "to destroy the benefits of
the alphabet." Dissertations on the English Language, 1778

5.
Neglect of the alphabetic principle now makes literacy unnecessarily
difficult in English throughout the world, and learning, education and communication
all suffer.

SB: Traditionalists will point to studies that indicate that English
speaking populations are just as literate as those who use a shallower orthography.

6. Procedures are needed to manage improvements to English spelling as a
world communication system.

SB: There have been frequent calls for an English academy or an
International English Spelling Commision (IESC). Another option would be to teach a
parallel writing system that would also serve as a dicitonary pronunciation
guide. The old code would be necessary to read old books. The new code would
accelerate code literacy and serve as a guide to pronunciation.

(Paul V.) Hi Steve
I agree pretty much with the principles that you laid out.
However, 7 through 10 are not exactly principles. They are an
analysis of the situation, and a consideration on what might be the
best solution.

Let me suggest a few additions. The first would be an Axiom,
the others are talking about an Ideal Alphabet.

1. An Alphabet should maximize the number of letters to represent
all significant and distinguishable Consonant and Vowel sounds.
In other words, Diagraphs, should be eliminated in an Ideal alphabet.
For example, even the Shavian Alphabet has the "hw" Diagraph. And the
Roman Spelling has hundreds of common Diagraphs.

2. In an ideal alphabet, Vowel letters would be easily
distinguishable from Consonant letters. Interestingly, both the
Shavian and the Roman Alphabet appear to to make this distinction.
At least in Lower case Roman Letters, the vowel letters are
smaller,simpler centrally located symbols. (a,e,i,o,oo,u,w)
Only the letter "c" seems to break this rule. It resembles a Vowel
letter instead of the Consonant letter that it actually is.

SB: This may have been a historical accident. The Greeks reassigned some
unneeded Semitic consonant shapes to vowels. Lower case letters came in around
900 CE.

3. As a collorary to point 2, it would be helpful, if the Schwa sound,
which is a minimal vowel sound, was represented by a smaller than
normal letter, as it already is in the Shavian Alphabet. For example,
a period or Apostrophe. The Apostrophe only serves a Haphazard
inconsistent function in Roman Spelling. It either indicates a new or
reduced pronunciation (I'd, can't, haven't, it's, hav'ta) of some
common English word pair. (A Contraction in other words); Or it
sometimes indicates an nonstandard syllable boundary, before or after
a Vowel (Hawai'i, O'clock, O'connor, O'Reilly).

Although, we have been talking about all Alphabets,
for simplicity, I will use Simplified English for the following example.
If you used a period to represent the Schwa in Simplified Spelling,
you would get sentences like this.
Thu kwik braun foks jumpt o'ver thu leizy dog.
Thu klaun slipt on . b.nan. .
Thu rat ran .raund thu lit.l ger.l.
Shee ran .wei, skreeming.
SB: I don't think a schwa-period is partcularly easy to read.
Why is the spelled THU.
Webster diacritics adapted to the International Keyboard: schwa = à è ò ù

Ðè kwik braun fäks jumpt óvèr ðè leizy dôg.
ð klaun slipt on à bànænà (ð & a can be word-signs)
ð ræt ræn àraund ð lit'l gòrilà (the asc is borrowed from IPA and Saxon)
Shé ræn àwey skrémìñ (IPA: Si ræn @weI skri:miñ)

(PV) Shavian makes full use of the Schwa sound
through the letter, Ado. Many Alphabets ignore the Schwa sound.

Although I agree with point 5, I would like to add that a
clear easy to use Phonetic Alphabet would tend to retard
the normal evolutionary changes in a languages pronunciation,
in direct proportion to the percentage of the English speaking
population which use that Alphabet. I would expect that
Adjustments in spelling would only rarely be needed, and could be
relegated to 50 year intervals.
SB: We are over 50 years away from the first time use of a dictionary key.
How many dictionary key spellings have had to be revised?
I don't think that American broadcast English has changed that much.
With more access to CNN and BBC reporters, it may change a little more
in the next decade.

-------------------------

> Ten Axioms

> 1. Alphabets provide the simplest way to write most languages.

> 2. The alphabet works by the principle that letters represent
speech sounds.

> 3. Literacy is easily acquired if the spelling tells readers the
> pronunciation, and the pronunciation tells writers the spelling.

> 4. Pronunciation changes through time, undermining the match
between spelling and sound.

> 5. Spelling systems need modernizing periodically to restore the
> sound-spelling match.

> 6. By not systematically modernizing over nearly 1,000 years,
English spelling has lost touch with the alphabetic principle of spelling
matching sound.

> 7. Neglect of the alphabetic principle makes English spelling
exceptionally difficult.

> 8. The difficulty of English spelling wastes time and produces
unacceptably low levels of literacy in English-speaking countries.

> 9. To improve literacy, English needs to modernise its spelling,
as other languages do.

> 10 There are no quick or easy solutions. As a first step, the idea
of "managing" English spelling, i.e. controlling it rather than
letting it continue on its own arbitrary way, should be adopted.

stbetta@... wrote:

> *Ten Axioms*
> Do we all agree with these? --Steve
> source page: http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/n/n5pt1.php
>
I tend to agree with these, and may add some to this list.

> *Ten Axioms on English Spelling*
> Edited and expanded by Chris Upward
>
> *1. Alphabets provide the simplest way to write most languages.*
>
> SB: syllabaries are strong competitors when there are less than 5 vowels.
> ref: www.omniglot.com <http://www.omniglot.com>,
> www.wikipedia.com <http://www.wikipedia.com> keyword: syllabary
>
Syllabaries are very nearly alphabets. Some languages are perhaps more
suitable for a syllabary than a normal alphabet (notably, certain
American Indian languages). I don't know what the criteria should be
for using a syllabary.

> *2. The alphabet works by the principle that letters represent speech
> sounds.*
>
> SB: Most writing systems contain more than just sound signs.
> They also include a few meaning signs (word-signs, logograms).
>
> *3. Literacy is easily acquired if the spelling tells readers the
> pronunciation, and the pronunciation tells writers the spelling.*
>
> SB: Literacy is more easily acquired under these conditions. In fact
> illiterates can learn highly phonemic writing systems in 3 months or
> less. Laubach (1960) said that 3 months was the average for 95% of
> the 300 languages his organization developed literacy materials for.
> Swadesh and Pike (1939) claimed to have taught illiterate Indians in
> rural Mexico how to read and write their own language and Spanish in
> two months. (reported in a Unesco paper).
>
> *4. Pronunciation changes through time, undermining the match between
> spelling and sound.*
>
> SB: See Webster quote
>
> *5. Spelling systems need modernizing periodically to restore the
> sound-spelling match.*
>
> SB: One of the arguments that Samuel Johnson gave for not matching
> spelling to speech was that speech changed to quickly. Had Johnson
> provided a dictionary pronunciation key it would be possible to see
> how much English has changed since 1755.
>
> *6. By not systematically modernizing over nearly 1,000 years, English
> spelling has lost touch with the alphabetic principle of spelling
> matching sound.*
>
> *7. Neglect of the alphabetic principle makes English spelling
> exceptionally difficult.*
>
> *8. The difficulty of English spelling wastes time and produces
> unacceptably low levels of literacy in English-speaking countries.*
>
> *9. To improve literacy, English needs to modernise its spelling, as
> other languages do.*
>
One should first start by consistently spelling "modernize", not
"modernise" (which to me looks like "modern ice" run together!), color
instead of colour (cull-hour!) encyclopedia instead of encyclopaedia,
etc. Use the more sensible spellings when they are available. If more
people would use thru, hi, plow instead of through, high, plough, we'd
be at least a little better off!

> *10 There are no quick or easy solutions. As a first step, the idea of
> "managing" English spelling, i.e. controlling it rather than letting
> it continue on its own arbitrary way, should be adopted.*
>
> SB: The initial step is probably to acknowledge the problem.
> Spelling scholars rarely mention it. Only about 50% of the books that
> are supposed to help you improve your spelling acknowledge the problem.
>
Of course. These books are written from the perspective that says
spelling is the duty of the speller, not of society in general. They
offer only tons of arbetrary rules, rather than admit that there's a
problem with the alphabet.

I might add here that by not modernizing over the last 1000 years,
English speaking people (mainly the scholars among us) have robbed us of
something valuable - namely, the history of English pronunciation! From
the time of Chaucer until today, we really don't know how English was
pronounced in the past, except thru making educated guesses. We know
how it's pronounced today, but in the future, people will only know if
they happen to find documetation on certain dialects written using
pronunciation guides such as the IPA. The vast majority of writing will
not leave any record of the pronunciation of the author or the people he
was writing about.

This is one reason why I favor using Shavian to spell as you actually
speak. This leaves a record of your own pronunciation, assuming you are
familiar enough with the alphabet to use the right letters for the right
sounds. Sure, certain things need to be "internationalized" or at least
"regionalized" in their spelling, but for normal, everyday writing,
people should be encouraged to spell as they speak.

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

paul vandenbrink wrote:

>1. An Alphabet should maximize the number of letters to represent
>all significant and distinguishable Consonant and Vowel sounds.
>In other words, Diagraphs, should be eliminated in an Ideal alphabet.
>For example, even the Shavian Alphabet has the "hw" Diagraph. And the
>Roman Spelling has hundreds of common Diagraphs.
>
>
Paul, I was not aware of any "hw" digraph in Shavian. I thought it was
h+w, as in hwen, (when) hwy, (why) hwales (whales), as English used to
be spelled before the Middle English period when the w and h were
transposed. The h in English and other Germanic tongues corresponds to
the k or "hard c" in other Indo-european languages, and so TO "wh" (hw)
is equivalent to Latin "qu", which you may notice is always two separate
letters, in the same order as "hw" or Shavian "ha-woe". While the use
of the h sound seems to be disappearing, those people who do use it are
not using a separate phoneme, but rather two phonemes, h + w. They may
run them together phonetically into a "voiceless w", but I have a hard
time believing that there is a "voiceless w" phoneme in English.

--
Ethan Lamoreaux - ·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 ·𐑤𐑨𐑥𐑩𐑮𐑴

10 There are no quick or easy solutions. As a first step, the idea of
"managing" English spelling, i.e. controlling it rather than letting it continue on
its own arbitrary way, should be adopted.
SB: The initial step is probably to acknowledge the problem. Spelling
scholars rarely mention it. Only about 50% of the books that are supposed to
help you improve your spelling acknowledge the problem.


Of course. These books are written from the perspective that says spelling
is the duty of the speller, not of society in general. They offer only tons
of arbetrary rules, rather than admit that there's a problem with the
alphabet.

I might add here that by not modernizing over the last 1000 years, English
speaking people (mainly the scholars among us) have robbed us of something
valuable - namely, the history of English pronunciation! From the time of
Chaucer until today, we really don't know how English was pronounced in the past,
except thru making educated guesses. We know how it's pronounced today, but
in the future, people will only know if they happen to find documetation on
certain dialects written using pronunciation guides such as the IPA. The vast
majority of writing will not leave any record of the pronunciation of the
author or the people he was writing about.

This is one reason why I favor using Shavian to spell as you actually speak.
This leaves a record of your own pronunciation, assuming you are familiar
enough with the alphabet to use the right letters for the right sounds. Sure,
certain things need to be "internationalized" or at least "regionalized" in
their spelling, but for normal, everyday writing, people should be encouraged
to spell as they speak.
--

Ethan Lamoreaux


ENgliS schwa-a
.amqjan Da hcrtAks
ov diplamqtik qtaSAz
wen Da wind dEtqCaz
Der fols mastqSaz
Soundspel
Imajin the haartaeks
of diplomatic atashaes
when the wind ditaches
thair faulse mustashes
Webster schwa-ì
ìmajìn ðì härtáks
ûv diplòmatìc atìsház
when ðì wind dìtachìz
ther fôls mùstashìz
Lojicl Inglish schwa-eu
Imajn th haartaeks
ov diplomatik atashaez
when th wind ditachiz
ther fauls meustashiz

Hi Steve and Ethan

I like Steve's idea of an Alternate Phonetic Alphabet such as Shavian
for all popular material (newspapers, magazines, comics, signs), and
the retention of the Old Roman Alphabet for Historical and Scholarly
pursuits.
With Computer assistance, these 2 Alphabets can easily co-exist and
be transliterated back and forth with the press of a key.

However as Ethan pointed out, Romanized English Spelling is far from
being standardized itself.
I would agree it would be nice if the British accepted the Daniel
Webster spelling improvements wholeheartedly.
Historically this has not happened and so is not likely in the future.
Or when it happened it was one single word at a time.
For example, "gaol" has been replaced by "jail" almost everywhere.
And "ize" endings are considered valid everywhere.

Ethan: One should first start by consistently spelling "modernize",
not "modernise" (which to me looks like "modern ice" run together!).

And Encyclopedia instead of encyclopaedia, and pedophilia instead of
paediphilia are becoming the norm.
But as for expecting people to use all of the more sensible Roman
spellings when they are available is asking a bit much.
We have all had teachers drill into us the importance of "Proper"
spelling.
If more people would use thru, hi, plow instead of through, high,
plough, I'd be surprised.
In fact, I only use Hi when it has the meaning of a greeting.
A standardized Roman Spelling in the manner that you are thinking of,
would probably only be tolerable for the majority, if they had easy
recourse to the Alterate Phonetic Alphabet. So we need to go full
speed ahead at teaching and desseminating information about the Shaw
Phonetic Alphabet.

There are no quick or easy solutions. But at least we can identify
and document the extent of the problem. As a first step, the idea
of "managing" English spelling, i.e. controlling it rather than
letting it continue on its own arbitrary way, should be adopted.

SB:Â The initial step is probably to acknowledge the problem.Â
Spelling scholars rarely mention it. Only about 50% of the books
that are supposed to help you improve your spelling acknowledge the
problem.




--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> stbetta@a... wrote:
>
> > *Ten Axioms*
> > Do we all agree with these? --Steve
> > source page: http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/n/n5pt1.php
> >
> I tend to agree with these, and may add some to this list.
> One should first start by consistently spelling "modernize", not
> "modernise" (which to me looks like "modern ice" run together!),
color
> instead of colour (cull-hour!) encyclopedia instead of
encyclopaedia,
> etc. Use the more sensible spellings when they are available. If
more
> people would use thru, hi, plow instead of through, high, plough,
we'd
> be at least a little better off!
>
> > *10 There are no quick or easy solutions. As a first step, the
idea of
> > "managing" English spelling, i.e. controlling it rather than
letting
> > it continue on its own arbitrary way, should be adopted.*
> >
> > Of course. These books are written from the perspective that
says
> spelling is the duty of the speller, not of society in general.
They
> offer only tons of arbetrary rules, rather than admit that there's
a
> problem with the alphabet.
>
> I might add here that by not modernizing over the last 1000 years,
> English speaking people (mainly the scholars among us) have robbed
us of
> something valuable - namely, the history of English pronunciation!
From
> the time of Chaucer until today, we really don't know how English
was
> pronounced in the past, except thru making educated guesses. We
know
> how it's pronounced today, but in the future, people will only know
if
> they happen to find documetation on certain dialects written using
> pronunciation guides such as the IPA. The vast majority of writing
will
> not leave any record of the pronunciation of the author or the
people he
> was writing about.
>
> This is one reason why I favor using Shavian to spell as you
actually
> speak. This leaves a record of your own pronunciation, assuming
you are
> familiar enough with the alphabet to use the right letters for the
right
> sounds. Sure, certain things need to be "internationalized" or at
least
> "regionalized" in their spelling, but for normal, everyday writing,
> people should be encouraged to spell as they speak.
>
> --
> Ethan Lamoreaux -