shavian · Shavian Mailing List

  Home  
* Messages  
     Post  
  Chat  
  Files  
  Photos  
  Links  
  Database  
  Polls  
  Members  
  Calendar  
 
 
  Promote  
 
 
  owner = Owner 
  moderator = Moderator 
  online = Online 
 Messages Messages Help
Collapse Messages
 
  1362-1391 of 3550  |  Previous | Next  [ First | Last ]
  Msg #
  Date  |  Thread
1362

From:   Hugh Birkenhead <h.birkenhead@u...>
Date: Fri May 3, 2002 7:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Questions, and a proposal.
 
I've read that the pronunciation of English place names is in many instances
being conformed to the orthography. Is that true? Will Worcestershire become
WAR-cess-ter-SHIRE rather than WUSTasher?
 
No, as far as I can see, this certainly isn't happening to any great extent. There is one notable exception I can think of so far, and that is Coventry: my Grandmother would pronounce it 'Cuventry', whereas everyone these days pronounces it as it is written.

Is the abbreviation "Hants" - and a couple of similar ones - pronounced as written?
 
Although one would abbreviate it in written form as 'Hants', one would always read it as 'Hampshire'. Only when describing the abbreviation itself would one ever utter 'hants' (to rhyme with 'pants').

My middle name (my mother's maiden name, unfortunately for my online
security) is Southwick. My New England Southwicks, as well as the big Utah Mormon Southwick family (we're probably related) pronounce the name as written, as do the New England place names that derive from it. According to the BBC pronunciation guide, it can be southwick or suthick depending on where you are. And the New England progenitor Lawrence Southwick, signing his will in the mid 17th century, spelled it Sethick.
 
Yes, most people here say 'Suthick' (soft 'th') for that surname. Just as we have to say 'fanshaw' instead of 'featherstone-haugh'! :)

Some year the USA should divert a few pence from its dubious wars to create a pronouncing gazetteer of American place names. With glosses in Shavian, of course.
We could do that too - I'm sure it would prove interesting, especially if you were to include Welsh place-names! But we British are so damned apathetic about everything I imagine no one will bother for at least another 50 years.

Bob Richmond
Knoxville, Tennessee
Hugh Birkenhead
Norwich (norritch), Norfolk (nor-f*** - I imagine the Yahoo swear filter will catch this one!)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
1363

From:   Hugh Birkenhead <h.birkenhead@u...>
Date: Fri May 3, 2002 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Questions, and a proposal.
 
Hi there, welcome to the group! There's a few things you said I think I can help with...
----- Original Message -----
From: rubik67
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:20 AM
Subject: [shavian] Questions, and a proposal.

I just discovered Shavian writing on the 18th, and by the 20th I was
so royally pissed with standard English spelling I pretty much
resolved right then and there to bring about the reformation that
Shaw wanted, even if I had to do it solo.
I agree, English spelling is stupid. I'm sure that is the reason most people have considered Shavian. However, even I have grudgingly accepted the unlikelihood of Shavian replacing Roman as the 'standard' alphabet. I'm certain it could find good uses though, but it would definitely take time.
However, I have a couple of
questions about the alphabet. First of all, what's the difference in
pronunciation between "o" (short), "ah", and "awe"? Second, how do
you represent the nasal "i" sound in "ing"? It's somewhere between
"ih" and "ee", but it doesn't seem to have any representation
anywhere.
I think Philip Newton's explanation of 'on', 'ah' and 'awe' is better than any I could attempt. However, when it comes to the 'i' in 'ing', I honestly would never have thought of it as a separate sound. Indeed, I have never heard anyone else describe it as such either. How do you figure that it is a separate sound? The way it seems to me, the 'i' in 'ing' is no more a separate sound than the 'i' in 'im' or the 'i' in 'in'; the consonants (especially continuants such as ng, m, n) following the 'i' will often alter the sound slightly, but these instances are not really grounds for separate Shavian letters to be created.
Now for the proposal: As cool as the Shavian alphabet is, there
appears to be one major flaw in it... the letter "x", which is
pronounced either "ks" or "gz", depending on context. Shavian,
unfortunately, doesn't have any similar compound, so there are
occasional words which actually expand in Shavian (for
example, "exit", "maxim", etc). To correct this, I suggest adding a
couple of new characters to the standard set, which are a
combination of the "k" and "s" characters for the unvoiced x, and a
combination of "g" and "s" for the voiced version. To create these
new characters, simply add the top of the "s" character to the "k"
character and the bottom of the "s" to the "g" character. The little
loop extension shouldn't be any longer than half the length of the
top third of the Shavian letter space to prevent blending and
potential confusion (ie. xi with kp and ix with bg). This will
eliminate the one and only advantage that standard spelling has over
Shavian.
This kind of thing has been mentioned before, I think. Shavian is designed to represent the most common sounds necessary to communicate English effectively. Combining two consonants together does not really fit into this I don't think, especially as 'x' isn't that common.
As for shawalphabet.com's "Shavian", it seems to violate at least two
of Shaw's proposed rules (ie. pleasant to look at, and everything
being written with a single stroke), so I seriously doubt it can be
considered real Shavian. For now, I'm definitely sticking with the
alphabet provided in Androcles. L8r.
I don't think it is that pleasant to look at either (you are also correct on the single stroke 'rule'), but the reasoning behind the alterations is understandable. However, I don't think that the Shavian vowel sounds are any major problem if everyone understands where one symbol is more appropriate than another seemingly similar one, which we have proven CAN be done with little trouble.
 
Hugh
1364

From: rschmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Sun May 5, 2002 0:57am
Subject: New Linux user, new converter program
 
Hi everyone,

I was a member of the saundspel group because I wasn't aware there was a
Shavian mailing list until today. So I've already announced there what
I'm now announcing here.

I'm a Linux user with an interest in Shavian. I've been working on a
program to convert English text to Shavian. It's written in C, but a Java
version is in the works. The source code to my program is available at
http://www.geocities.com/rschmertz/Shavian_Converter.html. It has some
limitations, and I'm not sure how far I want to go into making it really
polished, but I thought I'd just throw it out there. If you want to use
this, you need to compile the source yourself. If you're a Windows or Mac
user, you'll need to set yourself up with a C compiler. My page provides
a link to a page with some free compilers. If anyone does compile this
and get it to work, I would appreciate your letting me know.

Any Linux/Unix users out there who use Shavian fonts in X Windows?

Below is the above text repeated in Shavian, as output by my program. The
word "Linux" is a recent addition; if you download the version of the
program that's currently posted on the Web, it will not render it
properly.


hF evrIwun,

F woz a membD v H (*saundspel*) grMp bikYz F wozant awx Hx woz a SEvIan
mEliN list antil tadE. sO Fv YlredI anQnst Hx wut Fm nQ anQnsiN hC.

Fm a linaks VzD wiH An intrast in SEvIan. Fv bin wDkiN on a prOgrAm t
konvDt iNgliS tekst t SEvIan. its ritan in sI, but a Jova vDZan iz in H
wDks. H sPs kOd t mF prOgrAm iz avElabal At
(*http*)://(*www*).(*geocities*).kom/(*rschmertz*)/SEvIan_kanvDtD.(*html*).
it hAz sum limatESanz, n Fm not SUr hQ fR F wont t gO intM mEkiN it rilI
poliSt, but F TYt Fd Just TrO it Qt Hx. if V wont t Vs His, V nId t
kampFl H sPs jDself. if jUr a windOz P mAk VzD, Vl nId t set jDself up
wiH a sI kampFlD. mF pEJ pravFdz a liNk t a pEJ wiH sum frI kampFlDz. if
enIwan duz kampFl His n get it t wDk, F wUd aprISIEt jP letiN mI nO.

enI linaks/Vniks VzDz Qt Hx hM Vs SEvIan fonts in eks windOz?

balO iz H abuv tekst rapItad in SEvIan, Az QtpUt bF mF prOgrAm. H wDd
"linaks" iz a rIsant adiSan; if V dQnlOd H vDZan v H prOgrAm HAts kDantlI
pOstad on H web, it wil not rendD it propDlI.
1365

From: rschmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Sun May 5, 2002 0:57am
Subject: New Linux user, new converter program
 
Hi everyone,

I was a member of the saundspel group because I wasn't aware there was a
Shavian mailing list until today. So I've already announced there what
I'm now announcing here.

I'm a Linux user with an interest in Shavian. I've been working on a
program to convert English text to Shavian. It's written in C, but a Java
version is in the works. The source code to my program is available at
http://www.geocities.com/rschmertz/Shavian_Converter.html. It has some
limitations, and I'm not sure how far I want to go into making it really
polished, but I thought I'd just throw it out there. If you want to use
this, you need to compile the source yourself. If you're a Windows or Mac
user, you'll need to set yourself up with a C compiler. My page provides
a link to a page with some free compilers. If anyone does compile this
and get it to work, I would appreciate your letting me know.

Any Linux/Unix users out there who use Shavian fonts in X Windows?

Below is the above text repeated in Shavian, as output by my program. The
word "Linux" is a recent addition; if you download the version of the
program that's currently posted on the Web, it will not render it
properly.


hF evrIwun,

F woz a membD v H (*saundspel*) grMp bikYz F wozant awx Hx woz a SEvIan
mEliN list antil tadE. sO Fv YlredI anQnst Hx wut Fm nQ anQnsiN hC.

Fm a linaks VzD wiH An intrast in SEvIan. Fv bin wDkiN on a prOgrAm t
konvDt iNgliS tekst t SEvIan. its ritan in sI, but a Jova vDZan iz in H
wDks. H sPs kOd t mF prOgrAm iz avElabal At
(*http*)://(*www*).(*geocities*).kom/(*rschmertz*)/SEvIan_kanvDtD.(*html*).
it hAz sum limatESanz, n Fm not SUr hQ fR F wont t gO intM mEkiN it rilI
poliSt, but F TYt Fd Just TrO it Qt Hx. if V wont t Vs His, V nId t
kampFl H sPs jDself. if jUr a windOz P mAk VzD, Vl nId t set jDself up
wiH a sI kampFlD. mF pEJ pravFdz a liNk t a pEJ wiH sum frI kampFlDz. if
enIwan duz kampFl His n get it t wDk, F wUd aprISIEt jP letiN mI nO.

enI linaks/Vniks VzDz Qt Hx hM Vs SEvIan fonts in eks windOz?

balO iz H abuv tekst rapItad in SEvIan, Az QtpUt bF mF prOgrAm. H wDd
"linaks" iz a rIsant adiSan; if V dQnlOd H vDZan v H prOgrAm HAts kDantlI
pOstad on H web, it wil not rendD it propDlI.
1366

From: Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Sun May 5, 2002 1:03am
Subject: Sorry about double post
 
I have problems with my Web browser sometimes, which cause things to be
posted twice. I'll be making most of my posts from a regular mail client,
though.

--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz
1367

From: weitzman_d <weitzman_d@y...>
Date: Sun May 5, 2002 3:24am
Subject: Newbie Questions
 
Hi.

I've never used Shavian before, but I've always thought it would be
cool if I could find a quicker way to write stuff down.

Question 1:
Can Shavian actually help me write faster, or is it mostly a novelty
alphabet?

Question 2:
Maybe this is the wrong place to be asking, but are there any
alternatives to Shavian?

Question 3:
How does a person go about learning it? How long will it take?

Thanks in advance,

David Weitzman
1368

From: Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Sun May 5, 2002 3:50am
Subject: Re: Newbie Questions
 
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 02:24:42AM -0000, weitzman_d wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've never used Shavian before, but I've always thought it would be
> cool if I could find a quicker way to write stuff down.
>
> Question 1:
> Can Shavian actually help me write faster, or is it mostly a novelty
> alphabet?

None of the above :). Once you've learned it, it may be a bit faster than
regular writing, since its strokes are very simple, and there are no
digraphs (two letters used to represent a single English sound, like 'th',
'ou' as in sound, or most of the letters in the word 'though', which would
be spelled with two Shavian letters). But what it was designed for was to
provide a more consistent, learnable spelling system for English.

>
> Question 2:
> Maybe this is the wrong place to be asking, but are there any
> alternatives to Shavian?

Depends on what your criteria are. Different writing systems are designed
to address different issues. Unifon is another well-known system that
addresses the same problem Shavian does.

>
> Question 3:
> How does a person go about learning it? How long will it take?
>

I don't have a good answer for this one. I just looked at the chart,
noticed things like the fact that most voiced/unvoiced consonant pairs are
rotated versions of one another, and started trying to write things. It's
probably easiest at first to try to write it rather than to read it.

--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz
http://www.geocities.com/rschmertz/
1369

From: skilbo11834 <usmaak@a...>
Date: Sun May 5, 2002 11:15pm
Subject: Re: Newbie Questions
 
I won't respond to Shavian being a novelty alphabet, that's already
been responded to. ;)

If you are interested in a method that will help you write more
rapidly, I would like to suggest EasyScript. It is something that
I've been using off and on for a couple of years now, particularly
when taking notes in meetings at work. Unfortunately, there does
not seem to be any information on the internet about it whatsoever.
I discovered while searching for information on shorthand. I bought
the EasyScript manual from Amazon.com. Here's a link...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893726010/qid=1020636730/sr=8
-2/ref=sr_8_67_2/102-1034611-7247303

It doesn't take a lot to learn, and uses no symbols, just the
standard alphabet. You don't have to memorize much, just learn a
few basic rules for shortening words. You can implement it slowly.
As you learn it, you will find yourself converting more and more
words into their shortened version.

--- In shavian@y..., "weitzman_d" <weitzman_d@y...> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've never used Shavian before, but I've always thought it would
be
> cool if I could find a quicker way to write stuff down.
>
> Question 1:
> Can Shavian actually help me write faster, or is it mostly a
novelty
> alphabet?
>
> Question 2:
> Maybe this is the wrong place to be asking, but are there any
> alternatives to Shavian?
>
> Question 3:
> How does a person go about learning it? How long will it take?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> David Weitzman
1370

From: Robert McBroom <info@o...>
Date: Tue May 7, 2002 4:46am
Subject: Re: Newbie Questions
 
Here's my take on your questions:

Hi.

I've never used Shavian before, but I've always thought it would be
cool if I could find a quicker way to write stuff down.

Question 1:
Can Shavian actually help me write faster, or is it mostly a novelty
alphabet?

I started with Shavian a year ago and found it a clever way to write.  I'm always in the position of having to make notes about people I am sitting with, and, frankly, it was much better to write Shavian, knowing they would not know what I was saying about them. But reading it is another skill entirely, and took much more energy. If you write your shopping list in Shavian, you will at first find yourself standing in the store and skratching your head.  But that will pass.



Question 2:
Maybe this is the wrong place to be asking, but are there any
alternatives to Shavian?

If speed is what you are after, you will find Shavian disjointed, not at all free-flowing.  More like printing than writing.  That is why, after six months I switched to Quickscript (also called Kwikscript, or the Read alphabet.)  It is the "handwriting" version of Shavian, and follows the same phonetic logic.  Letters connect fluidly,  and, if you enjoy the experience of writing per se, you will enjoy making Quickscript letters. You can find a lot of information at the Read Alphabet group on Yahoo.


Question 3:
How does a person go about learning it?  How long will it take?

You can make little flash cards for yourself, as you would for learning another language,  I created a "slide show" program of words, (using something such as Powerpoint) with an audio track of the works to accompany it.  I did feel a little like Dr. Skinner's pidgeons, but it did work.  Read, the creator of both alphabets, suggested this little game: take two consonants (like t and p )  and make as many words as you can think of, by inserting the various vowel symbols between them. Then, he advised, go back the next day and try to read your work (that's the test!)  If nothing else, your efforts will really get to to listen carefully to the sounds you make (and the sounds other people make).  And that can in itself be very enlightening.


Thanks in advance,

David Weitzman


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

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

--
- /bob /mk/brMm
  /wUdstak  /nV /jDk

"wun simpol iz az gUd Az anuHD prOvFdid
 evriwun atAcez H sEm mIniN tM it."
                   - /JPJ /bxnRd /SY
1371

From: rubik67 <rubik67@y...>
Date: Wed May 8, 2002 0:59am
Subject: Re: Questions, and a proposal.
 
--- In shavian@y..., "Hugh Birkenhead" <h.birkenhead@u...> wrote:
> Hi there, welcome to the group! There's a few things you said I
think I can help with...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rubik67
> To: shavian@y...
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:20 AM
> Subject: [shavian] Questions, and a proposal.
>
>
> I just discovered Shavian writing on the 18th, and by the 20th I
was
> so royally pissed with standard English spelling I pretty much
> resolved right then and there to bring about the reformation that
> Shaw wanted, even if I had to do it solo.
> I agree, English spelling is stupid. I'm sure that is the reason
most people have considered Shavian. However, even I have grudgingly
accepted the unlikelihood of Shavian replacing Roman as
the 'standard' alphabet. I'm certain it could find good uses though,
but it would definitely take time.

True, it won't be replacing it any time soon. However, to paraphrase
Edmund Burke, "The only thing needed for the Roman alphabet to win is
for good linguists to do nothing." Groups like this and web pages
like shavian.org are a good start, but what's needed is something
dramatic, such as more books published like the Shaw Alphabet version
of Androcles and the Lion. I'm working on one right now.

> I think Philip Newton's explanation of 'on', 'ah' and 'awe' is
better than any I could attempt. However, when it comes to the 'i'
in 'ing', I honestly would never have thought of it as a separate
sound. Indeed, I have never heard anyone else describe it as such
either. How do you figure that it is a separate sound? The way it
seems to me, the 'i' in 'ing' is no more a separate sound than
the 'i' in 'im' or the 'i' in 'in'; the consonants (especially
continuants such as ng, m, n) following the 'i' will often alter the
sound slightly, but these instances are not really grounds for
separate Shavian letters to be created.

OK, here's an experiment for you to try. First, say "thin king"
and "thinking" out loud, focussing all your attention on how the
first i is pronounced in both cases. Do they sound the same? Next,
try saying them again, as a Japanese person would, ie. "seen king"
and "sinking", again, focussing on the first i sound. Do they sound
the same in this case? To me, all three i's have a different sound.

> This kind of thing has been mentioned before, I think. Shavian is
designed to represent the most common sounds necessary to communicate
English effectively. Combining two consonants together does not
really fit into this I don't think, especially as 'x' isn't that
common.

Actually, there's quite a few combinations in Shavian already, eg.
the "ow" character could be represented as "a-u" (the hyphen is only
to show the two different characters involved), "air" can be
represented as "e-r", "err" can be done as "ado-r", "or" can be "o-
r", "array" can be "u-r", etc. None of them are
particularly "needed", but there they are all the same. L8r.
1372

From: rubik67 <rubik67@y...>
Date: Wed May 8, 2002 1:07am
Subject: Re: Newbie Questions
 
--- In shavian@y..., Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...> wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 02:24:42AM -0000, weitzman_d wrote:
> > Question 3:
> > How does a person go about learning it? How long will it take?
> >
>
> I don't have a good answer for this one. I just looked at the
chart,
> noticed things like the fact that most voiced/unvoiced consonant
pairs are
> rotated versions of one another, and started trying to write
things. It's
> probably easiest at first to try to write it rather than to read it.

Another suggestion I could make is to create your own Shavian "Flash
cards". Just get some 3x5 cards and cut them in half (or perhaps some
3x2.5 cards) and write the Shavian on one side (I'd suggest on the
lined side with triple height letters, making sure to account for the
various heights of the Shavian letters) and the names of each letter
on the back. Then go through the cards a few times. Once you start
getting most of them correct, shuffle the pack and go through them
again, as many times as you feel are necessary. You'll get to learn
the Shavian alphabet REAL quick. :-) L8r.
1373

From: rubik67 <rubik67@y...>
Date: Wed May 8, 2002 1:11am
Subject: D'oh! :-) (Re: Newbie Questions)
 
--- In shavian@y..., Robert McBroom <info@o...> wrote:
> You can make little flash cards for yourself, as you would for
> learning another language,[...]

That'll teach me not to post before reading through the rest of the
thread. :-) L8r.
1374

From: Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>
Date: Wed May 8, 2002 5:19am
Subject: Re: Re: Questions, and a proposal.
 
On 7 May 02, at 23:59, rubik67 wrote:

> OK, here's an experiment for you to try. First, say "thin king"
> and "thinking" out loud, focussing all your attention on how the
> first i is pronounced in both cases. Do they sound the same? Next,
> try saying them again, as a Japanese person would, ie. "seen king"
> and "sinking", again, focussing on the first i sound. Do they sound
> the same in this case? To me, all three i's have a different sound.

(Or use "sin king, sinking, seen king".) I also think I have three
different vowels in this triplet.

> Actually, there's quite a few combinations in Shavian already, eg.
> the "ow" character could be represented as "a-u" (the hyphen is only
> to show the two different characters involved), "air" can be
> represented as "e-r", "err" can be done as "ado-r", "or" can be "o-
> r", "array" can be "u-r", etc. None of them are
> particularly "needed", but there they are all the same.

Well, the rhotics are a bit different... that's what I think enables
Shavian to be written by speakers of non-rhotic and rhotic dialects
alike. So for you, "air" is "e"+"r", while for me it's "e"+"about"; for
you, "or" is "o"+"r", while for me, it's "awe". I would vote to keep
the rhotic vowels separate.

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@g...>
1375

From: Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Thu May 9, 2002 5:30am
Subject: Re: Re: Questions, and a proposal.
 
On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 06:19:08AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 7 May 02, at 23:59, rubik67 wrote:
>
> > OK, here's an experiment for you to try. First, say "thin king"
> > and "thinking" out loud, focussing all your attention on how the
> > first i is pronounced in both cases. Do they sound the same? Next,
> > try saying them again, as a Japanese person would, ie. "seen king"
> > and "sinking", again, focussing on the first i sound. Do they sound
> > the same in this case? To me, all three i's have a different sound.
>
> (Or use "sin king, sinking, seen king".) I also think I have three
> different vowels in this triplet.

You may pronounce these differently, but your sound in "sinking" is merely
an allophone of the sound in "sin", unless you can give me an example
where you use the latter sound before an -ng or an -nk, or the former
sound before a plain old -n.

For me, the vowel starts pretty close to the "i" in "sin", but glides
toward a long "e" as my tongue moves into position for the "ng". I also
do that for postvocalic "g" ("big")


--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz
1376

From: Brion L. VIBBER <brion@p...>
Date: Thu May 9, 2002 9:01am
Subject: Re: New Linux user, new converter program
 
On sab, 2002-05-04 at 16:57, rschmertz wrote:
> Any Linux/Unix users out there who use Shavian fonts in X Windows?

They work just as well as other TrueType fonts, with caveats: none of
the Shavian fonts I know of are hinted, and they all look dreadful
without smoothing/antialiasing unless you blow up the font size to epic
proportions. Font smoothing is something that's still coming into the
Linux world bit by bit; the text editor yudit and recent versions of
Mozilla can do their own TrueType smooth font rendering; some versions
of KDE and Gnome libraries hook into the new rendering subsystem of
recent versions of XFree86. You can find instructions on configuring all
this on the net, somewhere...

Printing with Shavian fonts is something I've never even attempted.

If you dare to venture into the scary world of the Unicode encodings
instead of keyboard Shavian, things get even more fun. The proposed
encoding is in Plane 1, which is not well (at all?) supported by
anything. The private-use characters do work (with an appropriately
encoded font) with Unicode-aware programs, though.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
1377

From:   Ewout Stam <teraiten@t...>
Date: Thu May 9, 2002 6:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: Questions, and a proposal.
 
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
[snip]

>Actually, there's quite a few combinations in Shavian already, eg.
>the "ow" character could be represented as "a-u" (the hyphen is only
>to show the two different characters involved), "air" can be
>represented as "e-r", "err" can be done as "ado-r", "or" can be "o-
>r", "array" can be "u-r", etc. None of them are
>particularly "needed", but there they are all the same. L8r.


In Quickscript all letters connect, if possible. There is no difference
between the ligatures and seperate characters. Check the manual (on my site)

http://quikscript.teraiten.cjb.net/

Ewout Stam

/EvQt stym
1378

From: Scott Harrison <scott_harrison@a...>
Date: Thu May 9, 2002 11:52pm
Subject: Re: New Linux user, new converter program
 
On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 10:01 , Brion L. VIBBER wrote:

>
> Printing with Shavian fonts is something I've never even attempted.
>
> If you dare to venture into the scary world of the Unicode encodings
> instead of keyboard Shavian, things get even more fun. The proposed
> encoding is in Plane 1, which is not well (at all?) supported by
> anything. The private-use characters do work (with an appropriately
> encoded font) with Unicode-aware programs, though.
>
>
Unicode (even in Plane 1) works on a MacOS X system. And printing works
as well. I have printed pages and pages of my Unicode Shavian data. My
Periodic Table of Elements has the font built-in so the PDF should be
viewable on any system that can read PDF -- and should print fine as
well.

I just wish people who create TrueType fonts for Shavian would please
encode the Shavian points at their Unicode values (both private use area
and the proposed Plane 1 space just beyond Deseret).

--Scott
1379

From: Lee <leehickenlooper@m...>
Date: Fri May 10, 2002 1:16am
Subject: Shavian Unicode on a Mac X?
 
Scott,

    I have Mac OS X and couldn't figure  out how to turn  all the   question marks  from your web  pages  to   readable  Shavian. What's the secret? My  Mac's running OS 9.2.2 and OS X 10.1.4, SOOO,  it's got to be simple! I'm using Internet Explorer 5.1 for Mac for my browser.

Lee

on 5/9/02 4:52 PM, Scott Harrison wrote:


On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 10:01 , Brion L. VIBBER wrote:

>
> Printing with Shavian fonts is something I've never even attempted.
>
> If you dare to venture into the scary world of the Unicode encodings
> instead of keyboard Shavian, things get even more fun. The proposed
> encoding is in Plane 1, which is not well (at all?) supported by
> anything. The private-use characters do work (with an appropriately
> encoded font) with Unicode-aware programs, though.
>
>
Unicode (even in Plane 1) works on a MacOS X system.  And printing works
as well.  I have printed pages and pages of my Unicode Shavian data.  My
Periodic Table of Elements has the font built-in so the PDF should be
viewable on any system that can read PDF -- and should print fine as
well.

I just wish people who create TrueType fonts for Shavian would please
encode the Shavian points at their Unicode values (both private use area
and the proposed Plane 1 space just beyond Deseret).

--Scott


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Height:  4 5 6 7  ft 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 in
Weight:  
Sex:  F M

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

1380

From: Brion L. VIBBER <brion@p...>
Date: Fri May 10, 2002 4:19am
Subject: Re: New Linux user, new converter program
 
On ĵaŭ, 2002-05-09 at 15:52, Scott Harrison wrote:
> Unicode (even in Plane 1) works on a MacOS X system. And printing works
> as well. I have printed pages and pages of my Unicode Shavian data. My
> Periodic Table of Elements has the font built-in so the PDF should be
> viewable on any system that can read PDF -- and should print fine as
> well.

I'll keep that in mind when I'm shopping for my next computer... :)

Meantime, if I can breathe life into my printer once more I'll give a
try at printing Shavian from Linux and see how it goes.

> I just wish people who create TrueType fonts for Shavian would please
> encode the Shavian points at their Unicode values (both private use area
> and the proposed Plane 1 space just beyond Deseret).

Hmm, do you suppose there's any chance of getting James Kass to add
Shavian glyphs to his Code 2001 plane-1 sampler font?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
1381

From: Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Fri May 10, 2002 6:10am
Subject: Re: New Linux user, new converter program
 
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 01:01:29AM -0700, Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
> On sab, 2002-05-04 at 16:57, rschmertz wrote:
> > Any Linux/Unix users out there who use Shavian fonts in X Windows?
>
> They work just as well as other TrueType fonts, with caveats: none of
> the Shavian fonts I know of are hinted, and they all look dreadful
> without smoothing/antialiasing unless you blow up the font size to epic
> proportions. Font smoothing is something that's still coming into the
> Linux world bit by bit; the text editor yudit and recent versions of
> Mozilla can do their own TrueType smooth font rendering; some versions
> of KDE and Gnome libraries hook into the new rendering subsystem of
> recent versions of XFree86. You can find instructions on configuring all
> this on the net, somewhere...

Never heard of yudit. You mentioned Mozilla, but did you say you've
gotten Mozilla to use Shavian fonts, or were you just talking about the
fact that it can do its own font smoothing (which I've noticed, though
I've only noticed it for Korean, oddly)? I haven't been able to get
Mozilla to display Shavian; I'm using v 9.9 (Gecko/20020313). The only
apps I've had any luck with so far have been gEdit and gaim (which reminds
me, I don't sign on much, but if anyone does see me signed on to Yahoo
chat (rschmertz), I may be available for Shavian chat! :).

>
> Printing with Shavian fonts is something I've never even attempted.

I imagine if you could create a PostScript file with shavian, it should
print out as you see it. But I'm not an expert in these matters, so I'm
not positive.

>
> If you dare to venture into the scary world of the Unicode encodings
> instead of keyboard Shavian, things get even more fun. The proposed
> encoding is in Plane 1, which is not well (at all?) supported by
> anything. The private-use characters do work (with an appropriately
> encoded font) with Unicode-aware programs, though.

Yeah, too scary for me :-P I already once sent an email to Saundspel
begging for fonts in GIF format because I wanted to test the converter
program I mentioned, and didn't feel like trying to figure out how to
install the TTFs. Response for said converter program, BTW, has been
underwhelming.

--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz
1382

From: Brion L. VIBBER <brion@p...>
Date: Fri May 10, 2002 7:51am
Subject: Re: New Linux user, new converter program
 
On ĵaŭ, 2002-05-09 at 22:10, Bob Schmertz wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 01:01:29AM -0700, Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
> > On sab, 2002-05-04 at 16:57, rschmertz wrote:
> > > Any Linux/Unix users out there who use Shavian fonts in X Windows?
> >
> > They work just as well as other TrueType fonts, with caveats: none of
> > the Shavian fonts I know of are hinted, and they all look dreadful
> > without smoothing/antialiasing unless you blow up the font size to epic
> > proportions. Font smoothing is something that's still coming into the
> > Linux world bit by bit; the text editor yudit and recent versions of
> > Mozilla can do their own TrueType smooth font rendering; some versions
[..]
> Never heard of yudit.

http://yudit.org/

> You mentioned Mozilla, but did you say you've
> gotten Mozilla to use Shavian fonts, or were you just talking about the
> fact that it can do its own font smoothing (which I've noticed, though
> I've only noticed it for Korean, oddly)? I haven't been able to get
> Mozilla to display Shavian; I'm using v 9.9 (Gecko/20020313).

Yes, using the fonts. I'm having difficulty getting it (1.0rc1) to
politely use a Shavian font as requested by a <font> tag or stylesheet,
but I can select one for the "user-defined" character set and explicitly
select that to display a page in. I'll fiddle some more and see what's
what.

There's some cryptic info about setting up the antialiased TrueType
fonts for mozilla here:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/fonts/unix/enabling_truetype.html

You need 9.9 or later; note that the RPM version does not have truetype
support built in, I don't know about other package versions. The binary
tarballs do include said support.

> The only
> apps I've had any luck with so far have been gEdit and gaim (which reminds
> me, I don't sign on much, but if anyone does see me signed on to Yahoo
> chat (rschmertz), I may be available for Shavian chat! :).

Haven't tried those yet...

> > If you dare to venture into the scary world of the Unicode encodings
[..]
> Yeah, too scary for me :-P I already once sent an email to Saundspel
> begging for fonts in GIF format because I wanted to test the converter
> program I mentioned, and didn't feel like trying to figure out how to
> install the TTFs. Response for said converter program, BTW, has been
> underwhelming.

I was going to give it a try, but I don't seem to have the right version
of DB installed so it doesn't compile:

$ make
cc -g -c -o converter.o converter.c
converter.c:7:16: db.h: No such file or directory
make: *** [converter.o] Error 1

I'll go look for that...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
1383

From: Scott Harrison <scott_harrison@a...>
Date: Fri May 10, 2002 8:27am
Subject: Re: Shavian Unicode on a Mac X?
 
On Friday, May 10, 2002, at 02:16 , Lee wrote:

> Scott,
>
>     I have Mac OS X and couldn't figure  out how to turn  all the
>   question marks  from your web  pages  to   readable  Shavian. What's
> the secret? My  Mac's running OS 9.2.2 and OS X 10.1.4, SOOO,  it's got
> to be simple! I'm using Internet Explorer 5.1 for Mac for my browser.
>
> Lee
>
First, download the Unicode TrueType font from my web page (down in the
table where it says MacOS X and font). Place this into your
~/Library/Fonts directory. This should now enable any Cocoa application
to use this font properly. For example, you should be able to open any
of the files in the columns marked Shavian with the TextEdit application
since they are just Unicode versions of the texts.

To open the web pages, I would advise using the Omniweb browser from
www.omnigroup.com because it is a Cocoa application and opening any of
the UTF-8 pages just works assuming you have the font installed on your
system.

Unfortunately Microsoft does not know how to handle fonts very well, and
therefore Explorer users suffer. I am not an Explorer user, but in the
Windows world I had to set the fonts for Unicode pages to be the Shaw
font (which is the one that you stick in your Fonts folder).

--Scott
Attachment: (text/enriched) [not stored]
1384

From: Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Fri May 10, 2002 8:48am
Subject: Re: New Linux user, new converter program
 
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:51:37PM -0700, Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
> On ĵaŭ, 2002-05-09 at 22:10, Bob Schmertz wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 01:01:29AM -0700, Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
> > > On sab, 2002-05-04 at 16:57, rschmertz wrote:
> > > > Any Linux/Unix users out there who use Shavian fonts in X Windows?
> > >
> > > They work just as well as other TrueType fonts, with caveats: none of
> > > the Shavian fonts I know of are hinted, and they all look dreadful
> > > without smoothing/antialiasing unless you blow up the font size to epic
> > > proportions. Font smoothing is something that's still coming into the
> > > Linux world bit by bit; the text editor yudit and recent versions of
> > > Mozilla can do their own TrueType smooth font rendering; some versions
> [..]
> > Never heard of yudit.
>
> http://yudit.org/

Damn, this is hot $#|7!!! No time to compile/play with it tonight, will
have to try tomorrow. This looks like a multilinguist's dream come true!

--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz
1385

From: Newton, Philip <philip.newton@d...>
Date: Mon May 13, 2002 9:10am
Subject: Re: Re: Questions, and a proposal.
 
Bob Schmertz wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 06:19:08AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> >
> > (Or use "sin king, sinking, seen king".) I also think I have three
> > different vowels in this triplet.
>
> You may pronounce these differently, but your sound in
> "sinking" is merely an allophone of the sound in "sin"

You're undoubtedly right that the difference is not phonemic. However, since
for me, the phone is roughly in-between [i:] and [I], it makes it a bit
difficult to choose which phoneme to use to represent it. I presume it is,
as you said, an allophone of /I/ rather than of /i/. (A similar ambiguity
exists for word-final [i] as in "city" or "lovely", which some spell as /i/
and others as /I/.)

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@d...>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
1386

From: chuck091956 <chuck091956@y...>
Date: Mon May 13, 2002 8:53pm
Subject: How to get the U sound in Up?
 
I was looking over the charts for Shaven and Quicksript and I can't
seem to figure out hot to write the "u" sound in the work "up".

Help
1387

From: Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Tue May 14, 2002 0:32am
Subject: Re: How to get the U sound in Up?
 
You didn't mention what your references you were using. All references I have seen show this, but here's one for Shavian:
http://www.simonbarne.com/shavian/chart.html .

"Up" is actually the name of the glyph you are looking for. (All the glyphs have names: "tot" for the one that represents the "t" sound, "ado" for the one that represents the shwa -- and "up" for the one that represents the "short u"). It is row 32 on the chart I linked to, and looks rather like a 7 -- or like an "ado" with a horizontal line at the top.

Cheers,
Bob Schmertz


On 13 May 2002, chuck091956 wrote:

> I was looking over the charts for Shaven and
> Quicksript and I can't seem to figure out hot
> to write the "u" sound in the work "up".
>
> Help
>
1388

From: Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Tue May 14, 2002 3:35am
Subject: "if" or "eat" in "sing"
 
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:10:11AM +0200, Newton, Philip wrote:
> Bob Schmertz wrote:
> > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 06:19:08AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> > >
> > > (Or use "sin king, sinking, seen king".) I also think I have three
> > > different vowels in this triplet.
> >
> > You may pronounce these differently, but your sound in
> > "sinking" is merely an allophone of the sound in "sin"
>
> You're undoubtedly right that the difference is not phonemic. However, since
> for me, the phone is roughly in-between [i:] and [I], it makes it a bit
> difficult to choose which phoneme to use to represent it. I presume it is,
> as you said, an allophone of /I/ rather than of /i/. (A similar ambiguity
> exists for word-final [i] as in "city" or "lovely", which some spell as /i/
> and others as /I/.)
>

If it helps, remember there is no English word that has a long vowel
before the "ng" phoneme -- unless, of course, you happen to feel that the
"i" in "sing" is a "long e" (or "eat", in Shavian terminology). And, of
course, it is spelled with the letter "i", which is almost never used by
itself to indicate the "eat" phoneme in words of English/Germanic origin.

The same thing applies, in my opinion, for final vowels -- always long
vowels. I definitely pronounce "city" with an "eat" sound, but I am
American, and I gather the British pronounce it more like an "if". So
that seems to be an inconsistency, but I would argue that, again, the
British pronunciation is an allophone. I'm not sure I can make as strong
a case for that, though.

--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz
1389

From: Brion L. VIBBER <brion@p...>
Date: Tue May 14, 2002 7:46am
Subject: Re: "if" or "eat" in "sing"
 
On mon, 2002-05-13 at 19:35, Bob Schmertz wrote:
> If it helps, remember there is no English word that has a long vowel
> before the "ng" phoneme -- unless, of course, you happen to feel that the
> "i" in "sing" is a "long e" (or "eat", in Shavian terminology).

In a similar vein, how about, say, "sang" (and bang, hang, gang, Tang(R), thanks, language, etc)? I perceive it as having "long a"(1) and whould thus spell it as sEN (so-age-hung); but the dictionaries I've checked(2) give the vowel as "short a", which would suggest spelling it sAN (so-ash-hung).

I haven't happened to come across a canonical spelling yet (I don't have an Androcles), but I would lean towards "ash" based on the -ing usage, despite the seemingly wrong (to my ears) vowel.

(1) On gross repetition and streching out the vowel, I'm quite sure it's a bit higher in the mouth than that in "age", but I can't make it sound like an "ash" without sounding completely wrong.

(2) The American Heritage Dictionary which has some sort of generic American pronunciation in an idiosyncratic orthography, and the English side of the Robert-Collins English-French dictionary, which gives British RP pronunciations in IPA.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
1390

From: Richard Cutler <cutler@i...>
Date: Wed May 15, 2002 4:32pm
Subject: Shaw Thing
 
 

Why we need Shavian Symbols.

 

This spelling controversy still givesour scholars Hell.

 

I'm sure that you already know, Of tough, cough, bough and dough?

 

Of through, and who and what a bother.

 

Try to find a word that rhymes with mother

 

What about beat and great and threat?

 

They rhyme with sweet, straight and debt.

 

As for rose and dose, you 'll always lose

 

No matter .what you pick and choose,

 

And cord is not like word,

 

Mould is not like could, ~ Neither wood like would.

 

Cow and now, but low and slow, What a way to come and go.

 

We have gone, we have done and we are prone,

 

Is there any reason that is known?

 

In Brief it always seems to me,

 

That sounds and spelling won't agree!

 

You see,

We

Need more

Shaw.

 

 
1391

From: rubik67 <rubik67@y...>
Date: Wed May 15, 2002 10:14pm
Subject: Re: "if" or "eat" in "sing"
 
--- In shavian@y..., "Brion L. VIBBER" <brion@p...> wrote:
> In a similar vein, how about, say, "sang" (and bang, hang, gang,
> Tang(R), thanks, language, etc)? I perceive it as having "long
a"(1) and
> whould thus spell it as sEN (so-age-hung); but the dictionaries
I've
> checked(2) give the vowel as "short a", which would suggest
spelling
> it sAN (so-ash-hung).
>
> I haven't happened to come across a canonical spelling yet (I don't
have
> an Androcles), but I would lean towards "ash" based on the -ing
usage,
> despite the seemingly wrong (to my ears) vowel.
>
> (1) On gross repetition and streching out the vowel, I'm quite sure
it's
> a bit higher in the mouth than that in "age", but I can't make it
sound
> like an "ash" without sounding completely wrong.

That's the same basic system I used to (finally) resolve the "ing
dilemma" for me. Instead of using words such as "thinking", I instead
looked at words such as "being", "skiing", etc. Since the voels in
each word sound different from each other (to me), and since the
first vowel is obviously a long e in each case, I've decided to
compromise by using the short i for ing, despite how wrong it looks
(IMHO). L8r.
  1362-1391 of 3550  |  Previous | Next  [ First | Last ]
  Msg #
  Date  |  Thread
Collapse Messages RSS Get messages in RSS
Yahoo! Sponsored Links
Write Any Book in 28 Days, 1 Hour a Day: New course shows how to write a book in under 1 month, working 1 hour a day - 100% guaranteed. From novels to screenplays to non-fiction, popular author Nick Daws unveils all. $49.95.
www.writequickly.com
 Book Writing Software? Beat Any Price!: We'll beat any advertised price on Book Writing Software including Dramatica and Power Structure. Plus free Writer's Bonus Package with purchase!
storymind.com
 Book Writing Software: Newnovelist is quick to install, easy to learn and fun to use, and has already helped over 30,000 people who want to become the next JK Rowling.
www.newnovelist.com

Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Copyright Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help