|
|
|
| 2803 |
From: Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 4:33am
Subject: Re: Phonetic Transcription - Semi-Automatic
|
| |
paul vandenbrink incurred the wrath of Bob on Jan 23, by saying
>I am looking for a good program to make a Phonetic transcriptions of
>T.O. Writing.
>I know there's one on a Japanese website...
>http://www.kt.rim.or.jp/~s_aoki/english/text2pron/
>
[snip]
>
>P.S. I'd like to find one that transliterates it into Shavian or ASCII
>Alphabet.
"Shavian Converter" not doing it for you?
--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz
|
|
| 2804 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 5:04pm
Subject: Re: Phonetic Transcription - Semi-Automatic
|
| |
Sorry Bob
Thanksfor the tip.
It is enough to restore my faith in Programmers.
Programming under the Windows Operating system is beyond me.
If I went back to Dos and then re-wrote it in Pascal, it might be
good enough.
As it is I need a Windoows98 SE executable version.
Has anyone set up a Windows verssion of the Converter.
Also the Rosetta program seems to work, somewhat. But it only has a
420word test dictionary.
Regards, Paul V.
______________________attached_______________________-
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...> wrote:
> paul vandenbrink incurred the wrath of Bob on Jan 23, by saying
>
> >I am looking for a good program to make a Phonetic transcriptions
of
> >T.O. Writing.
> >I know there's one on a Japanese website...
> >http://www.kt.rim.or.jp/~s_aoki/english/text2pron/
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >P.S. I'd like to find one that transliterates it into Shavian or
ASCII
> >Alphabet.
>
> "Shavian Converter" not doing it for you?
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Bob Schmertz
|
|
| 2805 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:55pm
Subject: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
I'm working on some Shavian software at the moment, and I've come to a
decision point. I want to hear other opinions on this, and see if this
will work for everybody else, or if there are any objections.
The forward slash (/) is really not a good key for the namer dot,
because it is used frequently for other purposes, for example:
Either/or, 11/18/03, he/she, htpp://www.mydomain.com/myurl/myfile.html,
/home/ethan/recent-work/shavian/convertor.c, you get the picture.
I've decided that this key should be returned to its normal use, and the
namer dot should use another key. What I'm wondering is, which key?
I notice several people are using the capital G for the namer dot, and
fonts (such as Ghoti and Androcles) are designed which include it there.
One font which doesn't is my own ASCII Shavian font, ESL Gothic
Shavian, (not to be confused with ESL Gothic Unicode) which currently
has no namer dot at the G location, because I was not aware of that use
when I designed it. This will be changed before the day is out,
hopefully, and the revised font will be uploaded to my website.
So, is capital G a good place to put the namer dot? Or do you think it
should go somewhere else? If you think it should stay on the forward
slash key, tell me now, and give me a good reason!
I'm thinking that in the future, we will be using Shavian for filenames,
URLs on the internet, and for other such uses where the forward slash
will be needed. I think this change needs to be made now, before these
future uses become a problem for Shavian.
Your thoughts, please!
--
Ethan
|
|
| 2806 |
From: Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:56pm
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
On 26 Jan 2004 at 14:55, Ethan wrote:
> So, is capital G a good place to put the namer dot? Or do you think
> it should go somewhere else? If you think it should stay on the
> forward slash key, tell me now, and give me a good reason!
I think it should go at U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT rather than at "G" or "/"...
but that's in an ideal world where we use Unicode Shavian codepoints.
> I'm thinking that in the future, we will be using Shavian for
> filenames, URLs on the internet, and for other such uses where the
> forward slash will be needed. I think this change needs to be made
> now, before these future uses become a problem for Shavian.
Not a problem if we use Unicode, either from CSUR (which would be
rather broken) or from the real, allocated code points in the SMP.
If we need to use "ASCII Shavian", then I don't particularly mind
either way where it goes. G does sound better than / for the reasons
you stated, though / has the advantage that if you don't have an ASCII
Shavian font, it doesn't look so much like part of the word.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@g...>
|
|
| 2807 |
From: Scott Harrison <scott@m...>
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:04pm
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 15:56 US/Eastern, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2004 at 14:55, Ethan wrote:
>
>> So, is capital G a good place to put the namer dot? Or do you think
>> it should go somewhere else? If you think it should stay on the
>> forward slash key, tell me now, and give me a good reason!
>
> I think it should go at U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT rather than at "G" or "/"...
> but that's in an ideal world where we use Unicode Shavian codepoints.
>
As we should be using Unicode this is what the namer dot is. In my
Mac keyboard I have the capital B key generate this Unicode code point.
I chose it because it is unused in the "DeMeyere" keyboard of
characters. Capital G is just as valid from this point of view.
--
Scott Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
|
|
| 2808 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:12pm
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
Philip Newton wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2004 at 14:55, Ethan wrote:
>
>
>>So, is capital G a good place to put the namer dot? Or do you think
>>it should go somewhere else? If you think it should stay on the
>>forward slash key, tell me now, and give me a good reason!
>
>
> I think it should go at U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT rather than at "G" or "/"...
> but that's in an ideal world where we use Unicode Shavian codepoints.
Yes, I agree. I'm speaking more of the key to use for typing a namer
dot. Even when you use the Unicode implementation, you still have to
assign a key for the namer dot. If you've assigned the / key to the
U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT, then you need to reassign the / to some other key,
which doesn't really make much sense. But if G is acceptible, you
simply assign the MIDDLE DOT to the G key. I'm trying to determine if G
is an acceptible assignment for the keyboard layout, whether it be for
Unicode or ASCII Shavian. Specifically, I'm writing a conversion
program which will convert ASCII Shavian into Unicode Shavian, and I
think I want to leave all forward slashes untouched, rather than
converting them into namer dots.
>
>
>>I'm thinking that in the future, we will be using Shavian for
>>filenames, URLs on the internet, and for other such uses where the
>>forward slash will be needed. I think this change needs to be made
>>now, before these future uses become a problem for Shavian.
>
>
> Not a problem if we use Unicode, either from CSUR (which would be
> rather broken) or from the real, allocated code points in the SMP.
Exactly. As for CSUR, I would leave it alone, because it's outdated now
that Unicode 4 is out, and because you can't depend on what characters
might show up in that space, which I assume is what you meant by "broken".
>
> If we need to use "ASCII Shavian", then I don't particularly mind
> either way where it goes. G does sound better than / for the reasons
> you stated, though / has the advantage that if you don't have an ASCII
> Shavian font, it doesn't look so much like part of the word.
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
When I finish this conversion program, it should enable anybody to
convert their ASCII Shavian into Unicode SMP. If I don't convert
forward slashes into namer dots, then the ASCII document you wish to
convert will have to use capital G for namer dots, if that's the
standard which is agreeable for others. This is simple enough to do
using the find and replace function included in most text editors.
--
Ethan
|
|
| 2809 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:18pm
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
Scott Harrison wrote:
> On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 15:56 US/Eastern, Philip Newton wrote:
>
>
>>On 26 Jan 2004 at 14:55, Ethan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, is capital G a good place to put the namer dot? Or do you think
>>>it should go somewhere else? If you think it should stay on the
>>>forward slash key, tell me now, and give me a good reason!
>>
>>I think it should go at U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT rather than at "G" or "/"...
>>but that's in an ideal world where we use Unicode Shavian codepoints.
>>
>
>
> As we should be using Unicode this is what the namer dot is. In my
> Mac keyboard I have the capital B key generate this Unicode code point.
> I chose it because it is unused in the "DeMeyere" keyboard of
> characters. Capital G is just as valid from this point of view.
>
I could add capital B into my conversion program too, along with capital
G. But then, which is more often used? I don't know if any ascii
shavian fonts have been designed with B as namer dot, but I do know
DeMeyere's fonts use the G.
Another question is, what if someone wants to assign capital B to some
other symbol or letter later on? It might be good to leave it empty for
now, if we can agree on the G key for the namer dot in the "Traditional"
keyboard layout. Others are welcome to use whatever layout is best for
them, but I'm mainly concerned with the traditional one for this ascii
to unicode conversion program.
--
Ethan
|
|
| 2810 |
From:  Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 11:49pm
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
Question: Is there some way of using my keyboard set up where the namer
dot is a lower case q, and to do so in winderz expuh?
--Star
--- Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...> wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2004 at 14:55, Ethan wrote:
>
> > So, is capital G a good place to put the namer dot? Or do you
> think
> > it should go somewhere else? If you think it should stay on the
> > forward slash key, tell me now, and give me a good reason!
>
> I think it should go at U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT rather than at "G" or
> "/"...
> but that's in an ideal world where we use Unicode Shavian codepoints.
>
> > I'm thinking that in the future, we will be using Shavian for
> > filenames, URLs on the internet, and for other such uses where the
> > forward slash will be needed. I think this change needs to be made
> > now, before these future uses become a problem for Shavian.
>
> Not a problem if we use Unicode, either from CSUR (which would be
> rather broken) or from the real, allocated code points in the SMP.
>
> If we need to use "ASCII Shavian", then I don't particularly mind
> either way where it goes. G does sound better than / for the reasons
> you stated, though / has the advantage that if you don't have an
> ASCII
> Shavian font, it doesn't look so much like part of the word.
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@g...>
>
>
=====
Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people have.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
|
|
| 2811 |
From: Scott Harrison <scott@m...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:04am
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 16:18 US/Eastern, Ethan wrote:
> Scott Harrison wrote:
>> On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 15:56 US/Eastern, Philip Newton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Jan 2004 at 14:55, Ethan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, is capital G a good place to put the namer dot? Or do you think
>>>> it should go somewhere else? If you think it should stay on the
>>>> forward slash key, tell me now, and give me a good reason!
>>>
>>> I think it should go at U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT rather than at "G" or
>>> "/"...
>>> but that's in an ideal world where we use Unicode Shavian codepoints.
>>>
>>
>>
>> As we should be using Unicode this is what the namer dot is. In my
>> Mac keyboard I have the capital B key generate this Unicode code
>> point.
>> I chose it because it is unused in the "DeMeyere" keyboard of
>> characters. Capital G is just as valid from this point of view.
>>
>
> I could add capital B into my conversion program too, along with
> capital
> G. But then, which is more often used? I don't know if any ascii
> shavian fonts have been designed with B as namer dot, but I do know
> DeMeyere's fonts use the G.
>
> Another question is, what if someone wants to assign capital B to some
> other symbol or letter later on? It might be good to leave it empty
> for
> now, if we can agree on the G key for the namer dot in the
> "Traditional"
> keyboard layout. Others are welcome to use whatever layout is best for
> them, but I'm mainly concerned with the traditional one for this ascii
> to unicode conversion program.
>
>
You should not need to add capital B to your conversion. I may well
be the only person that has ever used that configuration -- and only
because when I first started doing Shavian I did not want to use the /
as the namer dot key. You will note that I never generate ASCII when I
type in Shavian so I would never be sending a capital B anywhere.
My capital B usage has actually existed for a LONG time (since I first
started on NeXTSTEP), but is only a key mapping and anyone could change
it if they wanted. When more people usa Macs perhaps we can think
about this. :-)
--
Scott Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
|
|
| 2812 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:36am
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
Star Raven wrote:
> Question: Is there some way of using my keyboard set up where the namer
> dot is a lower case q, and to do so in winderz expuh?
>
> --Star
It's possible, of course, but then you'd have to find another key for Oil...
--
Ethan
|
|
| 2813 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:37am
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
Scott Harrison wrote:
>
> You should not need to add capital B to your conversion. I may well
> be the only person that has ever used that configuration -- and only
> because when I first started doing Shavian I did not want to use the /
> as the namer dot key. You will note that I never generate ASCII when I
> type in Shavian so I would never be sending a capital B anywhere.
>
> My capital B usage has actually existed for a LONG time (since I first
> started on NeXTSTEP), but is only a key mapping and anyone could change
> it if they wanted. When more people usa Macs perhaps we can think
> about this. :-)
>
Well, since you are already able to generate Unicode with your computer,
and can set your keyboard up for whatever layout you want, you really
have no worries. The main purpose of this program is for use as a tool
for people who don't have the ability to generate Unicode, or who can't
do it easily. Anybody can produce ascii, so with this tool you can
write in ascii and run it through the filter to produce unicode. Also,
for people who have documents written in ascii and want to convert them
to unicode.
--
Ethan
|
|
| 2814 |
From: Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:52am
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
In mine q is empty save for the namer dot. Oil is off somewhere.
--Star
--- Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> Star Raven wrote:
> > Question: Is there some way of using my keyboard set up where the
> namer
> > dot is a lower case q, and to do so in winderz expuh?
> >
> > --Star
>
> It's possible, of course, but then you'd have to find another key for
> Oil...
>
> --
> Ethan
>
>
=====
Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people have.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
|
|
| 2815 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:00am
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
Star Raven wrote:
> In mine q is empty save for the namer dot. Oil is off somewhere.
>
> --Star
Well, then you're in the same situation as Scott with his capital B.
You don't need the conversion program unless you use ascii Shavian and
want to convert it to Unicode, so it wouldn't affect you if I use the
capital G. Nevertheless, I will take note of your preference, if you
will tell me the rest of the keys you are using, and I might be able to
create an option in my program to allow the use of alternate keys. In
fact, I might see if I can support the use of a simple key map file,
which would allow you to define your own keyboard layout, and will
convert it accordingly to the proper code points. I can't promise this
for the first version, though!
--
Ethan
|
|
| 2816 |
From: Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:16am
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
I have sent it in before, not long ago... do you want me to send it
again just to you?
--Star
--- Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> Star Raven wrote:
> > In mine q is empty save for the namer dot. Oil is off somewhere.
> >
> > --Star
>
> Well, then you're in the same situation as Scott with his capital B.
> You don't need the conversion program unless you use ascii Shavian
> and
> want to convert it to Unicode, so it wouldn't affect you if I use the
>
> capital G. Nevertheless, I will take note of your preference, if you
>
> will tell me the rest of the keys you are using, and I might be able
> to
> create an option in my program to allow the use of alternate keys.
> In
> fact, I might see if I can support the use of a simple key map file,
> which would allow you to define your own keyboard layout, and will
> convert it accordingly to the proper code points. I can't promise
> this
> for the first version, though!
>
> --
> Ethan
>
>
=====
Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people have.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
|
|
| 2817 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:30am
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
Star Raven wrote:
> I have sent it in before, not long ago... do you want me to send it
> again just to you?
>
> --Star
No, that's okay. I just wasn't sure if it was the same as what you sent
before. I'll use the one you sent, I'm sure I have it here somewhere -
if not, it's in the archives.
--
Ethan
|
|
| 2818 |
From: Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
Use the corrected one... in the first one, I for got mum ;)
--Star
--- Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> Star Raven wrote:
> > I have sent it in before, not long ago... do you want me to send it
> > again just to you?
> >
> > --Star
>
> No, that's okay. I just wasn't sure if it was the same as what you
> sent
> before. I'll use the one you sent, I'm sure I have it here somewhere
> -
> if not, it's in the archives.
>
> --
> Ethan
>
>
=====
Support bacteria. It's the only culture some people have.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
|
|
| 2819 |
From: Philip Newton <philip.newton@g...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:37am
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
On 26 Jan 2004 at 16:12, Ethan wrote:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> > Not a problem if we use Unicode, either from CSUR (which would be
> > rather broken) or from the real, allocated code points in the SMP.
>
> Exactly. As for CSUR, I would leave it alone, because it's outdated
> now that Unicode 4 is out, and because you can't depend on what
> characters might show up in that space, which I assume is what you
> meant by "broken".
Well, there wouldn't be official characters in the CSUR range since
it's officially "private use", but I suppose the CSUR themselves (a
private project) might re-allocate that range now that Shavian has its
own block in Unicode.
I meant "broken" more in the sense that there's not much point in
getting people to support Unicode in order to use CSUR when we might as
well go all the way and support the proper code points. "Obsolete",
perhaps.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@g...>
|
|
| 2820 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:49am
Subject: Re: Namer dot: is this okay?
|
| |
Philip Newton wrote:
>
> Well, there wouldn't be official characters in the CSUR range since
> it's officially "private use", but I suppose the CSUR themselves (a
> private project) might re-allocate that range now that Shavian has its
> own block in Unicode.
>
> I meant "broken" more in the sense that there's not much point in
> getting people to support Unicode in order to use CSUR when we might as
> well go all the way and support the proper code points. "Obsolete",
> perhaps.
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
That's what I was thinking. And besides all that, the CSUR doesn't
control the private use area any more than anybody else, it's merely a
voluntary effort to get people to coordinate their use of the private
area. The CSUR has withdrawn Shavian from their registry since it has
received permanent allocation. Since you never really know what might
show up in that space, it's best we not use it.
--
Ethan
|
|
| 2821 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:54pm
Subject: Namer dot: By any other name
|
| |
Hi Ethan
I am quite used to a Capital G, as that is the preferred letter for
my Shaw font. In a pinch you could always use an Asterisk.
I am sure that anyone faamiliar with Shavian would make the leap.
Is there any other SHaw function for which an asterisk is used?
Regards, Paul V.
_________________attached____________________________________
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> >
> > Well, there wouldn't be official characters in the CSUR range
since
> > it's officially "private use", but I suppose the CSUR themselves
(a
> > private project) might re-allocate that range now that Shavian
has its
> > own block in Unicode.
> >
> > I meant "broken" more in the sense that there's not much point in
> > getting people to support Unicode in order to use CSUR when we
might as
> > well go all the way and support the proper code
points. "Obsolete",
> > perhaps.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Philip
>
> That's what I was thinking. And besides all that, the CSUR doesn't
> control the private use area any more than anybody else, it's
merely a
> voluntary effort to get people to coordinate their use of the
private
> area. The CSUR has withdrawn Shavian from their registry since it
has
> received permanent allocation. Since you never really know what
might
> show up in that space, it's best we not use it.
>
> --
> Ethan
|
|
| 2822 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:41pm
Subject: Re: Namer dot: By any other name
|
| |
paul vandenbrink wrote:
> Hi Ethan
> I am quite used to a Capital G, as that is the preferred letter for
> my Shaw font. In a pinch you could always use an Asterisk.
> I am sure that anyone faamiliar with Shavian would make the leap.
> Is there any other SHaw function for which an asterisk is used?
> Regards, Paul V.
Hi, Paul, thanks for your input.
There is no Shaw function for the asterisk, that I'm aware of, yet there
are other uses for the asterisk, including the marking of footnotes*,
text *emphasis* in email messages, and in computer command lines ($ ls
shavian/*.txt). If we put the namer dot on the asterisk (shift 8) key,
then that key would become unavailable for these other purposes, or
would be more difficult to use. Try differentiating the command line
*.*, if it looks like ·.·! Or what about our ·emphasis·, or ·.txt? How
about the footnote·?
So, I'm inclined to support the shift-G key for namer dot, because even
though in ascii it tends to blend in more with the text, it has the
advantage of not interfering with any keys which have other uses.
--
Ethan
______
*like this one!
|
|
| 2823 |
From: Ph. D. <phild@a...>
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:38pm
Subject: Re: Namer dot: By any other name
|
| |
Ethan skribis:
>
> There is no Shaw function for the asterisk, that I'm
> aware of, yet there are other uses for the asterisk,
> including the marking of footnotes*, text *emphasis*
> in email messages, and in computer command lines
> ($ ls shavian/*.txt). If we put the namer dot on the
> asterisk (shift 8) key, then that key would become
> unavailable for these other purposes, or would be
> more difficult to use. Try differentiating the command
> line *.*, if it looks like ·.·! Or what about our ·emphasis·,
> or ·.txt? How about the footnote·?
In the same way, I've always thought that the Shaw
character for Woe was unfortunate since it looks so
much like a slash. Consider a path name in Shavian
with slashes and Woe characters. The Woe is lower,
but still it makes it difficult to distinguish.
Capital G seems the way to go for the namer dot.
--Ph. D.
|
|
| 2824 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 0:20pm
Subject: Re: Namer dot: By any other name
|
| |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ph. D." <phild@a...>
To: <shavian@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [shavian] Namer dot: By any other name
> Ethan skribis:
> >
> > There is no Shaw function for the asterisk, that I'm
> > aware of, yet there are other uses for the asterisk,
> > including the marking of footnotes*, text *emphasis*
> > in email messages, and in computer command lines
> > ($ ls shavian/*.txt). If we put the namer dot on the
> > asterisk (shift 8) key, then that key would become
> > unavailable for these other purposes, or would be
> > more difficult to use. Try differentiating the command
> > line *.*, if it looks like ·.·! Or what about our ·emphasis·,
> > or ·.txt? How about the footnote·?
>
>
> In the same way, I've always thought that the Shaw
> character for Woe was unfortunate since it looks so
> much like a slash. Consider a path name in Shavian
> with slashes and Woe characters. The Woe is lower,
> but still it makes it difficult to distinguish.
>
> Capital G seems the way to go for the namer dot.
>
> --Ph. D.
I agree. It's been on that key since the early days of Shavian fonts. All we
need do is restore the slash to the slash key.
Hugh B
|
|
| 2825 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Namer dot: By any other name
|
| |
Hi Phil
Quickskript puts a little tic at the end of the "woe" and "yea"
letters. It is easy to add. It is just like making a check mark.
One of Kingsley's mor understandable improvements.
Regards, Paul V.
_______________________attached________________________
In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "Ph. D." <phild@a...> wrote:
> Ethan skribis:
> >
> > There is no Shaw function for the asterisk, that I'm
> > aware of, yet there are other uses for the asterisk,
> > including the marking of footnotes*, text *emphasis*
> > in email messages, and in computer command lines
> > ($ ls shavian/*.txt). If we put the namer dot on the
> > asterisk (shift 8) key, then that key would become
> > unavailable for these other purposes, or would be
> > more difficult to use. Try differentiating the command
> > line *.*, if it looks like ·.·! Or what about our ·emphasis·,
> > or ·.txt? How about the footnote·?
>
>
> In the same way, I've always thought that the Shaw
> character for Woe was unfortunate since it looks so
> much like a slash. Consider a path name in Shavian
> with slashes and Woe characters. The Woe is lower,
> but still it makes it difficult to distinguish.
>
> Capital G seems the way to go for the namer dot.
>
> --Ph. D.
|
|
| 2826 |
From: <shavian@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:13pm
Subject: New file uploaded to shavian
|
| |
|
| 2827 |
From: <stbett@y...>
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 2:23pm
Subject: Re: old ghoti question
|
| |
|
Jack and Stephen,
According to Tauber, On Language, Shaw mentions GHOTI as a defect in the traditional orthography in a London Times article. Probably a letter to the editor.
Carney and others have pointed out that such a spelling for FISH
violates some of the positional rules of English spelling. GH can
be /f/ in a terminal position but never in an initial position. I
believe that O = /I/ in only one word so it is hardly a normal pattern. in a terminal position is never pronounced /S/ .
I do not know who was the first person to suggest this creative spelling of FISH.
You might check Alexander Ellis, a cohort of Isaac Pitman, who
wrote several essays which illustrated the full extent of the
orthographic options in traditonal English spelling starting around
1870. One of Ellis' examples was the word scissors whcih could be spelled several hundred different ways. Unifon: sizcrz Jolly: siz&rz. Spanglish:
sizzerz. There is no second guessing when it comes to the fonetik
spelling beyond having to know the convention for representing
schwa and relative stress. By contrast, it is almost impossible
to guess the English spelling from the pronunciation alone.
A 5 phonogram sound-spelling would on the average have 14
spellings per phonogram or over 500,000 optional traditional
spellings in a 5 phonogram word. I don't recall if Ellis played
around with creative spellings beyond listing them as possible
alternative spellings.
The number of combinations cited by Ellis is inflated because
he ignores the positional restraints in English spelling.
Counting these, the number of possibilities can be reduced to around
15,000. This is still slightly inflated because some spellings
will have a higher frequency than others and these would be tried
first. sizzers would probably be the first guess for an adult. A 2nd grader would probably guess sizrs.
is not a simplified spelling so Shaw would not be
concerned that this would be a source of ridicule for phonemic
spelling. In an earlier period, much of the ridicule of phonemic
spelling, then called fonetik, was directed toward Isaac Pitman's
spellings.
Most of them appeared in Punch.
Some spellings do look odd and uneducated but this is just because
they are unfamiliar or collide with a conventional spelling.
Children will write "I luv u mome" which is
close to Unifon, a phonemic spelling system: "I luv U
momE" The caps incidate long vowels. Thus, Unifon
could be ridiculed as a childish spelling or an unlearned spelling.
Unifon is a variant of comic book spelling since it is printed: I LUV U MOME
It doesn't take too much imagination to find funny sound spellings in Unifon [www.unifon.org]
chauffeur = SOF3R wrestle = RES3L or with a syllabic L: RESL
diarrhea /"dI-&-'rE-&/ diarrhoea typed as dicrEc printed as DI3RE3
boutique /bü-'tEk / typed as bUtEk printed as BUTEK
I hope this helps.
Steve
Steve Bett, Ph.D., editor, Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society
Jack wrote:
I will throw this question open to other members of
the Simplified Spelling Society and our associate,
Spell4Literacy and hope you will get further insight
into the origin of 'ghoti'.
I looked, as you must have done, at google.com and
found references you refer to below.
Yours sincerely
Jack Bovill
Chair, SSS
--- Stephen Goranson wrote: >
> Dear Jack Bovill,
>
> If I may, I'd like to ask about the author of
> "ghoti." The four sources below
> raise questions. Was it not Shaw? Why would Shaw worry?
Since this [ghoti] is not a phonemic or simplified spelling, Shaw would not worry. Shaw
was so concerned about sound-spellings being mistaken for uneducated
spellings, however, that he called for a completely new alphabet
unrelated to the contaminated and compromised Roman
alphabet. [see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian] > Was Jones quoting an
> earlier publication by himself?
You can check the date on the Shaw article in the London Times.
If it comes before Nov. 1943, then he is probably quoting Shaw.
If not, then he may have been referencing something that may have been
brought up in one of the meetings of the spelling society. Reducing the number
of possible creative or orthogrically legitimate spellings was a concern of the society.
Joyce would not read
> Christian Science
> Monitor, presumably not the first publication? In
> short, who wrote it [GHOTI] --whether
> properly called enthusiast or not?
>
> Thee Times [London] 2 Nov 1943 p.2:
>
> A Hard Spell for Fish
> Professor Jones on Sounds and Letters
> Dr. Daniel Jones...speaking on "Reform in English
> Spelling" astonished his
> audience at the college last night by suggesting the
> word 'fish' could be
> spelled 'ghoti
>
> Michael Holroyd, Bernard Shaw, vol. III p. 501,
> writes a bit unclearly that
> GBS was concerned about ridicule of spelling reform
> as a crank subject, which
> he tried to prevent. "But when an enthusiastic
> convert suggested that 'ghoti'
> would be a reasonable way to spell 'fish' under the
> old system (...),
That was the critique of traditional spelling. There were too many orthographic options.
/F/ can be spelled several different ways. [See Dewey, G. 1971 for the exact number]
/I/ can be spelled over 14 ways
/S/ can be spelled several ways and some overlap with other sounds
> the subject seemed about to be engulfed in the ridicule
> from which Shaw was determined to save it.
Ridicule is better than being ignored.
Shaw and Twain
probably did more the ridicule simplified spelling than those who were
opposed to it. They became converts to fonetik spelling and
preferred sound-signs that would not be confused with traditional
spelling. Both liked Pitman shorthand but wanted a linear version
of it -- something that could be typeset. See JSSS-31 for a
discussion.
" I don't get why M.H. thought this example was a worry
> to GBS; but he presents it as not offered by Shaw.
> The very next sentence (on
> p. 501) mentions "the phonetic enthusiast James
> Lecky...." That's why I though[t]
> the two so-called "enthusiasts" might be identical;
> but evidently they are not.
Shaw was a fonetik enthusiast. I think the problem is with the two concepts of
fonetik. One notion is that any spelling that is
orthographically possible is fonetik with respect to traditional
English spelling. The orthographic options are often used to
distinguish homophones: scent/sent/cent.
The other idea of fonetik refers to a single system of sound signs where there is one and only one symbol for each speech sound.
> Finnegans Wake (1939) has "gee each owe tea eye smells fish."
> Christian Science Monitor 27 Aug 1938 p. 17 in an
> unsigned column, "In a
> lighter vein": "A foreigner insisted that 'fish'
> should be spelled 'ghoti'...."'...
>
> best wishes,
>
> Stephen Goranson
> Perkins Library
> Duke University
> Durham NC
> goranson@duke.edu
|
|
|
| 2828 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 7:39am
Subject: Scissors question
|
| |
I noticed in your discussion of the Nonsense word Ghoti
that you said that:
"Counting these, the number of
> possibilities can be reduced to around 15,000. This is still
slightly inflated
> because some spellings will have a higher frequency than others and
these would
> be tried first. sizzers would probably be the first guess for an
adult. A
> 2nd grader would probably guess sizrz."
I don't know of any English spelling rule that would
allow the reader to think the "SC" diagraph signifies the plain
"S" sound.
Perhaps it might be useful from a simplified spelling point
of view, it would be nice to have a list of words, such as "scissors"
where the spelling has diverged so far from any notion of rational
English spelling that we should shun them and only use synonyms.
For example, I would like to use the word, "shears" from this point
point on.
Paul V.
P.S. Just a personal preference, but I would like to hear more about
Practical matters, rather than discuss a hypothetical test case,
over and over.
_______________attached________________________-
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, stbett@y... wrote:
> Jack and Stephen,
>
> According to Tauber, On Language, Shaw mentions GHOTI as a defect
in the
> traditional orthography in a London Times article. Probably a
letter to the
> editor.
>
> Carney and others have pointed out that such a spelling for FISH
violates
> some of the positional rules of English spelling. GH can be /f/ in
a terminal
> position but never in an initial position. I believe that O = /I/
in only one
> word <women> so it is hardly a normal pattern. <ti> in a terminal
position is
> never pronounced /S/ <sh>.
>
> I do not know who was the first person to suggest this creative
spelling of
> FISH.
> You might check Alexander Ellis, a cohort of Isaac Pitman, who
wrote several
> essays which illustrated the full extent of the orthographic
options in
> traditonal English spelling starting around 1870. One of Ellis'
examples was the
> word scissors whcih could be spelled several hundred different
ways. Unifon:
> sizcrz Jolly: siz&rz. Spanglish: sizzerz. There is no second
guessing when it
> comes to the fonetik spelling beyond having to know the convention
for
> representing schwa and relative stress. By contrast, it is almost
impossible to
> guess the English spelling from the pronunciation alone.
>
> A 5 phonogram sound-spelling would on the average have 14 spellings
per
> phonogram or over 500,000 optional traditional spellings in a 5
phonogram word. I
> don't recall if Ellis played around with creative spellings beyond
listing
> them as possible alternative spellings.
>
> The number of combinations cited by Ellis is inflated because he
ignores the
> positional restraints in English spelling. Counting these, the
number of
> possibilities can be reduced to around 15,000. This is still
slightly inflated
> because some spellings will have a higher frequency than others and
these would
> be tried first. sizzers would probably be the first guess for an
adult. A
> 2nd grader would probably guess sizrs.
>
> <GHOTI> is not a simplified spelling so Shaw would not be concerned
that this
> would be a source of ridicule for phonemic spelling. In an earlier
period,
> much of the ridicule of phonemic spelling, then called fonetik, was
directed
> toward Isaac Pitman's spellings.
> Most of them appeared in Punch.
>
> Some spellings do look odd and uneducated but this is just because
they are
> unfamiliar or collide with a conventional spelling. Children will
write "I luv
> u mome" which is close to Unifon, a phonemic spelling system: "I
luv U
> momE" The caps incidate long vowels. Thus, Unifon could be
ridiculed as a
> childish spelling or an unlearned spelling.
>
> Unifon is a variant of comic book spelling since it is printed: I
LUV U MOME
> It doesn't take too much imagination to find funny sound spellings
in Unifon
> [www.unifon.org]
> chauffeur = SOF3R wrestle = RES3L or with a syllabic L: RESL
> diarrhea /"dI-&-'rE-&/ diarrhoea typed as dicrEc printed as
DI3RE3
> boutique /bü-'tEk / <boo-teek> typed as bUtEk printed as
BUTEK
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Steve
> Steve Bett, Ph.D., editor, Journal of the Simplified Spelling
Society
> Jack wrote:
>
> I will throw this question open to other members of
> the Simplified Spelling Society and our associate,
> Spell4Literacy and hope you will get further insight
> into the origin of 'ghoti'.
>
> I looked, as you must have done, at google.com and
> found references you refer to below.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Jack Bovill
> Chair, SSS
>
> --- Stephen Goranson <goranson@d...> wrote: >
> > Dear Jack Bovill,
> >
> > If I may, I'd like to ask about the author of
> > "ghoti." The four sources below
> > raise questions. Was it not Shaw? Why would Shaw worry?
> Since this [ghoti] is not a phonemic or simplified spelling, Shaw
would not
> worry.
> Shaw was so concerned about sound-spellings being mistaken for
uneducated
> spellings, however, that he called for a completely new alphabet
unrelated to the
> contaminated and compromised Roman alphabet. [see
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian]
> > Was Jones quoting an
> > earlier publication by himself?
> You can check the date on the Shaw article in the London Times.
> If it comes before Nov. 1943, then he is probably quoting Shaw.
>
> If not, then he may have been referencing something that may have
been
> brought up in one of the meetings of the spelling society.
Reducing the
> number
> of possible creative or orthogrically legitimate spellings was a
concern of
> the society.
> Joyce would not read
> > Christian Science
> > Monitor, presumably not the first publication? In
> > short, who wrote it [GHOTI] --whether
> > properly called enthusiast or not?
> >
> > Thee Times [London] 2 Nov 1943 p.2:
> >
> > A Hard Spell for Fish
> > Professor Jones on Sounds and Letters
> > Dr. Daniel Jones...speaking on "Reform in English
> > Spelling" astonished his
> > audience at the college last night by suggesting the
> > word 'fish' could be
> > spelled 'ghoti
> >
> > Michael Holroyd, Bernard Shaw, vol. III p. 501,
> > writes a bit unclearly that
> > GBS was concerned about ridicule of spelling reform
> > as a crank subject, which
> > he tried to prevent. "But when an enthusiastic
> > convert suggested that 'ghoti'
> > would be a reasonable way to spell 'fish' under the
> > old system (...),
> That was the critique of traditional spelling. There were too many
> orthographic options.
> /F/ can be spelled several different ways. [See Dewey, G. 1971 for
the exact
> number]
> /I/ can be spelled over 14 ways
> /S/ can be spelled several ways and some overlap with other sounds
> > the subject seemed about to be engulfed in the ridicule
> > from which Shaw was determined to save it.
> Ridicule is better than being ignored.
> Shaw and Twain probably did more the ridicule simplified spelling
than those
> who were opposed to it. They became converts to fonetik spelling
and
> preferred sound-signs that would not be confused with traditional
spelling. Both
> liked Pitman shorthand but wanted a linear version of it --
something that could
> be typeset. See JSSS-31 for a discussion.
> " I don't get why M.H. thought this example was a worry
> > to GBS; but he presents it as not offered by Shaw.
> > The very next sentence (on
> > p. 501) mentions "the phonetic enthusiast James
> > Lecky...." That's why I though[t]
> > the two so-called "enthusiasts" might be identical;
> > but evidently they are not.
> Shaw was a fonetik enthusiast. I think the problem is with the two
concepts
> of
> fonetik. One notion is that any spelling that is orthographically
possible
> is fonetik with respect to traditional English spelling. The
orthographic
> options are often used to distinguish homophones: scent/sent/cent.
>
> The other idea of fonetik refers to a single system of sound signs
where
> there is one and only one symbol for each speech sound.
> > Finnegans Wake (1939) has "gee each owe tea eye smells fish."
>
> > Christian Science Monitor 27 Aug 1938 p. 17 in an
> > unsigned column, "In a
> > lighter vein": "A foreigner insisted that 'fish'
> > should be spelled 'ghoti'...."'...
> >
> > best wishes,
> >
> > Stephen Goranson
> > Perkins Library
> > Duke University
> > Durham NC
> > goranson@d...
|
|
| 2829 |
From: Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 7:33pm
Subject: Re: Scissors question
|
| |
paul vandenbrink incurred the wrath of Bob on Feb 9, by saying
>I noticed in your discussion of the Nonsense word Ghoti
>that you said that:
>"Counting these, the number of
>> possibilities can be reduced to around 15,000. This is still
>slightly inflated
>> because some spellings will have a higher frequency than others and
>these would
>> be tried first. sizzers would probably be the first guess for an
>adult. A
>> 2nd grader would probably guess sizrz."
>
>I don't know of any English spelling rule that would
>allow the reader to think the "SC" diagraph signifies the plain
>"S" sound.
At the bottom I've included a list of all words on my computer's
standard dictionary that contain the sequence "sci". I'd appreciate it
if anyone responding to this message would remember to chop the list off
in your response to keep the message sizes down.
In all words I'm familiar with in the list, except "ASCII", the "sc"
before a syllabic i is pronounced as /s/; when the i is not the main
vowel in the syllable (e.g., "conscious"), it is a /S/ sound. Looks
like a rule to me.
I notice my dictionary is missing the word "scion"; my father convinced
me in my youth that this was pronounced with a "hard c". I never heard
anyone say the word for most of my life, so I was in my thirtes, I
believe, before I started to doubt it and looked it up.
>Perhaps it might be useful from a simplified spelling point
>of view, it would be nice to have a list of words, such as "scissors"
>where the spelling has diverged so far from any notion of rational
>English spelling that we should shun them and only use synonyms.
>For example, I would like to use the word, "shears" from this point
>point on.
My big objection to the spelling of "scissors" is the double-s being
pronounced as a "z". This is the exact opposite of what it should
signify; it should indicate that the sound is, without question, an 's'
sound and not a 'z' sound. But on your main point... I'm not sure where
you're going with that. I thought the point of the whole thing was to
just throw out the old spellings and give them new ones; anybody should
be able to identify what "sizzers" is supposed to mean. And if we're
going to respell everything, why would we need to avoid words that
currently have funny T.O. spelling?
>
>Paul V.
>
>P.S. Just a personal preference, but I would like to hear more about
>Practical matters, rather than discuss a hypothetical test case,
>over and over.
>
Here's the list:
rschmrtz-2k:/usr/share/dict: grep -i sci words
abscissa
abscissas
acquiescing
ASCII
bioscience
coalescing
conscience
consciences
conscientious
conscientiously
conscious
consciously
consciousness
disciple
disciples
disciplinary
discipline
disciplined
disciplines
disciplining
fascicle
fascinate
fascinated
fascinates
fascinating
fascination
fascism
fascist
interdisciplinary
lascivious
luscious
lusciously
lusciousness
Mogadiscio
omniscient
omnisciently
oscillate
oscillated
oscillates
oscillating
oscillation
oscillations
oscillator
oscillators
oscillatory
oscilloscope
oscilloscopes
plebiscite
plebiscites
Priscilla
rescind
resuscitate
science
sciences
scientific
scientifically
scientist
scientists
scissor
scissored
scissoring
scissors
subconscious
subconsciously
unconscionable
unconscious
unconsciously
unconsciousness
undisciplined
--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz
|
|
| 2830 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 0:06am
Subject: Re: Scissors question
|
| |
Hi Bob
I was responding to the idea of simplified spelling,
rather than strictly speaking about the Shavian alternative.
Obviously, I have a big stake in people using Shavian, and it is my
preferred method of writing.
But when the spelling T.O. gets too wild for example, Ghoti, I would
expect realistically for people to avoid those words, if there is any
kind of reasonable synonym.
Regards, Paul V.
SC = sh in conscious
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...> wrote:
> paul vandenbrink incurred the wrath of Bob on Feb 9, by saying
>
> >I noticed in your discussion of the Nonsense word Ghoti
> >that you said that:
> >"Counting these, the number of
> >> possibilities can be reduced to around 15,000. This is still
> >slightly inflated
> >> because some spellings will have a higher frequency than others
and
> >these would
> >> be tried first. sizzers would probably be the first guess for an
> >adult. A
> >> 2nd grader would probably guess sizrz."
> >
> >I don't know of any English spelling rule that would
> >allow the reader to think the "SC" diagraph signifies the plain
> >"S" sound.
>
> At the bottom I've included a list of all words on my computer's
> standard dictionary that contain the sequence "sci". I'd
appreciate it
> if anyone responding to this message would remember to chop the
list off
> in your response to keep the message sizes down.
>
> In all words I'm familiar with in the list, except "ASCII", the "sc"
> before a syllabic i is pronounced as /s/; when the i is not the main
> vowel in the syllable (e.g., "conscious"), it is a /S/ sound. Looks
> like a rule to me.
>
> I notice my dictionary is missing the word "scion"; my father
convinced
> me in my youth that this was pronounced with a "hard c". I never
heard
> anyone say the word for most of my life, so I was in my thirtes, I
> believe, before I started to doubt it and looked it up.
>
> >Perhaps it might be useful from a simplified spelling point
> >of view, it would be nice to have a list of words, such
as "scissors"
> >where the spelling has diverged so far from any notion of rational
> >English spelling that we should shun them and only use synonyms.
> >For example, I would like to use the word, "shears" from this point
> >point on.
>
> My big objection to the spelling of "scissors" is the double-s being
> pronounced as a "z". This is the exact opposite of what it should
> signify; it should indicate that the sound is, without question,
an 's'
> sound and not a 'z' sound. But on your main point... I'm not sure
where
> you're going with that. I thought the point of the whole thing was
to
> just throw out the old spellings and give them new ones; anybody
should
> be able to identify what "sizzers" is supposed to mean. And if
we're
> going to respell everything, why would we need to avoid words that
> currently have funny T.O. spelling?
>
> >
> >Paul V.
> >
> >P.S. Just a personal preference, but I would like to hear more
about
> >Practical matters, rather than discuss a hypothetical test case,
> >over and over.
> >
>
> Here's the list:
>
> rschmrtz-2k:/usr/share/dict: grep -i sci words
> abscissa
> abscissas
> acquiescing
> ASCII
> bioscience
> coalescing
> conscience
> consciences
> conscientious
> conscientiously
> conscious
> consciously
> consciousness
> disciple
> disciples
> disciplinary
> discipline
> disciplined
> disciplines
> disciplining
> fascicle
> fascinate
> fascinated
> fascinates
> fascinating
> fascination
> fascism
> fascist
> interdisciplinary
> lascivious
> luscious
> lusciously
> lusciousness
> Mogadiscio
> omniscient
> omnisciently
> oscillate
> oscillated
> oscillates
> oscillating
> oscillation
> oscillations
> oscillator
> oscillators
> oscillatory
> oscilloscope
> oscilloscopes
> plebiscite
> plebiscites
> Priscilla
> rescind
> resuscitate
> science
> sciences
> scientific
> scientifically
> scientist
> scientists
> scissor
> scissored
> scissoring
> scissors
> subconscious
> subconsciously
> unconscionable
> unconscious
> unconsciously
> unconsciousness
> undisciplined
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Bob Schmertz
|
|
| 2831 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:37am
Subject: Re: Scissors question
|
| |
paul vandenbrink wrote:
> P.S. Just a personal preference, but I would like to hear more about
> Practical matters, rather than discuss a hypothetical test case,
> over and over.
Yes, practical matters, like how to get Shavian working well on our
computers!
ð‘˜ð‘§ð‘•, ð‘ð‘®ð‘¨ð‘’ð‘‘ð‘¦ð‘’ð‘©ð‘¤
ð‘¥ð‘¨ð‘‘ð‘¼ð‘Ÿ, ð‘¤ð‘²ð‘’ ð‘£ð‘¬ ð‘‘ ð‘œð‘§ð‘‘
·ð‘–ð‘±ð‘ð‘¾ð‘¯
ð‘¢ð‘»ð‘’ð‘¦ð‘™ ð‘¢ð‘§ð‘¤ ð‘ªð‘¯ ð‘¬ð‘¼ ð‘’ð‘³ð‘¥ð‘ð‘¿ð‘‘ð‘¼ð‘Ÿ!
Can anybody read the Shavian text in this message?
ð‘’ð‘¨ð‘¯ ð‘§ð‘¯ð‘°ð‘šð‘³ð‘›ð‘° ð‘®ð‘°ð‘› 𑞠·ð‘–ð‘±ð‘ð‘¾ð‘¯ ð‘‘ð‘§ð‘’ð‘•ð‘‘ ð‘¦ð‘¯ ð‘žð‘¦ð‘•
ð‘¥ð‘§ð‘•ð‘©ð‘¡?
--
·ð‘°ð‘”ð‘©ð‘¯ (Ethan)
|
|
| 2832 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:16am
Subject: Re: Scissors question
|
| |
Bob Schmertz wrote:
> At the bottom I've included a list of all words on my computer's
> standard dictionary that contain the sequence "sci". I'd appreciate it
> if anyone responding to this message would remember to chop the list off
> in your response to keep the message sizes down.
Done!
> In all words I'm familiar with in the list, except "ASCII", the "sc"
> before a syllabic i is pronounced as /s/; when the i is not the main
> vowel in the syllable (e.g., "conscious"), it is a /S/ sound. Looks
> like a rule to me.
Pronounced like "sk":
ASCII - This is an acronym, as many of you know, for "American Standard
Code for Information Interchange", and as a modern acronym, it's
understandable that it might not follow the normal spelling /
pronunciation rules.
Pronounced like "sh":
conscience (and derivatives)
This word, like others in the list with similar construction, follows
the same rule as words like nation, anxious, and mission, and this
acounts for the "sh" sound.
fascism
Mogadiscio
These two words are of foreign origin, and follow the rules of the
languages they come from. Fascism comes from Italian, and Mogadiscio is
an alternative spelling for Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia.
So I guess you could conclude that it is a rule of English spelling that
"sc" before a front vowel (e,i,y) is pronounced like "s", unless the
word falls under the rule regarding words like mission, etc. with a few
exeptions, being mostly words of foreign origin.
> I notice my dictionary is missing the word "scion"; my father convinced
> me in my youth that this was pronounced with a "hard c". I never heard
> anyone say the word for most of my life, so I was in my thirtes, I
> believe, before I started to doubt it and looked it up.
The American Heritage Dictionary says that scion is pronounced like
"ð‘•ð‘°ð‘©ð‘¯" (sIan). (http://www.bartleby.com/61/89/S0148900.html)
>
> Here's the list:
>
> rschmrtz-2k:/usr/share/dict: grep -i sci words
Hey, I tried that and guess what?
[ethan@main ethan]$ cd /usr/share/dict/
[ethan@main dict]$ grep -i sci words
abscissa
abscissas
acquiescing
ASCII
bioscience
coalescing
...
I didn't even know you could do that!
--
·ð‘°ð‘”ð‘©ð‘¯ - Ethan
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
= Owner
= Moderator
= Online