carl easton wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> That's okay. Originally, Kingley Read in Androcles and the Lion,
> mentioned to use the spellings from that volume when the time came to
> formalized Shavian spelling. Which is as you have indicated is the
> Northern England accent.
> 
> So, I assume to derive this Northern England accent from a dictionary,
> one might use the Oxford dictionary.  However, due there also being
> Shavian Ethusiasts around the World. An American Spelling is needed for
> us western hemisphere people.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Carl


According to the numbers found at
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lan_eng_spe

Native English speakers per country, 1984 estimates -
UK: 55 million
US: 210 million

I think that it is important to consider where the people are, and how
they speak when deciding where to standardize.  If you go by the
numbers, standard American English should be given preference.  Consider
also that most Canadians speak almost the same as standard American English.

That said, it would scarcely be fair to force the American standard on
people who find it strange, so I think it would be good to have at least
a standard for British English as well, so everybody can be as
comfortable as possible.  But would either standard be acceptible for
people in, say, Australia, New Zeeland, or South Africa?

--
·𐑰𐑔𐑩𐑯 - Ethan

Hi Carl

Don't forget India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. Altogether they have more
Second Lnguage English Speakers than America, and their accent is
closer to the British Accent.
English is a world language. The majority of countries in the world
accept English as their preferred second language.

Regards, Paul V.
______________attached________________________

--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Ethan wrote:
> carl easton wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > That's okay. Originally, Kingley Read in Androcles and the Lion,
> > mentioned to use the spellings from that volume when the time
came to
> > formalized Shavian spelling. Which is as you have indicated is
the
> > Northern England accent.
> > 
> > So, I assume to derive this Northern England accent from a
dictionary,
> > one might use the Oxford dictionary.  However, due there also
being
> > Shavian Ethusiasts around the World. An American Spelling is
needed for
> > us western hemisphere people.
> > 
> > regards,
> > 
> > Carl
>
>
> According to the numbers found at
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lan_eng_spe
>
> Native English speakers per country, 1984 estimates -
> UK: 55 million
> US: 210 million
>
> I think that it is important to consider where the people are, and
how
> they speak when deciding where to standardize.  If you go by the
> numbers, standard American English should be given preference. 
Consider
> also that most Canadians speak almost the same as standard American
English.
>
> That said, it would scarcely be fair to force the American standard
on
> people who find it strange, so I think it would be good to have at
least
> a standard for British English as well, so everybody can be as
> comfortable as possible.  But would either standard be acceptible
for
> people in, say, Australia, New Zeeland, or South Africa?
>
> --
> ·ð?˜Â°Ã°Ââ€˜â€Ã°Ââ€˜Â©Ã°Ââ€˜Â?- Ethan

Hello

Do you not think this argument is spurious? How far can one go in
totting up numbers and dividing them into "national dialects"? Will
it ever produce anything either usable or desirable?

First you ignore that in most countries there is no standard over all
the population, and that so-called "national dictionaries" cover only
a blessed and chosen few. The rest of us must make do with the
dubious title "non-standard".

If you divide people into nations and then proclaim upon each a
national spelling for shavian then I dare say that many will tell you
to sit on it.

Next we must understand that shavian is meant to facilitate
communication in English and manifold spellings will not do this. At
the moment there is very little difference between English spelling.
To have any success we need to make sure that gap shrinks and not
grow.

An acceptable spelling for all English speakers must be found, with
differences _only_ where there is a real phonemic difference in
pronunciation. Also it must be made clear to a learner who comes
across an unfamiliar word (that is, spelt how they would not say it)
that all English speakers have made a few concessions to reach a
standard. Otherwise, like above, people will think you are trying to
make them speak British/American/Australian/Indian and tell you to go
play in the road.

I hate to sound like I'm coining a bloody motto, but here is the crux
of my point: without unity there is no point, and without concession
there can be no agreement.

Thanks for listening
Joseph

-- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, carl easton wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> You are Right. I responded to Ethan on this.  I agree that there
should be a standard of spelling for each English-speaking Nation.
> 
> best of regards,
> 
> Carl
>
> paul vandenbrink wrote:
> Hi Carl
>
> Don't forget India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. Altogether they have
more
> Second Lnguage English Speakers than America, and their accent is
> closer to the British Accent.
> English is a world language. The majority of countries in the world
> accept English as their preferred second language.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
> ______________attached________________________
>

Hi Joseph

I think Carl in his enthusiasm to spread  the word on the benefits the Shaw
Alphabet has jumped in with a naive attempt to correct the Achilles Heel of
the Shavian Alphabet.
The problem with Shaw as an Alphabet for English, is that first, English is
nowadays becoming the pre-eminent World language. But Secondly, that
English is spoken very differently, sometimes so differently that it is not
understandable.
I can correspond exactly with a Newfoundlander or Cockney, but still be at
a total loss over the phone.
Carl, like most American's, has a tendency to want to go with the majority.
If you have to make a decision, why not make the most people happy.

Fortunately, like yourself, I believe there is a better solution to this
problem.
Why not make computers do all the work, eh.
I am not sure what that solution will be, but I agree with you that you
will not convince the majority of the world to use a Phonetic Alphabet
according to some other countries standard of pronunciation. Just not a go.

Still I think there is place in Shavian for dictionaries and a strategy of
writing English words in Shaw that minimizes variation. At least enough so
that the computers can get a handle on it anyway, eh.

Regards, Paul V.

P.S. We used to have a situation in Quebec where the English business
community required French speaker's to speak English if they wanted a job.
Canada is still suffering over that one.


> You are Right. I responded to Ethan on this.  I agree that there
should be a standard of spelling for each English-speaking Nation.
>

At 09:14 AM 4/5/04, you wrote:
>Hello
>
>Do you not think this argument is spurious? How far can one go in
>totting up numbers and dividing them into "national dialects"? Will
>it ever produce anything either usable or desirable?
>
>First you ignore that in most countries there is no standard over all
>the population, and that so-called "national dictionaries" cover only
>a blessed and chosen few. The rest of us must make do with the
>dubious title "non-standard".
>
>If you divide people into nations and then proclaim upon each a
>national spelling for shavian then I dare say that many will tell you
>to sit on it.
>
>Next we must understand that shavian is meant to facilitate
>communication in English and manifold spellings will not do this. At
>the moment there is very little difference between English spelling.
>To have any success we need to make sure that gap shrinks and not
>grow.
>
>An acceptable spelling for all English speakers must be found, with
>differences _only_ where there is a real phonemic difference in
>pronunciation. Also it must be made clear to a learner who comes
>across an unfamiliar word (that is, spelt how they would not say it)
>that all English speakers have made a few concessions to reach a
>standard. Otherwise, like above, people will think you are trying to
>make them speak British/American/Australian/Indian and tell you to go
>play in the road.
>
>I hate to sound like I'm coining a bloody motto, but here is the crux
>of my point: without unity there is no point, and without concession
>there can be no agreement.
>
>Thanks for listening
>Joseph