|
|
|
| 2983 |
From:  Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 0:49pm
Subject: Re: Unicode Shavian Keyboard Layout
|
| |
Whoops...
> 1) Extract the two files from the archive ***INTO ONE FOLDER***
Hugh B
|
|
| 2984 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 1:19pm
Subject: XP users - Shaw fonts @ small sizes
|
| |
|
Just a quick tip while I remember it:
For those who use XP - you might have noticed that
Shaw fonts look a little rough edged below 14pt sizes and often
unreadable. I don't know about you but I found this annoying.
The solution is simple:
1) Right click on the desktop and select "Properties"
2) Choose the "appearance" tab and click "Effects..."
3) Under "use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts", change it from "Standard" to "ClearType"
4) Click OK, and again at the previous window
There you go! Shaw fonts (and every other font on screen) now look smoother at small sizes.
Hugh B
|
|
|
| 2985 |
From: j_brg <stetsdigs@h...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 2:27pm
Subject: Adobe PDF
|
| |
Hello
Can everybody read and use Adobe PDFs?
I understand they are supposed to be cros platform, but I want to
make sure before I make any.
Thanks
Joseph
|
|
| 2986 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 2:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Number of American speakers vs. British Speakers
|
| |

The pronunciation key is easily interpreted into Shavian. I'll draw up a conversion chart if it doesn't appear obvious enough.
Oh well, even if it's obvious enough, I did it anyway!
Hugh B |
|
|
| 2987 |
From: John Warner <john.warner@l...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 0:25pm
Subject: dictionary choice
|
| |
I like the fact that English does not have a regulating body like the
French Academy - as I view them as language killers. They are like King
Canute attempting to hold back the waves of new words - dictionaries are
not arbiters of pronunciation they may well give an analysis of the most
common versions but they are not binding unless you make them so. If we
were playing scrabble for an award I accept the need for a defined
dictionary but I view writing as far more anarchic than that. So, I for
one don't think we should have a standard dictionary to limit us to.
Many languages followed French into the world of regulation and have
difficulty with changes, neologisms etc. The OED started as a project to
catalogue every word used in English and is huge, rambling and still
unfinished (it cannot ever be finished).
Is not Shavian an attempt to replicate the sounds of English in written
form and it should do so not to some artificial standard but represent
the sounds spoken by the writer.
Perhaps I have a limited view of Shavian but I use it in personal stuff.
I am fascinated by cultural imperialism - practised by the British
successfully and currently by the citizens of the United States who have
even managed to colonise the word "Americans" - forgetting their
northern and southern neighbours completely.
I would not want to replicate that cultural imperialism in Shavian
script either. Vive la difference!
John Warner.
--
John Warner
john.warner@l...
|
|
| 2988 |
From: Newton, Philip <Philip.Newton@g...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 3:02pm
Subject: Re: Adobe PDF
|
| |
j_brg wrote:
> Can everybody read and use Adobe PDFs?
>
> I understand they are supposed to be cros platform, but I
> want to make sure before I make any.
They are indeed very portable. However, if you are using Shavian (or any
non-standard font), you will probably need to include the font with the
document in order for all recipients of the file to be able to display it.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@g...>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
|
|
| 2989 |
From: j_brg <stetsdigs@h...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 2:17pm
Subject: Re: Number of American speakers vs. British Speakers
|
| |
Hello
I can mainly agree with the American Heritage Dictionary. It gives
pronunciations that tend to be acceptable, and it is free at
www.dictionary.com (cheque in the post please).
Though their ought be nothing against us to considering spellings
contrary to the ones found in the Am Her if we see fit.
Thanks
Joseph
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@y...> wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> Indeed, a common spelling must be attained. I was only speculating
when I said "there should be a standard of spelling for each
Nation". I'm speculating, again, but hopefully closer to the truth
this time. We must find a dictionary pronouncation acceptable to all
English-speaking Shavian Users. I vote -- American Heritage
Dictionary -- all may vote now. Some points to consider: this
dictionary must be widely available and have a pronouncation key
compatable with Shavian.
>
> best of regards,
>
> Carl
>
> j_brg <stetsdigs@h...> 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
>
> -- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@y...> 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 <pvandenbrink@s...> 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________________________
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> shavian-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
|
|
| 2990 |
From: Bob Schmertz <rschmertz@s...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 3:46pm
Subject: Re: Adobe PDF
|
| |
j_brg incurred the wrath of Bob on Apr 6, by saying
>Hello
>
>Can everybody read and use Adobe PDFs?
>
>I understand they are supposed to be cros platform, but I want to
>make sure before I make any.
I can read them on my iBook which is running Linux. That's about as
cross-platform as you can get ;-)
--
Cheers,
Bob Schmertz
|
|
| 2991 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 9:20pm
Subject: Re: Unicode Shavian Keyboard Layout
|
| |
Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
> *BUT* a big problem I'm having is this - Andagii, the only Shavian Unicode
> font I have currently, has serious problems with spacing. If you enter Shaw
> characters and then press space, it jumps forward far too far. There are
> other little niggles like that too. Phillip/Ross - can you make a decent
> font that doesn't have such niggles based upon one of your existing fonts?
>
> Hugh B
Hugh, haven't you downloaded my ESL Gothic Unicode font yet? I've
mentioned it here a number of times. Try it out and see if it works
better for you. If it makes no difference, then it's probably not the
font but the software you're typing in which is causing problems.
http://www.30below.com/~ethanl/fonts.html
--
·ð‘°ð‘â€Ã°Â‘©ð‘¯ - Ethan
|
|
| 2992 |
From: Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 1:39pm
Subject: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
<snip>
If
> we
> were playing scrabble for an award I accept the need for a defined
> dictionary but I view writing as far more anarchic than that. So, I
> for
> one don't think we should have a standard dictionary to limit us to.
<snip>
hee hee hee... shavian scrabble... way more tiles!
--Star
=====
Why is it always me and the burning death?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
|
|
| 2993 |
From: Star Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...>
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 1:42pm
Subject: Re: Adobe PDF
|
| |
yup... pdf files are cross platform! yaaay!
--star
--- j_brg <stetsdigs@h...> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Can everybody read and use Adobe PDFs?
>
> I understand they are supposed to be cros platform, but I want to
> make sure before I make any.
>
> Thanks
> Joseph
>
>
=====
Why is it always me and the burning death?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
|
|
| 2994 |
From: John Warner <john.warner@l...>
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 1:58pm
Subject: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
In message <20040407123901.68714.qmail@w...>, Star
Raven <celestraof12worlds@y...> writes
><snip>
>
> If
>> we
>> were playing scrabble for an award I accept the need for a defined
>> dictionary but I view writing as far more anarchic than that. So, I
>> for
>> one don't think we should have a standard dictionary to limit us to.
>
><snip>
>
>hee hee hee... shavian scrabble... way more tiles!
>--Star
>
>
It would be interesting to see how the Shavian letters pan out in
frequency.
I have a copy of Finnish scrabble and it has an interesting distribution
of letters.
I will have to do an analysis with a portion of Androcles and the Lion.
John Warner
--
John Warner
john.warner@l...
|
|
| 2995 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 7:16pm
Subject: Re: Unicode Shavian Keyboard Layout
|
| |
Ethan wrote:
> Hugh, haven't you downloaded my ESL Gothic Unicode font yet? I've
> mentioned it here a number of times. Try it out and see if it works
> better for you. If it makes no difference, then it's probably not the
> font but the software you're typing in which is causing problems.
>
> http://www.30below.com/~ethanl/fonts.html
Thanks Ethan. I've tried it and though it seems a lot better than Andagii,
it's definitely the failure of Windows applications to deal with Unicode
plane 1 characters properly that's to blame here.
In Notepad, if you change the display font to ESL Gothic Unicode (your
font), and have the Shavian keyboard layout selected, you can type in
Shavian and it will display fine - but when you try to backspace (i.e.
delete), you have to press it TWICE for each character. It's as if Shavian
characters are being treated as TWO characters! Why it does this is beyond
me. Try it for yourself and see. I'm attaching an updated version of the
keyboard layout (the previous one accidentally had a stupid name).
Outlook Express just simply doesn't recognise them at all. Even if you've
selected Unicode UTF-8 as the encoding, and selected ESL Gothic Unicode as
the display font, AND selected the Shavian keyboard layout, it STILL just
displays a bunch of squares instead of Shavian characters, like so:
ð‘žð‘¦ð‘• ð‘¦ð‘Ÿ ð‘© ð‘‘ð‘§ð‘•ð‘‘ ð‘‘ ð‘•ð‘° ð‘¦ð‘“
ð‘¿ð‘¯ð‘¦ð‘’ð‘´ð‘› ð‘¢ð‘»ð‘’ð‘• ð‘ð‘®ð‘ªð‘ð‘¼ð‘¤ð‘°
ð‘£ð‘½.
I've no idea if there's another mail application that can deal with Unicode
properly - if there is, please let me know what it is and where I can get
it.
I'm beginning to think, unfortunately, that with the current lack of proper
Unicode support in Windows, it's going to be too difficult to get everybody
reading the Unicode Shavian characters, let alone writing using them, at
present. It's probably much easier to just keep using the 'Shavian only'
fonts...
...That being said, I hope somebody can prove me wrong...
Hugh B
|
| Attachment: (application/x-zip-compressed) shaviankeyboard.zip [not stored] |
|
| 2996 |
From: Ethan <ethanl@3...>
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Unicode Shavian Keyboard Layout
|
| |
Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
> Ethan wrote:
>
>>Hugh, haven't you downloaded my ESL Gothic Unicode font yet? I've
>>mentioned it here a number of times. Try it out and see if it works
>>better for you. If it makes no difference, then it's probably not the
>>font but the software you're typing in which is causing problems.
>>
>>http://www.30below.com/~ethanl/fonts.html
>
>
> Thanks Ethan. I've tried it and though it seems a lot better than Andagii,
> it's definitely the failure of Windows applications to deal with Unicode
> plane 1 characters properly that's to blame here.
>
> In Notepad, if you change the display font to ESL Gothic Unicode (your
> font), and have the Shavian keyboard layout selected, you can type in
> Shavian and it will display fine - but when you try to backspace (i.e.
> delete), you have to press it TWICE for each character. It's as if Shavian
> characters are being treated as TWO characters! Why it does this is beyond
> me. Try it for yourself and see. I'm attaching an updated version of the
> keyboard layout (the previous one accidentally had a stupid name).
>
> Outlook Express just simply doesn't recognise them at all. Even if you've
> selected Unicode UTF-8 as the encoding, and selected ESL Gothic Unicode as
> the display font, AND selected the Shavian keyboard layout, it STILL just
> displays a bunch of squares instead of Shavian characters, like so:
>
> ð‘žð‘¦ð‘• ð‘¦ð‘Ÿ ð‘© ð‘‘ð‘§ð‘•ð‘‘ ð‘‘ ð‘•ð‘° ð‘¦ð‘“
ð‘¿ð‘¯ð‘¦ð‘’ð‘´ð‘› ð‘¢ð‘»ð‘’ð‘• ð‘ð‘®ð‘ªð‘ð‘¼ð‘¤ð‘°
> ð‘£ð‘½.
You wrote:
This is a test to see if unicode works properly here.
As you can see, it's a display problem on your end, you can't see the
characters, yet they're being encoded properly. Yet I take it you can
see them properly in other apps (albeit with strange side-effects), just
not in Outlook Express. More Microsoft bugs!
I have seen the "double backspace" problem before on other applications.
I think it has to do with the fact that plane 1 unicode characters,
such as Shavian, use four bytes per character instead of two, and some
programmers haven't yet worked the bugs out of their character handling
routines. I believe a lot of programs naively assume that Unicode
characters have only two bytes, and when you delete two bytes of a four
byte character, you only got half of the character, and you have to hit
delete or backspace a second time to remove the other two bytes. As for
the spacing being messed up in some apps, it's because again they are
using a byte count to determing where to place the cursor. Since there
are twice as many bytes as expected, the cursor ends up way out in front
of the character it's supposed to be at. So send Microsoft a bug
report! (Do they accept those from their customers?)
>
> I've no idea if there's another mail application that can deal with Unicode
> properly - if there is, please let me know what it is and where I can get
> it.
Try Mozilla. http://www.mozilla.org/
>
> I'm beginning to think, unfortunately, that with the current lack of proper
> Unicode support in Windows, it's going to be too difficult to get everybody
> reading the Unicode Shavian characters, let alone writing using them, at
> present. It's probably much easier to just keep using the 'Shavian only'
> fonts...
>
> ...That being said, I hope somebody can prove me wrong...
>
> Hugh B
If I come up with some info on getting Windows apps to work well with
Unicode, I'll be sure to pass it on. Unfortunately, I have no access to
Windows XP, 2000, etc. so I can't test any of this out myself.
--
·ð‘°ð‘”ð‘©ð‘¯ - Ethan
|
|
| 2997 |
From: carl easton <shavintel16@y...>
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 8:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Number of American speakers vs. British Speakers
|
| |
|
Hi Hugh,
I just printed up a copy equivalence key. Last week I
checked out of the library a copy of the American Heritage Dictionary
and it definately fits Shavian.
Cheers,
Carl
Hugh Birkenhead wrote:

The pronunciation key is easily interpreted into Shavian. I'll draw up a conversion chart if it doesn't appear obvious enough.
Oh well, even if it's obvious enough, I did it anyway!
Hugh B
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
|
|
| 2998 |
From: Joe <allegrox_2000@y...>
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 10:35pm
Subject: Re: Unicode Shavian Keyboard Layout
|
| |
If you're typing in NotePad, I'm not a bit surprised. There aren't many go=
od word
processors for Windows that have very good kerning (letter spacing). Word =
might be
better. As far as far as kerning, though, WordPerfect is probably the best=
. I've never
tried OpenOffice.
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, Ethan <ethanl@3...> wrote:
> Hugh Birkenhead wrote:
>
> > *BUT* a big problem I'm having is this - Andagii, the only Shavian Unic=
ode
> > font I have currently, has serious problems with spacing. If you enter =
Shaw
> > characters and then press space, it jumps forward far too far. There ar=
e
> > other little niggles like that too. Phillip/Ross - can you make a decen=
t
> > font that doesn't have such niggles based upon one of your existing fon=
ts?
> >
> > Hugh B
>
> Hugh, haven't you downloaded my ESL Gothic Unicode font yet? I've
> mentioned it here a number of times. Try it out and see if it works
> better for you. If it makes no difference, then it's probably not the
> font but the software you're typing in which is causing problems.
>
> http://www.30below.com/~ethanl/fonts.html
>
>
>
> --
> ·���� - Ethan
|
|
| 2999 |
From: carl easton <shavintel16@y...>
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 8:16pm
Subject: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
|
Hi John,
With all this talk of a common spelling for Shavian, is only used
for International or Formal occasions. According to my philosophy
of Shavian there are at least three main ways to determine spelling for
Shavian. 1. Dictionary Pronouncation
2. Inferement from Traditional Orthography
and 3. Personal Pronouncation.
Hope this helps,
best of regards,
Carl
John Warner wrote:
I like the fact that English does not have a regulating body like the
French Academy - as I view them as language killers. They are like King
Canute attempting to hold back the waves of new words - dictionaries are
not arbiters of pronunciation they may well give an analysis of the most
common versions but they are not binding unless you make them so. If we
were playing scrabble for an award I accept the need for a defined
dictionary but I view writing as far more anarchic than that. So, I for
one don't think we should have a standard dictionary to limit us to.
Many languages followed French into the world of regulation and have
difficulty with changes, neologisms etc. The OED started as a project to
catalogue every word used in English and is huge, rambling and still
unfinished (it cannot ever be finished).
Is not Shavian an
attempt to replicate the sounds of English in written
form and it should do so not to some artificial standard but represent
the sounds spoken by the writer.
Perhaps I have a limited view of Shavian but I use it in personal stuff.
I am fascinated by cultural imperialism - practised by the British
successfully and currently by the citizens of the United States who have
even managed to colonise the word "Americans" - forgetting their
northern and southern neighbours completely.
I would not want to replicate that cultural imperialism in Shavian
script either. Vive la difference!
John Warner.
--
John Warner
john.warner@leatherbear.demon.co.uk
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
|
|
| 3000 |
From: Joe <allegrox_2000@y...>
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 11:24pm
Subject: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, John Warner <john.warner@l...> wrote:
> It would be interesting to see how the Shavian letters pan out in
> frequency.
>
> I have a copy of Finnish scrabble and it has an interesting distribution
> of letters.
>
> I will have to do an analysis with a portion of Androcles and the Lion.
Any analysis of letter distribution should also include more recent and various texts,
since spelling tends to vary a lot, especially when considering different dialects.
|
|
| 3001 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 2:54am
Subject: Re: Unicode Shavian Keyboard Layout
|
| |
Ethan wrote:
> You wrote:
> This is a test to see if unicode works properly here.
>
> As you can see, it's a display problem on your end, you can't see the
> characters, yet they're being encoded properly. Yet I take it you can
> see them properly in other apps (albeit with strange side-effects), just
> not in Outlook Express. More Microsoft bugs!
I can't understand why OE won't display them if it encodes them correctly...
> I have seen the "double backspace" problem before on other applications.
> I think it has to do with the fact that plane 1 unicode characters,
> such as Shavian, use four bytes per character instead of two, and some
> programmers haven't yet worked the bugs out of their character handling
> routines. I believe a lot of programs naively assume that Unicode
> characters have only two bytes, and when you delete two bytes of a four
> byte character, you only got half of the character, and you have to hit
> delete or backspace a second time to remove the other two bytes.
That would seem to explain it. I just hope Microsoft are at least working on
this in their upcoming OS release (codename Longhorn), if not working on a
patch for XP. This issue isn't enough to send me to Linux though.
> As for the spacing being messed up in some apps, it's because again they
are
> using a byte count to determing where to place the cursor. Since there
> are twice as many bytes as expected, the cursor ends up way out in front
> of the character it's supposed to be at. [snip]
MS Word 2003 does something like this. If i type in one word without spaces
in Shavian, it looks perfect. Then as soon as I press space, and start
typing further words, it puts MASSIVE spaces in between each character from
then on! (The original first word stays unchanged). I have NO idea what
causes this but it's just too weird to try to understand. Microsoft
obviously has no interest in supporting what must be to them obscure
alphabets.
> Try Mozilla. http://www.mozilla.org/
Well I've got it installed... I'll let you know how it works out. Looks just
like the old Netscrape suite to me...
> If I come up with some info on getting Windows apps to work well with
> Unicode, I'll be sure to pass it on. Unfortunately, I have no access to
> Windows XP, 2000, etc. so I can't test any of this out myself.
Well thanks anyway, even if you can't get to a Windoze machine. It doesn't
matter all that much anyway. After all what difference does it make at
present if it's Unicode or not? Either way people still need to download
fancy fonts to display the characters so we might as well just continue
using the ones we have for now.
Hugh B
|
|
| 3002 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 3:09am
Subject: Re: Excuse our Quantification of Number of American speakers vs. British Speakers
|
| |
Hi Carl
Sorry if I offended you. Your input is welcome. Our group sad to say,
is composed of too many people (myself included) who want to fiddle
with the Shavian Alphabet and not enough who simply wish to enjoy an
incrediably well thought out tool.
Nothing wrong with Democracy. I am a Democrat myself. And as a Shaw
Enthusiast, yourself, would your Conscience allow you to participate
in the development of guidelines (not a standard) that will minimize
the number of variant spellings to a managable number.
I am less worried about relatively minor accent differences than the
fact that say for example an American would not what sound is
represented by "Err" and what sound is represented by "Array" and his
spelling suffers. Same problem with "On" and "Ah".
I notice the American Heritage Dictionary for Learners represents
both these sounds (On, Ah) with same I.P.A. letter.
Best of Regards,
Paul V.
_______________________attached__________________
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@y...> wrote:
> Hi Paul and Folks,
>
> I sorry for my democratic ways. Trouble is I admire the Shavian
Alphabet and want to see it in common use. Plus, I also have the
talent of understanding most if not all accents and dialects. Due to
my Universal Understanding of all spoken English I was shocked by the
need to select a common accent and dialect for Shavian spelling.
However, I will politely allow Shaw Enthusiasts to do with Shavian as
their Conscience dictates.
>
> best of regards,
>
> Carl
>
> Paul Vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shavian/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> shavian-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
|
|
| 3003 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 3:19am
Subject: Re: standardization
|
| |
Hi T
No, Not really.
The Shaw spelling is phonetic so it can be standardized only within a
particular English Accent Group. The New Shaw Abjad minimzes Accent
differences so there is less variation across Accent groups and the
words are much more recognizable over a larger area.
But because the Alphabet is still a phonetic representation of what
is actually said, there will always be some variation.
Regards, Paul V.
______________attached___________________
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "tithhmi" <tithhmi@y...> wrote:
> is there a standard spelling scheme for either shavian or
quikscript (or the new abjad)or anything tending thereto?
|
|
| 3004 |
From: Joe <allegrox_2000@y...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 2:47am
Subject: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
I agree completely. Everybody should be able to spell the way they want for their own
personal purposes (kind of like they some do now with chat lingo). It's when it comes
to formal or international Shavian, there needs to be a standard.
Just look at the was spelling is done now. We'll use documentation from Apple
Computer, Inc. for an example. Any document they make is available in at least three
major dialects of English. Those are North American English, British English, and
International English.
I doubt anybody, anywhere, adheres to all the standards followed in any of those
documents on a regular basis. It's only necessary when you need to put something
out there for other people to read. And if necessary, you may limit the text to just a
local dialect. But an international standard will be necessary in some cases, such as
this example.
So, there's no need to fret over attempts to conform your spelling. We just need a
standard that everyone will understand to better allow us to communicate
internationally.
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, carl easton <shavintel16@y...> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> With all this talk of a common spelling for Shavian, is only used for International or
Formal occasions. According to my philosophy of Shavian there are at least three
main ways to determine spelling for Shavian. 1. Dictionary Pronouncation
> 2. Inferement from Traditional Orthography
> and 3. Personal Pronouncation.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> best of regards,
>
> Carl
|
|
| 3005 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 11:29am
Subject: Re: Re: Excuse our Quantification of Number of American speakers vs. British Speakers
|
| |
Paul V wrote:
> Hi Carl
> Sorry if I offended you. Your input is welcome. Our group sad to say,
> is composed of too many people (myself included) who want to fiddle
> with the Shavian Alphabet and not enough who simply wish to enjoy an
> incrediably well thought out tool.
Well all this recent talk about Unicode and the AHD is changing that trend,
I hope.
> Nothing wrong with Democracy. I am a Democrat myself. And as a Shaw
> Enthusiast, yourself, would your Conscience allow you to participate
> in the development of guidelines (not a standard) that will minimize
> the number of variant spellings to a managable number.
That's what the AHD is for. Look at the chart to see how well suited it is
to Shavian:
http://mixsynth.fearfulsilence.com/shavian/ahdpronshaw.htm
> I am less worried about relatively minor accent differences than the
> fact that say for example an American would not what sound is
> represented by "Err" and what sound is represented by "Array" and his
> spelling suffers. Same problem with "On" and "Ah".
> I notice the American Heritage Dictionary for Learners represents
> both these sounds (On, Ah) with same I.P.A. letter.
Interesting - I haven't seen the learners version. But either way it's
irrelevent - the MAIN version does make a distinction which is the reason
for using it. I'll try to make a document using direct transcriptions of AHD
pronunciation guide words at some point to illustrate that it works.
Hugh B
|
|
| 3006 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 5:40am
Subject: American Heritage Dictionary - Question?
|
| |
Hi Hugh
Looks Good. Almost complete too. You've covered all the Shaw Letters
except "Ian". Also, in the copy of AHD, I have it indicates the vowel
sound of "father" and "got" are the same. Does that show up in your
edition?
Regards, Paul V.
______________attached________________________
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@f...>
wrote:
> www.dictionary.com
> The pronunciation key is easily interpreted into Shavian. I'll
draw up a conversion chart if it doesn't appear obvious enough.
> Oh well, even if it's obvious enough, I did it anyway!
>
> http://mixsynth.fearfulsilence.com/shavian/ahdpronshaw.htm
>
> Hugh B
|
|
| 3007 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 5:22am
Subject: Re: Number of American speakers vs. British Speakers
|
| |
Hi Hugh & Carl
I have the "American Heritage Dictionary for Learners of English".
It seems fine for me. It seems to more American based, but recognises
the common British variations on pronunciation. Its seems to be good
match and indicates pronunciation in simple straightforward manner.
I will use it for any words that I am unsure about.
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Birkenhead" <mixsynth@f...>
wrote:
> American Heritage Dictionary. Gets my vote too. I've just noticed
it even has dual pronunciation guides where a word is pronounced
differently by either Americans or Brits -
e.g. "semi", "without", "forest", etc. So it surely MUST be the ideal
choice.
>
> Hugh B
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: carl easton
> To: shavian@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 10:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [shavian] Re: Number of American speakers vs.
British Speakers
>
>
> Hi Joseph,
>
> Indeed, a common spelling must be attained. I was only
speculating when I said "there should be a standard of spelling for
each Nation". I'm speculating, again, but hopefully closer to the
truth this time. We must find a dictionary pronouncation acceptable
to all English-speaking Shavian Users. I vote -- American Heritage
Dictionary -- all may vote now. Some points to consider: this
dictionary must be widely available and have a pronouncation key
compatable with Shavian.
>
> best of regards,
>
> Carl
|
|
| 3008 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 5:53am
Subject: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
Hi John
We are not talking about cultural imperialism in Shavian
script here. We are simply trying to give some non-native speaker a
hand-up. To write Shavian, you need to know how to say it in English.
If you don't know the exact pronunciation in your accent group then
you look it up in the Dictionary and you will find a nice safe
neutral pronunciation.
I would never suggest that anyone writing a note check all the words
first in the dictionary.
That negates the main benefit of the Shavian Alphabet.
You just write it how it sounds.
Shaw is a shortcut to literacy.
Regards, Paul V.
P.S. AHD is a good dictionary, but no one said it is the be all and
end all.
P.P.S. Oh, and we could never be a regulating body. We have too many
dissenting opinions.
___________________attached______________________
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, John Warner <john.warner@l...> wrote:
> I like the fact that English does not have a regulating body like
the
> French Academy - as I view them as language killers. They are like
King
> Canute attempting to hold back the waves of new words -
dictionaries are
> not arbiters of pronunciation they may well give an analysis of the
most
> common versions but they are not binding unless you make them so.
If we
> were playing scrabble for an award I accept the need for a defined
> dictionary but I view writing as far more anarchic than that. So, I
for
> one don't think we should have a standard dictionary to limit us to.
>
> Many languages followed French into the world of regulation and
have
> difficulty with changes, neologisms etc. The OED started as a
project to
> catalogue every word used in English and is huge, rambling and
still
> unfinished (it cannot ever be finished).
>
> Is not Shavian an attempt to replicate the sounds of English in
written
> form and it should do so not to some artificial standard but
represent
> the sounds spoken by the writer.
>
> Perhaps I have a limited view of Shavian but I use it in personal
stuff.
>
> I am fascinated by cultural imperialism - practised by the British
> successfully and currently by the citizens of the United States who
have
> even managed to colonise the word "Americans" - forgetting their
> northern and southern neighbours completely.
>
> I would not want to replicate that cultural imperialism in Shavian
> script either. Vive la difference!
>
> John Warner.
> --
> John Warner
>
> john.warner@l...
|
|
| 3009 |
From: paul vandenbrink <pvandenbrink@s...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 6:31pm
Subject: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
Hi Joe & Carl
I agree with Joe in this matter. Everybody should be able to spell
their speech phonetically for their own
personal purposes. Not that I see how we can stop them, in any case.
But ideally, they should spell in Shavian based on their Personal
Pronouncation and if the word is beyond them for whatever reason,
they should ask a local native to say it to them or check the
Phonetic pronunciation in aa good Dictionary. I would hesitate to use
inferement from Traditional Orthography unless I was really desperate.
It is likely to perpetuate mistakes, such a pronoucing the "t" in
often.
regards, Paul V.
________________attached______________________
--- In shavian@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <allegrox_2000@y...> wrote:
> I agree completely. Everybody should be able to spell the way they
want for their own
> personal purposes (kind of like they some do now with chat lingo).
It's when it comes
> to formal or international Shavian, there needs to be a standard.
>
Any document they make available is in one of three
> major dialects of English. Those are North American English,
British English, and
> International English.
>
> I doubt anybody, anywhere, adheres to all the standards followed in
any of those
> documents on a regular basis. It's only necessary when you need to
put something
> out there for other people to read. And if necessary, you may
limit the text to just a
> local dialect. But an international standard will be necessary in
some cases, such as
> this example.
>
> So, there's no need to fret over attempts to conform your
spelling. We just need a
> standard that everyone will understand to better allow us to
communicate
> internationally.
|
|
| 3010 |
From: John Warner <john.warner@l...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: dictionary choice
|
| |
In message <c52lsa+lqbt@eGroups.com>, paul vandenbrink
<pvandenbrink@s...> writes
>Hi John
>
>We are not talking about cultural imperialism in Shavian
>script here. We are simply trying to give some non-native speaker a
>hand-up. To write Shavian, you need to know how to say it in English.
>If you don't know the exact pronunciation in your accent group then
>you look it up in the Dictionary and you will find a nice safe
>neutral pronunciation.
>
>I would never suggest that anyone writing a note check all the words
>first in the dictionary.
>That negates the main benefit of the Shavian Alphabet.
>You just write it how it sounds.
>Shaw is a shortcut to literacy.
>
>Regards, Paul V.
>
>P.S. AHD is a good dictionary, but no one said it is the be all and
>end all.
>P.P.S. Oh, and we could never be a regulating body. We have too many
>dissenting opinions.
Hi Paul,
I agree that a quick note should be written as anyone feels as long as
it is understandable to the person expected to read it. I used to teach
and getting people to record information that I could read (or sometimes
that they could read back to me) was always a fun thing to work on.
I have to say that I feel that picking a single dictionary is limiting -
limiting to one language user group. There are I feel about four broad
categories of accent in the USA and an awful lot more in the UK - my
specific dialect / accent is a Yorkshire one with a close affinity to
the nearby Lancastrian dialects / accents and can thus be distinguished
clearly from accents / dialects within 20 km.
I often think of the song - a Harry Connick Junior one, I think, called
"Let's call the whole thing off"
With in OT the fabulous text:
You say "either" and I say "either"
You say "neither" I say "neither"
"either" "either", "neither" "neither"
Let's call the whole thing off
Which unless you knew the song is nonsensical and in Shavian would be
explicit.
I think that the best forms of cultural imperialism are those that are
not recognized as such. I had a wonderful experience of this recently
when at a club I belong to there was a discussion about retaining grace
and the loyal toast at the club dinners. One person, talking to me, said
"But the club has a history of being non-political and non-religious so
that is why I am for keeping the grace and loyal toast" - He didn't see
the illogical nature of his statement because to him having a religious
grace was not religious and having a loyal toast to the Queen was not
political.
So the fact that I feel that to choose the American Heritage Dictionary
is a manifestation of cultural imperialism, as would any dictionary
incidentally, is not addressed by denying it.
I don't doubt that the American Heritage Dictionary is a good
dictionary. It is not it that I query but the practice of picking one
dictionary that concerns me.
Maybe I am very biased by my own experience but my experience is that to
open my mouth and utter words is to be political - at least to position
me in the world of English speakers. In the US, I either have a quaint
British accent or more often with people in shops a slightly bizarre
incomprehensible accent.
Speakers of various forms of British English can understand several
accents (and dialects) including generally T.V. American (I call it that
as not everyone speaks it in the US and I certainly learnt it from the
T.V.) I do not pretend to speak successfully with these accents but I do
understand them.
So my vote is for no dictionary as a standard - it should be our own
pronunciations that count.
John Warner
--
John Warner
john.warner@l...
|
|
| 3011 |
From: John Warner <john.warner@l...>
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 5:16pm
Subject: analysis of a small portion of Androcles and the Lion
|
| |
Here is a frequency analysis of a page of Androcles and the Lion where I
included all the words on the page except the character names (these
might have skewed the sample somewhat being Latin in origin)
letter sound frequency
i if 53
l loll 44
s so 42
n nun 41
t tot 37
H they 35
a ado 23
V yew 21
z zoo 21
F ice 19
k kick 19
D array 18
A ash 17
e egg 17
m mine 17
I eat 15
b bib 14
v vow 13
d dead 12
N hung 12
O oak 12
o on 12
w woe 11
f fee 10
r roar 10
S sure 10
y ah 7
Q out 7
p peep 7
c church 6
x err 6
h haha 6
J judge 6
E age 5
R are 5
u up 5
M ooze 4
P or 3
Y awe 2
C ear 2
g gag 2
q oil 2
j yea 2
X air 1
W Ian 1
T thigh 1
U wool 1
Z measure 0
and the parallel text in O.T.
letter frequency
e 119
o 77
t 77
i 70
h 64
s 63
a 62
l 58
n 57
r 45
u 35
c 27
y 24
d 18
g 17
m 17
w 17
b 14
f 12
v 9
k 8
p 7
j 2
q 2
x 1
z 1
(I did a Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient analysis of the OT text
against a sample of British texts (30 million words) and American texts
(1 million words) and got a correlation of 0.939 - the nearer to 1 the
better the correlation)
This compares to Gulliver's Travels (1724) 0.989, Pride and Prejudice
(1813) 0.976 and Alice in Wonderland (1865) 0.943. I suspect that if the
count of the whole text was done the coefficient would have been higher.
Incidentally the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient for the British
and American texts was 1 (i.e. a perfect correlation).
The differences seem to be due largely to the use in OT of:
1) the silent "e" increasing both the letter "e" and the other vowels
(a, i, o, u) modified by it
2) "th" to represent they and thigh - boosting the "t" and "h" count
3) the abbreviations in Shavian script for "the", "and", "of" and "to"
to single letters
4) The rhoticisation spreads the vowels out even further in Shavian.
It is amazing what a bored ill person (i.e. me) can do to avoid daytime
television!
John Warner
--
John Warner
john.warner@l...
|
|
| 3012 |
From: Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@f...>
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 1:02am
Subject: Re: Re: Number of American speakers vs. British Speakers
|
| |
Paul V wrote:
> Hi Hugh & Carl
> I have the "American Heritage Dictionary for Learners of English".
> It seems fine for me. It seems to more American based, but recognises
> the common British variations on pronunciation. Its seems to be good
> match and indicates pronunciation in simple straightforward manner.
> I will use it for any words that I am unsure about.
It's not the AHD I'm talking about. The version I'm referring to is the one
online at www.dictionary.com. That version is not so American-centric and
makes the same distinctions between sounds as Shavian does.
Hugh B
|
|
|
|
Yahoo! Sponsored Links
|
Acclaimed Writing Classes:
NYC's renowned Gotham Writers' Workshop offers classes online and in
NYC in writing fiction, screenplays, memoir, poetry, nonfiction, and
more. Selected "Best of the Web" by Forbes.
www.writingclasses.com
Brainco Writing School:
Getting a career in the advertising industry? Brainco offers programs
in art direction, branding, account management, interactive writing and
other subject areas. Located in Minneapolis, MN.
www.brainco.org
Story Development Software:
Wide selection of products for novelists and screenwriters. Download demos. Free bonuses with any order.
storymind.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
= Owner
= Moderator
= Online