|
Paul,
The problem with Shavian, at least as currently configured, is that it take too long for most to learn 100 new paried associates.
Just learning the sounds of speech can take a while. Then learning to write exclusivly in sound-signs requires a major adjustment. On top of that we ask people to use a keyboard with some 20 arbitrary assignments and associate these with 36 new letter-forms and 12 combinations.
Perhaps the way to start off is by learning 36 uncombined Shavian sound signs and leave the combinations for later. We could call this BASIC Shavian.
Unifon based transcriptions
Since I have reduced serveral orthographies to Unifon, perhaps I will do the same with Shavian. All it takes is a reassignment of the Shavian sound-signs to the keys. This is rather easy to do.
Once done, you could write in keyboard Unifon and display in Shavian, or IPA, or Soundspel, or whatever.
/wuns dun, yU cCd rIt in kEbxrd yUnifon and displA in SAvicn, Or IPA, or sqndspel, Or wxtevcr.
KBU Displayed in Unifon [simulated]
*WUNS DUN, Y� K�D R�T IN K�B^RD Y�NIFON AND DISPL� IN ....
Disadvantages:
What this means is that the old fonts will no longer work until they are reassigned.
Advantages:
The keyboard would be more intuitive and easier to teach.
You can use the automated text converters to create messages in Shavian. If you have a mesasge you cannot interpret, put it in the converter for a translation.
If you have a word or message you are unsure of how to write, cut and pasted it into the converter window and press convert.
[ more info at www.foolswisdom.com/~sbett/converters.htm ]
I would like four people in this discussion group to say they will take the time to check this out if I go to the work of creating the Unifon based font.
History
Unifon was developed for the Bendix corporation to transcribe all European languages into one set of sound signs. There is a similar conversion on the University of London's SAMPA site. However, linguists tend to be too precise.
The description of a pronunciation does not need to be any closer than to allow someone who is unfamiliar with the language but famililar with the code to code and decode it. If the non-speakers' articulations are close enough for a native speaker to understand, that is good enough.
A linguist would say that a Spanish /o/ is not the same as an English /oU/. This is true, but it doesn't really make any difference in terms of mutual understanding. We can understand people who speak with an accent and this is the kind of difference we are usually talking about.
There are more people who know how to speak several languages than there are people who know how to write them. This is particularly the case for English because of the gap between how it is spoken and how it is written.
QUESTION
What is the default font to be used in this discussion group? I have used Lionspaw below but this may not be the current preference.
/dOnt rFkql nQ frum FtiN qstDz At H spY. Shavian keyboard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Steve
I agree that we might not be that far away from a working agreement. I don't reject letter combinations altogether. In fact, I would have to agree that we should situations where their two equally valid ways to write the same word. We do need to avoid unnecessary redundancy. That's why I would like to avoid the use of Shaw Letter Ian and would accept a prohibition on the use of Yew, because for most English pronunciations it is a simple Construct of Yea + Ooze. Looking at it in Shavian, the only difference between them is ligature in any case.
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
