Many years ago I taught the Shaw's alphabet to Japanese English
students. The response was rather negative since most of them already
knew the international phonetic alphabet. Nowadays, there are a
number of them on Internet that I have been impressed with. Due to
the amount of time necessary to learn Shaw, I don't think it is
suitable for learning a language. A mild reform of the international
phonetic script would probably be more easier for foreign students.

Someone mentioned Esperanto. I am fluent in that language. The
reason it is not accepted is that nationalists feel it a threat to
their own language. Secondly, there are a number of countries in
which people can't even read and write their own language. Thirdly,
the governments of the world would have to agree to this language and
yet the supersigns of Esperanto I believe have deterred it from being
international. Ido and Neo were reforms that I was interested in but
everyone is afraid of a schism. I found many words were a bit too
long and burdensome to speak. However, not everyone has my opinion
about this. In any case, it is still being challenged by other
possible languages that are going on. By the way, if anyone wants to
write me in Kwikscript, I will write back. My address is Sid
Tanaban, 1432 Franklin ST., #1-B, Astoria, OR 97103


--- In Read_Alphabet@y..., "Simon Barne" <sosostris@b...> wrote:

In my classes I use English Phonemic Script - essentially the

International

Phonetic Alphabet - to help students with pronunciation problems

and with

recording words. They are somewhat reluctant to learn it and my

colleagues

don't seem to use it much. However, it is hard to teach

pronunciation

without respelling. An example is the "-ed" ending of words like

"stopped"

or "robbed". To focus students on the sounds, I might put two

columns on the

board: a /t/ column and a /d/ column. The students have to decide

which

column a word belongs to.

The Shaw alphabet would do this job just as well.

It would certainly make it easier for students if English spelling

and

pronunciation were closer. I know myself from learning Indonesian

(which has

six vowel sounds, but only five letters, so you don't know if an

"e" is

pronounced /e/ or as a schwa) how frustrating it is to read a word

but then

not be able to say it with confidence.

Nevertheless, I don't feel the alphabet is as much an obstacle to

learning

English as the grammar - and of course the huge mountain of

vocabulary that

has to be climbed in any new language.

Sid:

Good to hear from you.  You wrote me a letter in quikscript several months, and I have been a poor correspondent, in that I have not found time to write back.  I will correct that as soon as I can.  I also received a quikscript letter from Jon Zuck so I will try to write both of you back at the same time.

At 09:36 PM 2/17/01 +0000, you wrote:

Many years ago I  taught the Shaw's alphabet to Japanese English students. The response was rather negative since most of them already knew the international phonetic alphabet. 

I would suggest this was an unusal situation.  Your students already had a tool sufficient for their purposes (IPA) so it does not surprise me they expressed the very human reluctance to learning something they undoubtedly viewed as superfluous.  However, I would not anticipate that most foreign students interested in learning English would already know the IPA so your experience, I posit, is not typical of the majority of foreign students.

 Due to the amount of time necessary to learn Shaw, I don't think it is suitable for learning a language.  A mild reform of the international phonetic script would probably be more easier for foreign students.

I think the preceding has as an underlying assumption that the roman alphabet is more widely known than it really is.  I cannot believe the symbols used in quikscript are more difficult to learn than the roman alphabet.  First, there is no lower and upper case to be bothered with.  Secondly, the symbols are actually simpler than the roman alphabet.  That alphabet, however, is so ubiquitous in the western world that those of us who use it do so constantly, with the result that we are probably poor judges in gauging its ease of learning.   If we take the world as a whole, including Asia, India and the middle east, obviously significant portions of mankind use alphabets with absolutely no relationship (or a very distant relationship) to the roman alphabet.  Those people would have to learn a new alphabet in any event.  Why shouldn't they learn an alphabet that effectively deals with the phonemes of English, even if, at this time, it were just to be considered a teaching alphabet.  I suspect many immigrants to the U.S. become more or less fluent in English by learning English from the speech of those around them.  I think it is common that many of these people make little progress in learning to read and write English, and the blame for that can be laid at the door of the roman alphabet.  I recently had a client from Mexico, who has been in the U.S. for about twelve years.  His English is strongly accented, but understandable.  However, the man has absolutely no confidence he can spell anything "correctly" in English.

Someone mentioned Esperanto.  I am fluent in that language.  The reason it is not accepted is that nationalists feel it a threat to their own language.

I won't disagree with that.  However, I would also suggest that it suffers from the same bootstrap problem that Shavian or Quikscript suffers from.  When I studied Esperanto myself, its logic and simplicity appealed to me.  After awhile I found myself thinking that if and when I became fluent in it, I would be able to speak to, perhaps, a million or two million (maybe even the ten million its adherents claim) people in the world.  But if I learn Spanish, for example, most of South America is opened to me with hundreds of millions of people I could communicate with.  Which has more practicality?  Other than on this website or the Shavian site, I don't know that I have ever come into contact with anyone fluent in Esperanto.  You certainly don't need it in the U.S.  But every English speaker could benefit from Quikscript.  (those who know the roman alphabet would reap the time benefit from using Q.S.  Those learning English would benefit even more.)
The situation brings to mind how difficult it must have been to sell the first few telephones in a town.  Who would want one when there was no one else to call?  Of course, you didn't have to study to learn to use a telephone so the bootstrap problem was much less severe for Bell.  For Quikscript to grow, we have to show the public that it can be useful in their lives immediately.

Secondly, there are a number of countries in which people can't even read and write their own language. 

Obviously, countries with high illiteracy rates are not going to attempt to teach their citizens Esperanto before they learn to read and write their own language, but I am not sure what that has to do with the adoption of Esperanto as a second language for many people around the world.

Thirdly, the governments of the world would have to agree to this language and yet the supersigns of Esperanto I believe have deterred it from being international.

I am not sure about this.  Many languages use supersigns.  French, Spanish and German do.  The age of the typewriter is about dead, but obviously, typewriters in use in the countries where the preceding languages are spoken had keys for those supersigns.  Although I have no experience with this, I can only assume that a Frenchman does not have to go to a lot of trouble to place supersigns over what he writes.  By the way, the League of Nations, I believe, had agreed for Esperanto to be one of its official languages, but it was too short-lived for anything to come of it.  Meanwhile, the U.N spends millions every year translating everything they do into multiple languages.  I have read the new European Union is even worse -- they translate everything into even more languages than the U.N. does.  Insanity!  Diplomats and bureaucrats could learn Esperanto easily, and it would make perfect sense for them.

Paige

I have taught english in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. The first language is English and the students are learning it when young. Moreover, they use British or American dictionaries and are accustomed to the IPA from elementary school. Also, they are use to using roman letters since this alphabet is internationally used to teach English at an early age.

Due to the large number of people who do translation work in a number ofcountries, Esperanto will be resisted. Moreover, it threatens national languages since people would tend to speak Esperanto rather than their own language. For example, in the U.S. there are a number of people from other countries so most people would speak Esperanto on the street rather than their own language. Eventually advertising and commerce would use Esperanto. Once textbooks are written in Esperanto then the discussions would be in Esperanto. People who like their own language would become as belligerent as they are in Canada about French and English. Culture, religion, and everything else is involved in a national language. So, it is natural to resist an international language unless you are a cosmopolite and there are not so many of those compared to nationalists right now.

Sid

Good to hear from you.&nbsp; You wrote me a letter in quikscript several
months, and I have been a poor correspondent, in that I have not found
time to write back.&nbsp; I will correct that as soon as I can.&nbsp; I
also received a quikscript letter from Jon Zuck so I will try to write
both of you back at the same time.<br>
<br>
At 09:36 PM 2/17/01 +0000, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><tt>Many years ago I&nbsp; taught
the Shaw's alphabet to Japanese English students. The response was rather
negative since most of them already knew the international phonetic
alphabet.&nbsp; </tt></blockquote><br>
I would suggest this was an unusal situation.&nbsp; Your students already
had a tool sufficient for their purposes (IPA) so it does not surprise me
they expressed the very human reluctance to learning something they
undoubtedly viewed as superfluous.&nbsp; However, I would not anticipate
that most foreign students interested in learning English would already
know the IPA so your experience, I posit, is not typical of the majority
of foreign students.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><tt>&nbsp;Due to the amount of time
necessary to learn Shaw, I don't think it is suitable for learning a
language.&nbsp; A mild reform of the international phonetic script would
probably be more easier for foreign students.</tt></blockquote><br>
I think the preceding has as an underlying assumption that the roman
alphabet is more widely known than it really is.&nbsp; I cannot believe
the symbols used in quikscript are more difficult to learn than the roman
alphabet.&nbsp; First, there is no lower and upper case to be bothered
with.&nbsp; Secondly, the symbols are actually simpler than the roman
alphabet.&nbsp; That alphabet, however, is so ubiquitous in the western
world that those of us who use it do so constantly, with the result that
we are probably poor judges in gauging its ease of learning.&nbsp;&nbsp;
If we take the world as a whole, including Asia, India and the middle
east, obviously significant portions of mankind use alphabets with
absolutely no relationship (or a very distant relationship) to the roman
alphabet.&nbsp; Those people would have to learn a new alphabet in any
event.&nbsp; Why shouldn't they learn an alphabet that effectively deals
with the phonemes of English, even if, at this time, it were just to be
considered a teaching alphabet.&nbsp; I suspect many immigrants to the
U.S. become more or less fluent in English by learning English from the
speech of those around them.&nbsp; I think it is common that many of
these people make little progress in learning to read and write English,
and the blame for that can be laid at the door of the roman
alphabet.&nbsp; I recently had a client from Mexico, who has been in the
U.S. for about twelve years.&nbsp; His English is strongly accented, but
understandable.&nbsp; However, the man has absolutely no confidence he
can spell anything "correctly" in English.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><tt>Someone mentioned
Esperanto.&nbsp; I am fluent in that language.&nbsp; The reason it is not
accepted is that nationalists feel it a threat to their own
language.</tt></blockquote><br>
I won't disagree with that.&nbsp; However, I would also suggest that it
suffers from the same bootstrap problem that Shavian or Quikscript
suffers from.&nbsp; When I studied Esperanto myself, its logic and
simplicity appealed to me.&nbsp; After awhile I found myself thinking
that if and when I became fluent in it, I would be able to speak to,
perhaps, a million or two million (maybe even the ten million its
adherents claim) people in the world.&nbsp; But if I learn Spanish, for
example, most of South America is opened to me with hundreds of millions
of people I could communicate with.&nbsp; Which has more
practicality?&nbsp; Other than on this website or the Shavian site, I
don't know that I have ever come into contact with anyone fluent in
Esperanto.&nbsp; You certainly don't need it in the U.S.&nbsp; But every
English speaker could benefit from Quikscript.&nbsp; (those who know the
roman alphabet would reap the time benefit from using Q.S.&nbsp; Those
learning English would benefit even more.)<br>
The situation brings to mind how difficult it must have been to sell the
first few telephones in a town.&nbsp; Who would want one when there was
no one else to call?&nbsp; Of course, you didn't have to study to learn
to use a telephone so the bootstrap problem was much less severe for
Bell.&nbsp; For Quikscript to grow, we have to show the public that it
can be useful in their lives immediately.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><tt>Secondly, there are a number of
countries in which people can't even read and write their own
language.&nbsp; </tt></blockquote><br>
Obviously, countries with high illiteracy rates are not going to attempt
to teach their citizens Esperanto before they learn to read and write
their own language, but I am not sure what that has to do with the
adoption of Esperanto as a second language for many people around the
world.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><tt>Thirdly, the governments of the
world would have to agree to this language and yet the supersigns of
Esperanto I believe have deterred it from being
international.</tt></blockquote><br>
I am not sure about this.&nbsp; Many languages use supersigns.&nbsp;
French, Spanish and German do.&nbsp; The age of the typewriter is about
dead, but obviously, typewriters in use in the countries where the
preceding languages are spoken had keys for those supersigns.&nbsp;
Although I have no experience with this, I can only assume that a
Frenchman does not have to go to a lot of trouble to place supersigns
over what he writes.&nbsp; By the way, the League of Nations, I believe,
had agreed for Esperanto to be one of its official languages, but it was
too short-lived for anything to come of it.&nbsp; Meanwhile, the U.N
spends millions every year translating everything they do into multiple
languages.&nbsp; I have read the new European Union is even worse -- they
translate everything into even more languages than the U.N. does.&nbsp;
Insanity!&nbsp; Diplomats and bureaucrats could learn Esperanto easily,
and it would make perfect sense for them.<br>
<br>
Paige<br>

<br>

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td width=470><form method="get" action="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=176325.1312152.2904070.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=1700082353:N/A=567139/R=0/*http://whois.domains.yahoo.com/domains_wresults.html"><input type="hidden" name="action" value="1"> <input type="hidden" name="property" value="domains"><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="468" height="60" bgcolor="#ff00ff">

<tr><td align=left valign=top><A HREF="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=176325.1312152.2904070.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=1700082353:N/A=567139/R=1/*http://domains.yahoo.com"><img src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_domain/d_josh_left.gif" width=190 height=60 alt="" border="0"></a></td>
<td valign=top align=left><A HREF="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=176325.1312152.2904070.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=1700082353:N/A=567139/R=2/*http://domains.yahoo.com"><img src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_domain/d_josh_top.gif" width=278 height=30 alt="" border="0"></a><br><table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr><td><font color="#000000">www.<input type="text" name="name" size=15
value="joshjaffe">&nbsp;&nbsp;<input type="submit" name="Submit" value="get your own!"></font></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
</table>
</form></td>> </tr>

<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=176325.1312152.2904070.1252795/D=egroupmail/S=1700082353:N/A=567139/rand=733652196"></td></tr>
</table>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


<br>
<tt>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
Read_Alphabet-unsubscribe@...<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>

</html>

_________________________________________________________________
iVillage.com: Solutions for Your Life
Check out the most exciting women's community on the Web
http://www.ivillage.com

I must agree, all that translation for the politicians is really
expensive. Esperanto seems a nice alternative. I live in Holland, and
must learn four languages: Dutch, English, French and German. English
is not hard. It's the TV language here, we don't translate TV, we just
use subtiltles. That way, you'll still hear the English. But French
just sux. It's very hard because the grammar is very irregular, and
German gets even worse, with all those genders and 'naamvallen' (don't
know English word). There are sixteen ways to say 'the' in German.
French just has two, Dutch has two, English and Esperanto have only
one. This really saves time learing and looking up.

English has only one disadvantage, the others don't have: phonetics.
Quikscript and Shavian take care of this. In fact, I've created a
different version of Quikscript for Dutch, and it does save time and
space.

At the moment, I'm developing a Quikscript for Esperanto, just because
it is quicker, and I'm thinking about the ligatures I want to use. I
try to make most sounds look like the original English Quikscript, but
that doesn't always work. Esperanto is already phonetic. This has the
advantage that I have a lot of simple symbols left over, that I can
use for ligatures. The /o/ (as in 'on') is the /o/ in Esperanto
Quikscript. The /o/ (as in 'oak') is then used as 'os', the future
tense for Esperanto verbs. I'm still trying to find out which other
ligatures I can create. Tips would be very welcome. These are the ones
I use now:

as
os
is
us
ig (to be made, by other's action --> 'rugha' = red, 'rughigi' -->
to be made red (to be painted red)).
igh (to become by own action --> 'rughighi' = to become red.)
mal- (creates the opposite meaning, 'alta' is high, 'malalta' is low)
-in (makes something female: 'Knabo' = boy, 'knabino' = girl)

Yours,

Ewout Stam (I shall try to post this in the Esperanto Newsgroup too,
once I get the chart ready).