Can pictographic cues make an augmented script such as the Shaw Alphabet easier to learn and remember?
Can the benefits claimed for the Shavian be retained in a unigraphic script that is more historical, more readable, and easier to learn? An extended comment on Alice Coleman’s article on the Shaw alphabet. New article: Read said that Shavian was the end of the line – and his quick script largely abandoned the analytical elements in Shavian in favor of shapes that were easier for users to draw, use, and remember. Monofon – monoline fonetic – aka pictografic monofon – manages to be both more analytic than Shavian – more building block approach, more grouping of similar sounds with similar shapes, more memorable (more pictographic cues). Shavian – Quick Script – and Monofon and the ASCII keyboard An issue with any extended or augmented alphabet is where to position the new characters on the old keyboard. There has to be a transitional script (usually upper case letters) that can be converted to the extended font. The following table of 44 phonemes of English shows how these four notations
Related Questions
- Would it not have been easier to use the International Phonetic Alphabet to describe the basic sounds in the relevant exercises?
- Why can’t I hear the audio cues (i.e. Learn start & stop tones) as described in the Setup and Operating Instructions?
- Can pictographic cues make an augmented script such as the Shaw Alphabet easier to learn and remember?
