<p>Your own link to the copy of the Wikipedia article on the Shavian alphabet explains:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Shaw set three main criteria for the new alphabet. It should be:</p>
<ol>
<li>at least 40 letters;</li>
<li>as phonetic as possible (that is, letters should have a 1:1 correspondence to phonemes);</li>
<li>distinct from the Latin alphabet to avoid the impression that the new spellings were simply misspellings.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>and</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Shavian alphabet consists of three types of letters: tall, deep and short. Short letters are vowels, liquids (r, l) and nasals; tall letters (except Yea  and Hung ) are voiceless consonants. A tall letter rotated 180° or flipped, with the tall part now extending below the baseline, becomes a deep letter, representing the corresponding voiced consonant (except Haha ). The alphabet is therefore to some extent featural.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>/f/ is a voiceless consonant, and therefore a tall letter; the corresponding voiced consonant is /v/ and is therefore a deep letter that is the /f/ rotated 180°. To make the Shavian /f/ look more like the Latin 'f' would weaken criterion #3 above, and in fact it is likely that your comment about visual similarity being a low-priority goal may be wrong, to the extent that (and this is just a guess on my part) visual similarity may have been a low-priority <strong>anti</strong>-goal.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-11T20:12:40.220Z
But note that my proposed change is not just to reverse  and , but also to raise  and lower , which would make them consistent with the pattern you discuss in the last paragraph.
WillG
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-11T20:14:23.890Z
Per criterion 3, as the goal was to "avoid the impression that the new spellings were simply misspellings," it seems that this is accomplished with or without my proposed change, since glancing at Shavian text, one would never think it is just misspelled words using the Latin alphabet.
WillG
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-11T20:17:36.067Z
The creators were, after all, comfortable with the similarities  = s,  = z,  = i,  = o. But it is possible they were going for a compromise between having some similarities with Latin letters while also being clearly distinct from it. Still, I don't think this really explains why they wouldn't have adopted the proposed change.
WillG
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-11T20:21:24.310Z
@WillG - The only way you're going to get a definitive answer is to ask George Bernard Shaw, and unless you've got a way to send the question back to before his death in 1950...
Jeff Zeitlin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-12T04:53:02.727Z
@JeffZeitlin Wasn't it designed posthumously, and only carries his name because it was his money?
No Name
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-12T04:55:46.240Z
@JeffZeitlin Of course, the point's moot because the actual designer - Ronald Kingsley Read - is also unavailable for comment, having died in1975
No Name
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-11T18:46:21.477Z
2024-01-11T18:46:21.477Z
Jeff Zeitlin
<p>In the <a href="https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shavian_alphabet" rel="noreferrer">Shavian</a> alphabet, the letter  makes an f sound and  makes a &quot;v&quot; sound. It seems reasonable that these two letters should be reversed, since  looks like an f. To stay consistent with the pattern of voiced/unvoiced letters in Shavian, the  would then have to be raised and  would have to be lowered, but this would just make  look <em>even more</em> like an f.</p>
<p>Indeed, there is a good argument (in my view) for reversing these letters, which I outline below. Since Shavian is very carefully constructed, this doesn't seem like something the designers would have overlooked. Therefore, I think it is fair to ask, <strong>Is there a good reason that these letters were not originally reversed when the Shavian alphabet was designed?</strong></p>
<hr />
<p>Arguments for reversing the sounds of  and  (and raising  while lowering ):</p>
<ul>
<li>Visual similarity of (raised)  with f. (Such similarity seems to have been a low-priority goal of Shavian, e.g.,  = c,  = g,  = s,  = z,  = i,  = o.)</li>
<li>The proposed change would keep the pattern for voiced/unvoiced pairs intact.</li>
<li>The proposed change would make the / pair more consistent with the / pair, since then  and  would be true mirror images of each other, both being aligned in the same way (and a similar claim holds for  and ).</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-12T04:58:07.393Z
observation that probably means nothing: the most common word in the English language with an "f" in it is "of", which is *pronounced* with a /v/
No Name
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-12T05:00:10.157Z
evidence for the implied hypothesis above: "of" was often abbreviated to (Shavian) "v" in written texts
No Name
<writing-systems><english>
Is there a good reason not to reverse the letters  and  in Shavian?
# Is there a good reason not to reverse the letters  and  in Shavian?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-01-11)

In the [Shavian](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shavian_alphabet) alphabet, the letter makes an f sound and makes a "v" sound. It seems reasonable that these two letters should be reversed, since looks like an f. To stay consistent with the pattern of voiced/unvoiced letters in Shavian, the would then have to be raised and would have to be lowered, but this would just make look *even more* like an f.

Indeed, there is a good argument (in my view) for reversing these letters, which I outline below. Since Shavian is very carefully constructed, this doesn't seem like something the designers would have overlooked. Therefore, I think it is fair to ask, **Is there a good reason that these letters were not originally reversed when the Shavian alphabet was designed?**

---

Arguments for reversing the sounds of and (and raising while lowering ):

* Visual similarity of (raised) with f. (Such similarity seems to have been a low-priority goal of Shavian, e.g., = c, = g, = s, = z, = i, = o.)
* The proposed change would keep the pattern for voiced/unvoiced pairs intact.
* The proposed change would make the / pair more consistent with the / pair, since then and would be true mirror images of each other, both being aligned in the same way (and a similar claim holds for and ).

**Tags:** writing-systems, english

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: observation that probably means nothing: the most common word in the English language with an "f" in it is "of", which is *pronounced* with a /v/  
> **username_1**: evidence for the implied hypothesis above: "of" was often abbreviated to (Shavian) "v" in written texts  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-01-11. Score: 5

Your own link to the copy of the Wikipedia article on the Shavian alphabet explains:

> Shaw set three main criteria for the new alphabet. It should be:
>
> 1. at least 40 letters;
> 2. as phonetic as possible (that is, letters should have a 1:1 correspondence to phonemes);
> 3. distinct from the Latin alphabet to avoid the impression that the new spellings were simply misspellings.

and

> The Shavian alphabet consists of three types of letters: tall, deep and short. Short letters are vowels, liquids (r, l) and nasals; tall letters (except Yea and Hung ) are voiceless consonants. A tall letter rotated 180° or flipped, with the tall part now extending below the baseline, becomes a deep letter, representing the corresponding voiced consonant (except Haha ). The alphabet is therefore to some extent featural.

/f/ is a voiceless consonant, and therefore a tall letter; the corresponding voiced consonant is /v/ and is therefore a deep letter that is the /f/ rotated 180°. To make the Shavian /f/ look more like the Latin 'f' would weaken criterion #3 above, and in fact it is likely that your comment about visual similarity being a low-priority goal may be wrong, to the extent that (and this is just a guess on my part) visual similarity may have been a low-priority **anti**-goal.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But note that my proposed change is not just to reverse  and , but also to raise  and lower , which would make them consistent with the pattern you discuss in the last paragraph.  
> **username_0**: Per criterion 3, as the goal was to "avoid the impression that the new spellings were simply misspellings," it seems that this is accomplished with or without my proposed change, since glancing at Shavian text, one would never think it is just misspelled words using the Latin alphabet.  
> **username_0**: The creators were, after all, comfortable with the similarities  = s,  = z,  = i,  = o. But it is possible they were going for a compromise between having some similarities with Latin letters while also being clearly distinct from it. Still, I don't think this really explains why they wouldn't have adopted the proposed change.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 - The only way you're going to get a definitive answer is to ask George Bernard Shaw, and unless you've got a way to send the question back to before his death in 1950...  
> **username_1**: @JeffZeitlin Wasn't it designed posthumously, and only carries his name because it was his money?  
> **username_1**: @JeffZeitlin Of course, the point's moot because the actual designer - Ronald Kingsley Read - is also unavailable for comment, having died in1975  

---

