Levels of Gregg

Okay, maybe it’s time for one of you experts to come up w/ the newest form of Gregg Shorthand, with levels. (I can sure tell I belong to the Imperial Society of Teachers of Dancing!)
Pre-Elementary or Standard: Series 90
Elementary or Level 1 Certification: DJS or Centennial
Intermediate or Level 2 Certification: Simplified
Advanced or Level 3 Certification: Anniversary
Maestro or Level 4 Certification: Pre-Anniversary
Now, if only someone could write dovetailing texts…

(by sidhetaba for everyone)

34 comments Add yours
  1. Well, it seems to me that many of the people in the group are working on learning a different version of Gregg.  I originally learned Notehand, then DJS, but I want to learn Simplified.   In many of our discussions people talk about the differences between versions; so my idea is that somehow you experts pool your information and develop "texts" for upgrading from say, DJS to Simplified — rather than each person having to go thru the process of going thru the new text to find out and learn what is different.

  2. I think what you learn when would depend on the person.  A very intelligent, patient person could learn Anniversary up front.  However, someone else may have trouble.  I had trouble with it so I learned Speedwriting (non symbol shorthand) then DJS now I'm doing Anniversary.  Of course I was much younger and stupider and impatient when I tried to learn Anniversary first LOL.    The way you have it stepped out is good if someone wants to learn the easiest first and then move on or just learn the easiest.   However, a symbol shorthand is hard to learn no matter what level you start at.  You have to have determination and desire to learn Shorthand first.  Then you can choose which ever one you want to learn.  And you don't have to learn anymore then one.  I just kept moving up to move up my speed as I write slow… And I liked Gregg Shorthand and wanted to learn it, so I did after my speedwriting classes.  If I didn't want to learn Gregg then I would have stayed with speedwriting, I could do 80-90 fairly easily and transcribe pretty accurately.   Just my thoughts. Debbi

  3. I agree with those who recommend you use the system most fluid to what you do.  In school, I learned Simplified but soon discovered that Anniversary was a lot speedier to write.  I purchased a manual and learned the differences.    A number of years  later, I purchased some old literature written in Gregg Shorthand.  But, I found myself stumbling around in it because it was written in pre-Anniversary Gregg.  So, again, I purchased a 1916 manual and a 1916 dictionary and was off and running.  Not surprisingly, pre-Anniversary is now my favorite.   As for moving up in levels, I have found the easiest, fastest way is to read a lot of well-written Gregg in the system you want to master, and if you happen to be a visual person (as I am), the images seem to become almost etched in your brain.  In fact, I often visualize radio news in shorthand as I drive.    Maybe these are ideas you could try. 

  4. That's fascinating: I learned Speedwriting from my mom's textbook. In college, I switched to DJ. And for medical school, I switched to Simplified because of DJ didn't  have a complete medical shorthand.   As for our pooling our resources, that sounds like a time-consuming and expensive endeavor.   Brian

  5. Yes, Brian, i get a little carried away sometimes.    However, the idea is not totally farfetched, since Ms Letha includes the comparison of the six versions of Gregg in her correspondence course for DJS (see message 7 of 15, 17/08/2004, thread: General : Simplified vs. Diamond Jubilee?) And then, of course, there is Andrew's website, which compares all the versions in one place. Not to mention that McGraw Hill published that book you talk about in other posts Expert Shorthand Speed Studies, which was obviously the next level for Simplified or DJS writers. Can someone tell me what other texts there are for DJS. There's the manual, then Gregg Dictation. Presumably there is a Speed Studies? Are there any others? Thanks.

  6. >Original Message
    >From: sidhetaba

    >Can someone tell me what other texts there are for DJS. There's the manual,
    >then Gregg Dictation. Presumably there is a Speed Studies? Are there any

    It's almost impossible to give a complete list, because Gregg/McGraw-Hill
    kept publishing variations and editions . . . every time I think I have the
    publishing scheme figured out there's a new title I haven't heard of before.
    A catalog from 1964 would be useful . . .

    The basic sequence for DJS was the manual (bright yellow), "Dictation",
    "Transcription" and "Speed Building" (in the first edition DJS they're
    distinguished by color). Those 4 books would have been the normal high
    school shorthand sequence, although I doubt many students did more than the
    first two. In the same size/format was the DJS "Dictionary", and I have two
    other same format titles: "Gregg Expert Speed Building" and "Speed
    Dictation with Previews in Gregg Shorthand."

    The "manual" was also published in a "Functional Method" variation (same
    yellow binding, slightly thicker book), and there is a DJS "Refresher
    Course". And "Most Used Words and Phrases".


  7. By the way . . . reading back through the messages in this thread . . . I also started with Notehand, then DJS . . .   Did anyone in this group buy the copy of Notehand that was listed on e-bay?   Alex

  8. There was also DJS College Edition.  2 books.  I use to have those but going through my "toss out stuff I haven't used" I got rid of them to a second hand store… I think they were late 60's.  (I kept the DJS dictionary and the Speed Building with 5 minute takes if I wanted a refresher course.) Anway, those were 2 other books, which may be a level up from the HS, maybe?  since they were for "college" students.  So you'd need another level for the college books?. Debbi 

  9. Thank you, Alex.   I found the functional method manual on abebooks.com, and a functional method work book, as well as a regular(?) method workbook. I hope they have lots of shorthand in them, not just text.   I did start with Notehand, but frankly, the reason I switched to DJS was that it seemed to be too slow, so I got some coaching from the teacher for my independent study, since I was the only student in the Notehand course they cancelled it for the second semester! I remember that bright yellow text, which must have been the first edition, because the second edition is blue.   Unfortunately, I didnt write a word in shorthand from 1973 until 1990, and lost it all.   It seems that we stopped teaching shorthand in Montreal much sooner than in other parts of Canada and the US.   There are also Canadian editions — they only add outlines for the provinces and cities of Canada, and they don't even bother to change the highly questionable spellings like "labor" and "color." ;o)

  10. Kevinwal   Yes, we use the u in misdemeanour, too, but we've lost the s in realization-like words to the American zee (tho we still say it zed.) There are others I can't rembr, but for the most part we follow the "correct" (also runs and hides behind sofa) way.   And, of course, if we don't say sofa, we say the peculiarly canadian Chesterfield, instead of the completely American couch. (Which, of course, we use when referring to "couch potatoes," another American concept which is much better than sofa slug or Chesterfield potato.) And it seems that we use the American conventions for punctuation when involving quotation marks. (Sigh)   Not to mention honour, and we do have Honourables, and the bishop is addressed "my lord" and the Archbishop is addressed "your grace."   But as you will remember our prime minister refused to let that blackguard Colin Black remain a Canadian Citizen if he accepted the lifetime barony he was offered by Downing Street.

  11. Actually, the things we call people–"my lord, your grace, your highness, whatever"–are called honourifics, not honourables. Honourable is the kind of mention you get when you don't win a prize. (You can leave out the "u" if you live south of the 48th parallel.)


  12. But we do, in fact, title MP's as The Honourable Davey Crockett, or maybe it's just cabinet ministers. Since we don't have any viscounts, we don't have any of their children who would also, in the UK, get the courtesy title Honourable.   Sorry, other Gregg folks & Americans — I have a question:   How do you write "yeah" (the affirmative). My DJS dictionary doesn't have it!   Part of my homework is trying to write out what they say on television, and i'm addicted to a show in which "yeah" seems to be every third word.        

  13. In court reporting, there is a symbol that is used for "yes" given in response to a question–either on direct or cross-examination. It looks like an long "a" but is elongated vertically. Consider using that. Brian  

  14. Thanks, Chuck & Brian. I think you are both talking about the same outline, which is clearly shown under the "yea" listing in my DJS dictionary — an elongated (vertically) A.   I guess, since I don't use "yea" very much, it would serve well.   Brian — so that would be transcribed as "yes" by court reporters?   Thanks again, sorry about the non-gregg tangent. I'll take it to anything goes next time.

  15. To be the most specific according to the principles of the system, I would say "yeah" would be written as a vertical "a" loop, but as it expresses the short sound of a (as in apple), a marking could be made to specify the sound. This mark is a short breve under the word. It is somewhat like a small r, but not as deep. The next sound that occurs in the word is the schwa, but I don't think it is necessary to write.

    Naturally, it has been standard practice for years until recently to understand "yeah" as "yes," since it is simply the latter with the s not spoken out of the laziness of its inventors. 🙂 Nowadays, since it is recognized as a separate word (albeit informal), it has become necessary to differenciate the word from yes in reporting. On the machine, the reporter types "KWRAE" for yeah and "KWRE" for yes.

    When reporting, it is best to simply record the English equivalents of the speech. For instance, "Dew Beeve Dat?" would be written "Do you believe that?" "Freal Cuzz" is transcribed, "For real, cous." or "For real, cousin." When reporting, don't transcribe in dialect, but present the words as they were intended to be understood, word for word. "I spect you wont them chains knocked off," would be written, "I expect you want them chains knocked off." &c.


  16. Thanks, Andrew.   I have to distinguish between yeah and yes for the verbatim interview transcripts, for some obscure "statement analysis" reasons — which I type from audio tapes. I also have to include every word or half word, tho not "non-words" like um, uh, ah, etc. It's surprising how many time people stop and start sentences again in daily speech patterns.   But for homework, I just wanted to know what it would look like.   Do you have Stenomask reporters in your part of the world?   Billy

  17. Thanks Brian. One more small question for you: e coli. How the ____ would you write that — the abreviated version, not the full Escherichia coli. And then if one abreviates it all the time when it is being said in full, how might you indicate the difference, or would you both.   Sorry, news spot w/ both versions, and I got to wondering!   Billy (sidhetaba)

  18. I would write it as one word: e-k-o (sidewise)-l-long i. I use a ^ underneath an outline to indicate that there is something special about an outline, so I would use that symbol for the long form.   Brian   PS: Danger: What you mean about intials in Pre-anniv? brian

  19. I would write "e-k-o-l-a" for E. coli: it's faster.  I don't make the long i circle.  And, if I'm repeating it many times enough, I would create the shortcut "e-k."  As long as you can transcribe it, it's fine.  For the full, I would write "s – k – k": simple, quick, and distinctive.

  20. Yes, Andrew, thanks for showing us that, and for your truly excellent site, which I refer to quite often. To which I refer quite often?   And thank you Andrew, Brian, Chuck, Debbi for good ideas — I think I'll stick to Charles Rader's principle "The more I… the more I write shorthand" for now, until I am desperate for more speed.   But the illustration of abbreviating principles very interesting.   Thanks again.    

Leave a Reply