Question about Simplified

Hi Guys! I’m diving back into my shorthand studies. I’m just starting Lesson 3 from the Gregg Simplified 2nd Ed. manual and had a question.

Later in the manual do they ever get to telling you how to decipher the distinct pronounciation of the vowel?

Like the shorthand writing of a-d, it can be pronounced as Aid or Add. And like the written ch-i-k, can’t it be pronounced as Chick or Check? I’m sure if you were to read it in a sentence it would make a little more sense, but for now, do they ever show you, in writting, the correct pronounciation?

Just curious. Thanks!

(by cricketbeautiful-1
for everyone)

 

14 comments Add yours
  1. For "duh" you can just do d-oo unmarked since that the sound of the unmarked oo. "Eh" could be represented with a marked "a" (the long sign, the little dash), "ah" could be represented with the "a" with the dot under it.  Though, an unmarked "oo" in "duh" would seriously give you a conflict, you could write a little "soft" sign over the "oo".   When I write "yes" I use the "ye" loop.  If I need to write "yeah", I use the same loop, but I mark it with the dot.    It's probably just a matter of doing what you can do to remember or what makes sense to you.  If you do have to take spoken English that isn't necessarily the Queen's English, it does get a little sticky. 

  2. Thanks for the tips Peter, I'd been itching to ask.   I had been improvising with my limited knowledge of Simplified; for "yeah", the "ia" combination loop, for "duh", "d + wriggly line", but that's not even a Gregg stroke…   For "ah", I'd actually been using the "a" loop" with a dot underneath, but not due to any knowledge of Anniversary vowel markings, just thought "ha" upside down might work.
    For "eh" I was using the "long i + another vowel" double loop, mainly because I couldn't think of anything else, and with a stretch of the imagination you _might_ be able to consider the two loops as "ay + ee"…??   But now I see there's a more intelligent way to improvise, so great!

  3. I was browsing through a publication I have from the Kansas Shorthand Reporters' Association just last night and found some methods of representing "uh-huh" and "huh-uh" — uh-huh is "oo-h-oo"; huh-uh is "h-oo-oo".    "Duh" is a hard one to represent.  Looks a lot like "do". 

  4. Coming back to lesson 28 (in Simplified), I realized that I have been doing something basic VERY wrong.   "He is not" is "e loop – comma s – n" and "he isn't" is "e loop – comma s – nt blend, and I have been applying that rule (which I thought it was; i.e. "n" for "not", and "nt blend" for "n't") even when the left s is used.
    Using "n" after "left s" _is_ a little awkward (for something like "it is not"), but now I've gotten used to it, it seems less confusing than to use the four apart, i.e. "n" as "not", "nt blend" as "not", "nt blend" as "n't", "nt blend + apostrophe" as "n't". 
    I'm the only person to read my shorthand, so maybe I can keep this personal rule, or should I try relearn?   Another thing; why aren't there brief forms for "has" and "had" I wonder?  The dot and then the loop and then the further stroke feels so tedious to form considering how often it appears, or is that just me… 
    In lesson 28, "I had" is given as a phrase (as "broken a – d"), but the manual says "do not attempt to extend these modifications to similar phrases".  So, for something like "They'd had problems…" you'd have to write "They had had…" out in full?? 
    If I were allowed to improvise, I was thinking "th – e – d (jog) d" might do the trick?   When I write "I'd" in longhand, I suppose I am thinking of the "'d" as "would" or "had" on some subconscious level, but I don't see the need to make a distinction in shorthand when it works perfectly okay written the same in longhand…   Well, I'm just hoping I'll understand better when I progress further.   Martha   P.S.  How fun to know that real shorthand professionals actually wrote words like "uh-huh" in shorthand!
    I was simply thinking about how to write them because I tend to talk to myself in my diary.
    (And "duh" was something I found myself trying to visualize while watching the Simpsons.)  

  5. Hey, Martha!

    The "had" principle is carried a little further in the Anniversary edition. You can do "he had", "you had", "they had". "He had" is he would with a dot over the "e". "You had" is "you would" with a dot over the "oo". "They had" is "over ith-broken e-d". You could modify "had" to a "d" in a phrase if it seems natural to you. You'd never write: "they'd would".

    "Has" is already a very phrasable word already.

    Your "s" problem I'm not sure what you should do about it. Your description initially sounds like you are writing it correctly: "e loop – comma s – n" — but it sounds like you are doing "left s-n". I'm surprised you didn't see it written correctly in the reading and writing practice.

    Using "nt" for "not" in certain phrases and "isn't" indicated with the apostrophe is just the way it is. It's faster using the blend than making the stop for the "n" after the "s".

    "I had" is written with the broken "i" because "i-d" is "I would". The contraction of the forms is indicated by the apostrophe.

  6. Hi martha. Glad to see another Simplified writer out there (though I do Anni too) 🙂

    The rules I remember for not are:
    is not = s-n
    there/it is not = th/t-snt blend
    there/it isn't = th/t-snt blend + apostrophe
    he is not = e-s-n

    The risk of just writing "t-left s-n" is that again, at higher speeds, it risks becoming something like t-on, where the S gets lost in the T.
    But if you find it works better for you, then by all means sally forth. Since I'm paranoid, I try to stick generally close to the way they do things in the manual… I figure the authors knew more about the system than me, so I put my blind faith in their methods 🙂

    One change I make to these is-not blends is I just interpret them as "isn't/wasn't" regardless of if I write the apostrophe, since the contracted forms are so much more prevalent today than in 20s-50s English.

    As for "has" and "had", there are "brief" forms of them in Anniversary. And by that I mean you just don't write the H dot. It's also true for "her", I believe.

    For "they'd had problems", you could certainly go "th-e-d-d". Everyone makes their own little phrasing tricks. If you can read it back later, then by all means go for it. I'd write it "th-broken e-d a-d pr-bl-s", personally 🙂 The "had" blending with I/he/she/they/we is fully explained in various Anniversary manuals. "he had" is "broken e – d". For "they/we/she had", the same broken e is used.

  7. Hi Peter, I think I'll take a peek in the Anni manual for the "had" related bits and see if I might be able to use some of it.   As for the "s" thing: >> I'm surprised you didn't see it written correctly in the reading and writing practice I know!  It may have been carefully avoided in the preceding lessons, but this is my second time through; I did rush it the first time, but how could I forget a whole section devoted to the subject!  (T_T) (=Asian emoticon for weeping in despair…)   But well, good thing I caught it on the second round, going slow and steady this time.

  8. Hi NiftyBoy, how is your transition to Anniversary coming along?
    I wonder if you intend to switch entirely, or stay with Simplified and intergrate the handier parts of Anni?   Seeing the "not" rules you listed up for me, it doesn't seem too much of a load, so I guess I could just memorize them like I did the brief forms.
    And if that doesn't work, I might just use "nt" for everything…   Nice to know that you are allowed to improvise at times, but since I'm a beginner, maybe I'd better try the "proper" way first; at least restricting it to what is allowed in Anni (i.e. "broken circle + d" etc.)

  9. Hi martha. I intend to switch completely, since Simplified is really just pruned Anniversary (smaller than the gap between Simplified and DJS). There are only some affixes and brief forms to learn, along with the R principle and abbreviating principle, both of which have small traces left in Simplified.

    It's going slowly since I only do about 15-20 minutes of shorthand studying every day or two.

    In case you were curious, I'm switching over because the only things available to read in Simplified are desert-dry, drab business letters. The Anni materials are much more varied and interesting.

    Good luck with Simplified! What lesson are you on?

  10. Hi NiftyBoy, I was working on Lesson 28 when I did all the posting about the "not" stuff.   I'm not really sure what level I'm at though, because I'm going back and forth.
    I've been through the whole manual once in a rush, so I have a vague recollection of most of the rules, and I can read any random page if at a crawling pace, but that obviously wasn't enough, so I'm going through it a second time.   This time round, after I finish a chapter, I go back to review the previous one.
    So, I've finished pretty intensive work up to Chapter 3 (that's… ah yes, Lesson 18 with the fun stories), and when I finish Chapter 5 (Lesson 30), I'm going back to Chapter 4.  (And then on to 6, and so on.)   Yes, the material is generally drab and dry, but since I do some writing for language textbooks, I'm finding fun in thinking about how the writers wrote in the target strokes while making the whole piece basically believable; especially in the early stages when there was not as much material they could use.   Like, how Diana Meyers calls her very own sister Mrs. Ryan and of course they are both science teachers who wish to visit Miami Beach.  Or, how many times could you possibly use the word "expense(s)" in a 71 word letter!? (–Apparently 7, which is 10 percent of the whole letter.)   Since you know both, you might be able to publish the fun Anni material translated for the Simplied population some day.  (Or, by that time I might be an Anni person myself. 🙂  You never know.)    Thanks, and good luck to you too!   Martha

Leave a Reply