What stops the uptake of shorthand?

Well ever since I started learning shorthand, I have read that in the 20th century shorthand was a secreterial tool, but before that it was used by intellectuals for you know the things they do… writing and inventing and philosophy and speeches etc. making them safer and faster to do.

And I accepted it as such. But the question is, for a leader today, who still organize stuff, and make speeches, and write down their ideas — often sensitive ones– is it any different? Whats stopping George Bush or various leaders from adopting this skill that intellectuals from centuries ago mastered and used?

I understand that it wouldn’t be taught in universities as a manual skill, but leaders often take on big studies on their own in the pursuit of more knowledge. Languages is a good example. Our prime minister Kevin Rudd knows Chinese fluently– zionist leaders in Israels past have been known to master many languages. Shorthand is easier than mastering a language and is a very useful skill, and I fail to come up with a good reason why its not widely used by the elite of our society, whos time above all else is so precious.

(by michael_lisitsa
for everyone)

 

25 comments Add yours
  1. I think part of the reason is that most use longhand, or the computer, or a tape recorder to record their thoughts — they do not need the extra speed or secretive nature of shorthand. Additionally, heads of state have speech writers too. I know of very few presidents that wrote their own speeches. Woodrow Wilson is the only one I know of that wrote his speeches in shorthand.

  2. Could it be a legibility thing? Say… me I can write at a decent pace — well certainly much faster than longhand and for many things I don't need verbatim speeds, eg diary entries.

    But when it comes to reading, to have the same sort of effect that you get when reading longhand (where you can almost skim the page), you need a very high level of shorthand proficiency and I'm obviously speculating since I haven't reached that stage yet, but maybe the shorthand systems to date have not handled that age old question of perfect legibility.

    In other words, whereas writing faster is extremely useful, the sacrifice in readability (that almost magical ability humans can develop to absorb a page of text in but a few seconds) is too big a sacrifice.

    No doubt there are a few members on this forum with extended use of shorthand that might shed some light whether this magical ability to absorb shorthand ever comes be it naturally with regular use of shorthand or otherwise.
    I do acknowledge that roman letters have the advantage of being in practically everything in our lives so lack of practice is hardly a problem. Yet only by around 15 years old can a smart kid really absorb a page of information effectively.

    Shorthand legibility fascinates me. I will try my best with Gregg, but there still might be a more refined solution out there for more legible shorthand… who knows.

  3. In my limited experience, the same outline has enough interpretations that I need to re-read sentences much more often than in longhand, or I need to hold a few words on probation until I finish the sentence. There's rarely any doubt during the re-read. E.g., "e-s-t I r-a-n." Without the rest of the sentence, "e-s-t" could be "East" or "Yesterday". (Btw, how does one distinguish "I ran e-s-t"?)

    Cricket

  4. Yet from what we've all read, most attempts to have distinguishable outlines (and a simpler system) have failed. Series 90 whos goal was to have a unique outline for each word (I could be wrong about this) was in fact the least popular Gregg system. Neither has Pitman 2000 taken off etc etc

    Maybe we can't have our cake and eat it too. If we want a system that is really fast and useful for verbatim recording, we need to work really hard to get half the readability that comes so naturally with Roman characters.

  5. Cricket wrote:
    "Without the rest of the sentence, "e-s-t" could be "East" or "Yesterday"."

    I forget where I picked it up, but when I go back over my notes I
    use a convention from somewhere of writing a short line (shorter than
    an "n" but not a dot) below the small circle e to signify there is a
    "wh" sound there. It's one of the versions of Gregg I think. There are
    a number of small things like that that I use when I go review/edit
    the notes to make them easier to read later on.

    Part of the reason I like using 8 by 11 inch paper is for the extra
    space to write in the margins and between lines after taking the
    notes. –I go over and improve penmanship and write out unusual words
    and so on. —

    Something that doesn't get mentioned much on this list, (if at
    all?) — I find that when I am taking notes at a board meeting or even
    more so at an academic seminar it is important to write down ideas
    that are occurring to me during the flow of the seminar. Somehow the
    ideas just don't seem to happen as fluidly when I am going over the
    notes later on. I think that is something that gets lost with the
    pure-dictation applications of shorthand. The important point here is
    that shorthand is a really effective tool for when my mind is being
    creative synthesizing new ideas– because I am able to write down the
    ideas so quickly it enables me to quickly write down the ideas thus
    minimizing the distraction of applying pen to paper. I see shorthand
    very much as being an important "thinking tools". (In this context
    there is the literary reference to Samuel Coleridge's poem about
    Kublai Khan "a stately pleasure dome did decree" and so on —
    Coleridge scribbled down the start of the poem he had just dreamed but
    suddenly he could remember no more and so it stops abruptly. Still one
    of the best short pieces of poetry ever written.)

    — Leaving open space on the 8 by 11 inch sheet of paper allows me
    to write in, squeeze in, more notes when I later go back and more
    thoroughly think through my jottings.

    Richard Harper

    On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Gregg Shorthand
    wrote:
    > New Message on Gregg Shorthand
    >
    > What stops the uptake of shorthand?
    >
    > Reply
    > Recommend Message 5 in Discussion
    > From: CricketBeautiful-1
    > In my limited experience, the same outline has enough interpretations that I
    > need to re-read sentences much more often than in longhand, or I need to
    > hold a few words on probation until I finish the sentence. There's rarely
    > any doubt during the re-read. E.g., "e-s-t I r-a-n." Without the rest of the
    > sentence, "e-s-t" could be "East" or "Yesterday". (Btw, how does one
    > distinguish "I ran e-s-t"?)
    >
    > Cricket
    > View other groups in this category.
    >
    >
    > To stop getting this e-mail, or change how often it arrives, go to your
    > E-mail Settings.
    >
    > Need help? If you've forgotten your password, please go to Passport Member
    > Services.
    > For other questions or feedback, go to our Contact Us page.
    >
    > If you do not want to receive future e-mail from this MSN group, or if you
    > received this message by mistake, please click the "Remove" link below. On
    > the pre-addressed e-mail message that opens, simply click "Send". Your
    > e-mail address will be deleted from this group's mailing list.
    > Remove my e-mail address from Gregg Shorthand.

  6. Somewhere I read the different uses people came up with for the two columns of a dictation pad.

    Dictator / formal minutes and own notes during meetings, as suggested.

    Use them both normally.

    First column copy from text, second column copy from first column.

    Original dictation and dictator's revisions.

    Original dictation and notes you make during pauses, such as spelling or things to look up.

    Start in different columns for different dictators (often in used legal reporting)

    I'm sure there are more.

    Cricket

  7. Legibility is a problem that is mostly subjective.  The better the skill of the writer, the better the notes and more readable the shorthand will be.  There are examples in the text books (Functional Method Dictation, Assignments 81 and 82; Gregg Shorthand Reporting Course, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address) of shorthand for reading and writing practice that were dictated at 150 words per minute and the notes are as well written as any I've ever seen.    It is possible to read shorthand at nearly the speed of print, and I've heard that there were some that read shorthand plates as fast as print and would have dictation material in shorthand marked for dictation.  It takes a lot of practice.  You have to read a lot of shorthand and know your system thoroughly.  If you think about it, we read Roman letters all of our lives.  They are omnipresent.  The mind is very good at recognizing patterns and inserting what it thinks should be there.  Reading shorthand is the easiest way to build skill and you can do it just about anywhere.    Another reason for the disappearance of shorthand as a drafting tool for the rich and powerful is that our methods of drafting documents have changed.  Early in my career as a legal secretary, I had an attorney who would call me on the way into the office and dictate documents to me.  By the time she made it to the office, the initial draft was ready for her to start to edit.  These days, all of the attorneys have computers on their desks and most of them have laptops.  They are now drafting the documents without any help from me until it's time to final the documents and file them with the court.  The early movers and shakers could climb the ladder by starting out as stenographers and personal secretaries to the executives and politicians and could branch out from there.    The learning of shorthand to any degree of skill takes an investment in time and practice.  Drafting tools these days are a bit more accessible to the masses with the advent of technology and the internet.  The primary focus of shorthand for secretarial use rather moved it out of the general stream.  Shorthand is a great skill for the college bound and yet while  I was in school, the college bound, advanced placement set didn't have the time in their schedules to devote to shorthand.  Journalism students no longer think it's necessary to use shorthand a la Charles Dickens.  Judy Miller would have had a much more interesting testimony session if she had had written her notes in shorthand because they would probably have been less disjointed and contained more information.  Of course, that would have gotten her indicted, so perhaps she knew what she was doing.  🙂

  8. These days, it's almost normal to take laptops into meetings to take notes. We were concerned our son would stand out, but the VP had just been at a seminar where they provided laptops for the participants. I see students at Starbucks using them all the time. They can work anywhere, and don't have to re-copy legibly. I love that I can carry my entire contact list and shopping research on my PDA. (Hate using the calendar.) Writing on napkins is a lost art.

  9. I still write on napkins. I just did it this morning!

    There are about four different subjects in under this topic. Let's hope I get to all the points I want to make.

    I would distinguish EAST from YESTERDAY (if ever required) with one of those defunct diacritical marks on EAST to show the long E. I just posted something about using a diacritical to distinguish price from prize.

    We have the same problem in English with words like READ. I read the newspaper yesterday. I read every day. See? And there's no way to distinguish the words except for context!

    When I started working as a secretary (1978), bosses didn't know how to type so they couldn't draft materials in any way other than time-consuming longhand. Since everyone took typing or keyboarding for the past 30 years, the young execs can do their own work and just hand it off to someone else for "formatting" and a final check.

    I had one boss who made so many changes during dictation, I used the left column for the dictation and the right column for all the changes.

    There! I think I covered all the issues. . . .

    Marc

  10. Anniversary Fan wrote: "Judy Miller would have had a much more
    interesting testimony session if she had had written her notes in
    shorthand because they would probably have been less disjointed and
    contained more information. Of course, that would have gotten her
    indicted, so perhaps she knew what she was doing. 🙂 "

    My experience in business (major CPA firms, etc.) has been that with
    the growth of litigiousness there has developed an attitude toward
    deliberately keeping somewhat ambiguous records at times. Myself, I
    tend to view the absence of clear and complete records as at least a
    little suspicious (if not a great deal at times). But near as I can
    tell, when in those circles I have tended to be in the minority. (This
    possibly brings up issues about the massive document shredding in
    Enron and Aurthur Anderson etc., etc. Original notes in shorthand
    possibly floating around are one more possible issue of "informational
    hygeine" for such situations.)

    (As for writing on napkins– A cousin of mine used to do that a lot
    back in his college days. He would write cartoons on napkins and leave
    those as part of the tip. He ~claims~ Matt Groening (The Simpsons) was
    a classmate, but he does so love to tell stories!)

    Richard Harper

    On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Gregg Shorthand
    wrote:
    > New Message on Gregg Shorthand
    >
    > What stops the uptake of shorthand?
    >
    > Reply
    > Recommend Message 10 in Discussion
    > From: CricketBeautiful-1
    > These days, it's almost normal to take laptops into meetings to take notes.
    > We were concerned our son would stand out, but the VP had just been at a
    > seminar where they provided laptops for the participants. I see students at
    > Starbucks using them all the time. They can work anywhere, and don't have to
    > re-copy legibly. I love that I can carry my entire contact list and shopping
    > research on my PDA. (Hate using the calendar.) Writing on napkins is a lost
    > art.
    > View other groups in this category.
    >
    >
    > To stop getting this e-mail, or change how often it arrives, go to your
    > E-mail Settings.
    >
    > Need help? If you've forgotten your password, please go to Passport Member
    > Services.
    > For other questions or feedback, go to our Contact Us page.
    >
    > If you do not want to receive future e-mail from this MSN group, or if you
    > received this message by mistake, please click the "Remove" link below. On
    > the pre-addressed e-mail message that opens, simply click "Send". Your
    > e-mail address will be deleted from this group's mailing list.
    > Remove my e-mail address from Gregg Shorthand.

  11. But who's to say what the limit of the brain is.
    With enough practice we can process the difficult rules of Anniversary with apparent ease.
    And if they made a system twice as hard, well.. Charles Dickens mastered his system, Guernsey, full of arbitraries symbols.

    The truth is if we created a super complex chinese type script where each symbol represented a sentence (no matter how stupid that sounds) the brain with enough practice could probably learn to read it and with a blistering speed at that since your eyes wouldn't have to move as far.

    Along this continuous spectrum of complexity lies a level of intelligence/experience that yields a certain proficiency in reading ability.

    So say: I have a 3 year course to teach students to report in court. If I had unlimited resources I'd get several university classes and trial different systems on different groups. I'd test them at the end at transcription and would find on average the more complex systems having a lower transcription speed until I reach a system like Anniversary where 3 years is plenty of time to become very proficient. Any system that is easier than Ani, for example, would reach a plateau of ability thats set by other factors like your minds ability to absorb information or your lips ability to mutter words.

    But what if the scenario is changing and Shorthand has to be taught in six months at a night school. Well then an easier system need be taught.

    Anyway this might be a complex way of saying that simple systems are quicker to learn, but its 11:30pm and I can't form a good conclusion right now.

  12. My Canadian engineering law text was quite clear about torts (suing for actual damage): "Could have or should have known" Whether you did or did not know is irrelevant.

    Imagine my surprise a few years later, when I read in another field's magazine that you should never write memos about hazards, because it proves you were aware.

    Years later, I have a different interpretation.

    In order for a tort to succeed, you have to prove all of several points, including that there was a risk and that damage happened. A memo saying, "This uneven floor poses a risk," means you agree there was a risk — handing that point to the accuser on a silver platter.

    Fine print: Course was about 15 years ago. Memory may be faulty. Things may have changed. Law varies drastically with location.

  13. Shorthand systems design, ergonomics, and brain limits:

    In this context the Flynn Effect is interesting, though
    rather off-topic. Also, the whole area of differential
    psychology having to do with how some people are
    faster at certain kinds of learning than others, requiring
    fewer repetitions to learn something. I recall seeing some
    old articles somewhere about teaching Gregg– what were
    good predictors of students just starting out who would
    go on to be highly proficient.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_psychology

    (Myself, I think 95% or more of the confusion over
    the FE is that people keep wanting the most complex
    organ (brain) of biological systems (already vastly
    more complex than modern science can explain)
    to be easily explained. To put it mildly, it's
    extremely multifactorial etcetera. So at this
    stage of the debates surrounding it things seem
    very multifactorial– and is often the case with
    complexity that too is a simplification. One of the
    best things that has come out of complexity
    theory (Stephan Wolfram, Chaitin, and all that
    crowde) is just how poorly the human mind has
    been designed by evolution to think about complexity
    in general. (But see also Gigerenzer and the ABC
    Group.) But I am overtired of long debates on other
    lists about the FE so that is all I will write.)

    16 July 2008, 0746 CMT USA
    Richard Harper

    On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:34 AM, MICHAEL_LISITSA
    wrote:
    > New Message on Gregg Shorthand
    >
    > What stops the uptake of shorthand?
    >
    > Reply
    > Reply to Sender Recommend Message 16 in Discussion
    > From: MICHAEL_LISITSA
    >
    > View other groups in this category.
    >
    >
    > To stop getting this e-mail, or change how often it arrives, go to your
    > E-mail Settings.
    >
    > Need help? If you've forgotten your password, please go to Passport Member
    > Services.
    > For other questions or feedback, go to our Contact Us page.
    >
    > If you do not want to receive future e-mail from this MSN group, or if you
    > received this message by mistake, please click the "Remove" link below. On
    > the pre-addressed e-mail message that opens, simply click "Send". Your
    > e-mail address will be deleted from this group's mailing list.
    > Remove my e-mail address from Gregg Shorthand.

  14. Michael, that chart is interesting, but simplistic; allow me to explain.

    As a preface, let me state that I'm a former Pitman student who got about 1/3 or 1/2 way through the theory before life threw me a curve ball and I had to cease my studies. However, I've been studying the mechanics of Pitman–if not the execution– for quite a few years.

    With this in mind, the chart is simplistic in terms of Pitman (and perhaps Anniversary). There are three distinct skill levels in Pitman; to what skill level is the chart-maker referring?

    On an unrelated note–what the hay is "Super Complex"? A hitherto unknown shorthand system?

  15. Well I made the Y-axis transcription speed. That can be determined quite precisely, but the x-axis has complexity which is very imprecise because how hard a system does not always relate to how easy it is to read it.

    I guess what I was trying to show was that our brain has a capacity to process a certain amount of information quite quickly. At 211 wpm, Albert Schneider was able to transcribe the complex rules of Gregg Pre-Anni. He was able to on-the-fly fix up the mistakes that he had made writing at 215wpm, and he was able to read off the context and decide on ambiguous vowels. That is quite an achievement and takes some brain power and experience.

    The question begs… if the system relied doubly on context, and doubly ambiguous vowels and twice as many shortcut rules, Would he still be able to process all this at a speed of 211wpm?

    There has to be a point, where even after 10 years practice, your mind just goes…. nah… This is an impossible ask. I can't keep up.

  16. I'd like to pick up from the original question in this thread: What stops people from using shorthand today.

    And an answer that seems obvious to me is the lack of suitable learning materials. Now I know that by definition everyone on this group has learned or is learning using those materials, so I'm treading somewhat lightly. But no matter which version you've been working with, are you satisfied with the materials.

    I think the Gregg system is excellent (too ignorant yet to comment on others), but the teaching methods need to be updated to the current day and current market.

    First problem is that many potential users are people like me and several posters I've seen who want shorthand so they can take notes in university level classes. Virtually all the teaching material for the last hundred years focuses on business applications. The brief forms, which are essential if you want to read the teaching material, are largely business abbreviations (notice I said largely). Realistically there aren't _that_ many, but the first thing that put me off was something on the order of "I am never going to have to write 'Dear Madam.'"

    Second is that as the years evolved, not only did the Gregg system at least get simpler, but the teaching materials became even more oriented to the female clerk typist. I flipped open the DJS for Colleges book yesterday and almost the first exercise I saw was something like "Jim is taking me to the dance. I like Jim." Sorry, a high school guy looking to improve his chances in college is not going to be motivated to take this course. We may do it because we're really motivated, but we're the exception, I would bet.

    Although I'll never use many of the brief forms frequently enough to maintain them, a major reason why I'm still working with the Anniversary edition is that the materials are at least geared for a person who aims to be a secretary in a day when a position as secretary could be an entree to an executive position. And while the materials are largely male oriented, they at least acknowledge that some readers will be female.

    What I feel is needed are teaching materials aimed at university bound students. It should give the rules (for those of us who like to know the rules) and should also have lots of reading material (for those of us who also learn a lot by reading the functional material). And the reading material should be from modern texts in science and the liberal arts. I think my ideal system would tend toward Notehand rather than Anniversary, but even after only two chapters in Anniversary I've really become enamored of the simplicity of the forms. It's an issue of whether to be efficient you really need to have memorized the phonetic spelling of your vocabulary. My original understanding was that with enough practice you could build an outline on the fly, but I'm beginning to realize that it seems to work better if you already know the outline before you need to write the word. So if you have to know the bulk of your vocabulary, then you might as well know the Anniversary forms as the Notehand or DJS or Series 90 forms.

    Okay, that's my long-winded view as a basic newbie to the group. Anyone have other thoughts on what a suitable modern teaching system would look like.

  17. I agree 100%. There is a need for a new Manual reflecting English vocabulary and usage as shaped by the 21st century. The connected matter should comprise both literary and technical terminology. The lessons should be laid out so that (as in Anniversary and Simplified) the most common words are slowly introduced, leading the student to a point where he (or she) can read and practice editorials, Congressional speeches, and portions of popular fiction.

    An admirable feature of the Anniversary texts from the Manual to the "Expert" books was that a wealth of reading material was always available. So I would propose anyone wishing to revive shorthand originally plan a Manual, a Speed Building book which would offer a complete theory review and additional reading material, and an advanced volume containing segments from the public sector as well as military.

    The main problem I see with such an undertaking is convincing school systems in these days of waning funding that shorthand is a valid subject to be taught in schools. If it were possible to do an exploratory study, it's certain students who applied shorthand for their note taking would produce better notes than their longhand counterparts … and perhaps in the very act of reading the shorthand have a better imprint on memory.

    Any suggestions on how to motivate the resurgence of Gregg?

  18. The reason that the older versions of the system had more varied vocabulary is because up through the Anniversary Manual the system was geared toward verbatim reporting.  As a result, the materials are much more varied.  Blame the stenograph!!   As you progress in the Anniversary manual, you come to the abbreviating principles.  This is where the older versions start thinking outside the box.  That is what is really good for your notetaking.  They aren't brief forms per se.  They are words that you write just enough of to get the word.  Depending upon your area of study or specialization you can use the abbreviating principles and other shortcut methods.   Our modern technologies have caused people to forget that we once had workers who could record the spoken word.  Yesterday one of the attorneys I work for wanted to dictate something.  He couldn't get the recorder to work.  I told him I would just take what he wanted to dictate.  Fifteen minutes later, I walked out of hs office having taken the dictation and not too long after that, I gave him a transcript of the notes he dictated.  I'm doing my best to remind the folks I work with that I can do this.  The diminished numbers of shorthand writers has allowed the stenographer to fade from the modern business office and there are even fewer verbatim reporters these days.   The focus of the later versions on business correspondence is a disservice to the learner.  It's even difficult to find non-business letter materials in the Simplified version.  The "Expert Shorthand Speed Course" introduces a number of good briefs for additional words used in more complex dictation.  It also provides you an introduction to congressional record material which is denser and can touch on any number of subjects. 

  19. Get ready for a spiel!

    I think the number one reason people don't learn Gregg is people just don't know about it. The only people who know that what I'm writing is even shorthand at all are all over forty, and more often than not have a mother or wife who used to be a secretary, or are women and studied it in high school.

    I'd say after that, the causes are multiple. One, there have been very good points in this thread about the suitability of learning materials to the modern world, and I totally agree. Two, there's this unfortunate shift away from the handwritten word to doing everything on computers. I haven't seen handwriting I'd call good in a long, long time. I think my handwriting is mediocre, but I always get compliments because, compared to the average horrible chicken-scratch, mine's a bit of an improvement. So everyone has this mentality that technology is superior, even for simple things like taking notes. I get comments about my pursuit of broadcast captioning and CART reporting with "Can't computers do that?" Suffice to say, I always seize the opportunity to dissipate a little ignorance when I hear that.

    Then there's also the fact that the pursuit of intellectual hobbies is on the downturn. Who has the time to learn a foreign language or an instrument? What's the good in reading when TV is so much faster and easier? Why use shorthand when you can just use your laptop or recorder? Etc. ad nauseum.

    And from a personal standpoint, I've always found Gregg's penmanship to be a pain. I like to think my obsessing about it has meant my notes are rather good, but I still always see things to improve, and the slightest bump or inaccuracy means a P becomes ambiguous, an A starts to look E-ish… I think the fragility of Gregg's penmanship could be a turnoff if people did take the time to give it a look. Then again, to have more robust outlines that can take shakes and sloppiness, you have to sacrifice speed for added redundancy of form, e.g. Teeline and alphabetic systems.

    So after all that diatribe, I guess I'm not too surprised Gregg is so rare today. That's really a shame, too, since it's incredibly useful; it saves so much time. I've always imagined Gregg as my little pocket knife with a million different ways to use it. Of course, it's not perfect. Just like I wouldn't think of using a sharp blade like Gregg on a bumpy bus, I have to pull out the ol' butterknife of Teeline when I'm on public transportation (10+ hours a week) to make sure I don't have to scratch out half of what I write 🙂

  20. As a side-note, one interesting use I've found for Gregg is when we get our five minutes to look over our test notes at school before turning them in (in machine shorthand), I write my corrections in Gregg to save space and precious time.

  21. My penmanship is pretty damn good.  But, I also had to transcribe a lot of my stuff into writing that others had to read.  I practiced.  A lot.    Gregg's penmanship formation is rather a plus.  It has the same slant and general direction as longhand.  However, your penmanship in shorthand decreases with the stress of the speed.  Odd isn't it that our penmanship stuffers and yet shorthand is a mental skill.  My notes at 80 are perfect, at 120 I'm pretty much shot.  However, if my regular writing speed were 140, I could write perfect notes at 120.  The glory days are very far behind me.  The current work has me at 110 and hoping for a tailwind.    When your notes get shot to pieces, the cursive qualities of Gregg can allow you –with context and the fact that your options are fairly limited as to likely letter combinations — figure out what you wrote  If you haven't choked on the outline too badly.  The hardest things to read when written badly:  brief forms.  I'm finding that penmanship drills in shorthand should be getting a significant more amount of my practice.  I find myself scratching my head and reading sentences out loud all the time now.    I commend you on your penmanship skills.  There is some really gnarly stuff out there.  🙂

  22. Its interesting to hear someone knowing Teeline AND Gregg. Hows teeline really like in comparison to Gregg? Do you get a lot of pleasure writing it? How is its readability, is it really hard to decipher cold text?

    And Anniversary Fan, you weren't always limited to the 100ish speed range were you. Didn't I hear that you used to write at 140wpm? How common was it for people to get to that speed anyway? Just cause a system can be pushed up to 280 doesn't mean the average person without a full time job in stenography could reach close to that? There must be some tabulated data of speeds achieved by school or college classes.

  23. I'm just a relative beginner in Teeline, having learned it out of curiosity and an appreciation for shorthand in general.

    Teeline is spelling-based with a few phonetic symbols. You write almost no vowels, except initial and final vowels and some between consonants to ease joinings ("specific" is "spcfc", "around" is "arnd", e.g.). It has lots of prefixes and suffixes like Gregg, including some innovative concepts like its own version of the R principle, where a letter is written through the previous one to show an R is missing. There are also some principles foreign to Greggites, like "-ing" having versions for "-ang, -ung, -ength" all applicable even in the middle of words. Its position writing means you can omit more and use position to clarify, like "L" in the "P" position (through the lower line) means "pl", "c" in the "T" position (above the line) can mean "ch", etc.

    I like the tactile feel of Gregg infinitely more, since writing Teeline is like writing little pictographs, and in that regard, distinguishing individual letters is much easier, but it's jerkier to write.

    Teeline relies very, very heavily on context, otherwise "sd" could be "said, sad, seed, side, sued, sewed, sighed" etc. It also seems that to get up to high speeds in Teeline, you're relegated to memorizing phrases and brief forms since the system itself is a little stroke-intensive. However, it would certainly hold up a lot better if you're writing on the bus or on horseback. It's rather angular and the letters have more individual character than Gregg's swoops and curls.

    If you join the Yahoo Teeline group, you can download a Teeline manual for free (and legally).

Leave a Reply