Help on Anniversary outline

Hi there,

I found an outline that I’ve never seen, nor can I find it in any dictionaries.  It appears to be a dis-joined right-s prefix (i.e., ‘super’) over th(r)-s.  I saw it in Gregg Speed studies 3rd ed. on page 363, third line down.  The sentence makes sense without the ‘s’, but it seems to be written in the plate and not a printing smudge.  Any ideas?

(by Michael for group greggshorthand)

6 comments Add yours
  1. I had to dig for the book in my spare room — but if you read the text it's very clear that the outline is "there's" — I'm not sure if the Functional Anniversary Manual gives many examples of using an apostrophe when specifically indicating contractions but if my memory is correct, contraction examples are in Gregg Speed Building for Colleges (1945). I can see why the apostrophe could be mistaken (out of context) for a superior "s".

  2. Apostrophe…. doh! That makes sense for a contraction if exactness is needed. So, I can use the apostrophe on other commonly contracted words? I already foresee "it's" will appear as "supports". That shouldn't produce much confusion, though. I still don't get the need for "don't" as d-o-n. Although, I have to admit, it's fun to write. I guess it's an alternate. Would the 'dn' blend for "do not" with an apostrophe be clunkier to write than 'd-o-n'? I "don't" know… I'm not that fast a writer. But "I'll" experiment.

    Thanks for your help! Btw, that Speed Building for Colleges sounds interesting….!

  3. You're right about the dn blend being somewhat awkward for do not (in Simplified, it is spelled out). However, think that, if you know the outline for "don't", d-o-n is faster to write than dn with the apostrophe, because you have to stop the outline.and go back to put the extra apostrophe, creating a backward movement of the pen! It is not like writing a disjoined prefix, because that the prefix is always written first.

  4. Yeah, that makes sense. Contractions like it's, there's, even can't, seem to be in a smaller area of real estate than the dn blend. An apostrophe added after these seems like a pretty quick affair compared to adding one after the dn blend like you mentioned above. To much back movement. Perhaps "that's" why they have a special outline for "don't". If someone were *really* up on there outline recall they might put the apostrophe first like a prefix, then do the dn blend. I've found myself writing d-o-n quite a bit though, because I think in terms of contractions unless I'm emphasizing the words. I'm going to start practicing the dn blend more.

Leave a Reply