I’ve attached a study I recently completed that is based on the “disjoined prefix” principle first expounded upon in the 1916 Manual. A little background on this… I began my study of Gregg with the 1929 manual and dictionary, and as I progressed, I noticed that even in 1929 the disjoined prefixes and suffixes began disappearing and continued to do so in subsequent versions of Gregg to some degree. (The reasons for this have been discussed and debated at length on this site!)
Nevertheless, I became more interested in this principle and returned to the 1916 manual to study it further. Granted, some prefixes in the 1916 manual can be used to form more common words than others, (some are only used rarely), and some may even be omitted from use and not be missed much. Yet I think they all can be appreciated for their genius of construction by Gregg.
That being said, a while back I began thinking of words that were not abbreviated with a disjoined prefix, yet possibly could be, because they followed a similar pattern of construction as existing abbreviated words. I used the 1916 manual as a template and I refer to sections of it in the study for comparison to existing prefixes.
A few more comments… I have not included outlines (unfortunately) for the primary reason that I’m a newbie writer, and I thought some rookie outlines would cause more vexation for the reader than not! Instead, I’ve spelled the words using the method found in the Reverse Dictionary (more or less). If you want to take a stab at writing the outlines, please do.
Lastly, this is a study! Meaning, I’m not presuming that everyone should adopt these forms for the sake of speed. I have not tested them for speed, even though they use less ink than their counterparts in the dictionary. I welcome feedback on their practicality though. I am not yet a fluent enough writer to analyze their efficiency. I simply did this study for fun and to possibly discover new outlines for which some writers may find an affinity.