Study on Disjoined Prefixes

Hi all,

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.

Attachment: study-on-disjoined-prefixes.pdf

(by Michael for group greggshorthand)

7 comments Add yours
  1. Yeah, I guess a lot of it comes down to familiarity with the outlines and recall. Right now my recall is pretty slow, but it's getting better.

    Another reason I like the 'proper-' and 'prosper-' set of outlines is that they stay above the line of writing, which always helps to reduce the possibility of 'collisions' with the line below…!

  2. This is interesting. I didn't think of extending the tr- principle to these prefixes. Even though I normally write Anniversary, I use the disjoined prefixes from the 1916 manual, and I added some more (like as- for astr-, in words like astronomy, etc.). Was there supposed to be something on page 2? It is blank on the pdf.

    (For the abbreviating principle and brief forms though, I follow the Anniv rules.)

Leave a Reply