22 comments Add yours
  1. Error Alert! For 129, "T is written in all of the following words. (Learn these and omit from all others.)" is incorrect. My manual says something like, "words such as the following" but doesn't claim the list to be definitive. For example, "attempt" isn't on that list and needs the T.

    I haven't had the chance to go through the entire document as carefully as I'd like yet. If I find anything else, I'll post.

  2. I noticed that it seems to end with the material of Unit 29, the second group of disjoined word beginnings. Since it ends with an odd page number it seems unlikely that there are missing pages, but it is curious that the analogical word endings were not included.

    Or did I just overlook them on an earlier page when I skimmed through this document?

  3. It would be really useful to have a comprehensive list of the -st words that require the t along with a list of those that don't. Another project on the "someday hopefully" dock.

    But even the Manual does this. For instance on page 69 (Unit 15, Sect. 127) we're told that the terminating-ple can be expressed "by p (in the words given below only)." The words given are: simple, ample, sample & example.

    Only those four words, right?

    Until you get to Assignment 26, section 134 in the Functional Method where Mr. Leslie gives those same four words—and then adds scruple and disciple. 🙂

  4. That would be really useful. For the most part, I can see why the p for -ple works for those six but could be a problem for, say, purple. (I have got to brush up on my html coding.) The 't or no t' question seems a lot fuzzier. Maybe it's just because there are many more words involved.

    As I-forget-who said about the English language, "I can handle the exceptions. It's the exceptions to the exceptions that get me!"

  5. LOL!!! Isn't that the truth about our beloved English. 🙂

    Seriously though, cost is without the t, but coast has the final t . . . I'm sure there's a coherent logic to it all, but we definitely need a set of comprehensive lists to put it all together.

    As this incident shows, some of the Gregg folks didn't even fully get it!

  6. I think one word has a t and another does not because–in many cases–without the T, the word will be read as another, valid word, as in phase/fast. It's a transcription thing but requires memorization to know which words take the T or the D in cases like cost/coast. I am forever looking up this include/omit issue right along with past-tense joined/disjoined, even though I KNOW those rules. And it's not like I can't read through these "theory" errors.

  7. I found two more things which are not quite right.

    108. I have never seen "had" expressed by just a dot for "I had," for example. Has anyone else seen the dot for "had" with "I had," "she had," "we had," and the other dotless form for "they had"?

    128. Baggage, in the examples, should NOT have the vowel to distinguish it from package.

    Still glancing through. . . .

  8. I think I've seen "they had" and "we had" with a dot occasionally, but they were in scanned documents and may well have been ones that someone wrote in.

    I get the idea behind the t / no t rule; it's just that some words don't come up often enough to be automatic. At least the ones that might be a problem tend to be obvious, like less/least.

    It's reassuring to know that I'm not the only one who has to keep looking things up!

  9. c-o-s can also mean "because". Context should help that one, but… I'm happy with slower speed, but more reliable read-back.

    Sometimes high-speed Gregg reminds me of the rarest type of computer memory. "Write Once, Read Never". It's very expensive, since it's so hard to test.

  10. I've heard complaints that the rules of my well-loved Anniversary are inconsistent and never paid attention until last night when I decided to check the rules for writing "re" as a prefix.

    106 indicates the vowel is retained in RE when it precedes the forward characters k, g, r, l, m, n, t, and d. So we have reconsider as r-e-k-s.

    107 says to omit the e in RE when there is a compound prefix, we we have reCOGnize as r-k-n-i-s and reCONcile as r-k-s-i-l. (Note the compound prefixes are in CAPS.) But 106 has reCONsider with an e.

    If we omit the vowel from reconsider, we end up with r-k-s which is "works" which would cause a transcription error and, worse yet, erasing. (I'm old enough to have had to erase and it was never pretty, especially on carbon sets.)

    Quite honestly, I never noticed this kind of stuff. I just write what "feels" right from having read lots of well-written shorthand. Or am I not understanding the rules correctly?

  11. The note to 129 in the manual says the INITIAL vowel is not necessary in compound prefixes. The starred examples all have the prefix un-. The same word list has reconcile and recognize sans 'e,' but those words are not marked.

    147 says to omit the vowel of RE only before a downstroke. It doesn't mention compound prefixes one way or the other . . .

    A quick look through the Anniversary dictionary shows RE without the e in every compound prefix I could find except for 'reconsider.' However, 'reconsider' wouldn't really be an example of a compound prefix, would it, since 'consider' is a brief form?

    Besides, an exception that aids transcription accuracy is surely worthwhile. I'm not quite old enough to have had to erase, but I have seen the results. My sympathies, sir.

Leave a Reply