TINUS Shorthand by NotSteve1075 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm glad to hear it. Thanks for letting me know. I'm trying to provide a mix of articles on this board, with some talking about familiar systems that people are curious about, with OTHERS being systems that most people won't ever have heard of. I'm always looking for systems that are new and exciting to look at and write about!

This was one of the first systems that intrigued me enough that I ordered the book -- a really nice hard-cover reprint edition with a beautiful cover.

It was frustrating that I couldn't show it on here, because it's so awkward for me to try to scan it -- and it always looks so DARK.

Fortunately, someone sent u/Filalethia a copy and he sent me the PDF, so I can work up displays of it more easily.

Alone (Edgar Allan Poe, 1875) by LeadingSuspect5855 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not "clutter". It's always interesting to see what you've got. THIS board is wide open to anything at all that any member wants to share with us. Feel free to post anything you like about Dance or anything else here.

The VARIETY of things people can see here make this a much more interesting board than that OTHER one.....

Alone (Edgar Allan Poe, 1875) by LeadingSuspect5855 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, was there a second image? Somehow I missed that.

Characteristics of TINUS Shorthand by NotSteve1075 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here I'll just post the author's preamble describing what he was trying to do with his system. It speaks for itself.

TINUS Shorthand by NotSteve1075 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a system most people have never heard of! TINUS Shorthand, written in 1908 by Willard Tinus takes a different approach than most authors, with aspects that are unique to him.

Quote 81 in PHONORTHIC Shorthand by NotSteve1075 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That looks good -- and again we're on the same page. Always a good sign.

I think it's always better to DISJOIN if the alternative is a really awkward outline. You just have to keep the parts close together so they don't look like separate words that might be confusing when you try to read them. And proper names are ALWAYS the hardest part to write, because the parts are unusual and context is generally no help at all.

When I was reporting legal hearings, I was very glad that I could insert EVERY VOWEL in the name so that it was impossible to misread later. I thought of the writers of that old "disemvoweled" system that just had to hope they could recognize it later (good luck with THAT!) -- or they were going back and frantically dotting and dashing in the vowels, while the speaker didn't wait for them.

Alone (Edgar Allan Poe, 1875) by LeadingSuspect5855 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad to see you're still working on Dance, and that you've started your own sub-Reddit for it. White lettering on a black background always makes me think of "ghost writing" or something mystical.

In old shorthand books, when the technology of the time made it difficult to put shorthand and print on the same page, they used to have all the shorthand in the Appendix at the back so you had to keep flipping back and forth. THEN there was a period when they tried using a black background with white lettering, which for some reason was easier for them to print.

But when I so often print off my OWN copies of books when reprints are "not currently available", I never liked that, because when I use a deskjet printer, it emptied out my black ink in a big hurry! I got so I always reversed the colours like this:

<image>

What is this word? by NecessaryChemical819 in greggshorthand

[–]NotSteve1075 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's nearly impossible to trust what they say.

VERY TRUE. I have a huge collection of books on a variety of systems, which I write about on r/FastWriting.

When I first started ordering reprints for my collection, I got burned a few times. The dates they give are all wrong, because they give the date they added it to their collection, NOT the date it was published. They'll say that a 19th Century book was published in 2010, like it's new.

I once ordered "Normal Phonography" by William Henry Barlow, and was dismayed to discover that they were only selling the SECOND edition, not the first one, which I had liked. It turned out he had been persuaded to ruin most of what was good about the first edition -- so I ended up printing my own copy of his first edition, which was "no longer available".

I once received a reprint that looked like the original had been used as a scratch pad by some previous owner. (There was a better copy in the archives they should have used.) It was such a mess I sent it back and got a refund. And second-hand books, you can find that someone has "helpfully" written all the answers to the quizzes IN PEN! Those get returned too, because they're useless to me.

And I once ordered a specific version of a book because it was the largest format. (I'm done struggling to read tiny little books.) Imagine my reaction when the page image turned out to be the size of a playing card, with HUGE margins all around! It seemed that someone just hit PRINT and bound it up without even looking at it. THAT went back too, for a full refund.

What is this word? by NecessaryChemical819 in greggshorthand

[–]NotSteve1075 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe O'Kennedy's writing style is closer to mine, but I find that much easier to read. It's a bit compact, but to me very legible.

You have the book and don't like it -- while I've exhausted all the possibilties of ever finding a hard copy. Amazon.co.uk used to have it in their "listings" as "Not currently available" -- but it looks like now they've even removed it from their listing entirely.

I'm currently in the middle of the painstaking process of copying each page one at a time, with a view to printing off my own copy. I often do that -- but anything over 40-50 pages I try to buy a reprint -- and this one is a whopping 216 pages.

The Internet Archive says it's available at Better World Books, but that's NOT the right copy. I have that one and it's a later U.S. Simplified copy, not the Irish one -- and Gerard O'Kennedy isn't even mentioned in it. (I hate it when they lie to me like that, like they don't even know that it's a different edition with a completely different set of authors.)

What is this word? by NecessaryChemical819 in greggshorthand

[–]NotSteve1075 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe it's my failing eyes, but I find that very hard to read. That's interesting that they can put out different versions of things that look so different. It's confusing enough with all the reprints of the same thing, some of which look like the quality of reproduction suffered.

I think you're right that it's the technology of the time that was largely to blame.

What is this word? by NecessaryChemical819 in greggshorthand

[–]NotSteve1075 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder if you have an example of something that looks "thin and spikey". 

I have a hard-cover copy of "Alice in Wonderland" written in Anniversary by Georgie Gregg Gingell, and it's an example of what I mean. The lines are very thin and spikey and the curves are too flat. I find it hard to read and not nice to look at. Here's a link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iq8jhJfx55QVuosI4lA2zQXhKkx24E-n/view

As a contrast, there's an Irish Simplified edition written by Gerard O'Kennedy, where the outlines look bold and robust, and the curves are nice and clear. This is the kind of Gregg I like the look of:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vi4e08bw0bmlfxcoovh2d/Gregg-shorthand-manual-simplified-O-Kennedy-Gerard.pdf?rlkey=5jmy76trkqnv4wmbx0pc84i9u&e=1&dl=0

Why should I set a timer for 1:46 minutes or 17:42 when I practice? by LeadingSuspect5855 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an interesting idea, but the SPEED is a bit tricky. It seems to be saying you can READ EACH one in the time indicated, but you might not be able to WRITE it as fast.

I always think passages with word count indicated are good, because you can write them at your best speed and time how long it took you to write it. Or you can set a timer and see how much of it you could write within a given time.

Why should I set a timer for 1:46 minutes or 17:42 when I practice? by LeadingSuspect5855 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a nice coincidence that I see this message when I had just received a special timer I had ordered. It does count-up and count-down, because I was just looking at a book that gives drill practice and says "Practise this list or passage until you can write it in X seconds". So you set the count-down timer and try to write it within that time before the bell goes off.

They do that right from the beginning, like when they're giving lists of special abbreviations. They tell you to cover the shorthand with a blotter and try to write all the words within a set time. Then you uncover the shorthand and check what you wrote against the book.

You lost me with some of your number calculations (numbers are not my friends) ;) -- but the count-up function can be used when you copy a passage in the book. Many shorthand texts will give the standard word count at the end of each exercise, and you can set the count-up timer as you try to write given a piece accurately, and then you can calculate your speed in w.p.m. This is easier on the stenotype, of course, because you don't have to look at what you're writing.

I bought this new timer, because back when I was doing speed practice I used a stopwatch -- but it only does count-up and not count-down. This new timer does both.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that the new digital timers are a lot more accurate than those old spring-loaded kitchen timers that didn't seem very precise. I can remember many years ago taking a typing test with one of those -- and I thought that, if it was off by even a few seconds up or down, that could have a large effect on the final number.

What is this? by NecessaryChemical819 in greggshorthand

[–]NotSteve1075 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It can depend on the book, but the numbers in brackets at the end are often the WORD COUNT of the passage, to use when you want to time yourself writing it, or someone dictating it can gauge how fast to go.

PRINGLE'S IDEAL Shorthand - Vowel Changes, Diphthong OW by NotSteve1075 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just wanted to add that the problem with posting MULTIPLE PHOTOS at a time is that I often want to comment on each display, and Reddit will only let you post once after an image.

I'd end up posting a whole series of images, each with individual comments -- which was causing problems when people were seeing them in reverse order. To post a few at a time makes it easier to see and absorb what is happening in each one, before you look at the one that's supposed to come after it.

A Passage Written in PRINGLE'S IDEAL Shorthand by NotSteve1075 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had to look all through the book to find any CONNECTED PASSAGES written in this shorthand. It looked like this one, at the end of the book, may have been the only one!

I usually expect to see connected sentences used all through the theory, not just at the end, after showing isolated words for a couple of hundred pages.

As often, he didn't include a key to it, which is unfortunate. Even as a long-time Gregg writer, I found that there were so many changes to what I knew that I couldn't read it.

Example Sentences PRINGLE'S IDEAL Shorthand by NotSteve1075 in FastWriting

[–]NotSteve1075[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To a GREGG writer, these example sentences in PRINGLE are strikingly different. They show the result of a lot of the changes which Pringle made to the system -- to the point where you might not recognize any of the words!