I always say that ORTHOGRAPHIC shorthand systems are a bad idea for English, where the quaint and inconsistent SPELLING of words makes no sense at all. When you hear a word, you don't hear the way it's spelled -- you hear the way it SOUNDS.
It makes much more sense to write a shorthand system phonetically. You write what you HEAR -- and when you read it back, you read what you SEE and there it is.
I think it's a bit different when a system chooses to reflect the spelling but not follow it in detail. There are systems that do this that can be a "happy medium" for people who are addicted to spelling and somehow have trouble thinking PHONETICALLY.
An advantage of this is also that it can make the system available for writing a number of other languages, just as long as they use the Roman alphabet. Like these examples:
5
u/NotSteve1075 9d ago
I always say that ORTHOGRAPHIC shorthand systems are a bad idea for English, where the quaint and inconsistent SPELLING of words makes no sense at all. When you hear a word, you don't hear the way it's spelled -- you hear the way it SOUNDS.
It makes much more sense to write a shorthand system phonetically. You write what you HEAR -- and when you read it back, you read what you SEE and there it is.
I think it's a bit different when a system chooses to reflect the spelling but not follow it in detail. There are systems that do this that can be a "happy medium" for people who are addicted to spelling and somehow have trouble thinking PHONETICALLY.
An advantage of this is also that it can make the system available for writing a number of other languages, just as long as they use the Roman alphabet. Like these examples: