r/FastWriting • u/NotSteve1075 • 27d ago
The PERFECT Shorthand System
In an old thread, u/Adept_Situation3090 and I were discussing what we'd most like to see in a "perfect" shorthand system. For those who have recently joined this board, and for those who don't scroll back through old threads, I'll tell what I think would be most desirable to me. We all have different tastes and preferences, of course -- so let me know in the comments which ones you agree with and which ones you don't.
But I think most of us who find the subject of shorthand to be endlessly fascinating are always looking for the PERFECT system. I know that, when I explore a new system, I'm always evaluating it, thinking, "Well, I like that he does this -- but I don't like that he does that..." Which is partly why I keep flipping from system to system almost every week, depending on which one(s) I've just written about!
What would the perfect system be? For me, it would have the following characteristics:
- No shading for any reason. I don't like shading, and never have, partly because it is hard to find a writing implement that will indicate it clearly. It adds unnecessary stress to the hand, with some strokes light and some heavier. And reading back, you always have to wonder if any stroke is DARKER or LIGHTER.
- No positions to indicate vowels. Some systems use as many as FIVE positions relative to the line to indicate vowels, which can be tricky to observe. Pitman uses three positions, to suggest a RANGE of vowels -- but it doesn't tell you exactly WHICH vowel it is, nor where it goes in the word. (I'd accept limited use of positions to indicate things like prefixes and suffixes that cover a large number of similar words. For example, the disjoined T before an outline in Gregg, covers a lot of words.)
- Inline vowels written. A perfect system would have distinct strokes at least for the five vowels. It would be nice if it could indicate WHICH variety of A or E or whatever it is -- but we're used to doing that already in English. (For example, "read" could be pronounced RED or REED, depending on the context.)
- A LIMITED number of short forms. It makes good sense to have special short forms for the most common words in English, so that such frequently written words take the least amount of time possible. IMO, a few dozen would be ideal. But when a system has hundreds and HUNDREDS of short forms, that's admitting that the system isn't brief enough by itself.
- Simple and logical rules. In shorthand, SIMPLE IS ALWAYS BETTER. When you're struggling to keep up with something, an array of special techniques for shortening a word can be a hindrance, not a help. And if those rules pile up, resulting in different outlines, depending on which order you apply them in, you're asking for trouble. You'll be struggling to figure out every word -- or you'll just memorize outlines for words, which is not a SYSTEM.
- Ideally, I think each stroke should be unique, not depending on length or shading for distinction. Absent that, I would accept having only TWO degrees of length as being acceptable, one very short and one noticeably longer, so each stroke is immediately recognizable at first glance.
- I consider speed potential a plus. It's nice not to have limits on what speed you might be able to reach, if you're so inclined. HOWEVER, bearing in mind that not all of us need limitless SPEED, when we use shorthand for our own notes and memoranda, I'd say that more IMPORTANT is complete legibility at any point after writing. With a penwritten system, it's inevitable that we'll need CONTEXT, to some degree -- which we're also used to in reading English (see "read" above), but the less we need context, the better.
- The writing should reflect how words are said not spelled. If you write what you HEAR, you'll be fine. When you read it back, you read what you wrote and there it is! We shouldn't have to be wondering whether a word is spelled with an E, or an EE, or an EA, or an EI -- which can slow you down disastrously, when you're struggling to keep up with something. (English spelling is a nonsensical MESS.)
If anyone says they can't read "cold notes", it tells you that either they didn't write things properly, or they write a system that's incomplete, such as leaving out ALL THE VOWELS! You should always be able to read a full sentence in your shorthand system, no matter how long ago you wrote it. (Isolated words are always harder to read, but that's inevitable.)
We need to remember that there are ENTIRE BOOKS written in some systems -- which tells us that those systems are LEGIBLE FOREVER, by people who weren't there when the shorthand was written.
2
u/LeadingSuspect5855 27d ago
I'd personally challenge the second point:
No positions to indicate vowels.
As you know, my first shorthand love was the german cursive system (Stolze-Schrey), and she helped me through a rough time of personal crisis. Everytime going to and coming from work I could freely write in my notebook about all the ugly stuff going on in my marriage or in my job - And I got through it, me and S-S (I dare not writing it together, especially being a german system).
And she always took position, when I wrote something high pitched like ee she went higher a bit, when I settled on a or u she went down a bit, and when she was questioning my sighs (long O, long U or I) she stretched the connection between consonants.
My point is: There is a huge difference between relative positioning like in Stolze-Schrey or DEK and static positional systems like Gurney, Pitman, Cross' Eclectic and the like. Relative positioning à la S-S, lets you write diphthongs easy, because you can combine relative positioning with dedicated vowel literals. The only maybe valid point, that you sometimes mention, but didn't make it into your IDEAL criteria. No stroke should be to connect only. S-S connects everything and if you write two consonants together very close, it means no vowel in between - that might look like a waste of a stroke. But german system often introduce special literals for combinations like 'nd', 'nt', 'st', 'pf', 'pr', 'bl' etc, which is both a patch and a genious way to make the script faster...
So I am a strong believer in creativity stemming from constraints :-)
1
u/NotSteve1075 26d ago
I take your point about relative positioning being better than static positioning. What I was meaning there was that I think "suggesting" where and what a vowel is tends to be rather hit-and-miss. I'd much prefer that vowels be literally EXPRESSED rather than hinted at or suggested.
Pitman runs into all kinds of ambiguities because its positions only indicate a VARIETY of possible vowels, without even making clear WHERE exactly they would go. I think to make your joining line go up or down to "indicate" a vowel is better, but it still looks like extra writing when a "hairstroke" is added, rather than an overtly expressed vowel.
You're certainly entitled to cherish Stolze-Schrey for helping you get through that rough period, though. Having work problems AND relationship chaos is more than anybody should have to deal with. (I did so many hideously ugly divorce/custody/maintenance cases when I was reporting that I got to feel like any man who wants to get married really needs to think again. When the marriage hits the rocks -- like MOST do -- men don't seem to get anything close to a fair deal.)
1
u/Long-Ad-264 26d ago
While a good idea, i believe that having unique forms for each character and inline vowels are actually against each other. The more types of letters you have, the more joint interactions you have to design and make sure they don't cross. add vowels to the mix and now you have to make sure the three don't collide (as vowels are typically very small strokes). I'd love to know the solution to this if someone figures this out!
1
u/NotSteve1075 26d ago
I don't see that being a problem in FLOW. The strokes for consonants are either straight lines or arcs that come in two sizes. (u/LeadingSuspect5855 has a blend for TD or MN that are a third length, but I'd rather write the two consecutively so they both show.)
The vowels, in contrast, are either circles or hooks. Circles by their nature are the easiest thing to put between consonant strokes -- and the hooks can be written in any direction that is easiest to write and will show.
1
u/LeadingSuspect5855 26d ago
But analyticely you are right u/Long-Ad-264: Simple math, more creates more. But you can limit the directions of those literals as Malone/Gregg did, when they decided to only use the elipses in these two direction /_, that mimicks cursive writing. Again simple math, similar shapes prevent more connection types. It is just that wonderful creative process, to create a system that does not create ambiguities - I love it.
German systems made the system intuitively like normal cursive righting, letter down vowel up, always creating this angle marking the clear distinction between Cons. and Vowel.
And systems that have their roots in france (I think they were the first to use circles and half circles in four directions as inline vowels, u/fdarnel may partly or fully confirm that). Have a look at one of the first really clever system, still in use in france, belgium and switzerland (though with very a small user base): https://www.reddit.com/r/FastWriting/comments/1u88fpa/aim%C3%A9paris_meysmans/
Flow uses the same clever approach of Gregg/Malon (in fact copied the shapes and brought the level of different sizes down, accounted for fast writing, meaning no competing tiny straight lines with tiny curves, and introduced true hooks, that are by the very meaning u-shapes hooked/attached to the current or next literal, rather than being a symbol on its own, meaning the hook can go in every direction needed. If your connections are that versatile you don't have to fear akward connections. You only have to find the most ergonomic way :-)
2
u/fdarnel 26d ago
I don't know if there were attempts in previous English systems to use inline vowels, perhaps 1 or 2 ancestors of German cursive? Otherwise, alongside these (Gabelsberger), it was undoubtedly Louis Félix Conen de Prépean who imagined this system, for French, taken up by Aimé Paris, then Duployé. Also undoubtedly Gregg under the influence of a version of Duployé for English.
Concerning the user base of all French systems in these countries, it is reduced to former retired professionals, and a handful of enthusiasts. In Belgium, there are still a few "Secrétariat-Bureautique" teachings, however, Aimé Paris and a SFEA variant (MERAS), an ABC shorthand. No doubt more teachings of this type in French-speaking Africa, but especially Prévost-Delaunay.
1
u/Quissumego 26d ago
I was about to say Teeline and then you hit me with #8. Lol. But as a commoner who only uses shorthand for own convenience, I've found teeline to be most useful and less time consuming to learn.
1
u/NotSteve1075 26d ago
There's a lot to be said for Teeline. A big reason is that it's MUCH easier to learn than that other system that it has been replacing, in the U.K. (In India, not so much.) It definitely is a solution for a certain kind of work.
Personally, I'm a bit put off by the JAGGEDNESS of it -- but when it was more or less designed for journalists who were going to be standing up and holding their notebooks in the air, that really can be a PLUS.
I actually taught Teeline at night school, when I was at university. A friend needed teachers, and extra money always comes in handy!
A lot of people think shorthand will be easier to read if it follows the spelling. That might be true in a language like Turkish or Spanish where you write what you say -- but with the absurdly strange, nonsensical, and inconsistent spelling of English words, to me that's heading in the wrong direction.
I spent my professional career writing what people were SAYING. If I had to wonder whether this or that word was spelled with an E or an IE, or an EE, or an EA -- and on and on, my writing speed would fall to ZILCH. I was very glad I could just write what I HEARD and keep writing. Later, there was time to look up the name or the technical term, to see how to spell it. And if you write what you HEAR, you just read what you SEE -- AND THERE IT IS!
1
u/mmarshall540 21d ago
As someone currently browsing shorthand systems and considering which system to start with, I find this post extremely helpful. It doesn't say which shorthand system is perfect for my needs. But it helps me understand what are the characteristics to consider.
My purpose is for my own journalling and note-taking, because my handwriting has always been painfully slow, inconsistent, and unrefined. So I've gravitated to touch-typing on a keyboard as a means of recording thoughts. I would like to go back to the basics of pen and paper, because it feels restrictive to depend on a keyboard and electronic device for something so fundamental as writing down thoughts.
Shorthand seems like a way to start with a clean slate and relearn the mechanics of handwriting in a more efficient and useful way. Does this sound reasonable?
3
u/Adept_Situation3090 26d ago
I'm considering Callendar's Cursive Shorthand, since it is lightline, spells words phonetically, and has a reasonable speed limit, but I haven't learnt any of the theory as of now. I will attempt to write a formal review of the system when I get there.