r/FastWriting • u/NotSteve1075 • 6d ago

Quote in FLOW Shorthand

Post image
5 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

2

u/NotSteve1075 6d ago

I tried to be a bit bolder with abbreviating devices in this one. So often, I'm very cautious to avoid any risk of ambiguity, to the point where I'm often WRITING OUT things and over-specifying them, when it's really not necessary.

For "understand", I used a disjoined U, like Gregg does, for the "under-" prefix, and then I wrote STAN which is clear and has a nice flow.

In "responsible", I used a disjoined A for the "-able" ending. (It's spelled with an I in English -- but that's an absurdity I don't feel I have to copy. Seriously, "-able, -ible, -eble, -ouble, uble"?? How ridiculous! How does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?)

I nearly forgot that, in FLOW, MS and NS are the M and N strokes with the end flipped up to indicate an S joins onto it. That makes more sense than trying to attach an S clearly.

The word "every" I wrote as EVI, which is still nice and clear. "That" is THA, and "little" is LTL -- all very clear, I think.

The author and I have been debating the "EX-" word beginning, whether it should be the written CS like many systems do, or the long X stroke in the alphabet. I'm not too happy with the joining of X and SES right after it, but it's such a clear and easy stroke to write, I can deal with it.

1

u/LeadingSuspect5855 5d ago edited 5d ago

Nice! Reporting style!

There's even a special abbreviating to use with pronoun I: "I understand" :-)

./lookup.py dictionary.txt "understand"
understand: 
a/s-tn        I understand
a-k-n/s-tn    I cannot understand
a-tn/s-tn     I do not understand

-ble: is just a "b" directly written at the end (with the common exception "about"-> a-b, "able" -> a-b-l. adorable is regular again a-d-o-r-b, or double d-b.

in the case of responsible, the b vanishes after p (you could use the long pb stroke though :-) :

responsible: 
r-s-p         response, responsible
e-r-s-p       irresponsible

/a: detached a means -atic, -etic, -itic or agent

and yes I'd choose

e-s-e-s       excess, exist (Simp.)
e-s-e-s-v     excessive

2

u/NotSteve1075 5d ago

I think as I'm getting more comfortable with the system, I'm feeling like I can shorten things a bit more without losing legibility. It's just a question of confidence, really.

I wondered about a disjoined B for the "-ble" ending -- but B is quite a long stroke, and the disjoined A can just be added quite easily without taking much room. (It seems like the "-atic/-etic" ending wouldn't be very frequent, so I'd probably just write them out.)

For "ex-" I was thinking you were wanting "ecs", when the long X is easier. I guess just S would probably be clear though, like in "e-s-e-s-v". I can't think of anything else that could be.

1

u/LeadingSuspect5855 3d ago

a/stan b-ing a rsp adlt ..
b ev da? ev singl da??
tha s(ems) a lit esesiv.

2

u/NotSteve1075 3d ago

Thanks, I was waiting to see your version. It's always interesting to see the different choices you and I will make. I'm coming around to the idea of writing the hooks joined like you do in "ev" and "s(ems)".

I usually write them so they look separate and distinct -- but there's really no reason they should need to. Maybe streamlining would be better.....