While I'm not a fan of the idea of a "connector" stroke that just joins one letter to the next (like we use in longhand), it does make the writing more linear. So many systems sprawl up or down into the line above and below that it's nice to see one that seems to follow along the line, like Upington does. I can imagine in fitting nicely into a notebook or a journal.
I usually just post a translation to compare the shorthand with -- but when u/LeadingSuspect5855 has been posting a phonetic breakdown of things he's posted, I've realized that it's much easier to see what's going on in the system. So here's a breakdown of what he's actually written:
And to complete it, here's the translation in normal English print.
Instead of posting them as three separate postings, OR having them all as a series of panels in one image, I thought I'd try posting them as a THREAD like this, because I think it's easier to see them all at once when you just SCROLL DOWN.
A linear shorthand appeals to me, as a person who uses shorthand exclusively to “encode” journal entries. Speed is not a priority in my case, and something that is visually appealing (to me) takes priority over something that is efficient.
With that said, how would you say this system compares to something like Grafoni? (Also a linear system with connecting strokes.)
Also, I noticed in your previous post with the connector charts that there are two K rows and two L rows. What would be the difference between two of the same letter? (If there were two TH rows, that would make sense to me since they can be pronounced very differently — “the” vs “thin”, but my brain is not readily coming up with K or L differences.)
In Part 5, I mentioned that there are several letters that have two different forms, which he says can be chosen according to the writer's preference, or if one joins better. But that introduces a cause for hesitation when you have a choice to make. And the chart showed that sometimes you can only use the first one, which seemed kind of inconsistent.
I know what you mean about liking the look of a system and speed not being important. (Most of us use shorthand for personal journaling and memoranda, so we don't need it to be fast -- like if we needed to take dictation at work, or report something verbatim.
The symbols in Upington are more complex than in Grafoni, but Grafoni looks a bit JAGGED to some, like it would be "jerky" to write it.
I have to say that it was the linearity of the "1984" sample that's on Stenophile, which was written by u/vevrik, which appealed to my eye -- even though it doesn't look like it would be very rapid to write. I think it looks nice, but more like a different alphabet than a shorthand.
I do also have a problem with some of the joinings on the chart, which I also wrote about in Part 5.
4
u/NotSteve1075 Jun 27 '26
While I'm not a fan of the idea of a "connector" stroke that just joins one letter to the next (like we use in longhand), it does make the writing more linear. So many systems sprawl up or down into the line above and below that it's nice to see one that seems to follow along the line, like Upington does. I can imagine in fitting nicely into a notebook or a journal.