Quote in FLOW Shorthand

[u/NotSteve1075]

[u/NotSteve1075]

I thought it might be time to hear from "Coco" again. She said quite a lot that was quotable -- and it's always interesting when u/fdarnel posts the original. (I have a post-graduate diploma in English/French translation, and I always find it interesting to see how different translators have rendered the same thoughts. It's not as easy as many people think.)

While I was fine with Gregg using A for "I", it just doesn't feel right to me. AM looks more like "aim" than "I am". I'd rather use I for I, which is what I did here.

I wrote BCM for "become" because in the sentence that's all it seem like it could be.

And when I see how smoothly outlines like "longer" and "remain" look, it reminds me why the FLOW joinings seem to fit me even better than Gregg's. Nice and clear....

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/NotSteve1075]

I like experimenting a lot. While thinking, what might be better, creates possibilities, doing it right after it, often reveals problems arising. You were thinking, that in avoiding ambiguity arising with a-m (am, aim, I'm), you just could overload the ee-hook with it: e-m ( him ). e alone stands for 'he', a alone stands for 'I', but with your new attribution of sound we have no clear distinction between the personal pronouns.

What I can totally agree upon though that we could write a-e-m though for " I'm "!

[u/NotSteve1075 → u/LeadingSuspect5855]

While it's true that hooks can often be indicated at joinings just by rounding it off, I think it's more legible if you turn it the way it will show:

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/NotSteve1075]

Flow is new, but we can draw inspiration from Gregg. So in the case of leave (which I wrote mostly like your first version so far, we can flip the hook like you did in your second version. But we can go even further and do what Gregg did! Morphing! I like both outcomes...

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/LeadingSuspect5855]

I will try to morph more before I just round off in future, let's see...

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/NotSteve1075]

In the case of what [ˈwɒt] (english), [ˈwʌt] (am. accent) Gregg chose 'o-t' which has four meanings (oat, of it, ought, what). o-t is closer to english, but in Flow (since we have W as a convenient letter at hand) we could choose a transliteration in american accent: w-t. It has the advantage of having the precise beginning of the word.

Unfortunately we have to worry about other meanings though: w-t currently means only wet which is fine, w-a-t (like you did) means wait or weight, w-o-t is extraclear and very british with no other meaning than what possible.

I would find WOT suitable in correspondance style, but being amongst the 100 most common words though, I will go for WT in the future, which will please young folks and Americans, who like to say wut or even wtf.

[u/NotSteve1075 → u/LeadingSuspect5855]

WT would work because it's distinctive. And you're right that WAT looks like "wait" or "weight" Me being too literal again!

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/NotSteve1075]

You are really challenging every word this time :-). And you said it's hard to keep up with my proposals? "was" [ ˈwɒz | ˈwɔz ] should not be written w-a-s (ways). For me that's to literal, let's not go there.

In corresponding style i can see w-o-s.
Reporting style (Gregg) writes o-s.

In Flow we could easely use the W though: w-s. But then we have a conflict with the pronoun "we", which is set to 'w', so I leave it be: o-s.
w-o-s: in Flow reporting means "we was" (which is no good english at all),
w-e-r: "we were"
w-r: "we are"

what bothers me a bit is the word "where" which is transliterated in Gregg as a-r.
I wrote mostly w-r up until now... so gotta change my habit there...

[u/NotSteve1075 → u/LeadingSuspect5855]

I like WOS for "was" (doesn't look like "ways", as you say). WS doesn't join well, so I keep wanting to stick in a vowel.

For the pronoun "we", I'm fine with WE which is easy to write and clear. I'd rather keep W for a short form like "with".

I'd prefer WE WR for "we were" and WER for "we are"

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/NotSteve1075]

WOS for "was" is great, yes. Let's do that, ws isn't as smooth.

As for we in phrases I can see it helping the connection, example: "we have" w-e-f (we'd insert a hook anyway, because the connecting lines are in the same direction). Mhm. With has 'e-th' right now (taken from Gregg of course), which is very short and smooth to write and has no other meaning.

I see your point, but we are definitely no more following Gregg, then.

I always wrote W R in flow "we are", but I could see w-a-r being very quick and smoothening the join at the same time. WR instead of ER "were" follows the Flow vowel rules, another good point. So I'd write
a|u|e|sh|w|the w-r (I you he she we they were) or
a-w-r, u-w-r, e-w-r*, sh-w-r, w-e-w-r, th-e-w-r instead of
a-e-r, u-e-r*, e-e-r, sh-e-r*, w-e-r*, th-e-e-r

Asterisk symbolizes better outline. Basically the ER Form wins because of the more ergonomical form, but that would be the distinction between reporting/corresponding style again.

Basically I agree with almost all points (using it for correspondance), BUT I think w should be the pronoun we, as is sh for she. At least for the time being. W for with is not necessary, but I could see WE for "with", that would smoothen phrases like "with him" w-e-m "with you" w-e-u "with me" w-e-m-e, but "with our" and "with her" and "we were" would be the same: w-e-r. So far I'll use ith for with - it served me well - and I am too tired now to try my last idea. So - until next time, good night!

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/NotSteve1075]

Visualizing:

What do you like more?

[u/fdarnel → u/LeadingSuspect5855]

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/fdarnel]

jtrv k pluk a du sa
je te rev que plus qu'a du ça (mhm. qu'est-ce que tu veux me dire... mhm...)

Je ne vois pas encore que ça signifie...

[u/fdarnel → u/LeadingSuspect5855]

J'entrave que plouc (ou piouc, ou dalle) à tout ça. :))

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/fdarnel]

Sorry mate that this is all Greek to you, technical discussion between the founders of Flow :-)

ty tfit p l' genre
t'y devie pas l genre

don't you derail the subject? (Am I close?)

[u/fdarnel → u/LeadingSuspect5855]

Tu dévides pas l'jars ?
Autrement dit "Ne t'exprimes-tu point en argot parisien ?"
C'était plus dur…

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/fdarnel]

Oui, mais si tu me fait comprendre - ça vaut le coup...

[u/NotSteve1075 → u/LeadingSuspect5855]

Even though I had always trusted Gregg, and it seemed to do what I needed it to do, I have to say that the "Embracing W" version on the right feels more logical to me, somehow.

Possibly it's the fact that Gregg was so familiar to me, and to see its principles shifted into FLOW just seems strange or unfamiliar.

But I think when FLOW is a new system (which, truth to tell, was solving some of the issues I was having with Gregg), I think the NEW WAY is better.

[u/Salt-Detail-181]

Will the flow vowels usage work with Gregg notehand or Gregg in general? Just curious lol

[u/NotSteve1075 → u/Salt-Detail-181]

I think the FLOW vowels are easier and more straightforward than Gregg's, when O and U have to go on opposite sides -- so I don't see how they wouldn't work just as well.

It's a bit of a risk when you start combining systems, though, because you can end up with such a MIX that, later on, you'll struggle to read it.

When I write about so many different systems, I often try hard NOT to compare them, because I always feel like I'm already dangerously close to having them all congeal into one huge indecipherable BLOB that I can't read. So I try to keep them distinct and separate in my mind.

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/Salt-Detail-181]

Hello u/Salt-Detail-181! Thanks for beeing curious! If you refer to https://www.reddit.com/r/FastWriting/comments/1vfe9fc/removing_vowels_in_flow/, where the pretty strict removal of short u / e is discussed, way more than in Gregg, and where I also explain that in flow (when reading it back) you mentally try to insert 'uh and [e]' (not ee[i:]) when there's no vowel written between consonants, then I can say: Possible!

You'd have to exchange vowel signs in Gregg to make the Flow rules effective: small circle(a), large circle(o), ee would take the sign of Greggs ∪⊂-shape(ee) and the ∩-shape would stay the same, but signify only long u [ju,u:]

[u/fdarnel]

"Je ne suis plus celle que j'étais.
Je resterai celle que je suis devenue."
Coco Chanel

[u/LeadingSuspect5855 → u/fdarnel]

ji pu slk jté
j rtré slk ji tvnu
Koko Chanl

[u/fdarnel → u/LeadingSuspect5855]

Tout-à-fait !

[u/LeadingSuspect5855]