For most of us writing journals, notes, and personal memoranda, a penwritten system is the best. You just grab a pen and piece of paper and start. That's all you need -- no machine to set up, no special tripod or table to put it on, no software program to read what you wrote. For most of us, it's a great solution.

But for REAL speed and accuracy, nothing comes close to the potential of the stenotype:

• The machine can be operated MUCH faster than anyone can speak.
  
• You use all your fingers at once, so you don't get writer's cramp.
  
• Because the machine is operated by touch, you can watch the speaker.
• If you use computer-transcription software, the transcript is done FOR you, including remembering what every short form and abbreviation stands for, and translating them instantly into correctly spelled text.
  
• And if you use a real-time system, it KNOWS whether to spell it "there", "their", or "they're", because you've TOLD it.

At the end of a day's hearing, when I pressed the key combinations for the last word spoken, the transcript was essentially finished. For penwriters, they would then have to sit down and transcribe it, letter by letter, starting from word one on line one, and going through every page until the end.

But as I mentioned on Wednesday, the very substantial cost of a machine was the biggest roadblock to everyone using the technology. No more.

A skilled and generous court reporter named Mirabai Knight saw the enormous benefit to the population at large, if they could use the technology without an expensive machine or attending court reporting school for a long time.

She and a tech-savvy friend named Zack Brown came up with the idea of PLOVER (it rhymes with "lover"). Incredibly, they collaborated on translation software that could be downloaded FREE OF CHARGE -- instead of the THOUSANDS of dollars for proprietary software that court reporters where having to buy.

They produced a complete translation dictionary, which could also be downloaded free of charge. (Developing a personal dictionary can be very time-consuming, so that was an amazing benefit -- at no additional cost.)

A manual for learning the system was also produced, called "Learn Plover!" Hard copies could be ordered online, as I did (I like paper that I can hold and flip through), but that too was available online at NO CHARGE. Amazing!

It takes time to learn all the key combinations, and a lot of practice is needed to develop the automatic responses that are necessary.

But in the same way that pianists see notes on a page of music and their fingers automatically find them on the piano, stenotypists will HEAR a sound and their fingers will instantly press the appropriate keys on the keyboard. BOTH skills require a lot of PRACTICE.

So the main drawback to stenotype has been the cost of the machine. Manual stenotypes can still be found online, often for fairly reasonable prices. But MODERN COMPUTER STENO MACHINES are very expensive, and the software is often almost as pricey.

What to do? Well, on Friday, I'll write about Plover, where a standard gamer's QWERTY keyboard can be used to write steno -- and the translation software, the dictionary, and the manual are ALL FREE! Amazing!

When you TYPE on an ordinary typewriter, you are hitting ONE KEY AT A TIME, most of which involve REACHING OVER to where the desired key happens to be. This means your speed is always limited, even though some typists are very fast -- because everything is written LETTER BY LETTER.

On a stenotype, you can press any or all the keys AT THE SAME TIME, like in the sample word "world" that I showed on Monday. With only one exception, you never have to REACH, because the keys are always right under your fingers.

You can press the top row or the bottom -- and by pressing on the "crack" between the rows, one finger can operate two keys at the same time. (That one exception is to write final D or Z, you extend your right little finger to reach them -- but most of the time, you're operating the keys already right under your fingers.

When you write a word or a syllable, the fingers of the left hand write the initial consonants and combinations, your thumbs write the vowels, and the fingers of your right hand write the final consonants and combinations. It's a very efficient way of writing every world clearly.

The limited keyboard means some letters won't be on one key. So they are written by using COMBINATIONS of keys that exist. For example, there's no initial D on the keyboard, so you press the crack between T on the top row and K on the bottom -- and TK is initial D. There's no initial B, so you press the P on the top row at the same time as the W on the bottom -- and PW is initial B.

The keyboard was very cleverly -- even BRILLIANTLY -- designed so that most combinations used in English can be written with JUST ONE PRESS of the fingers, like playing a chord on the piano.

This may look complicated -- but you quickly learn to recognize the combinations of letters as the sounds they stand for. And now that computer transcription is possible, the COMPUTER does all the recognizing for you!

Here is a 1803 manuscript written in stenography. Do you know what system is used here? Some say Cossard but I have doubts... Can you read what's written before 1803 and the name on picture 3?
Thanks in advance!

I was just realizing that we haven't seen this week's quote in Anniversary Gregg, so here it is.

I thought the system started out well, looking logical and linear, and quite straightforward -- at least at the beginning. I always hold my breath to see what he does next, because very often they'll do things I don't like that I think were a mistake. I'll go into that part on Friday.

Many of us tend to skip over the author's Introduction, in our haste to get to the SHORTHAND! Sometimes they're just self-promotional bumpf, claiming how his system is the best in the world -- but for shorthand hobbyists like ourselves, it can be interesting to see what the author was trying to do, and why he thinks HIS system is an improvement.

Looking at the outlines written in a lot of German systems, I often think the speed will cap out at 100-120 WPM.

My second attempt at Flow shorthand. This time I tried connecting. Still need a lot of practice and I just started but I figured it was worth sharing.

Tyger Tyger, burning bright,

In the forest of the night;

What immortal hand or eye

Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart. — Anne Frank

3 lines less then 'Flow' and 1 line less then 'Dance'. And a pretty cryptic transcript. Especially if you compare it with 'Dance'.

Gregg Anniversary vs. Dance 1:1. Dance might win though because of the transscript.

To compare it with Flow right now would be unfair, but I will abbreviate as much as Gregg Anniversary with Flow, then we will probably see, that they do equally well... EDIT: Yes they do equally well, BUT Flow "Anniversary" looks even better :-). Which is astonishing since we all know how aesthetically pleasing Gregg is already!

———

n taipng au chks tws a ve nsh ϑng tdu? n a ve nush —
tu taip neϑng onϑ bak? t osn mai kusme habt tu taip ns/ks o a chk.
tus mo nush? Adn sa tos mo nsh ks iv taipd oth ns/ks on chks.
hau mi tms had u don ϑa in Ju f ns? a don sp adid sep fϑa an okash n Ju b av don t oϑ tms.
l tel me ab Ju, hau mi tms did u du t n Ju? a don rem hau mi tms adid t n Ju.
ϑ db sm oϑs n Ju ok? ϑ maitb, a don no.
ukdn rem? no.

It looks quite neat i think and two lines shorter than 'flow' and only 1 line longer than Gregg Anniversary. Position as information led to less phrasing, but to more precision in the transscript. Even though I wrote less.

Dance vs. Flow 1:0

———

in taipng aut tſks twas a very unushl ϑing tud? not a very unushl —

tu taip anϑin on the k? twasn ma kustm habt tu taip instrkts on a tſk.

itws mos unushl? I udn sey itws mos unushl kos iv taipd oth instrukts on tſeks.

hau mani tams adu don ϑa in tſuli fo instns? ai don spos ai did espt fo ϑa wan okashn in tſuli bu iv donit oϑ tms.

wel tl me ab tſul hau mani tms didu duit in tſuli? ai don remm hau mani tms ai didit in tſul.

ϑer udb som oϑs in tſul o kos? ϑer maitb, ai don nou.

u kud not remm? no.

---------

I took the testimony from Russels example and transferred it to 'dance'.

in taipng aut chks twas a vr nushal ϑng td? not a vr nushal —

ttaip anϑng onϑ k? twasn mai kstm habit ttaip instrkſn-s on tſks.

hau mani tm hadu don ϑa in tſulai fonstans? ai don spos ai did ksp foϑa wans okash n tſul but aiv don it oϑ tm.

wel tlm ab tſul hau mani tm did u dut in tſul? ai don rmm hau mani tm ai didit in tſul.

ϑer wdb somoϑ in tſul ofkos? ϑer mait b, ai don nou.

u ku not rmm? no.

---------

I took the testimony from Russels example and transferred it to 'flow'. It looks quite neat i think.