Learning Steno

[Arthaey Angosii]

So I have Plover working with my Sidewinder now. Behold, my first
typing in steno!

"so is this working? itword it it the the are Word be relevant
being the an of the of course of the of course you you you you us ugly
you would hes he is"

I think I should win a writing award for that, don't you? ;)

Mirabai mentioned earlier that steno schools have students repeatedly
typing things like "The ape sat on the mat" or something like that.
Presumably sentences that use simpler steno chords before progressing
onward. Are lessons like that available somewhere online? If not, what
textbook would you recommend, Mirabai? (I agree with you that a typing
game would be a much more fun way to learn, but I don't think I can
design a learning game until after I understand steno, so it'll have
to be old-school for me.)

--
Arthaey

[Tony Wright]

Artheaey, if you are interested in learning Phoenix theory, I have the
entire series I would be happy to just give you.

I started out learning Phoenix, then I heard a lot of bad things about
it on the internet, so I stopped and switched to StenEd. I don't
necessarily regret that decision, but I have since realized that a lot
of the bad things I was hearing about it were not so accurate, or at
least not as important as I had thought. A lot of people say that
Phoenix is stroke-intensive, but it doesn't have to be if you make
certain modifications.

Pros of Phoenix: It's truly the most phonetic theory I have seen. It
really is almost a phoneme to steno mapping (although no computer-
compatible steno theory really is, due to the need to avoid
conflicts). I can remember when I was trying to learn Phoenix, and I
would just try and guess at the steno outline of a word, and I'd guess
right. I find that less true of StenEd, which has a steeper learning
curve, in my opinion. I think that Carol Jochim, the originator of
Phoenix, has the instincts of a linguist, and her explanations of her
theory make a lot of sense to me.

Cons of Phoenix: It is, in its basic form, more stroke intensive than
some theories, such as StenoMaster/Magnum Steno. It's got a R-R
conflict resolution stroke for many common homophones (however, this
is optional, and you are usually given the option to use an asterisk
instead, saving you a stroke). Also, inflectional endings are written
in a separate stroke (this is true of StenEd also, but StenoMaster/
Magnum incorporates these with the verb in one stroke).

I guess I'm talking up Phoenix partly as a way of getting these books
off my bookshelf, but there really are a lot of pros and cons to any
theory. And in the end, as I'm learning, you have to modify your
theory to suit yourself. Just drop me a line, and I'll send you these
books if you're interested.

--Tony

[Arthaey Angosii]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Tony Wright <tony.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Artheaey, if you are interested in learning Phoenix theory, I have the
> entire series I would be happy to just give you.

I'd love that, thanks! I'll contact you off-list to arrange things. :)

> Pros of Phoenix:  It's truly the most phonetic theory I have seen.

> [snip] I think that Carol Jochim, the originator of

> Phoenix, has the instincts of a linguist, and her explanations of her
> theory make a lot of sense to me.

I'm an amateur linguist myself, so Phoenix sounded like it would suit
me best. And it's also what Mirabai uses, and the basis of the default
dictionary that comes with Plover, right?

--
Arthaey

[Mirabai Knight, CCP]

No, Plover is based on NYCI theory, which is closely related to
StenEd. It's not much like Phoenix, I'm afraid. I know a very good
captioner who loves Phoenix, but what I've seen of it doesn't do it
for me. I know that R-R disambiguation stroke is optional, but the
very idea of it sticks in my craw. I admit that I'm pretty prejudiced.
You should hear the things I have to say about Stenomaster. ('; Part
three of Steno 101 (http://stenoknight.com/articles.html) should be
coming any time now (I know, I keep saying that), and then maybe I'll
backtrack and try to write some exercises rather than just laying out
the basic principles. I know that exercises are really important, but
they're also time-intensive to write, so I've been slacking on them.
Still, you've spurred me into action! Look for lots more steno
pedagogical stuff this winter.

--
Mirabai Knight, CCP
917 576 4989
m...@stenoknight.com
http://stenoknight.com

[Josh Lifton]

I'm just starting to think about which steno system to learn, so I'd love
to hear more about the pros and cons of each. If it matters, I'm fairly
mathematically inclined; I don't have any formal linguistic training,
though I've spent a lot of time learning various languages to various
degrees of proficiency; and I best remember new words and names by
learning how to spell rather than pronounce them.

Josh

[Catherine Rodgers]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Mirabai Knight, CCP
<askel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, Plover is based on NYCI theory, which is closely related to
> StenEd. It's not much like Phoenix, I'm afraid.

Aw, that's too bad. I'm still interested in checking out Phoenix,
though -- the linguistic/phonetic angle seems good to me.

So... that means I would have to built my own dictionary for Plover,
if I did go with Phoenix? Or perhaps there are some free Phoenix
dictionaries out there I can dowload? *crosses fingers*

> I know that exercises are really important, but
> they're also time-intensive to write, so I've been slacking on them.
> Still, you've spurred me into action! Look for lots more steno
> pedagogical stuff this winter.

That's great to hear. I look forward to the exercises. :)

--
Arthaey

[Arthaey Angosii]

Doh, sent that last email from the wrong email address. Oh well...

I had another question. On the cheat sheet Mirabai made (which I can't
find a link to at the moment), it says that D is typed as TK, B as PW,
etc. Are these theory-specific or -independent?

--
Arthaey

[Stan Sakai]

I stand strong behind my decision to start with Philly and then
gradually incorporating Magnum. I don't really believe Magnum is a
theory, per se (theory in that you can construct any word using the
word/syllable building concepts) because it's really a giant list of
briefs. But it's extremely helpful when you're looking for
suggestions. But Philly by nature is very brief-intensive.This is not
to say that brief-intensive theories are inherently "better." As
Mirabai said once in a post somewhere, If [you] can't push out four
syllables in the same amount of time (or less) than it takes for a
person to enunciate them, you're not writing fast enough. But I will
say that because I have taken the time to internalize so many briefs
(to the extent that I wouldn't write "briefed" words any other way),
I
frequently break 200wpm in short bursts even though after about 7
months of intensive training, my "raw" speed if I were to write
everything out is probably more like 160 to 180. That's because most
of the time I'm pushing out 2-3 (sometimes more) words out in one
stroke. But I would not consider myself 'test-ready' if I can only
write 200+ strictly by virtue of briefing everything. I learned a bit
of Phoenix back in the day but I found it to be cumbersome with the
R-
R's and multistroke everything. Though granted it is very reliable
because you can predictably write any word with its principles
whereas
with my theor(ies) I usually have to look the word up in the
dictionary since most likely it's some arbitrary brief form. It's
really your personal decision to make. But since I assume that most
of
you aren't pursuing careers in captioning/CART, I would say go with
whatever's easiest for you.

[Stan Sakai]

All theories use the same basic combinations of letters to make sounds
not present on the keyboard. The way that the theories differ is in
the ways that they handle endings, the phonetic break down of words,
and in how they write briefs.

For example, in StenED, the 'official way' I guess to write the word
'exaggerated' is: KPAPBLG/RAEUT/-D
Whereas in Magnum it's one stroke: KPAPBLGTD. Also Magnum likes to use
-DZ for the "-ing" forms of words so that you don't have to come back
for the -G all the time in order to write common words in the
progressive form.

So: "breaking" in StenED would be PWRAEUBG/-G whereas I would write it
PWRAEUBGDZ, again only one stroke.

And for endings, I think StenED uses "HREU" for -ly" so, I guess
"really" would be something like RAEL/HREU. But my theory handles them
by hitting the right-side -L.
So 'carefully' would be KAEUFL/-L. Or just KA*EUFL. Do whatever works
the best for you. I happen to be really good at memorizing lots and
lots of briefs And executing them without any hesitation. If you think
more "phonetically," I would recommend using a more consistent theory
like Phoenix.

But all theories use the same basic PW = B, HR = L, TP = F, and so on.

Did that help?

[Carol Berk]

If you're learning steno that may someday put you in a position that you're called to the witness stand and handed a pack of notes you haven't seen in 15 years and you're asked to open the notes and read them to the jury, you'll find that your style of writing evolves over the years.  After being embarassed like that I decided to just write everything out, and I can look at notes I wrote 30 years ago and read them like The New York Times.  Something to ponder from someone who's been there and done that. 

[Sheldon Rampton]

I'm completely new to learning steno myself, and as I've frequently
noticed in other contexts, "ignorance is a form of knowledge," so I
thought I'd share what I know at this stage.

By "ignorance is knowledge," I mean that not knowing a subject makes
it easier to know what that subject looks like from the point of view
of an outsider, which can be useful in identifying barriers to entry
for people who are not already initiated.

For Plover right now, I see two main barriers to entry: (1) the state
of the software, which only currently runs on Linux (and in fact only
on Debian Linux), and (2) the learning curve needed to become
proficient at steno.

The state of the software is inevitable at this stage of development,
and there is a roadmap for improvement. Even at its current state,
Plover reduces the hardware/software cost needed to get started with
steno, so there's nothing much for me to complain about with regard to
this aspect of things other than "I wish development happened faster."

With regard to the learning curve for steno, however, I think there
must be room for improvement. As a newbie just learning about this
topic, I'm already finding myself bewildered not just by the amount to
learn but by the evident lack of consensus about WHAT I should be
learning. Should I learn Phoenix? Tony Wright seems to recommend it,
but Mirabai seems to strongly disagree. I'm sure there are valid
arguments for either position, but I can't tell from the above
discussion which to prefer. From the discussion above, I get a general
sense that there several theories including StenEd, StenoMaster,
Magnum, Philly and NYCI, some of which are related to one another. But
how are they related, and where should I start?

If one of the goals of this project is to broaden adoption of steno
beyond the current circle of professional transcriptionists, I think
it is important to provide a clear and unambiguous answer to this
question. Moreover, the answer ought to be based primarily on the
question of, "Which system/theory provides the quickest pathway to
actually use steno as a practical replacement for conventional
typing?" I think this in turn can be translated into the following
more concrete questions:

* Which system would make it easiest to get up to a speed of 100 wpm?
* Which system is most widely taught and used?

I'm choosing 100 wpm as a metric because it more or less marks a rate
that surpasses the typing speed of qwerty typing for most people. If I
could get to a speed of 100 wpm for steno, I'd be able to use it on a
regular basis and would expect further speed improvements to come more
or less naturally through the practice and learning that comes with
everyday use.

[Margaret Synnott]

I don't think there needs to be one right answer. (See Malcolm
Gladwell on spaghetti sauce
http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html). It
would be useful, though, to provide a guide (in table form?) showing
aspects of the different theories that could help make a decision
amongst them.

eg
heavily phonetic lots of briefs ...
phoenix
stenED
...

Mags

[Melody A]

The theory that seems the most widely used is Sten Ed at this point.

The theory that will take you the fastest to 100, in my opinion, is the Magnum Steno theory.

I spent a year learning Sten Ed, and thereafter, I transferred to the Magnum Steno theory. 
I got to 100 wpm for one minute in a little over three months (three months of MS theory and one month of Sten Ed).
There are plenty of students that wish they had learned my theory first, but of the people that have made it out of the MS theory (three aside from me, all working), not a one would consider touching Phoenix or Sten Ed.  What's the point?  Magnum Steno's theory is far more efficient than the others and realtime compatible.  Clay (first person to learn the MS theory) just passed his CRR after three years of reporting, and Mark is the winner of many realtime contests, including the first one ever given.

There is a balance though.  Some people are not studious, and they may not fare so well in a memory-intensive theory like Mark's. 
The premise is that speed is a combination of finger speed and strokes per word (briefs or the lack thereof).  To me, learning (working on strokes per word) is far easier than developing finger speed, which is obvious even in school because many people can pass the WKT test or the English tests, but few can pass the high speed tests.   Memorizing is far easier than performing for me and for most people. 

I spent four months heavily immersed in Mark's Magnum Steno book (don't recommend his theory book, but the second book).  My mind was full to the brim with briefs.   I personalized many of the briefs; I tweaked a lot to make them as consistent as possible.  Repetition drove them in.  In the end, until I was hitting 200-225, everything was not automatic.  For others in Sten Ed (for instance), strokes become automatic (no intense thinking necessary) by 180 or so.  There's the drawback for my camp.  People thought that by learning so many briefs would hinder me from writing out, but literary is my strongest suit and I stroke the most out in Lit. 

It took me a year and a half (including the month of Sten Ed) to get to 280.  Clay and the other two people before me all took around a year and a half before they passed out of their 225s.  In most theories, the average time is 3.5 years to 225.  I obviously feel briefs are important (if not necessary), but my mentor is someone who stroked everything out and still got to 225.   She was very much against the route I took.  It obviously can be done both ways, but it took her 22 months to get to 225.  I believe if she had my theory, she could have easily done it in 17 months.  She's wondering about that too now.

Please, anybody who is considering something as important as a theory or a professional machine, look into all options.  You can't just go back on either of them without significant loss and energy.  Once you learn a theory, it is very hard to undo what becomes second nature.  I've seen plenty of struggle because people did not realize there was a more efficient way; they try to add briefs in when they are already in the high speeds.   The task of writing short becomes a lot more difficult than if you start off with that mindset.  When I go onto jobs with other court reporters, I write anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 strokes less than them.  Imagine that over the course of many jobs and many years.   Why would you put your hands through all the extra agony?

[leeo]

On Monday, December 13, 2010 1:33:10 PM UTC-8, Arthaey Angosii wrote:

 so it'll have
to be old-school for me.)

--
Arthaey

Briefs and _very_ old school:

 

From a 1950's vintage text on pen written Gregg shorthand, which was taught as a high-school elective until about ten years ago:  There has been a subsequent simplification of the theory and the reduction in briefs and special forms over the years.  The realization for high-school shorthand teachers is that the incorporation of a brief must be accompanied with significant practice to make it permanent.  Anything less than that becomes a speed handicap, because of the time spent mentally accessing the brief.  The thought is that briefs generally do nothing for speed, but only permit greater stamina.

 

I have been piecing my way through the first edition Phoenix theory, being very careful to accept briefs and special forms if they are mandatory (phoenix has only about 150 such forms), or significantly improve stroking efficiency.  These I have been keying into my own personal dictionary, which at lesson 22 of 32 has about 8200 words.

 

I would then consider examining the "space" of strokes employed, and see if there is room for additional principles.  A few that come to mind:

> The "Z" sound before a vowel can usually be outlined "S" without problem:  reside /RE/SAOEUD  resemble /RE/SEPL/-BL  _but_, resign.

 

the initial "DH" combination could be employed as the voiced "SH" sound, azure /U/TKHAOEUR _but_ I don't yet know how this could be stroked as a final combination.

 

--Lee

[Amber]

"The thought is that briefs generally do nothing for speed, but only permit greater stamina."

I think this line sums up the situation for Ploverists nicely. As someone who isn't trying to even reach the speed of speech, let alone get to 225, the cost/benefit of learning somebody else's briefs usually falls on the 'not worth it' side. 

Just speaking as an amateur, most of the time it's easier and faster to go ahead and stroke out the word than try to recall a brief for a word or a phrase that I don't use frequently. Don't get me wrong. I wish every word only needed one stroke, but that's not reality.  

I'm learning about 3 new briefs per week. Not trying. Just working on multisyllabic words that are getting on my nerves or multi-word briefs that come to me naturally. 

From what little I know about each theory, I find them all equally so-so. 

StenEd and NYCI seem to be nice balances. Phoenix seems to be heavily phonetic, and that's a great benefit for newbies, but it also appears to have some odd work-arounds. 

A little rant about MagnumSteno: I think MagnumSteno has the right philosophy (for professionals, writing short is generally more fun than writing long), but I think his success has far more to do with the phenomenal amount of time and energy that he as an individual has invested into becoming a great stenographer than anything special about the theory itself. He deserves great credit for his accomplishment, but it isn't a commodity. He can't transfer it to another person - not at any price. Also, the name MagnumSteno is equal parts offensive and pathetic. Yes, I'm being hard on a fellow Texan because, well, he's a fellow Texan, and I frankly expect better (I know that sounds crazy, but too bad! We're Texans!). And he's certainly not the only stenographer out there trying to build a little cult around himself. To sum up my little rant, caveat emptor.

For Ploverists, over time, a consensus will emerge. But there's so few of us that it's hard to predict what the outcome will be. Sorry for the pun, but we're kind of winging it at this point.     

 

[Kristin Colyar]

Hi all - I'm new, but a longtime reader of the Plover blog.  I too am trying to suss out which theory to learn.  The one place I keep getting stuck is on MagnumSteno - it says it's targeted to professionals, but does this mean that a newbie couldn't learn theory this way?  Or do I need to learn another basic theory like StenEd and then fine-tune it with something like Magnum?

Kristin

[A.D.]

This is a good question.  I guess I'm only in a position to really comment about StenEd, which is the theory I learned.  It's apparently a good one, but very stroke-intensive.

The thing is, though, whatever theory you manage to learn, you will modify your writing style over the course of time so that it will almost become your own theory, if that makes sense.  I've changed my writing style so much I would struggle immensely if I had to only use the "pure" theory I was taught in theory class.  But in school they cautioned us against doing that before becoming comfortable with a theory inside and out.  I think the idea behind that is to be certain you are able to analyze your own briefs for potential conflicts.

I guess I would say, gather more information, especially from people here who use the other theories, and decide which suits you best. I think the foremost requirement is that it be conflict-free.

I hope that helps.

[A.D.]

Also, I don't mean to be annoying, but if you happen to decide pick up StenEd and you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line any time.  I know we have the Aviary, but I would like to give back to the community even in a small way, so consider it an open offer.

-A.D. :)

[KenW]

I think Sheldon Rampton hit the nail on the head with his comment:

"Which system/theory provides the quickest pathway to 

actually use steno as a practical replacement for conventional 

typing?" 

All the current theories (StenEd, Phoenix, MagnumSteno, etc.) are geared for court reporting -- recording speech verbatim. I don't plan on recording dictation at 225 WPM, just faster typing (goal = 100 to 120 WPM).  A good (and simplified?) theory does not exist.

A basic comparison can be made to Gregg Shorthand. The "court reporting" version of Gregg Shorthand is the pre-anniversary or anniversary edition.  The Simplified and Diamond Jubilee editions were meant for office dictation -- less than 200 WPM. There is even Gregg Notehand which sped up note taking.  All the current machine shorthand methods are like Gregg pre-anniversary or anniversary edition.  We need (or Plover needs) a Diamond Jubilee edition for the people who just want to replace typing.

(Historical Note: All modern machine shorthand methods trace back to Ward Stone Ireland's 1912 Stenotypy which was geared for office use and not court reporting. It seems that the stenotype will return to the office with Plover)

[Mirabai Knight]

I don't think that's a useful analogy, because pen shorthand and manual machine shorthand theories all require human transcription. If you want to use automatic computerized transcription (which is what you'll need if you want to replace typing), you need a conflict-free realtime theory that has strategies to resolve orthographic issues such as homonyms and names.

That said, you could check out Veyboard. It purports to be an orthographic (not stenographic) chorded typing method for English. I have a feeling it's more practical as a means of inputting Dutch, which is much more regular and has fewer spelling exceptions.

[Theodore Morin]

Ken,

I think that Plover is about as simple as it gets, with the exception of some briefs. For example, "opinion" is not well-defined with many different conflicts because the Plover dictionaries best entry would be "P-PB". Otherwise, the dictionary is as simple as it gets, and this problem can be fixed by adding more definitions to Plover, not taking them away.

That being said, we do need some work on the dictionary itself, and that will come with time and effort. But don't be afraid to get started with Plover today using the default dictionary. It's a great hybrid base and you will know pretty early on whether it's right for you or not by the entries that you find yourself creating a couple months in.

The difference between the court versus office dictionary will be up to you -- there are some strokes such as "ladies and gentlemen" that you might change out for something that is specific to your line of work/play.

If your goal is 100 to 120 words per minute, you'll get there pretty quickly.

Good luck,

Ted

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Mirabai Knight <askel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think that's a useful analogy, because pen shorthand and manual machine shorthand theories all require human transcription. If you want to use automatic computerized transcription (which is what you'll need if you want to replace typing), you need a conflict-free realtime theory that has strategies to resolve orthographic issues such as homonyms and names.

That said, you could check out Veyboard. It purports to be an orthographic (not stenographic) chorded typing method for English. I have a feeling it's more practical as a means of inputting Dutch, which is much more regular and has fewer spelling exceptions.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Plover" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ploversteno...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jennifer Brien]

On Thursday, 10 September 2015 05:41:32 UTC+1, Mirabai Knight wrote:

I don't think that's a useful analogy, because pen shorthand and manual machine shorthand theories all require human transcription. If you want to use automatic computerized transcription (which is what you'll need if you want to replace typing), you need a conflict-free realtime theory that has strategies to resolve orthographic issues such as homonyms and names.

 But most office work is not realtime, so perhaps we should be should be thinking about the most most efficient way to resolve conflicts when the work is proof-read. Let the novice start with the simple rule 'stroke the sounded consonants and don't worry about the vowels - or 'strk th sndd knsnnts n dnt wry to mch abt th vls.'

Suppose they stroke PW-BG.  That could be one of about eight different words, so the system shows the options and the strokes to write them.  If the stroke was correct the user moves on, otherwise they stroke the correction.  If it was a total miss-stroke then they stroke an approximation of the word they meant by the rule above, and choose from the alternatives offered , or fingerspell the word if it's not in the dictionary.  

[Mirabai Knight]

I would posit that having to check the translation after each stroke
would make the process even slower and more frustrating than writing
with qwerty. It's like I have to do now with Swype and autocorrect
when writing on my phone. I can't stand it. The 100% determinism that
allows steno to produce the same translation every time a particular
stroke is entered (given a conflict-free theory) is one of its
strongest assets. You can just keep writing without constantly
monitoring and editing your output. Your fingers will tell you if you
misstroke, and only then do you need to look at the screen to see what
you did wrong. Having to choose from a list of possibilities every
time you stroke a word without vowels (sit, sat, sot, set, soot, seat,
sate, sight, site, and suit are all valid translations for S-T under
your method!) sounds like absolute torture to me.

[Jennifer Brien]

On Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:00:31 UTC+1, Mirabai Knight wrote:

I would posit that having to check the translation after each stroke
would make the process even slower and more frustrating than writing
with qwerty. It's like I have to do now with Swype and autocorrect
when writing on my phone. I can't stand it. The 100% determinism that
allows steno to produce the same translation every time a particular
stroke is entered (given a conflict-free theory) is one of its
strongest assets. You can just keep writing without constantly
monitoring and editing your output. Your fingers will tell you if you
misstroke, and only then do you need to look at the screen to see what
you did wrong. Having to choose from a list of possibilities every
time you stroke a word without vowels (sit, sat, sot, set, soot, seat,
sate, sight, site, and suit are all valid translations for S-T under
your method!) sounds like absolute torture to me.

Yes, I hate autocorrect too, but I'm thinking of a second review phase.  As you say, just keep writing.  If you're not sure of  the stroke you need, stroke something approximate.  I'm thinking of something more like a spell-checker.  Once you've finished your text, you go back and put your cursor on the suspect word (which may be a valid but unintended stroke) and discover what the proper stroke should have been,  I'm not sure that there is anything that does that, but it seems to me that there could and should be. 

[Hesky Fisher]

Most steno software are editors. They support things like what you're asking for. You can see what strokes led to what output. They will also support conflicts, output them as conflicts, let you quickly navigate through the conflicts, and resolve them. You might want to try one of them and see how you like it.

Plover, however, is not an editor. It is a keyboard emulator. With that in mind it becomes harder to support what you're asking for. Maybe harder is an understatement. It's not possible. You would really need a steno editor instead.

Also, if i may step out on a limb: the founder and funder of the project, Mirabai, is philosophically at odds with non-real time steno so it may be a tough sell even if it were possible.

--

[Mirabai Knight]

Hesky is 100% correct. I've seen too often what happens when the reasoning is "don't worry about getting it right the first time; fix it on the second pass". That sort of thinking has become anathema to me. In my opinion, Plover is at its most useful when it's a direct conduit from English thought to English text, with steno as just a transient mental sublayer along the way. Collapse the waveform, move on to the next word, and forget the translation layer ever existed!

[Drew Neil]

I’m following this discussion with interest. Like many people on this list, I got into steno because of Plover. Mirabai’s opinions are very much baked into the software. I’m nodding my head in agreement with everything Mirabai says, but that’s not because I’ve got any experience of doing steno any other way. When I hear that ‘most steno software are editors’ my reaction is why on earth would you want that? I love that I can use Plover can enter text in most places where text can be entered.

Drew

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Mirabai Knight <askel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hesky is 100% correct. I've seen too often what happens when the reasoning is "don't worry about getting it right the first time; fix it on the second pass". That sort of thinking has become anathema to me. In my opinion, Plover is at its most useful when it's a direct conduit from English thought to English text, with steno as just a transient mental sublayer along the way. Collapse the waveform, move on to the next word, and forget the translation layer ever existed!

--

[Ben Tarkeshian]

> A basic comparison can be made to Gregg Shorthand. The "court reporting"
> version of Gregg Shorthand is the pre-anniversary or anniversary edition.
> The Simplified and Diamond Jubilee editions were meant for office dictation
> -- less than 200 WPM. There is even Gregg Notehand which sped up note
> taking. All the current machine shorthand methods are like Gregg
> pre-anniversary or anniversary edition. We need (or Plover needs) a Diamond
> Jubilee edition for the people who just want to replace typing.

Oddly enough, I am only interested in anniversary edition Gregg for
precisely this reason -- it seems to be the "most complete" and the
apex of the trajectory, before it got made "business friendly" i.e.
newspeaked and the majority "thrown down the memory hole."

I am just an odd duck perhaps :)

I strive to find things before the thought police have rewritten them :)

To each their own :)

[Ben Tarkeshian]

> All the current machine shorthand methods are like Gregg
pre-anniversary or > anniversary edition. We need (or Plover needs) a
Diamond Jubilee edition for > the people who just want to replace
typing.

It would just seem to me for "typing" a larger and oddball vocabulary
would be a plus...while "steno usage" would want something tailoured
to the speakers.

I am sure you have your reasons (time to proficiency) but your
thoughts just seem totally opposite to me.

For "screwing around" or "writing" I would not want "abridged"
dictionaries -- just the opposite, as many choices as possible.

For "real use" I would want the "abridged" i.e. tailored to a specific
task, and not a dictionary full of things never occuring.