Just thinking here...

through thraoug

thru thru

threw threfrp (where -FRP is -W)(no conflict with -MP in this outline)

Would these outlines work?

I've seen -Z used for -pain in phrases.

Is that compatible with Mark's theory?

Mark uses -Z for his plural, so BAKZ is backs for him where it's back pain for me. Steno is an individual thing, though, so whatever works for you works.

THRU- through
THRAOU - threw
I don't use "thru" in transcripts.

Mark (et al.),

I have no (or very, very little) sense of rhythm. That goes with being tone deaf. I can't keep a beat (with rare exception, and forget singing a tune, with very rare exception, or only with exceptional practice over a very prolonged time).

So, how important is having a sense of rhythm to writing machine shorthand?

And, how do you feel about using a metronome to learn with? Is it valuable or does it ingrane a sense of fixed speeds into something where speakers often vary their rates wildly?

Gary,

You asked, how necessary is it to use the * to distinguish -F from -V if there is no conflict. I would answer, it may not be necessary. However, if I am consistent, I will never have a conflict. Someone who is inconsistent is going to run into some conflicts later on as they add more and more briefs. For example, for me *UFD = you have had. That allows me to do UFD = you find.

if you have had TP*UFD
if you find TPUFD
if you found TPUFPBD

There are several more I could list, I'm sure. I think it's easier to be consistent on that. However, feel free to leave it out on ones that shouldn't be a problem.

Gary, clever idea on the "and had many"! I like your creative thinking. However, -89 is -LT, not -PL. How about, "and had let"? :) (which I don't write that, but it's interesting nonetheless)

Gary,

Your through/thru/threw I'm sure would work. I never write thru - is that a legit word?

through THRAOU
threw THRAO*U

is how I do it.

Gary,

-Z for pain in phrases, if it works for you, great! For me -Z is "see" in phrases, but again, do what works for you.

I have lots of great briefs, and some cumbersome briefs which other reporters are able to improve on. I like to encourage people to think outside the box and invent their own briefs. Clay did a lot of this and did great with it!

By the way, CLAY, last time I saw you at a seminar, you suggested some "the only~" briefs for me. I loved the phrases, but I made my own way to write them, and I'm really liking it:

the only one TW-PB
the only way TW-FRTS
the only time TW-PLT
the only reason TW-R
the only thing TW-FRLG
the only things TW-FRLGZ
the only place TW-PS

Gary,

Your rhythm question is a good one. I do not have a definitive answer, only speculation.

I find in my own writing, the closer I keep to a "good rhythm," the better I write. Choppiness is erratic (by definition) and seems to indicate hesitation and getting behind.

I have heard some people say the metronome really helps them. I have never tried it. You might try it and see if it helps. I'm not sure how one would adjust the speed of a metronome while someone is dictating, though.

You might try it and let us know your experience with it.

I love the idea of "the only" phrases, but TW is my 2000 century prefix. TW-R=2004, TW-N=2009
What was Clay's idea? Maybe it would work better for me. One way or another, you've got my wheels turning on this one, Mark.

I just came up with KHUN for "which one" the other day, shared it on another forum, and all sorts of extensions have come up for that. I haven't checked your book for this sort of phrase yet, Mark. Is that phrase family in there?

Mark,

Don't know if there would be any potential conflicts, but if there are none, I don't see any reason -z can't be used for both -see and (actually or, not both at the same time in the same phrase) -pain in phrases where appropriate.

What do you think?

I cannot use a metronome; all my effort would go into trying to keep an even beat in time with the metronome, and not with the content of what I'm trying to write. That's why I asked the question.

I've always found it fascinating that people who are musically talented also tend to be good at art, languages, and math -- all of which I can appreciate, but am not good at doing/learning.

Personally, I don't think it's a bar or even an impediment to learning court reporting, although if I had those natural talents, it could be easier.

What do you (and others here) think?

Mark,

Several people, Clay as an example (and his mother) have either made changes you like (additional options to your theory) or additions (no one can think of everything) to your theory.

And you have thought up new things.

Are you planning a new book with these items? (Sure hope so).

An idea for you... Maybe create a large looseleaf binder type of item into which changes/additions/edits could be inserted and pages removed if need be. Sell it with those updates and with (over time) future updates.

It becomes an ever changing manual of your ideas.

Just a thought...

Well, I'm liking the idea of "the only" phrases, too.

Guess somebody's been holding out on me. Probably thought it was over my head since I'm still working on "for a." :)

Mark's TW- would work great for me. I do use TW- for my 2000 years, but they always have vowels in them.

I still need to get the right-side "thing" and "way," too. Can't believe I haven't started on those yet either.

Guess I will never be able to retire. Too many things I still don't know!! :)

Brenda, Clay will be home on Friday -- tomorrow -- so I'll ask him then if he doesn't chime in here.

Oh, and, Brenda, I just used KH*UN yesterday for "which you know." I remember it because it didn't tran.

It will today. :)

So without the asterisk, "which one." That is really nice.

Mark's way is better.
I think I will switch.

I had the funniest thing happen today. I am trying to upload the pic:)

Clay,

You say "Mark's way is better. I think I will switch."

What exactly are you referring to, and what makes Mark's way better?

lol!
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7465/oopsclay2v.jpg

the = -T
only= ONL
consequently,
the only thing GONLT
the only time MONLT
the only way WONLT
etc etc
I did it like that because I write "the" -T and so I simply worked backwards.
However, Mark's way is easier and cleaner.
TW represents "the only"
the only thing that makes it hard is that I write "the" pretty quick because usually it ends in a phrase, not begins. (of the, in the, had the)
therefore, if it's not a phrase ending in "the" I write it pretty quick having ruled it out as a phrase.
so this will likely be happening
-T
*
TW-
or writing it out....

Does Mark's theory have an nish side the- ?

For phrases with the final side -to, is it just a question of including an O in the outline with the -T ? Is the * used too for this?

I have a request, friends.

Stephanie Dillard, Director of Realtime Court Reporting at GateWay Community College in Phoenix, is trying to get my theory (StenoMaster Theory book and Magnum Steno book) into the school. She's hitting some resistance, and she has some testimonials but she has requested more.

If any of you are interested, not only Tami and Clay, but any of you, in sending an e-mail to this lady with your opinion of whether my theory is a good one, could you write her ASAP? Here is her info:

Stephanie S. Dillard, M.Ed., RPR, CRI
dillard@gatewaycc.edu
Director of Realtime Court Reporting
GateWay Community College
108 N. 40th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85034

Anything you do would be much appreciated. Thanks!

LOL!!! Clay, that pic is hilarious!

Gary,

My theory teaches "the" on the final side, i.e., -T. I haven't seen a need for "the" to start any phrases. If you have any in mind, I'd be happy to look at them!

I have hundreds of phrase like with the, for the, through the, from the, put the, get the, make the, like the, but the, whether the, if the, in the, where the, which the, etc.

Brenda, which phrase family, you mean which~? KH- is my "which." I don't have a chapter for that; have to put it in second edition

KH- which
KHA which a
KH-R which are
KH-RT which are the
KH-RTD which are they
KH*RPBT which aren't
KH-BL which believe(d,s)
KH-BG which can
KH-FRBG which can be
KH-FBGD which can find
KH*FBG which can have
KH-BGZ which can see
KH*BG which can't
KH-PBLG which come(s)
KH-BGD which could
KH-FRBGD which could be

and more than hundred more

Gary,

I often use a single steno idea for multiple things, so you can do so as well. Back pain and neck pain, etc, are very good.

Actually, i prefer PWABGS for backs, referring to someone else's note.

Gary, I will be making a second edition of Magnum Steno: Write Short - Write Fast! hopefully this year, updated with everything new I've started using. Also, writing a new-and-improved theory book. About to start that.

Christine, got Romek, will start soon!

Mark,
I am sure you will be glad you read it. I hedged using "enjoy" because it is tough reading.

I will be sending an email to the school looking at your theory this weekend. We
are just finishing a family vacation. That is very exciting!!

I thought he was interrupting to congradulate me on fingerspelling the judge's name at first!
hahaJK.
providing realtime is interesting....
Can't wait for some QA.

Hi!
Clay, that is too funny! At least you can laugh about it! But I was curious when you said that you will switch to Mark's. Are you referring to doing your identifiers in a different way? :)

Jaime, he means my method of "the only~" phrases that we mentioned way below.

Oh, okay. Thanks. :) I was hoping that there is an easier way to do the identifiers. LOL :)

When there's only four people talking, I use SNAO, IFPLT, IRBGS, and JAO.
It works because it's a visual with where they're seated..
As soon as I have to remember this person is speaker 7 and that's this particular pattern, I lose it. Mark is good enough to do it like that.

When there's more than four, or if it's calendar court, I get creative.
Make a brief for their last name and asterisk it for the speaker sign.
or there's always BROUN/BROUN, etc.

I was foiled today because I entered these defendants' (in pro pers)names before they sat at counsel table. They sat down backwards. SNAO sat down closer to the right and the other one sat farther on the right. When it got fast, I relapsed and made the mistake that my judge conveyed to the record :)

Okay. Yeah, use those identifiers as well. Thanks for filling me in. :)

Dorkie Mom Warning:

I know you joked about it, Clay, but your judge should have been interrupting to congratulate you on the initial cap "Judge" and the correct spelling of the judge's name, (which you finger spelled -- Oh MY!!) as Judge Trask works in a courthouse over an hour's drive away that you've never even worked at before, and I'm pretty sure you hadn't ever heard of, let alone all the other good outlines on the page.

To have that great of realtime, including finger spelling, your first three months on the job is AMAZING and says a lot about the Magnum Steno Theory AND how hard you've worked at your skill.

I know you're going to kill me later. Sorry!!

Remember, I'm a mom of five, and at least one of you would miss me, I'm sure!! :)

Clay deserves huge kudos for his realtime.

Both Clay and Gabriella Flores (of San Antonio) graduated with the StenoMaster Theory and both are providing realtime in the first few months of their careers.

Yes, I should have said, "StenoMaster Theory."

Thanks, Mark!

Clay, I would have been so annoyed at the judge for pointing that out in front of the whole court. Honestly. But at least you know he's reading your realtime. Sometimes I get the feeling they're not even using what I'm providing them sometimes.

I'm just in awe...

Hey, we need Gabriella to join us. I have heard about her from somebody else in Texas -- can't remember who -- and knew she had excelled on the theory. I think she also went pretty much straight to court.

Is that right, Mark??

Tami,

I'm thinking she was doing freelance mostly, but I could be wrong. I'll try to contact her and invite her to the Magnum Steno Fan Club.

Hey Mark,

I sent you the email about the dictionary I didn't get when I bought Magnum Steno. I haven't heard anything. I'm going to send another now in case it got lost amongst your mail or junk folder.

Thanks,
Lisa

That would be great, Mark.

I sent an email to Ms. Dillard yesterday. Please keep us posted on how that goes. If I can do anything else to help, just let me know.

Lisa, I was out of town this weekend. I got your e-mail Monday and sent it. Let me know that you got it, thanks!

Virginia, I'll look for your e-mail Tuesday. :)

I got it. Thank you!!!!

Got a question from a Magnum Steno Club member:

Question: "I just watched your video with "nihilism" as your word of the day. You mentioned that you don't brief words that are not used frequently. Yesterday in my speed class, I asked my teacher if there was a brief for the word "contemplate" and she said not to brief words like that because they don't come up often enough and that is a waste of energy trying to remember briefs for everything. How far should I go in studying briefs and how do you know if it is a word that is not used that often? I can understand not briefing "nihilism" but I thought "contemplate" would be a word that was used often enough to brief. What is your opinion on this?"

Here was my answer: If in doubt, do a Google search for the word or phrase. If it gets 20 million hits or more, BRIEF. Otherwise, write it out. That's a good GUIDE.

'contemplate' gets 9 million. I don't brief it."

Well, I decided to. contemplate KPHRAEUT contemplation KPHRAEUGS

Mark, I just looked in my dictionary for contemplate and its extensions. In the last two and a half years, I've written contemplate, contemplating, and contemplated about 20 times and contemplation not at all. I do like your one-strokers, but I think I'll stick with two at this rate.

(Watch it come up in my next deposition and my fingers fall into place for those briefs. Maybe I'll add them after all!)

virginia, your last post made my eyes go wide wondering what Mark had done to upset you. Then I reread and realized that you weren't resenting anything but were resending. LOL

I shouldn't try to make sense of things before my coffee!

Brenda, your stats prove my point that that word need not be briefed. I only briefed it because I felt like it, not because the word deserved it.