Wide Asterisk Keys - Need Encouragement

[Jenny Griffin, RMR CRR CCRR CRC]

I have avoided the * key up until two years ago - probably around the time I started sharing Eclipse info with Brenda. Now that I have the Gemini Grand with the wide * keys, I am trying to use them more. For example, adding the * to mean the suffix ly. LAOEUBG - like and LAO*EUBG - likely.,

Today I learned Mark's phrase briefs for do, don't, did and didn't, and I put them all in my main dictionary. I am having a difficult time with them. Am I the only one who is converting over to wide * keys at the same time she is trying to learn these new briefs? I need some encouragement!

[Tami]

Well, believe it or not (BLORNT or BLAO*EFNT), Jenny, I can sympathize. While I learned to use wide keys in theory, I NEVER used the *R combination.

When I finally realized I needed to differentiate between "mark" and "Mark," I knew I wanted to add the asterisk to denote the cap.

I remember it being such a foreign feeling, and it really did take me a long time to get used to it. Yes, I did get over the hump, but it really took a bit of determination on my part -- and I was already extremely comfortable with the *F from theory.

So . . . you know this one's definitely worth it,

AND, to make you feel really good, I still haven't learned the "do, don't, did, and didn't" on the right side.

[Jenny Griffin, RMR CRR CCRR CRC]

Thanks, Tami! And I've been writing Mark as MAURK to avoid the *R for years and years! Okay, we can learn these do, don't, did, and didn't phrases together - TOEG! I'm pretty determined to master this *R deal! I'll have to report back!

[Brenda Rogers]

BLORT - believe it or not.
I use a form of do and did, but not Mark's. I'd already come up with something that works so I've stuck with it. Won't muddy the waters here by mentioning them though. I think I'd have a hard time learning Mark's.

[Brenda Rogers]

Jenny, I'm using wide-key techniques without wide keys. If I can do it, YOU can do it! :)

Start with -DZ for -ing, like Tami suggests, and the * for -ly. Those two are the easiest to learn -- just fall out of your fingers when you don't notice. When you get to the point of resenting one more stroke for one more sound, add more! :)

I've always used *R and *F when absolutely necessary. I use it more now, but I still skip them if there is no conflict. Some people, like Mark, use *F for every V sound; I use it only to distinguish problems. And I don't seem to have a problem remembering the ones that conflict and the ones that don't.

[Jenny Griffin, RMR CRR CCRR CRC]

What I need to do is focus on a few endings like age, rage, so AIJDZ, RAIJDZ = aging, raging. And maybe words ending in K like bake, make, so BAIKDZ, MAIKDZ = baking, making. Small steps!

[Brenda Rogers]

Exactly! One at a time. Pretty soon, it will be so automatic, you'll be stunned at the words you stroke with the DZ that aren't in your dictionary. I added -DZ as -ing to my phonetics table so that TM and GM can have a chance at guessing at them.

[Jenny Griffin, RMR CRR CCRR CRC]

I added -DZ as -ing to my phonetics table so that TM and GM can have a chance at guessing at them.

Very clever! Next stop - phonetics table!

[Tami]

Brenda, I think you should dirty us up a little. I will never write 100% like Mark, and maybe your way works better for me.

As far as that * for -ly, if you can first get the -L in for the -ly, start there.

Like "friendly" would be FRENLD

When your -L is in use or it doesn't work with a particular outline, that's when the * for -ly works nicely.

I think Brenda and Jill suggested over on Depoman a long time ago that the * also works nicely for an ending -y, and I've been using that quite often, too.

See, Brenda, that's what I mean about keeping us a little dirty here. :)

[Tami]

And again, that -DZ for -ing pretty much showed up the next day for me, and I've heard the same thing from many reporters. Of course I think most of us still don't have the right side "do, don't, did and didn't." :)

[Brenda Rogers]

* for y as well -- absolutely! And tucking the L as the first line of attack, yes.
The * for y does present problems when you also use * for -ly, but that is overcomeable too. To wit:
luck - LUBG
lucky - L*UBG
hmm . . . now what do we do with "luckily"? -kl!
luckily - LUBLG

This is not as crazy as it looks. Put your fingers on final K. Add -L. Ta-da! It works GREAT for a lot of things:
Michael
buckle
nickel
electrical
elk
milk

I started using LAO*IK for ~like suffix 20 yrs ago, so it wouldn't work for likely. So I add in the -L:
LAOIBLG

Did does final side
Okay, what I do probably won't work for a lot of people, but it does for me. I think Tina does something similar. Maybe it will work!
-DZ and *DZ
EUDZ - I did
UDZ - you did
*EUDZ - I do
*UDZ - you do

However, I started with he and she, and -DZ for "does" made sense:
SHEDZ - she does
EDZ - he does
SH*EDZ - she did (creates an issue with "sheds," but I will gladly come back with a second stroke on that in order to use this high-frequency phrase)
*EDZ - he did

Having opposite strokes for "did" based on pronoun wasn't the best plan. Of course, this wasn't a plan; this was writing and coming up with these on the fly. I'd suggest keeping them consistent.

Don't and didn't I just use in the KWRO theory -- with Mark's additional pronouns when I think of them.

Dirty enough, Tamz? :)

[Tami]

You dirty girl, you!!

"Don't and didn't I just use in the KWRO theory -- with Mark's additional pronouns when I think of them."

That is another thing that the seminar helped get me to solidify in my brain on Saturday.

Of course I had the I don't, I didn't, I can't, and I couldn't, but even though I was exposed to the other pronouns at my first Mark Kislingbury bootcamp, I just couldn't get them to sink into the old brain.

Now at least I got two more -- "she" and "he."

The "we" and "they" are still in the gray matter. I know what they are, but I don't know which one is which.

[Tami]

Yep.