Talk:Gregg shorthand

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

What are diction machines and what does "Series 90 version" refer to?

Series 90 was an edition of Gregg shorthand that was so dumbed down that you couldn't get very fast with it. Dictation machnes are stenotypes and the like. --Marlow4 21:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank heavens! I started with Diamond Jubilee in school (1976), and they switched horses in midstream to series 90...now I know the system was flawed and I wasn't dumb like the teacher tried to imply back then!

The example image

Which version of Gregg Shorthand is the picture of? DJ? I think it should be labelled more clearly. --80.2.207.196 12:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What, you mean the alphabet? It's common to all systems of Gregg Shorthand. It is a unified system after all. Be kind of hard to use if the alphabet changed all the time. 12.205.111.31 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memory load?

Please add a definition of memory load as used in the article. I did a cursory web search for a definition, and it is not easy to find immediately-- the results that came up were computer related. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.180.50 (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cursive longhand comparison

Currently, the introduction says " Like cursive longhand, it is completely based on elliptical figures and lines that bisect them. "

This seems an odd thing to say. Cursive longhand does not fit this description.

Ordinary Person (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of cursive? The cursive hands (Spencerian, Palmer, Copperplate) that were popular at the time of the creation of Gregg shorthand explicitly emphasized the ellipse as the basis of writing letters. I would say that the modern English cursive hands (such as D'Nealian) somewhat resemble German fonts such as Sütterlin. Still, I would disagree that they aren't elliptical, particularly when you look at how people sign their name.

Nowadays, unlike when my grandparents went to school, penmanship is hardly emphasized. I don't even think they teach cursive. Back in the early 1900s everyone learned the Palmer method, which put great emphasis on arm motion. I think Gregg shorthand instruction capitalized on this American phenomenon to its advantage. You frequently read in Gregg manuals of 'using your arm, not your fingers' to write, which is a didactic mark of the Palmer method.

This book was very helpful and an okay read (http://www.amazon.com/Handwriting-America-Professor-Plakins-Thornton/dp/0300074417). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.111.125 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish derivate of Gregg shorthand?

Here it is the only place, where you can read about it. Is it confirmed in any way?

If anybody knows, where to find any informations of Polish derivate of Gregg system, please, send it on skolim@gmail.com

We are in project of development Polish shorthand inspired by Gregg. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.174.63.19 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Leslie Cowan's book John Robert Gregg, on page 107: "His system was adapted to a large number of languages throughout the world during these years: French and German editions of the shorthand textbooks were published in 1924; Polish and Maltese appeared in 1926..." So this doesn't really help much, the year 1926 is the only additional information. --Ryhanen (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian derivative

The same with Polish. I never found any mention of Russian version of Gregg shorthand, neither in English, nor in Russian-speaking Net. --Sindikat (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A German shorthand history book (Christian Johnen's Allgemeine Geschichte der Kurzschrift, 4th edition, 1940) mentions a Russian version by Akopjan (1933), but nothing more than the name and year. --Ryhanen (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An adaptation by Frederick G. Fox and Louis List (Stenografia Gregga) was published in 1935. Google finds some hits, but the book is probably very rare. -- Ryhanen (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge References

I propose merging duplicate references. For example, the reference to "Gregg, Basic Principles, 16." would be a named reference and only appear once. Any concerns? I bring up this idea before implementation under WP:CITEVAR. DutchTreat (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs in lIntro

All those refs for various versions belong, not in the Intro, but in the "Versions" part of the body. - Snori (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Done--Akrasia25 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous (& incorrect?) use of "upward(s) of"

In these two phrases:

"allows for speeds upwards of 280 words per minute"
"one could still reach speeds upward of 150 WPM"

the meaning of "upwards of [x] WPM" is unclear.

According to wikt:upwards of, the phrase means "more than", but reading both these sentence with this definition is strange. Searching the web regarding this leads me to this Stack Exchange question that shows other people also have contradicting understandings of this phrase.

Should these be replaced with a more unambiguous word? Yxtqwf (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto example image?

The example image of the individual characters is specifically for Esperanto, could this be replaced with an English version? Esperanto does have a fairly different phonology to English, particularly in the vowel space. There are English examples that come up when googled, and if that's not sufficient surely someone could make one. This is English wikipedia after all. Ametalbaby (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]