07 March 2017

``of the'', ``to'', indication of ``ing''

How come the Pre-Anniversary rules for omitting ``of the'' (paragraph 84) and ``to'' (paragraph 86) and for indicating ``ing'' (paragraph 152) were removed in Anniversary?


  1. Numerous phrasing expedients (including those two that you mentioned) were eliminated from the Anniversary edition, more than likely for legibility reasons. However, I haven't found an official explanation yet.

  2. The Cowan biography claims that Dr. Gregg wasn't really in favor of a lot of these shortcuts and abbreviation rules, but included them because they were expected. And why were they expected? Because the Pitman system was such a train wreck that numerous such shortcuts, expedients, rules and exceptions to rules had to be worked in to make the system viable.

    Since these types of extensions were expected from long-standing practice, Dr. Gregg went along to help his system gain acceptance, but he didn't feel it was really necessary--this according to Cowan.

    That said, some of these rules that were dropped in the Anni Manual are brought back in the Reporting Course by Dr. Gregg and Mr. Swem. This is mentioned here: https://greggshorthand.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-anniversary-good-enough.html in comment #6.

  3. Is the Gregg Shorthand Reporting Course available anywhere online? I imagine the copyright hasn't expired yet, though, but it shouldn't be much longer!

    1. No, not online. It is a very hard book to come by.

  4. The "Gregg Shorthand Reporting Course" was published in 1936 . . . I don't know what that means in terms of copyright. It's quite a book: large format (8 X 11 inches) and 320 pages. I have a copy (mine was reprinted in 1944), but no prospects of finding time to do that much scanning in the foreseeable future.

    I'm not sure why it has ended up being such a rare book, given how prolific the Gregg company was with most of its publications.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.