Expression Of "You Would," "Were You," Etc
Description
This section is from the book "The Science And Art Of Phrase-Making", by David Wolfe Brown. Also available from Amazon: The science and art of phrase-making.
Expression Of "You Would," "Were You," Etc
304. Every shorthand writer of experience has had forced upon him in his daily practice the conviction that such common colloquial expressions as would you, what you, you were, with you, ought not to be unphrasable. When called upon to write the very frequent word-groups of this class (which are spoken rapidly, because they are natural word-groups), he has felt, (if his "system" has provided for them no convenient method of phrasing), that to write them as separated words was an almost intolerable detention. The Graham "system," in order to meet this want (unprovided for, it is believed, by other systems) has provided that certain word-signs belonging to the "brief w and y" series may be enlarged in a peculiar way to indicate the addition of other word-signs of the same series, the joining of which by customary phrasing methods would be in some cases extremely inconvenient, and in others absolutely impracticable. Thus, according to the Graham system, we may write with you
instead of
you were
instead of
, what you
instead of
In view of the fact that for many years this method of phrase abbreviation has been practised by a large body of Graham writers with (as they testify) very satisfactory results, and inasmuch as no other satisfactory expedient for meeting this urgent stenographic need has been introduced, or, so far as the author knows, even suggested, there seems to be no reason why writers of non-Grahamistic systems should not accept this device, at least upon trial, as a promising innovation. Hence the cases in which it appears to be highly useful are here explained. 305. We may be enlarged to indicate the addition of would; and would may be enlarged to indicate the addition of we. Illustrations: we would
Though the ordinary sign for we is by careful writers partially thickened, the curve of the enlarged we is not usually thickened, because reporters find that the thickening is rarely or never necessary for the sake of verbal distinction. All the word-signs of this series are, when enlarged, not only widened but lengthened, thus taking somewhat the form of a horse-shoe. As Mr. Graham has remarked, "the horse-shoe is the ideal form or pattern of the enlarged brief way or yay."
Continue to:
My Books
