[OT] handrwriting conventions

[N_Cook]

I'm aware of a bar through a z , to distinguish z from 2 and a slash
through 0 to distinguish zero from O. Anyone aware of an underscore
below v, to
presumably distinguish written v from u ?

 

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 02/01/17 10:29, N_Cook wrote:

I'm aware of a bar through a z , to distinguish z from 2 and a slash
through 0 to distinguish zero from O. Anyone aware of an underscore
below v, to
presumably distinguish written v from u ?

Below suggests something else going on with 'u'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_handwriting_variation

"The lowercase letters u and v — These letters have a common origin and
were once written according to the location in the word rather than the
sound. The v came first; the u originally had a loop extending to the
left and was only used to start words. All other locations for either u
or v were written with the latter. In Germany (especially southern
Germany), Austria and Switzerland, lowercase u is often written with a
horizontal stroke or swish over it (ĹŤ, ĹŠ), to distinguish it from n."

--
Adrian C

 

[N_Cook]

On 02/01/2017 10:37, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

On 02/01/17 10:29, N_Cook wrote:
I'm aware of a bar through a z , to distinguish z from 2 and a slash
through 0 to distinguish zero from O. Anyone aware of an underscore
below v, to
presumably distinguish written v from u ?

Below suggests something else going on with 'u'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_handwriting_variation

"The lowercase letters u and v — These letters have a common origin and
were once written according to the location in the word rather than the
sound. The v came first; the u originally had a loop extending to the
left and was only used to start words. All other locations for either u
or v were written with the latter. In Germany (especially southern
Germany), Austria and Switzerland, lowercase u is often written with a
horizontal stroke or swish over it (ĹŤ, ĹŠ), to distinguish it from n."

I first took it to mean someone was empahasing the character was an
underscore in an email address , not a hyphen, but that was not the case.
So next attempt in the bouncing em train, will be a v in that position

 

[N_Cook]

On 02/01/2017 11:41, N_Cook wrote:

On 02/01/2017 10:37, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 02/01/17 10:29, N_Cook wrote:
I'm aware of a bar through a z , to distinguish z from 2 and a slash
through 0 to distinguish zero from O. Anyone aware of an underscore
below v, to
presumably distinguish written v from u ?

Below suggests something else going on with 'u'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_handwriting_variation

"The lowercase letters u and v — These letters have a common origin and
were once written according to the location in the word rather than the
sound. The v came first; the u originally had a loop extending to the
left and was only used to start words. All other locations for either u
or v were written with the latter. In Germany (especially southern
Germany), Austria and Switzerland, lowercase u is often written with a
horizontal stroke or swish over it (ĹŤ, ĹŠ), to distinguish it from n."


I first took it to mean someone was empahasing the character was an
underscore in an email address , not a hyphen, but that was not the case.
So next attempt in the bouncing em train, will be a v in that position

It was not the sort of person, who would because he could , create an
valid email address with a conflated, by backspace, v and an underscore
into one character

 

[N_Cook]

On 02/01/2017 11:44, N_Cook wrote:

On 02/01/2017 11:41, N_Cook wrote:
On 02/01/2017 10:37, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 02/01/17 10:29, N_Cook wrote:
I'm aware of a bar through a z , to distinguish z from 2 and a slash
through 0 to distinguish zero from O. Anyone aware of an underscore
below v, to
presumably distinguish written v from u ?

Below suggests something else going on with 'u'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_handwriting_variation

"The lowercase letters u and v — These letters have a common origin and
were once written according to the location in the word rather than the
sound. The v came first; the u originally had a loop extending to the
left and was only used to start words. All other locations for either u
or v were written with the latter. In Germany (especially southern
Germany), Austria and Switzerland, lowercase u is often written with a
horizontal stroke or swish over it (ĹŤ, ĹŠ), to distinguish it from n."


I first took it to mean someone was empahasing the character was an
underscore in an email address , not a hyphen, but that was not the case.
So next attempt in the bouncing em train, will be a v in that position

It was not the sort of person, who would because he could , create an
valid email address with a conflated, by backspace, v and an underscore
into one character

It may be a convention from medical background, as plain v was correct
for this person of medical training.
Like a barred z comes from maths background, the slashed zero is pretty
universal

 

[N_Cook]

On 02/01/2017 10:29, N_Cook wrote:

I'm aware of a bar through a z , to distinguish z from 2 and a slash
through 0 to distinguish zero from O. Anyone aware of an underscore
below v, to
presumably distinguish written v from u ?

The other complication , mainland Europe uses a bar on 7 and then a
flick to the left at the top of the 1. Then in the UK that flicked 1 is
interpreted as 7, as we don't use the bar, but on the other hand , we
don't have a way of telling a 1 from a lower case l it would seem, other
than prehaps some people but an underscore to the 1

 

[w9gb]

Slash zero, I believe, originated with Teletype / Western Union usage.

Since Baudot / Murray uses 5-bit coding, the Alphabet [Letter Shift] is Upper Case (All Capitals, no lower case).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

Here in the US, we have very few such 'conventions' as they tend to confuse some and annoy others. We manage to get along, however.

We also tend to find their use pretentious and/or a refuge for those with extremely bad handwriting.

DO NOTE, however: Some manufacturers with mixed (alphanumeric) serial numbers do mark their Zeros either with a slash or bar to distinguish them from a capital O.

O0

Other possible confusions are not really: 1I, 2Z, 71 not so much.

Which makes good sense in that context.

Now, consider the Euro-British U in words such as colour, Neighbour, and more.

First started when? Some sources state 1100 AD. How many billions of them used? Cost per hundred? Remember, these Us use ink, or require time to write, or typeset, and take up paper space. So, I expect that $0.01/100 is quite conservative.

Let's be entirely arbitrary and say that such U use comes to about one billion instances per year, on average, for the last 900 years. And the cost is US$0.01 per 100. Comes to US$90,000,000. Now, as we are averaging, that really comes to an average of $45,000,000 for the entirety.

As we do not have reliable statistics prior to 1700, let's used that date.

$1 then would be worth $4,000 today. Now, let's use 3% as the average interest rate and compound it for 900 years. The numbers get quite staggering.... That first $1 would be worth $514,420,131,371.79 at 3% compounded monthly.. That is US TRILLIONs with a T.

And, it is still going on. All that ink, paper and time being pissed away.

And we worry about bars on 7s.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 6:28:19 PM UTC-5, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

On 01/03/2017 05:56 PM, John Robertson wrote:

Here in the US, we have very few such 'conventions' as they tend to
confuse some and annoy others. We manage to get along, however.

We also tend to find their use pretentious and/or a refuge for those
with extremely bad handwriting.

DO NOTE, however: Some manufacturers with mixed (alphanumeric) serial
numbers do mark their Zeros either with a slash or bar to distinguish
them from a capital O.

O0

Other possible confusions are not really: 1I, 2Z, 71 not so much.

Which makes good sense in that context.

Now, consider the Euro-British U in words such as colour, Neighbour,
and more.

First started when? Some sources state 1100 AD. How many billions of
them used? Cost per hundred? Remember, these Us use ink, or require
time to write, or typeset, and take up paper space. So, I expect that
$0.01/100 is quite conservative.

Let's be entirely arbitrary and say that such U use comes to about one
billion instances per year, on average, for the last 900 years. And
the cost is US$0.01 per 100. Comes to US$90,000,000. Now, as we are
averaging, that really comes to an average of $45,000,000 for the
entirety.

As we do not have reliable statistics prior to 1700, let's used that
date.

$1 then would be worth $4,000 today. Now, let's use 3% as the average
interest rate and compound it for 900 years. The numbers get quite
staggering.... That first $1 would be worth $514,420,131,371.79 at 3%
compounded monthly.. That is US TRILLIONs with a T.

And, it is still going on. All that ink, paper and time being pissed
away.

And we worry about bars on 7s.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


Interesting, we should ban the "U"s after Qs then as being redundant -
save trillions, ban letters! (ducking)

Silent letters! Knife = Nif. Knight = Nit (silent 'e's, eh?)

While we are at it what is with 'to, too, and two'? Should be just one -
'to'.

Many more trillions saved...

While we're about it, let's get rid of "c": with few exceptions it has
the sound either of "k" or of "s"; and get rid of "x" as well, and
replace it by "ks" (as in Russian).

Perce

WAY ahead of you both!

http://www.angelfire.com/va3/timshenk/codes/meihem.html

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[MJC]

In article <o4depd$t90$1@dont-email.me>, diverse@tcp.co.uk says...

Like a barred z comes from maths background, the slashed zero is
pretty universal

I thought that decades ago Microsoft had a convention of slashing an oh
to distinguish from zero (while others did the inverse). Maybe they had
to fall in line, for once!

Mike.

 

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 01/03/2017 02:21 PM, MJC wrote:

Like a barred z comes from maths background, the slashed zero is
pretty universal

I thought that decades ago Microsoft had a convention of slashing an oh
to distinguish from zero (while others did the inverse). Maybe they had
to fall in line, for once!

Is it Norwegian that has a slashed oh? Having a slashed zero (although
that is what I often write) could be confusing.

Perce

 

[John Robertson]

On 2017/01/03 1:31 PM, pfjw@aol.com wrote:

Here in the US, we have very few such 'conventions' as they tend to confuse some and annoy others. We manage to get along, however.

We also tend to find their use pretentious and/or a refuge for those with extremely bad handwriting.

DO NOTE, however: Some manufacturers with mixed (alphanumeric) serial numbers do mark their Zeros either with a slash or bar to distinguish them from a capital O.

O0

Other possible confusions are not really: 1I, 2Z, 71 not so much.

Which makes good sense in that context.

Now, consider the Euro-British U in words such as colour, Neighbour, and more.

First started when? Some sources state 1100 AD. How many billions of them used? Cost per hundred? Remember, these Us use ink, or require time to write, or typeset, and take up paper space. So, I expect that $0.01/100 is quite conservative.

Let's be entirely arbitrary and say that such U use comes to about one billion instances per year, on average, for the last 900 years. And the cost is US$0.01 per 100. Comes to US$90,000,000. Now, as we are averaging, that really comes to an average of $45,000,000 for the entirety.

As we do not have reliable statistics prior to 1700, let's used that date.

$1 then would be worth $4,000 today. Now, let's use 3% as the average interest rate and compound it for 900 years. The numbers get quite staggering.... That first $1 would be worth $514,420,131,371.79 at 3% compounded monthly.. That is US TRILLIONs with a T.

And, it is still going on. All that ink, paper and time being pissed away.

And we worry about bars on 7s.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Interesting, we should ban the "U"s after Qs then as being redundant -
save trillions, ban letters! (ducking)

Silent letters! Knife = Nif. Knight = Nit (silent 'e's, eh?)

While we are at it what is with 'to, too, and two'? Should be just one -
'to'.

Many more trillions saved...

John ;-#)#

 

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 01/03/2017 05:56 PM, John Robertson wrote:

Here in the US, we have very few such 'conventions' as they tend to
confuse some and annoy others. We manage to get along, however.

We also tend to find their use pretentious and/or a refuge for those
with extremely bad handwriting.

DO NOTE, however: Some manufacturers with mixed (alphanumeric) serial
numbers do mark their Zeros either with a slash or bar to distinguish
them from a capital O.

O0

Other possible confusions are not really: 1I, 2Z, 71 not so much.

Which makes good sense in that context.

Now, consider the Euro-British U in words such as colour, Neighbour,
and more.

First started when? Some sources state 1100 AD. How many billions of
them used? Cost per hundred? Remember, these Us use ink, or require
time to write, or typeset, and take up paper space. So, I expect that
$0.01/100 is quite conservative.

Let's be entirely arbitrary and say that such U use comes to about one
billion instances per year, on average, for the last 900 years. And
the cost is US$0.01 per 100. Comes to US$90,000,000. Now, as we are
averaging, that really comes to an average of $45,000,000 for the
entirety.

As we do not have reliable statistics prior to 1700, let's used that
date.

$1 then would be worth $4,000 today. Now, let's use 3% as the average
interest rate and compound it for 900 years. The numbers get quite
staggering.... That first $1 would be worth $514,420,131,371.79 at 3%
compounded monthly.. That is US TRILLIONs with a T.

And, it is still going on. All that ink, paper and time being pissed
away.

And we worry about bars on 7s.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


Interesting, we should ban the "U"s after Qs then as being redundant -
save trillions, ban letters! (ducking)

Silent letters! Knife = Nif. Knight = Nit (silent 'e's, eh?)

While we are at it what is with 'to, too, and two'? Should be just one -
'to'.

Many more trillions saved...

While we're about it, let's get rid of "c": with few exceptions it has
the sound either of "k" or of "s"; and get rid of "x" as well, and
replace it by "ks" (as in Russian).

Perce

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <84acd843-00b4-49d7-abe3-1c2bcf14974f@googlegroups.com>,
pfjw@aol.com <pfjw@aol.com> wrote:

WAY ahead of you both!

http://www.angelfire.com/va3/timshenk/codes/meihem.html

And, there was an even earlier proposal along somewhat similar lines:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/twain.htm

 

[John Robertson]

On 2017/01/03 4:56 PM, Dave Platt wrote:

In article <84acd843-00b4-49d7-abe3-1c2bcf14974f@googlegroups.com>,
pfjw@aol.com <pfjw@aol.com> wrote:

WAY ahead of you both!

http://www.angelfire.com/va3/timshenk/codes/meihem.html

And, there was an even earlier proposal along somewhat similar lines:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/twain.htm

And the link at the bottom of the page to the real Mark Twain article
was broken years ago...however archive.org did have an earlier one which
(I hope you-all don't mind) went as follows:

----------(quote)-----------
A SIMPLIFIED ALPHABET (by Mark Twain - Samuel Clements)
(This article, written during the autumn of 1899, was about the last
writing done by Mark Twain on any impersonal subject.)

I have had a kindly feeling, a friendly feeling, a cousinly feeling
toward Simplified Spelling, from the beginning of the movement three
years ago, but nothing more inflamed than that. It seemed to me to
merely propose to substitute one inadequacy for another; a sort of
patching and plugging poor old dental relics with cement and gold and
porcelain paste; what was really needed was a new set of teeth. That is
to say, a new ALPHABET.

The heart of our trouble is with our foolish alphabet. It doesn't know
how to spell, and can't be taught. In this it is like all other
alphabets except one--the phonographic. This is the only competent
alphabet in the world. It can spell and correctly pronounce any word in
our language.

That admirable alphabet, that brilliant alphabet, that inspired
alphabet, can be learned in an hour or two. In a week the student can
learn to write it with some little facility, and to read it with
considerable ease. I know, for I saw it tried in a public school in
Nevada forty-five years ago, and was so impressed by the incident that
it has remained in my memory ever since.

I wish we could adopt it in place of our present written (and printed)
character. I mean SIMPLY the alphabet; simply the consonants and the
vowels--I don't mean any REDUCTIONS or abbreviations of them, such as
the shorthand writer uses in order to get compression and speed. No, I
would SPELL EVERY WORD OUT.

I will insert the alphabet here as I find it in Burnz's PHONIC
SHORTHAND. [Figure 1] It is arranged on the basis of Isaac Pitman's
PHONOGRAPHY. Isaac Pitman was the originator and father of scientific
phonography. It is used throughout the globe. It was a memorable
invention. He made it public seventy- three years ago. The firm of Isaac
Pitman & Sons, New York, still exists, and they continue the master's work.

What should we gain?

First of all, we could spell DEFINITELY--and correctly--any word you
please, just by the SOUND of it. We can't do that with our present
alphabet. For instance, take a simple, every-day word PHTHISIS. If we
tried to spell it by the sound of it, we should make it TYSIS, and be
laughed at by every educated person.

Secondly, we should gain in REDUCTION OF LABOR in writing.

Simplified Spelling makes valuable reductions in the case of several
hundred words, but the new spelling must be LEARNED. You can't spell
them by the sound; you must get them out of the book.

But even if we knew the simplified form for every word in the language,
the phonographic alphabet would still beat the Simplified Speller "hands
down" in the important matter of economy of labor. I will illustrate:

PRESENT FORM: through, laugh, highland.

SIMPLIFIED FORM: thru, laff, hyland.

PHONOGRAPHIC FORM: [Figure 2]

To write the word "through," the pen has to make twenty-one strokes.

To write the word "thru," then pen has to make twelve strokes-- a good
saving.

To write that same word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to
make only THREE strokes.

To write the word "laugh," the pen has to make FOURTEEN strokes.

To write "laff," the pen has to make the SAME NUMBER of strokes--no
labor is saved to the penman.

To write the same word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to
make only THREE strokes.

To write the word "highland," the pen has to make twenty-two strokes.

To write "hyland," the pen has to make eighteen strokes.

To write that word with the phonographic alphabet, the pen has to make
only FIVE strokes. [Figure 3]

To write the words "phonographic alphabet," the pen has to make
fifty-three strokes.

To write "fonografic alfabet," the pen has to make fifty strokes. To the
penman, the saving in labor is insignificant.

To write that word (with vowels) with the phonographic alphabet, the pen
has to make only SEVENTEEN strokes.

Without the vowels, only THIRTEEN strokes. [Figure 4] The vowels are
hardly necessary, this time.

We make five pen-strokes in writing an m. Thus: [Figure 5] a stroke
down; a stroke up; a second stroke down; a second stroke up; a final
stroke down. Total, five. The phonographic alphabet accomplishes the m
with a single stroke--a curve, like a parenthesis that has come home
drunk and has fallen face down right at the front door where everybody
that goes along will see him and say, Alas!

When our written m is not the end of a word, but is otherwise located,
it has to be connected with the next letter, and that requires another
pen-stroke, making six in all, before you get rid of that m. But never
mind about the connecting strokes--let them go. Without counting them,
the twenty-six letters of our alphabet consumed about eighty pen-strokes
for their construction--about three pen-strokes per letter.

It is THREE TIMES THE NUMBER required by the phonographic alphabet. It
requires but ONE stroke for each letter.

My writing-gait is--well, I don't know what it is, but I will time
myself and see. Result: it is twenty-four words per minute. I don't mean
composing; I mean COPYING. There isn't any definite composing-gait.

Very well, my copying-gait is 1,440 words per hour--say 1,500. If I
could use the phonographic character with facility I could do the 1,500
in twenty minutes. I could do nine hours' copying in three hours; I
could do three years' copying in one year. Also, if I had a typewriting
machine with the phonographic alphabet on it--oh, the miracles I could do!

I am not pretending to write that character well. I have never had a
lesson, and I am copying the letters from the book. But I can accomplish
my desire, at any rate, which is, to make the reader get a good and
clear idea of the advantage it would be to us if we could discard our
present alphabet and put this better one in its place--using it in
books, newspapers, with the typewriter, and with the pen.

[Figure 6] --MAN DOG HORSE. I think it is graceful and would look comely
in print. And consider--once more, I beg--what a labor-saver it is! Ten
pen-strokes with the one system to convey those three words above, and
thirty-three by the other! [Figure 6] I mean, in SOME ways, not in all.
I suppose I might go so far as to say in most ways, and be within the
facts, but never mind; let it go at SOME. One of the ways in which it
exercises this birthright is--as I think--continuing to use our
laughable alphabet these seventy-three years while there was a rational
one at hand, to be had for the taking.

It has taken five hundred years to simplify some of Chaucer's rotten
spelling--if I may be allowed to use to frank a term as that--and it
will take five hundred years more to get our exasperating new Simplified
Corruptions accepted and running smoothly. And we sha'n't be any better
off then than we are now; for in that day we shall still have the
privilege the Simplifiers are exercising now: ANYBODY can change the
spelling that wants to.

BUT YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE PHONOGRAPHIC SPELLING; THERE ISN'T ANY WAY. It
will always follow the SOUND. If you want to change the spelling, you
have to change the sound first.

Mind, I myself am a Simplified Speller; I belong to that unhappy guild
that is patiently and hopefully trying to reform our drunken old
alphabet by reducing his whiskey. Well, it will improve him. When they
get through and have reformed him all they can by their system he will
be only HALF drunk. Above that condition their system can never lift
him. There is no competent, and lasting, and real reform for him but to
take away his whiskey entirely, and fill up his jug with Pitman's
wholesome and undiseased alphabet.

One great drawback to Simplified Spelling is, that in print a simplified
word looks so like the very nation! and when you bunch a whole squadron
of the Simplified together the spectacle is very nearly unendurable.

The da ma ov koars kum when the publik ma be expektd to get rekonsyled
to the bezair asspekt of the Simplified Kombynashuns, but--if I may be
allowed the expression--is it worth the wasted time? [Figure 7]

To see our letters put together in ways to which we are not accustomed
offends the eye, and also takes the EXPRESSION out of the words.

La on, Makduf, and damd be he hoo furst krys hold, enuf!

It doesn't thrill you as it used to do. The simplifications have sucked
the thrill all out of it.

But a written character with which we are NOT ACQUAINTED does not offend
us--Greek, Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, and the others--they have an
interesting look, and we see beauty in them, too. And this is true of
hieroglyphics, as well. There is something pleasant and engaging about
the mathematical signs when we do not understand them. The mystery
hidden in these things has a fascination for us: we can't come across a
printed page of shorthand without being impressed by it and wishing we
could read it.

Very well, what I am offering for acceptance and adopting is not
shorthand, but longhand, written with the SHORTHAND ALPHABET UNREACHED.
You can write three times as many words in a minute with it as you can
write with our alphabet. And so, in a way, it IS properly a shorthand.
It has a pleasant look, too; a beguiling look, an inviting look. I will
write something in it, in my rude and untaught way: [Figure 8]

Even when _I_ do it it comes out prettier than it does in Simplified
Spelling. Yes, and in the Simplified it costs one hundred and
twenty-three pen-strokes to write it, whereas in the phonographic it
costs only twenty-nine.

[Figure 9] is probably [Figure 10].

Let us hope so, anyway.
-------(end quote)-------

John

 

[MJC]

In article <ed2qcfFdbp1U1@mid.individual.net>, Nobody@NotMyISP.net
says...

While we're about it, let's get rid of "c": with few exceptions it has
the sound either of "k" or of "s"; and get rid of "x" as well, and
replace it by "ks" (as in Russian).

Perce

I think you'd have to bring back the 'x' to represent the 'ch' sound
that you will have lost with the 'c'.

Personally I like all these distinctions. But that is perhaps because I
read the words 'directly'. That is, I do not read by moving my lips and
making the sounds silently to myself and then recognise the words as if
said. If you do that then you have to resolve differences (to, too, two)
by context because you have lost the hint that different spellings would
have given you.

Mike.

 

[ScottWW]

"N_Cook" wrote in message news4da0a$dde$1@dont-email.me...

I'm aware of a bar through a z , to distinguish z from 2 and a slash
through 0 to distinguish zero from O. Anyone aware of an underscore
below v, to
presumably distinguish written v from u ?

Maybe its a K that has fallen over?