The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-02-01
UNIVERSAL SHORTHAND
Elements That Might Make II Practically
Impossible.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SuN-Str; Your
editorial upon universal shorthand was read
by me with much interest. The existence
Of q universal system Of shorthand and the
writing OF II so that II could be read by an
other person are two distinct theories. There
IL much artistic skill required to write short
hand. however slowly and whatever the
system. 90 that II can be read by another,
sven In matters Of everyday occurrence. not
TO mention technical subjects. ! very much
doubt the practical operation OF q system OF
alleged universal shorthand. The compar..
son made between shorthand and longhand
writing Is hardly q fair one. because they are
not units of the same kind. A longhand
word or phrase requiring several lines or
strokes may perhaps easily be read and dis
tingulshed by any one OF them. no matter
how imperfectly the others be made: while
with q word or phrase written In shorthand.
by a single stroke. the difficulty In reading
Is at once apparent II a single charac-
ter be poorly made. and. Of course. by reason
OF the haste In making them. shorthand
characters fall far shorter OF belng copper
plate than do ordinary lonehand characters.
The reader Of shorthand Ia thus thrown COM
pletely of his scent. Hence. universality
does not mean much as applied 10 shorthand.
especially does II not mean. what uniformity
attempt TO provide for universally In short
hand writing would. as you say. no doubt
ultimately result In as many different systems
and styles Of writing as now exist.
Individuality Is quite as apparent In writing
shorthand as n writing l9nghand, and the
sfs &c S Ss : s5n tSst 'e eSen %lth ' q Snfv or Spt sgse
TEN the writer's individuality alone might 90
vary the writing az 70 completely destroy
A universally written system does not imply
a universally read system. IL follows that
the reading OF shorthand is the test-not the
II they. get i down II can be studied out
correctly at their leisure. To a limited ex-
tent only Is this SO. for such practice is dan
FOR example, the Illustration stated In your
editorial. I know OF stenoeraphers who, In
p p1s on loose q asi, sSe s9sy and I'd = se Ss'e them ,e c0s say
eribed. While the trial continues: This does
System aSs e1He Of shogTt s.sSt but .1 argues g. IN favor ef
the skin OF the particular stenoerapher IL bis
writing and the equally great ability OF his
While am on the subject | want to refer
to another matter which In the lay mind
seems everywhere popular; that Ia, as TO the
We frequently hear it said that the %stenoe.
rapher becomes an automaton and does not
SSS ns pSSnnot IfntteeliisSeSSstfiyy WSite what be does
not whether II be In lonehand or
shorthand. Were il otherwise a stenographer
deed. we sometimes almost have 70 do in the
routine of court work. Admitting that some
times for a short period the stenoerapher,s
work does become somewhat mechanical.
Is there any line Of work that ls not similarly
affected when one becomes drowsy or tenn
porarily dull Of .comprehensionr There can
be no greater fallacy, than the saying thai a
competent stenoRrapher becomes a machine
and does not comprehend what he writes,
The absolute understanding Of the subject
either long or shorthand. does away with this
prevailing idea,
There II no line of human activity which
requires a greater knowledge OF subjects 10
general, a more continuously active use OF
brains OF the FIRST quality, and that In less un-
derptood and appreciated, than that OF the
oonsclentlous and competent court stenog-
rapher. CHAnLks ii. BAILEY.
BUFFALO, n. y, Jan. ~.