Case CATalyst and DigitalCAT on the Mac OS X (Part II)

My last post on this topic seems quite popular, so I have an update:

As I stated in a previous post, I run Case CATalyst on my Mac (MacBook Pro, Intel Core i5, Mac OS X version 10.6.8) using Windows XP and Windows 7 virtual machines on VirtualBox.  I've been using the program on Windows XP virtual machine with my Elan Cybra for about 15 months without any problems.  For the Windows 7 virtual machine, I've only been using it for about 2 months without any problems.

Again note that Case CATalyst only recommends installing Case CATalyst on BootCamp and does not recommend installing Case CATalyst on a virtual machine like Parallels Desktop or VMware Fusion (or VirtualBox).

Further, I also installed DigitalCAT on the same Windows XP and Windows 7 virtual machines about 2 months ago.  The program seems to run fine, but I have not been able to connect my Elan Cybra to the program.  I don't believe it to be a software issue.  To use DigitalCAT you must use the serial output on the stenograph and use a serial to USB adapter to connect it to the computer (click here for details).  The hardware costs about $70.  Why spend this when Case CATalyst is already working for me.  However, I highly recommend DigitalCAT for students who need CAT.  The software is free for students and the only investment is about $70 in hardware while Case CATalyst is $495 for student version plus any necessary hardware.

Court Reporting at Home (CRAH) -- Lesson 10 and Beyond

Start Date: August 7, 2011

Finish Date: Late August 2011

I officially made it through lesson 10 in late August 2011.  However, during this lesson, I picked up a book called "Fashionable Realtime Toolbox".  Just like the CRAH program, the book came highly recommended and I could not find anyone who said a bad thing about it.  The book takes you through various elements testing your writing theory for realtime "air-tightness" (homonym conflicts, word boundary conflicts, etc).  I agree with the book that all theories and writers will have at least some hairline cracks.

I spent the remainder of 2011 going through the book and CRAH theory.  I have made changes which I think make it better suited for realtime.  Now I going back through the program with the modified theory.

Some may say: how can go through CRAH with a different theory.  To me, CRAH is more than a theory, it is an organized PROGRAM that has theory, speed building, academic material, etc.

Some notable changes I made:
1. Steno Outline for a word is much more spelling dependent.
2. Added kn- (I use TKPH) to eliminate conflicts like knit and nit; knight and night.
3. Added -y (I use FPL).  This eliminates many conflicts.
4. Added -w (I use FBG).  This eliminates many conflicts, e.g., so, sow, and sew.

Lately, I've been looking into the layout keyboard.  It occurred to me one day that it seems like final N (-PB) is a bit misplaced on the keyboard layout.  The letter is a somewhat frequent letter, so should it not be assigned it's own (single) key?  Further, Ward Stone Ireland modified the keyboard layout for his next stenograph in 1917, which never caught on.  Theoretically, you can use any key or combination of keys to represent any letter, combination of letter, word, or phrase.  This question is: what is the most efficient keyboard layout?

Inflected Endings - To Use Or Not To Use A Separate Stroke

The most frequent English suffixes are the plural, past tense, and –ing inflected endings.  A common writing theory question has been: should an inflected ending be a separate stroke or should it be combined, if possible, with the root stroke?  The NCRA does not “prohibited” writing theories from including inflected endings on the end of the root stroke.  However, the NCRA Theory Review Task Force strongly recommends that a theory use a separate stroke for inflected endings and has even criticized some writing theories that combine the root stroke and inflected endings.  Further, some captioning companies actually require that inflected endings be a separate stroke.

Combining the inflected ending with the root stroke saves a stroke; thus, increasing writing speed.  However, this combination of root stroke and infected ending creates MANY potential conflicts (e.g., banned and band; sinning and sing; etc.).  And the only way to resolve these conflicts is by memorizing the conflicts (or writing rules when combining the inflected ending is or is not allowed) and being able to recall them without hesitation.

I highly recommend using a separate stroke of inflected endings except for 3 situations for the plural ending that never create a conflict.


Plurals (-s, -es):
Use a separate stoke, /Z, for all inflected plural endings except for the following 3 situations.
1. Words ending in -ds (e.g., deeds, sheds, etc.) will combine the plural ending into the root stroke (-DZ).
2. Words ending in -ts (e.g., hits, heights, etc.) will use -S to indicate the plural ending and will combine the plural ending into the root stroke (-TS).
3. Words ending in -ks (e.g., disks, tacks, etc.) will combine the plural ending into the root stroke (-KZ).

Note that you can incorporate a -Z some suffixes to indicate a plural ending; thus eliminating the need for an additional /Z stroke.  For example, -GZ = ings and -RZ = -ers.


Past Tense (-ed):
Use a separate stoke, /D, for all inflected past tense endings.


-ing Ending:
Use a separate stoke, /G, for all inflected -ing endings.

To Brief or Not to Brief, That is the Question

I am amused at the debate over using briefs.  I have read at least one posting that states that the popularity of using briefs has swung back an forth between using few (or no) briefs to using many briefs over the years.

Fact 1: Ward Stone Ireland's original theory had briefs.  Not shocking because the pen-and-paper shorthand at that time (mainly Gregg's Shorthand) had briefs for frequent words and phrases.

Fact 2: I have not read through a stenograph machine theory that not use at least some briefs.  Some use few briefs like Sten Ed and Robert, Walsh and Gonzalez.  Some use a lot of briefs like Magnum Steno.

Fact 3: Hello people, your goal is probably to become a Certified SHORTHAND reporter (CSR).  Shorthand means to write in an abbreviated form.

My personal opinion is that frequently used words and phrases should have a brief.  After that it's up to the person to decide to write out the word (or phrase) or to use a brief.  

If a person wants to write faster, they need to their increase stroke rate (e.g., 3 to 3.5 stroke per second) OR they need to increase the amount of words (or syllables) are written per stroke (e.g., 1 to 1.5 words per stroke).  

So, the fewer briefs a person uses the lower the "memory load" (decreasing the chance of hesitation which helps increase stroke rate) but the person needs to be able to increase their stroke rate to increase speed.  However, using more briefs means a higher "memory load" (increasing the chance of hesitation which might decrease stroke rate) but the person does not need increase their stroke rate to increase speed.

Court Reporting at Home (CRAH) -- Lesson 9

Start Date: July 22, 2011
Finish Date: August 6, 2011

Here a brief summary of that lesson:


Vowels: "oo" words, oy or oi words, ou words, and au words
Endings: -ch and -sh
Suffixes: -able, -ible, -ble, -ability, and -ibility
Briefs: became, become, damage, inform, information, nobody, person, purpose, result, return, somebody, somehow, someone, something, sometime, somewhere

For the suffixes: -able, -ible, -ble, -ability, and -ibility, CRAH has a different suffix.  For example -able = AEBL,  -ible= EUBL, etc.  I looked at other theories and they only have BL for both -able and -ible.  Why make things more complicated?  I could not figure out a conflict where I would have to know the difference (or the spelling).  The same is true for -ability and -ibility, other theories use BLT for both.

Stenograph Alphabet

While writing my last blog on which theory was less stroke intensive, Sten Ed or Phoenix, I wondered why the initial side and final side alphabets in both theories were so close.  Meaning, I wondered if Phoenix had borrowed from Sten Ed or from an older theory.

I located and bought "Touch Shorthand Dictionary and Handbook" published by Stenograph in 1968.  After looking through the book, it seemed like both Sten Ed and Phoenix probably "borrowed" the alphabet from Touch Shorthand (as well as some other things).  Doing some more research, however, I learned that the Stenograph Company was formed in 1938 and that the stenograph machines used today (the basic machine and keyboard layout) was invented by Ward Stone Ireland in 1911.  This means that the alphabet used by Sten Ed and Phoenix could be based on an earlier theory.

Believe it or not Ward Stone Ireland not only developed the basic alphabet we use today, but developed a fundamental stenograph theory that has influenced today's theories.  The 1968 Touch Shorthand theory is very similar to Ireland's 1914 theory (search Google book "Stenotypy" by Ward Stone Ireland published in 1914).  Today's theories are more complex due to the need to eliminate conflicts.

Getting back to the alphabet. The only differences between Modern theories and Ireland's 1914 theory are:
1. In 1914, Initial Z = S (Now: Sten Ed= S* and Phoenix= SWR)
2. In 1914, Final V = F  (Now: Sten Ed= *F and Phoenix= -FB)
3. In 1914, Final Z = S. Note that the 1914 (as well as the 1968) keyboard had no Z.

On an interesting note, on Google books I found a manual from Ward Stone Ireland for a stenograph machine in 1917.  Apparently, he "improved" on his stenograph machine keyboard layout.  Basically, he rearranged the key layout, added another 2 keys on the initial side, and added a bar below the lower bank of keys that added more consonants.

"Stroke Intensive" Theories: Sten Ed vs. Phoenix

If you're like me, you wonder which stenograph theory is the best.  I'm not interested in learning a stenograph theory which is considered "slow" or "inadequate" and which will only hinder me in the end.

Of course my ultimate goal as a court reporting student is to reach the goal of 225 WPM.  I was impressed with Mark Kislingbury's Magnum Steno Web Page.  Basically, your can only increases your steno writing speed by writing faster (increasing your strokes per second) and/or writing shorter (decreasing your strokes per word).  Note that hesitation is another major factor in writing speed and affects your strokes per second.

The Sten Ed and the Phoenix stenograph theories are taught in about 75% of the court reporting schools.  Basically, Sten Ed and Phoenix are both considered "stroke intensive."  In fact, it seems like most stenograph theories are called or considered "stroke intensive," and the only non stroke intensive theory seems to be Magnum Steno.  However, the Magnum Steno theory has been called "memory intensive" because it uses numerous "briefs" to reduce the number of strokes.

Well, let me answer the question: Which theory is more stroke intensive, Sten Ed or Phoenix?  The simple answer, based on the raw theory, is Sten Ed.  The Sten Ed appears to be approximately 11.5% more stroke intensive than the Phoenix theory. However, let me point out a few things.  (Note that I base my results on the article "Steno Comparison Chart").

1. The Phoenix theory required 166 less strokes for the 683 comparable words.  Approximately 95 strokes (57%) were due to how inflected endings are incorporated into the stroking (see #2).  Approximately 65 strokes (39%) were due to how suffixes are written.
2. Sten Ed follows the NCRA Guidelines of adding the plural of a word (-es, -s) in a separate stroke. The Phoenix theory allows for adding the plural of a word in the same stroke in certain cases or for certain suffixes.  I counted 63 of the "saved" 95 inflected ending strokes were due to this.   
3. Not all Phoenix words had less strokes.  Twenty-two (22) Sten Ed words (3.2%) had fewer strokes.  Most of which were due to how suffixes are written.  

The most common suffix (about 31% of words with suffixes) is the inflected plural ending (-es, -s), so changing how this is stroked can significantly impact how "Stroke intensive" the theory is.  Because this can be a big factor, let's remove the plural ending component from the analysis.  The result now is that Sten Ed appears to be approximately 5.3% more stroke intensive than the Phoenix theory.

 

Court Reporting at Home (CRAH) -- Lesson 8

Start Date: July 7, 2011

Finish Date: July 21, 2011

Another lesson that took about two weeks due some vacation and only practicing 1/2 hour per day (plus watching Women's World Cup Soccer).  As I have said before, the lessons will same practice writing these words or sentences this 5 times.  I had to practice it 20 times or more to get through the lesson.

I think one thing slowing me down is that I tend to take a quick peek at my hands from time to time because my hands are slightly out of home position.  I figure that this might be a sign that I may not have fully mastered the keyboard (basic alphabet), certain briefs, etc.

Knowing and admitting your weak points and taking steps to correct them is pretty important to a self taught student.

Here is a brief summary of Lesson #8:


* Months of the Year (Briefs)
* Days of the Week (Briefs)
* Writing multi-syllable words
* Writing compound words
* Briefs: All right, begin, began, begun, avenue, Dr., maybe, Mr., Mrs., Doctor, No Sir, No Ma'am, Yes Sir, Yes Ma'am, today, tomorrow, under, understood, understand, understood, woman, women

Court Reporting at Home (CRAH) -- Which Theory is CRAH?

The CRAH Website make no mention of which theory is taught.  In fact, it sounds like CRAH is unique stenograph theory.  The website states:

"This [CRAH] theory was developed so it could be SIMPLIFIED for home study students, containing only 20 theory lessons, while still meeting the NCRA requirements for NCRA-approved theories"

The CRAH material I bought (used) came with a two Sten Ed books.  Looking through these books and comparing them to the CRAH program, it appears that the CRAH theory is a modified Sten Ed.  Meaning that the alphabet, basic word prefixes and suffixes, etc. have a Sten Ed look and feel.  Or if you have to pick a theory (Sten Ed, Phoenix, Stenomaster, etc.) that is the closest to CRAH, it probably would be Sten Ed.    CRAH, however, has added it's briefs, prefixes, suffixes, etc.

Court Reporting at Home (CRAH) -- Lesson 7

Start Date: June 21, 2011
Finish Date: July 3, 2011

This lesson took about two weeks due to its length (16 pages) and not being able to practice every day due to issues at work (and watching Women's World Cup Soccer).  This is the first lesson that I just did not speed through the "theory."  In fact, I went through the lesson several times to master it.

This lesson also introduces the concept of writing word ending.  And this lesson covers the popular and most frequent word ending: -s or -es, -ing, and -ed.  Then Steno for adding -s or -es is -S in a SEPARATE stroke (or -Z if the word end in a D, which may be combined into a single -DZ stroke).  The Steno for -ing is -G in a SEPARATE stroke, and the Steno for -ed is -D in a SEPARATE stroke.

Having read that these very popular endings don't have to be stroked separately (for example Stenomaster, also see this page and this page), I might modify this part of the theory.  Why?  More strokes means a slower writing speed.
[7/20/2012 Update: my thoughts about the above paragraph have changed.  See more recent posts]

Here is a brief summary of Lesson #7:

* Final "V" sound
* Word Endings: -s and -es, -ing, and -ed
* Basic word writing rules
* Proper Names
* Briefs: About, Accident, After, Another, Answer, Around, Before, Business, Happen, Husband, Injure, Injury, Jury, Juror, Question, Very