Oops, you forgot something.
The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.
Disclaimer: This website is not funded through advertising. Any advertising which may appear is uninvited and will be deleted. Please do not place advertisements on this page.
Updates to Advanced Guide to Keyscript
Sentences 17 p. 292
Left column, para 4, 1st line:
Answers to Sentences 17 p.311
Right column, para 4, 1st line:
Hi Alpha, Thanks for your message. Sorry to be so tardy in replying. Your message came during a period when our internet was down for about a month. Firstly, I would point out that Keyscript is a written system, and like written English the 'spellings' are fixed. That said, of course you can alter them in your writing if the alternative seems more appropriate to you. Note though, that if the 'u' were omitted, 'know' & 'knew' would be written the same, which could cause confusion. With words like 'knew', 'due', etc. pronounced by Americans, I have noticed that there is still a slight trace of the 'y'. Maybe that's my imagination. Or is it that they ever so slightly sound the 'w' sound on the end? With 'often' and 'lot', I'd say that the American pronunciation of the 'o' is more an 'ah' sound but that much the same sound is also used for words that begin with 'au' or 'aw'. That could be confusing. I think American vowels are a bit dampened down compared with British English vowels. I'd say, take your cues from the English spelling. If the word starts with an 'o', don't write in the vowel in Keyscript, if it starts with 'au' or 'aw', write in the 'u' vowel. Also note that the 'u' at the beginning of words is classified as a vowel, not a diphthong. I have often heard 'often' pronounced with the 't', but it very often is not. Perhaps, for a very frequently used word, writing in the full consonant (f) is perhaps more readable than 'q'. I have also noticed, with many words, that in recent times some 'normalising' seems to be going on. This includes a tendency to pronounce words as they are spelt. Who would have thought that that the last syllable in 'hurricane' was 'can' not 'cane'?
I think there have been many attempts, but because of the nature of Keyscript - the fact that there is not always a one to one relationship between how a word is written in Keyscript and its English equivalent, and, especially, the fact that words are frequently phrased (written together without a space between them) in Keyscript - this is difficult. You can do it for a certain number of words and phrases, particularly using common ones, but you would have to work with an almost unlimited number of phrases, to be able to translate everything while writing Keyscript in the usual way.
Mon says...Hi Janet,Just curious, but has there been any attempt with a software/website/plug-in etc. to turn Keyscript text into its non-abbreviated version as you type? That would be helpful for writing emails, novels or live video caption.
Just curious, but has there been any attempt with a software/website/plug-in etc. to turn Keyscript text into its non-abbreviated version as you type? That would be helpful for writing emails, novels or live video caption.
The theory in the Advanced Guide regarding the non-use of halving in a certain case increases the text and therefore decreases ambiguity, e.g. cotton = ktn.
Non-use of a double consonant in different cases can also increase text, e.g. energy = nrj NOT xg, but it can also keep the number of characters in the word the same, e.g. country = kxr, NOT kne. Note that here this creates a natural distinction between country & counter.
The theory dealing with derivatives of words which normally show a diphthong at the end (as those in Stage 5 of the Lightning Guide) reduces the text because the word loses its diphthong before the ending. So e.g. deny = dny but denying is dng.
To me, brevity of writing and readability are both crucial to Keyscript. It is true, for example, that 'dng' could be 'deigning' but 'denying' & 'deigning' are not likely to be confused in context of both meaning and the way the word is used.
I understand that the Advanced manuel has more training material and expands the theory.
Can you indicate if this advanced manuel would reduce the text even further, or whether it decreases the ambiguity of the resulting texts?