There are quite a few ways, really. Now personally, I find these really useful (this is just a short list as an example). You can add a lot more for ribs and vertebrae and toes and so much more. You can stick right and left in there if you want to. You can really make these type phrases quickies, in other words! You can see that most if not all of these use the first 3 letters of the first word and then the first letter of each word. Change as desired. And if you want or need to follow other criteria such as 1st and 2nd, just adjust!

firas = first and second
secat = second and third
thiaf = third and fourth
fouaf = fourth and fifth
sixas = sixth and seventh
sevae = seventh and eighth
eigan = eighth and ninth
ninat = ninth and tenth
tenae = tenth and eleventh
eleat = eleventh and twelfth
firpp = first proximal phalanx
secpp = second proximal phalanx
thipp = third proximal phalanx
foupp = fourth proximal phalanx
fifpp = fifth proximal phalanx
firasmt = first and second metatarsal
firsmc = first and second metacarpal
secatd = second and third digits
secmp = second middle phalanx
foump = fourth middle phalanx

Etc.

Okay, another system I've always found handy is this one off of Jon Knowles' page:



This is on Jon's page under "Special Features."

Anyone have numbering tricks to share?

Harrie, I don't have a method to share -- yet!

But I love reading these lists -- they give me ideas. I'm just sort-of playing with expanders -- InstantText -- right now, and adding a few here and there and not following a written-in-stone system.

I notice the list you have here is mostly the Grow system. That one seems so "do-able" to me. Is there any situation you find that it just doesn't work well? And do you find that this or ABCZ works better than just letting InstantText provide its standard first-letter-for-every-word shorts? (If the systems are better than the IT standard shorts -- do you think it's *mainly* because you started with a different system, or do you think the IT standard shorts just don't work as well in some situations?)

I'm wondering whether I should "go with what feels natural" now -- or whether something that doesn't feel *quite* as natural would in the long run be a better bet -- and to just stick with it until it feels natural.

Here's an example:

right and left

I'm just using the standard IT short ral -- it's working fine for me, but I have hardly anything in my glossary yet, and I'm sure that'll get many duplicates eventually.

rigal would be the Grow system's way of abbreviating this phrase. This feels pretty good to me to type.

ralt would be the ABCZ system. This doesn't seem to work as well for me. I think it's difficult for my mind to switch from thinking about the first letter to jumping to the end and thinking about that one to finish off the short.

Do you think these differences in preference are just how different folks' brains are wired, or is it more a matter of training yourself to stick with a system and just get used to it?

You've given a lot of information on this site about how you use systems , and you've indicated that you use a bunch of them all at once. So I figured you'd be the person to ask about this.

You might not have a method yet to share on abbreviations, peggyjo, but I sure have noticed you have a lot to share here!

I'll answer your questions as *I* see them - doesn't mean it will be right for you.

Yes, these are Grow method shorts. They mostly work for me for three-word phrases. That is when they seem completely awesome and natural for me. They do not come naturally for long sentences or phrases and thus I do not use them for that. Now, I'm not saying I don't use it at all for any four or five word phrases, but somehow, for me, it's the three-word phrases I mostly use them with. As you pointed out yourself, a lot of three-word phrases are just naturally going to end up with duplicates or even just lots of "close" ones, and while I look at my advisories all the time (back and forth, that is), for continuations and to be sure I pick the right entry for phrases, nothing, I mean NOTHING, is better to me than knowing instantly what the entry is and go with it, never having to move your eyes. That's why I'm a system lover, and that's why these work for me. But yes, there's tons of situations where this method is not for me. I like the ABCZ method for two-word phrases and many single word examples, for instance. And then, I have the mix from just starting out a certain way. Also, lest I mislead you, I do have many, many three-word phrases that I simply use each first letter of the phrase for, so it isn't like I do this for all of them.

I love IT standard shorts for longer phrases. I add letters to the beginning or end of the short on occasion to what IT has put, but probably the majority of the time not. And it's so nice that IT fills in the short for you. I love that.

The one thing I don't like to do, is have words in the word section, with a one-letter abbreviation. (I don't mean the singles here). It's a feature and lots of people like it; but I just don't. Which isn't a problem because I don't do it, ha! IT is about nothing if not choices, lots of choices. As I said, I don't like to look off the screen when I don't have to. It makes me feel more prone to blooper mistakes and it also takes time; sure just a second or two, but time nonetheless. I love the ABCZ system for words and also I have made up lots of "odd" shorts for words. Of course, phrases is where the action is at overall.

I think you should take note of all the systems out there right now and play with them, and play with IT, but I definitely don't think you need to "decide" on anything in a rigid manner right now, and also I just think you should just go with the flow, so to speak, because when you start working it will all "hit" you and you'll come to know very soon what works best for you.

You do have to sort of train yourself, I suppose. But it isn't hard and to me it's very, very worth it.

All I can say is, even for an MT who has never heard of any systems, never thought about them, isn't even an "internet" person, you will end up making adjustments for duplicates and entries that might be a poor choice. But not to a degree that I want to have. Well, let me change that to say that "I" didn't have my entries set up in a really, really good manner for a long time. And then when I ordered Jon's ABCZ files for Shorthand, which is what I used at that time - wow, the light freakin' went OFF! I could see the difference! Took me a little bit of time to adjust to the system, of course, but wow, did I ever see a jump in productivity. And ever since then, I've been more and more interested in refining techniques. And yet at the same time, I've become very appreciative of IT and the fact that this doesn't "have" to be. Very paradoxical, eh?? LOL.

Take what you want from the different systems out there and leave the parts that don't work for you, that's all I can really say. And make up stuff! Even crazy stuff! Those entries are also wonderful!

Heh. Time to put a sock in it, hey?

Thanks for the excellent and lengthy answer! It really gives me such a great idea of how all this fits together, and it reassures me that I'm on the right track with all my playing around.


I can see that they would work very well for three-word phrases! It's interesting to think about how one system might be better for two-word phrases and another for three-word phrases. Hmmmm....


This makes sense too. Some phrases are just different. My "right and left" example above probably feels best as ral.


I find as I'm playing around, I really am not adding anything over there. I think it's just one place too many for me to look right now. But I do like it for a drug list, in a separate glossary that I switch to just to grab a correctly spelled drug name.


Sometimes it's having too many choices that messes me up! Decisions, decisions...


I think I'm developing the same sense that the confidence of knowing a system and certain shorts that you've created will translate into speed (and peace of mind).


I hope you're right about that! I trust you!


It's those paradoxes that keep life interesting, eh?

Thanks again so much for a terrific answer to my questions!

Oh, you are good for the soul! "Time to put a sock in it..." ROTF! Don't you dare, by the way!

You're welcome, peggyjo. And I'm glad somebody out there trusts me, ha!