As a continuation of my earlier message, I've also come upon the following
example.
fful (full)
Again, the dots 56 dots 123 final-letter groupsign for "ful" has not been used
in the word "fful".
What is the catch?
Thanks in advance for your perusal of my queries as well as for all your
replies.
Saaqib
----- Forwarded message ----- From: Saaqib Mahmuud
<saaqib1978@xxxxxxxxxxx>To: ueb-ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <ueb-ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Sent:
Friday, 8 February, 2019, 11:48:40 PM GMT+5Subject: Subsec. 12.3 in the UEB
Rulebook Second Edition 2013: Why not use the shortform for "could"?
Hi UEB mates? How are you?
I'm at the moment reading through Sec. 12 Early Forms Of English in the UEB
Rulebook Second Edition 2013.
In Subsec. 12.3, in the examples of use of contracted braille for words in
Middle English, the following example containing a letters-sequence followed by
a symbols-sequence occurs but the corresponding shortform has not been used in
the first letters-sequence.
Here is the example.
could (cold)
Now I was expecting that the "cd"-shortform for "could" would be allowed, but
in the braille shown in the Rulebook, the shortform has not been used and
instead "could" has been written using the strong groupsign for "ou".
Should this go into the errata of the Rulebook?
Or, does it conform to some specific provision governing the non-use of the
shortform for "could"?
Regards.
Sincerely,Saaqib Mahmood,Abbottabad, PAKISTANPhone (mobile & WhatsApp): 0092
334 541 7958
