[ueb-ed] Subsec. 12.3 in the UEB Rulebook Second Edition 2013: Why not use the shortform for "could"?

  • From: "Saaqib Mahmuud" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "saaqib1978" for DMARC)
  • To: "ueb-ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ueb-ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 18:48:40 +0000 (UTC)

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

Other related posts: