Hi Saaquib,
In subsections 12.2 through 12.4 there are indications limiting use of
contractions in early forms of English. In section 12.3, it explicitly
indicates that use of contractions in Middle English is optional and that
any use of contractions should be wary of spelling variations (that is,
variations between Middle English spelling and modern English spelling).
This same thing applies to each of your subsequent queries on this topic.
The transcriber will have to use one's own judgment to decide when
contractions will not make it difficult to read, interpret, and pronounce
words from earlier forms of English.
As always, I am happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted the rules or
missed an important modifier in the rules.
I hope this helps.
_don
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:48 AM Saaqib Mahmuud <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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, PAKISTAN
Phone (mobile & WhatsApp): 0092 334 541 7958
