Forum Replies Created
February 21, 2020 at 4:52 pm in reply to: Do we use Grade 1 indicator before freestanding Spanish letters? Nemeth in UEB #35187
I am not confident I can formulate an answer to this question.
First, please let me make sure that I understand the situation. You’re transcribing mathematical material that is written in Spanish? You’re using uncontracted UEB (including UEB modifers (aka accents), UEB punctuation, and UEB typeform indicators) for the narrative text? And you’re using Nemeth Code (surrounded by code switch indicators) for the mathematical material? [And the reader is familiar with this code combination?]
Second, please let me make sure I know what you are asking. Are you asking about letters that are standing alone in the narrative text (i.e., in UEB)? And, are you not asking about single-letters within Nemeth Code (i.e., inside Nemeth Code switch indicators)?
Thank you for clarifying!
Susan, could you please attach a .BRF? (.DXB files cannot currently be uploaded to Ask an Expert.)
You are very welcome, from me and the studious UEB Technical Material Committee!
The image you shared is of a letter R in the “double struck” or “blackboard bold” print typeface. This is commonly used for letters that refer to sets of numbers (e.g. ℝ for real numbers, ℤ for integers, ℕ for natural numbers).
11.6 of the UEB Guidelines for Technical Material says, “Embellished capital letters are often used to name common sets such as the universal set E, the set of real numbers R or integers I. These vary in print from book to book but can be represented in braille by the script typeform indicators.”
You are correct that we should use the script typeform for your example, and the appropriate transcription is ⠈⠆⠰⠠⠗ (“script symbol indicator grade 1 symbol indicator capital R”)
Thank you for asking!
You do not need a dot 5, because it is clear that your runover line is a continuation of the expression that started on the previous line. A dot 5 continuation indicator is only necessary “in the unlikely case where the two portions [of an expression] could be read as two separate expressions” as the Guidelines for Technical Material say (1.4.3).
With or without a continuation indicator, you do *not* need a grade 1 indicator in your runover line. In both of the items you included as attachments, the grade 1 mode established by a numeric indicator continues across a braille line break (again, with or without a continuation indicator this is true).
Thank you for asking a clarifying question.
That is well summarized question: Is a runover line considered a “space?” The answer is no. As illustrated in the first long numeral example on page 60 of the Rules of UEB, transition to a new braille line does not terminate the effects of a numeric indicator. In other words, the numeric mode and the grade 1 mode established by a numeric indicator continue through a braille line break. They survive being run over!
Thank you for the question.
For number lines, which are a way of representing spatially the relationships between numbers, a tactile graphic (or raised line drawing) is best.
Since both we and the Guidelines for Technical Material exist in the real world, where tactile graphics can be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, tactile graphics are NOT THE ONLY way to transcribe a number line. We could use line mode to “draw” number lines with braille cells, as long as we’re careful to use the appropriate indicators (arrow mode, line modes, numeric indicators, etc.) so that the braille reader is alterted when something represents a line to be “traced” and not a symbols-sequence to be “read.” Nonetheless, it is BETTER TO DRAW number lines 99% of the time, including your examples.
Does that address your concern?
I believe the attached file represents a workable transcription of your example that follows the decisions Lindy outlined.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
This thread is completed here: https://www.nationalbraille.org/forums/topic/sets-of-numbers-r-n-z-2/#post-34902
Yes, that attachment helps a lot. You are correct that your print is using the “double struck” or “blackboard bold” typeface for letters that refer to sets of numbers (e.g. ℝ for real numbers, ℤ for integers, ℕ for natural numbers).
In a transcription using Nemeth within UEB, in instances like you describe, it is considered best practice to switch into Nemeth Code for double struck letters wherever they appear and to use the Nemeth Code script typeface for such double struck typeface (with the typeface substitution explained in a transcriber’s note).
Please let me direct you to Lesson 7 of the Provisional Revised Nemeth Course Manual, posted by NFB [especially 7.10 and Example 7.5-1, including the commentary before it] for more discussion and examples.
Could you please explain your question and/or example more?
Even better, could you attach a scan of the print you are transcribing?
The Nemeth Code gives provisions for letters (including those that refer to a set of numbers) partially based on how they are printed (e.g., regular type R vs. “double-struck R”).
Oh, I remember the networking manual. Thank you for sending a sample.
I am on board with your decisions to:
- use a transcriber-defined typeform for the font specific to computer notation in this text
- transcribe the computer notation in grade 1 mode
- retain print’s apparent distinction between regular and bolded computer notation font
- indicate braille line breaks that occur where a space appears in print by using two dot 5 continuation indicators
May I suggest that the print line breaks (e.g., before “hostname”, “line con 0”, etc.) in the printed computer notation are significant and so should be reflected in braille? Other than that, I think it looks good, and the braille reader will be able to make good use of this transcription. And, I think it looks sustainable; that is, I think you can be consistent throughout your transcription without bending over backwards or writing yourself umpteen reminder notes.
–KyleDecember 10, 2019 at 9:33 pm in reply to: UEB – equation with a negative number within a fraction #34851
Yes, indeed! Well spotted.December 10, 2019 at 8:15 pm in reply to: UEB – equation with a negative number within a fraction #34848
In your print equation (y equals the fraction “negative 1 over 3” x-squared minus 2x minus 3), since the fraction includes something other than “digits, decimal points, commas or separator spaces” (GTM 6.1), it cannot be a “simple numeric fraction.” So, for this fraction in which the numerator and denominator are on different levels in print, we must use the general fraction indicators and general fraction line. I would transcribe the whole equation as follows.
Thank you for the question!
- This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by kdejute. Reason: addrd grade 1 symbol indicator before opening general fraction indicator