Forum Replies Created
Thank you! Must have overlooked that….January 17, 2018 at 8:51 am in reply to: A Function Displayed as a Superscript with no Variable Attached #30188
FYI, I had someone who was competent at math look at this formula because I was suspicious of its validity since the Nemeth code seems to miss this situation so completely. It seems this is an issue because there is a misprint in the text and the (ln) should be accompanied by the number 2 to make this formula work correctly. This is also alluded to in the text that precedes the problem as well. We are unfortunately confined to follow the print and feel very bad for this student. This book seems to contain many such errors.
Logic would dictate that since the declaration of the Numeric Passage Indicator is being made with other passage indicators that are of a non-technical nature, its intent is a non-technical one as well. This is also logical because there are instances of long strings of numbers not representing technical information such as a long printing history. It is my opinion that if the Numeric Passage Indicator were technical only in nature this information would have been listed in the technical section of the UEB code or listed in it’s current location with references to it’s technical nature included along with a cross-reference of that fact in the technical section of the UEB code. This is my opinion only and I am of no authority regarding Braille but it seems pretty cut and dried to me.
What would you recommend when itemized material is involved? I have attached an example with just such an instance. The termination indicator would interfere with the itemized entry that follows. If there had been additional text to the itemized entries that follow this would only exacerbate the issue more.
- This reply was modified 3 years ago by Keith Paulson.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
Even after the Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Context, that was approved in June of this year, I assume this is still the proper interpretation of this situation ? I see they still did not change the language in that.
Yes, and I couldn’t agree with you more. I will pass this along.
I can say with all certainty that this is confusing for everyone because it is my opinion that the Dot locator (For Mention) having a double use/meaning tends to muddy the waters quite a bit on this topic.
Let me give you my interpretation (please correct me if I am wrong) and perhaps that will better frame my question. The Dot Locator has 2 uses:
Use 1 is for establishing a frame of reference when reading braille that is free floating in space to allow the reader to correctly interpret the braille text.
Use 2 is for a first time appearance of a transcriber created symbol in the braille text make a clear distinction apart from any text they’ve seen so far and establishing it as a symbol from that point forward.
The base question then is this, are the symbols in the key deserving of the Use 2 versions or the (For Mention) aspect of the dot locator even though they are transcriber generated?
Bumping this post.
Any luck with these questions?
The course is done although it is still being edited as needed. I’ll have to see if I can find out the other questions you asked. Give me a couple days.
Sorry about the delay in responding. I missed the fact that you posted another question.
After going through the first review process, the idea of using the 7th transcriber-defined indicator was shot down. It was deemed that assigning a specific meaning to one of the transcriber-defined indicators was not a good idea. The ICEB code maintenance committee (the “owners” of UEB) have been asked to create a base reference indicator. In the meantime, what to do with marginal labels?
We are proposing that a key be created for the labels themselves using the UEB icon concept (dot 4, dots 1246 before letters representing the key). Then use the braille grouping indicators (dots 126, 345 from section 3.4) to surround the text that the label applies to. You will likely need grade 1 indicators preceding the braille grouping indicators. Again, this is PROPOSED and must still go through another review. Of course, the symbols must all be explained in a TN before the text.
That was a misstatement. Braille Formats 2011 does say that foreign words in English context are contracted. Forgive the slip.
I have a student that is being instructed by an outside source that his format in this situation is wrong. He needed validation from an outside source to legitimize his claim which you have done. Thank you for your help.
edited by Lennie M on 10/1/2013
I’m confused by this latest post. In your commentary you state that you have concluded that it is no longer to have chapter or section number on a line by itself.
I agree with you for the reasons you stated. Therefore, I don’t understand the conclusion that you apparently reached, that sample #2 is the better choice. Sample #2 does indeed put the section number on a line by itself and I think the result is not particularly desirable. I would go with Sample #1.
I’m sorry to dwell on this, but there is still confusion. You stated that ALL of the blue words are underlined (with the one exception). But in your example, anxiety is blue, but not underlined.
It makes a difference. The point here is that we want to avoid using the two font attributes in a word because it creates a lot of clutter to read through. It would help a LOT if all the blue words are underlined, but what about “anxiety.”? It is blue, but not underlined. Please clarify.