Lindy Walton
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, you have come across one of those print signs that can be misinterpreted unless you dig deeper. When in doubt, look for clues in the surrounding text regarding the function of the sign. (Or Ask An Expert! Not just here, but you could ask a math or science teacher or scientist as well.)
In your example, the sign (that looks somewhat like a "pinch bug" or earwig to me) is a sign of comparison, indicating that radiation is proportional to (or "varies as") distance ("d") in the ratio expressed (one over d-squared). In your transcription, use the comparison symbol listed in Rule XX of the Nemeth Code on page 136. (456, 123456)
In the UEB with Nemeth lesson material, the symbol is introduced in Lesson 6 (6.7.15) and compared with the Greek letter alpha in Lesson 13 (13.7). You can reassure yourself that this sign is not the Greek letter alpha by looking to see if there is a definition for alpha nearby. Is alpha defined with a certain value, for example? Or are alpha particles under discussion? Is there such a thing as "radiation-alpha"?
Thank you for sharing this example.
Lindy
Hi. B3 and B2 are not math terms when used to refer to cell names for a spreadsheet. You would transcribe them in UEB in the example sentence.
Hope restored!
Lindy
The Nemeth Code does not address this issue directly, nor does it discuss SI units or derived units such as your example, kg·m/s. As you observe, when a unit of measure has no value it is no longer functioning as an abbreviation. Calling it a variable, however, is a bit misleading. "kg·m/s" should be unspaced, but the Nemeth Code requires the use of the English-letter indicator for the "m" and "s", as illustrated in example (8) of Section 51.b of the Nemeth Code.
If this is a chemistry transcription, note that the Chemistry Code does briefly address the issue of SI units in Section 9.3. It shows an example with a multiplication dot, but unfortunately that example has a related value, so the spacing rules of the Nemeth Code are being followed.
Your observation is an important one, and its treatment in Nemeth braille is currently under discussion. Thank you for your question.
Lindy
Hi Veeah.
Follow print. Since the print copy does not list each lettered item on a new line, you should do the same. (Nemeth Code does not address this format.)
I notice that the print copy has left (c) alone at the end of line 5. Personally, I would be sure each letter is on the same line as the math expression which follows it (or at least one word of the sentences in #30.) There is no rule stating this preference, however, just to be clear.
Regarding the semicolons, you need to include them. Transcribers don't have the option of editing the text.
Thank you for all of the interesting questions!
Lindy
An explanation in a transcriber's note would work nicely here. Something like "The following arrangement is crossed out in the print copy." I would then transcribe the arrangement. It would be friendly to insert a second TN after the crossed-out part, something like "End of crossed-out arrangement." The first TN should precede the requisite blank line before the arrangement; the second TN should follow the requisite blank line after the arrangement.
Lindy
Hi Veeah.
This is an interesting question! I do not consider "logs" to be the same as the abbreviated function name "log". "logs" would not be found in a mathematical expression. It's conversational shorthand, I suppose, in this sentence.
You can confidently transcribe "logs" in UEB. "log x", on the other hand, should be in Nemeth (as well as y = log x). Now, what about "log button"? Here, I would lean toward putting "log" inside Nemeth code switches.
Thank you for giving me something to think about.
Lindy
Hi.
Referring to the new lesson manual for UEB with Nemeth, 6.4.1 illustrates what I call the "typewriter" method of printing a fraction, where the numbers in the numerator and the denominator are printed on the baseline of writing. The numbers are the same size as the surrounding text. The Nemeth Code says to interpret this as numbers with a slash between them, not using fraction indicators. I believe this rule is to prevent misinterpretation of two numbers with a slash between them -- not always a fraction. It's just a straightforward transcription of number-slash-number.
Sometimes you will encounter a mixed number printed in this fashion, where the whole number is followed by a space and then a "typewriter fraction". It looks like this unusual printing method was overlooked in the lesson book. Check out Section 64 of the Nemeth Code. Example (2) shows a "mixed number" printed this way. As long as you are certain this is a mixed number, go ahead and transcribe it using the "fractional part of a mixed number" indicators and the diagonal fraction line.
Lindy
The current (1972) Nemeth Code gives us no guidance regarding this layout, which is why the new lesson manual (your reference) does not suggest a format. I would transcribe your example by placing the anchor on the same line as the identifier, then beginning each link on a new line starting in cell 3 (assuming the identifier begins in cell 1). Your example would not have any runovers, but if the anchor or any link requires a runover, I would indent two cells further (cell 5, in this case).
Lindy
Hi Veeah.
In UEB with Nemeth, we define "x = the weight of the lightest policeman" as the math expression, all in Nemeth Code. The first place to divide an equation is before the equals sign. So, yes, you will have to divide this expression twice. Your second transcription shows this division preference.
It is recommended that the grouping signs be transcribed in the same code. So I would terminate Nemeth right after the word "policeman", then have the period and the closing parenthesis be in UEB. Even if more math follows right away, it will be clearer to read the closing parenthesis in UEB, rather than wondering if you missed an opening Nemeth grouping symbol. I demonstrate this in the attached file.
Thank you for your question!
Lindy
Hi Margaret.
This is an interesting, and common, dilemma.The rules to follow are:
--Only the math should be done in Nemeth code.
the symbols > and < (in the first instructions)
the circle used as a sign of omission (in the first set)--If only one non-math word occurs between math symbols use the single-word switch indicator for that word.
the word "or" (in the first instructions)Which code?
--Because each numbered practice item contains a symbol which must use Nemeth,
the omission symbol in 5-7
the equals sign in 8-13
each inequality or equation should be entirely in Nemeth. The words in these math statements are part of the math problem and so are uncontracted.(Even though, within narrative, the unmodified numbers could be transcribed in UEB, because they are within an inequality or an equation that uses a Nemeth symbol, the numbers and words are transcribed in Nemeth.)
Attached is my transcription of this worksheet. The right portion of number 7 is off the screen, so I put in a general omission indicator just to show that Nemeth Code is terminated before continuing.
Ah, yes.
First of all, we will be changing the statement in 14.15.1 of the UEB with Nemeth lesson manual soon. It is a misinterpretation and misunderstanding that was not the intention of "division between lines" outlined in the Nemeth Code. It makes sense to begin a new line with every sign of comparison when a link will not fit on one line, but beyond that there is no logic to the statement. That being said, you may have an easier time of this now.
Your first transcription is clear and well done. The ASCII that you pasted into the message box is unformatted, so I have attached a BRF copy of the recommended format. Note that, although technically this math is not displayed, I am still applying the "special margins" rule. Especially when there are author's comments, the extra indentation pattern applied to the runovers makes this easier to deconstruct when reading.
I am using the "run-in" style of placing the author's note on the same line as the math, if it fits. If it doesn't fit, I am using the same runover cell as the math. It looks to me like you might be using the alternate style of beginning the author's comment on a new line. If that is the case, each comment needs to be indented four more cells. I show that option as a second choice in the attached file.
All author's comments in the transcription should follow the same layout -- either run-in or displayed. Explain the placement of author's notes in a transcriber's note.
Lindy
Hi. I see your png file, but no question. If you are wondering about where to place the commentary, I am guessing that the math will be displayed, starting each displayed line with a "d". Follow Nemeth rules for displayed margins--there is no need to align the equals signs in the braille transcription. Place each author's remark to the right, leaving one blank cell between the math and the comment.
Attached is a brf file showing what the longest line will look like. I'm starting in cell 3 and running over in cell 5, but depending on your layout you may be indenting further.
If I have not answered your question adequately, please let me know.
Lindy
Margaret, you really have me thinking on this one! I have tried a couple of different ideas for layout. The one I am going to suggest takes into account the priorities I perceive to be important at this grade level (4th grade).
The most important concept is reading the dots above the line plot. Reading the mixed number labels is not a top priority.
In my work in the schools in the lower grades, we felt it was important to keep the braille transcription looking as much like the print as possible. This helps the student follow the teacher, aide, or parent's explanations without adding another layer of interpretation. For this reason, I would not advocate rotating this line plot, even though rotating it certainly solves the issue of those long mixed numbers on the scale.
I tried staggering the labels, but this means three lines of labels and no room for lead lines. Not a good idea. I tried setting it up as a foldout, but because the mixed numbers take up so much horizontal space, this wasn't working either. (I would not use 'facing pages' because the gap for the binding will disturb the reading of the data.)
I think the best rendition is to show only the whole numbers on the first line of labels, and only the mixed numbers that will fit on the second line. Draw a tactual lead line from the tick mark to the first cell of the label on the second line. A short transcriber's note explains: "In the line plot below, each tick mark represents one-eighth of a pound. Not all tick marks are labeled." The attached brf file illustrates this plan. You will need to imagine the four lead lines.
I hope this helps! And I welcome any comments.
Lindy
