Sunday, July 12, 2009

More on the Cheng Controversy

If you followed the exchange of comments between myself and WAH, you know that he has defended Cheng by assuming that Cheng meant 40 kilometers, not 40 knots when describing the wind on April 12, 2003. WAH pointed out that the abbreviation for knots is kn, and the abbreviation for kilometers is km, and so a typo explains the mistake.

Is it possible that a simple typographical error could have caused the mistake? That's a question that most definitely must be answered, so I did some research.

Court Reporters use a stenotype machine, which does not have a regular typewriter/computer keyboard. I found a picture of the machine and a layout of its keys. I was quite amazed to find that the keys do not include the "m" and the "n".

The article explained that different theories are used to form the words, and the Court Reporters can also create their own shorthand for commonly used words.

However, with the "m" and the "n" being absent from the keyboard, the abbreviations "kn" and "km" could not be used in those forms. To form the abbreviation kn, the court reporter has to key K for the inital K and PB for the final n. To form the abbreviation km, the court reporter has to key K for the initial K and PL for the final m.

I've included a visual from a website, which incidentally is the same article that appears under this subject on Wikipedia, Answers.com, and a couple other websites. The article gives much more information.

If you wonder why some letters appear twice on the keyboard, it's because the keys to the left of the * are used to generate initial consonants, and the keys to the right are used for final consonants.

WAH, if you have information that shows a stenotype machine that does have the m and n keys, please post it.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said..

If anyone is indeed following our exchange, you would know that I stated; 'maybe he is wrong or mistaken or misinterpreted on "40 knots".' You, MN, have stated that you made notes and Dr. Ralph Cheng did indeed state, "40 knots". I am fine with this, so this eliminates the stenographer misinterpretation. Now we are left with 'wrong' or 'mistaken'. As I have stated previously, "40 knots" is wrong if Dr. Cheng intentionally meant to mislead or Dr. Cheng is mistaken-with no intent to mislead-and meant to say "40 kilometers". I have concluded that "40 knots" does not fit with the data, but, "40 kilometers" does fit with the data. Since it seems Dr. Cheng stated "40 knots", and noone brought it to his attention, nor to the court's attention, I would like for SLP to argue this on his appeal and see what comes of it--it may be something or it may be nothing.

Marlene Newell said...

WAH, I'm glad we agree. And yes, we'll have to wait and see if anything is made of Cheng's testimony in the direct appeal, whenever that happens.

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

Yep, IMO, if SLP does argue anything in regards to Dr. Ralph Cheng, it will amount to nothing. I am looking forward to what SLP believes his appeal will be. IMO, he only has one legit beef, but even then, this won't help him either--who knows, it might help, but , IMO, in the end it won't.

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

Yep, IMO, if SLP does argue anything in regards to Dr. Ralph Cheng, it will amount to nothing. I am looking forward to what SLP believes his appeal will be. IMO, he only has one legit beef, but even then, this won't help him either--who knows, it might help, but , IMO, in the end it won't.

Marlene Newell said...

I don't expect we will hear anything about what will be in the CA SC appeal until the brief is filed, and I have no idea how much longer that is going to be. I hope within the year.

I'm very much looking forward to reading the brief -- I hope they are publicly available.