HP Forum Archive 12

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #1 Posted by Ellis Easley on 14 Apr 2003, 7:37 a.m. The recent 48G discussion included the non-qwerty keyboard. I know that the qwerty layout was designed to slow down fast typists to reduce key jams on mechanical typewriters. Also that there is a Dvorak layout that improves typing efficiency on electronic keyboards. But what is on my mind is the order of the letters of the alphabet, specifically the version of the Roman alphabet used for English. I have a little familiarity with the alphabets used for Spanish and German but I haven't considered them yet regarding this subject (I don't know exactly where the additional letters go in the order). Also, the English alphabet is the basis of ASCII, so its numerical order is at least pervasive! Here is why I am wondering: ABCD EFGH IJKLMN OPQRST UVWX YZ I think the distribution of the vowels is interesting, and the pattern "sort of" includes "Y" among the vowels, as we are taught it sometimes is. Does anybody know why the letters are in this order and why the vowels are distributed as they are? Don't some languages older than English, but still "alphabetic", do without vowels? If they were added at some point in history, were they just "spread around"?

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #2 Posted by Ernie Malaga (Miami) on 14 Apr 2003, 9:20 a.m., in response to message #1 by Ellis Easley Ellis: >Don't some languages older than English, but still "alphabetic", do without vowels? If they were added at some point in history, were they just "spread around"? Yes, there are languages which use alphabets and yet are written without vowels. Arabic and Hebrew are two such languages. Both include over- and under-markings to indicate vowels, but those are customarily omitted. Languages that use the Latin or Greek alphabet, however, have separate letters for the vowels and do not omit them when writing. But they are related to neither Arabic nor Hebrew, but to Phoenician, which also had its vowels and used them like we do. Once I read that the letter O was the oldest (i.e., unchanged) of the alphabet, being some 5,000 years old. One interesting question regarding alphabets is, why did the Romans change the order of the letters when taking the Greek alphabet to create the Latin one? -Ernie

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #3 Posted by Ellis Easley on 14 Apr 2003, 10:39 a.m., in response to message #2 by Ernie Malaga (Miami) "One interesting question regarding alphabets is, why did the Romans change the order of the letters when taking the Greek alphabet to create the Latin one?" Ernie, this sounds like just the kind of thing I'm wondering about. I'm going to try browsing an unabridged dictionary to see if it has any articles on the subject. Ellis

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #4 Posted by Chan Tran on 14 Apr 2003, 11:08 a.m., in response to message #3 by Ellis Easley I need QWERTY keyboard only for touch typing as I learned it that way. I don't think I can touch type a handheld machine. So almost any order can be learned relatively quickly as long as you need to look at the keyboard to type.

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #5 Posted by James M. Prange on 16 Apr 2003, 1:04 a.m., in response to message #2 by Ernie Malaga (Miami) One interesting question regarding alphabets is, why did the Romans change the order of the letters when taking the Greek alphabet to create the Latin one? Maybe because the Greek alphabet wasn't invented in Rome, therefore it needed improvement? Regards, James

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #6 Posted by db(martinez,california) on 14 Apr 2003, 11:47 a.m., in response to message #1 by Ellis Easley is abcdefg....... the official correct order, or did we just get that one from the song?

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #7 Posted by Paul Brogger on 14 Apr 2003, 12:02 p.m., in response to message #1 by Ellis Easley Here are a few hints (and maybe the email address of someone who can provide more detail). This was found with a Google search on "origin alphabetic sequence". I didn't find much else in a quick scan of the results -- there must be more available somewhere!

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #8 Posted by Tom (UK) on 14 Apr 2003, 2:29 p.m., in response to message #1 by Ellis Easley Interesting topic! In medieval I think (NOT FROM MEMORY!) that there was an extra letter caller 'thor' or possibly 'torr' which looks like a curvy upper case 'Y' and was pronounced 'th'. I don't know where this may have fitted in the 26 letters or was just shorthand. This causes me endless amusement with 'fake' shop signs in tourist traps that go something like: "Ye Olde Shop" To which the uninitiated say "Yea Oldey Shop" (pronounce all the letters to get the full effect) but should be simply pronounced "The Old Shop". "UK and US - 2 great nations separated by a common language" - don't know who said this but it's very true.

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #9 Posted by r. d. bärtschiger. on 14 Apr 2003, 3:17 p.m., in response to message #8 by Tom (UK) "UK and US - 2 great nations separated by a common language" - don't know who said this but it's very true. I think this may have been George Bernard Shaw. Not 100 % sure. rdb.

Re: "Separated by a Common Language" Message #10 Posted by Paul Brogger on 14 Apr 2003, 4:12 p.m., in response to message #8 by Tom (UK) Here is what appears to be an authoritative treatment, but while looking for it (with a Google phrase search), I found it attributed to Mark Twain and Winston Churchill . . . (I'd thought it was G. B. Shaw, too . . . )

Re: "Separated by a Common Language" Message #11 Posted by r. d. bärtschiger. on 14 Apr 2003, 5:56 p.m., in response to message #10 by Paul Brogger The following is copied from Encarta. " Language England and America are two countries separated by the same language. Attributed to: George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950), Irish playwright. Attributed in this and other forms, but not found in Shaw's published writings. Encarta® Book of Quotations © & (P) 1999,2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. " It is probably impossible to difinitively identify the origin of this phrase. rdb.

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #12 Posted by Christof on 14 Apr 2003, 9:02 p.m., in response to message #1 by Ellis Easley As far as i can tell after some research, qwerty was designed to prevent armature jams by placement of the letters, not by slowing down the typist. It may not be the most suitable layout for computing, but it does work fine when doing NAVPERS forms on a selectricII. Plenty of very fast typists out there. :)

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #13 Posted by glynn on 14 Apr 2003, 9:49 p.m., in response to message #12 by Christof Qwerty is a layout that had reason for early "hammerstrike" mechanisms, avoiding entanglements. As far as the Selectric II, however, that should not be a problem, as it is a "ball" mechanism. Incidently, has anyone ever used one of those daisywheel typewriters that don't type anything until you've hit a few keys, then they spin up and start whacking? Frightening-- that alone probably caused more than a few typists to petition their bosses for a PC.

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #14 Posted by Christof on 14 Apr 2003, 11:10 p.m., in response to message #13 by glynn I admit I'm not very clear when writing. I did try to mention that the entanglement of armatures (rather, the prevention of entanglement) was the reason for the qwerty keyboard. I had mentioned the selectricII while discussing the speed of typing on a qwerty keyboard. I hadn't intended to state that that was the armature mechanism the qwerty keyboard was designed for. (how could I when the selectric series came out long after qwerty and use balls instead of armatures anyway?) sorry for the confusion. -C

IBM SELECTRIC better than computer Message #15 Posted by NH on 15 Apr 2003, 12:46 a.m., in response to message #14 by Christof HI, IBM Selectric is better than a computer. Not for computing. For learning to type !!!!! No distractions. Just a piece of paper you roll into it rrrrrr rrrr rrrrrr rrrrrr. Then you turn it on "Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm" Then you start typing BLAM! BLAM! BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM! Like firing shots out of an Uzi. Like a little charge of gunpowder going off underneath each keystroke. LOVE IT. no wonder I learned to type 70 wpm on a selectric and nobody else did. Typing on a computer is like typing on a bunch of mashed potatoes. I am POSITIVE THAT on many computer keyboards, I am out-typing the microprocessor scan rate. There's too darn many mistakes and I refuse to believe its me. If its scanning anywhere in the KiloHertz or tens of Kilohertz range, it could be missing things. I can never type quite as fast on a computer. When setting aside an IBM Selectric and using a computer instead, I always feel like an Indy 500 race car driver who has been handed the keys to a dump truck. You are always having to fight it to get it where you want it to go. Just my opinion IMHO.

Re: IBM SELECTRIC better than computer Message #16 Posted by Dave Shaffer on 15 Apr 2003, 12:36 p.m., in response to message #15 by NH re: "Typing on a computer is like typing on a bunch of mashed potatoes." You are using the wrong keyboard! I have four computers that I use with some regularity (two at home, one at school, one at our other house) - they ALL have old IBM PC/AT keybords. These boat anchors have a nice clicky sound and feel - they make almost as much noise as the Selectric ball makes when it hits the paper. They are almost 20 years old, and still working fine. They were built at the same time and with the same quality as the early HP calculators. They are also fetching similar prices on Ebay. I figure these four keyboards are part of my retirement plan, to sell when I get too old to do this stuff any more.

Clicky IBM PC/AT keyboards Message #17 Posted by Karl Schneider on 16 Apr 2003, 1:51 a.m., in response to message #16 by Dave Shaffer Dave Schaffer wrote: "...old IBM PC/AT keybords... are almost 20 years old, and still working fine. They were built at the same time and with the same quality as the early HP calculators. They are also fetching similar prices on Ebay." Heck, I have two of them! I'd better become an eBay seller, or find a proxy-seller service.

Re: Clicky IBM PC/AT keyboards Message #18 Posted by Dave Shaffer on 17 Apr 2003, 3:33 p.m., in response to message #17 by Karl Schneider Karl, They have to be genuine IBM, with the 10 function keys on the left - where they should be, especially if you still use old Wordperfect/Quattro/Lotus. You can then do all the operations with just the fingers of your left hand never leaving the keyboard area. The last one I saw on E-bay, I dropped out of the bidding before it got to $50 or so.

Re: Clicky IBM PC/AT keyboards Message #19 Posted by David Smith on 17 Apr 2003, 7:10 p.m., in response to message #18 by Dave Shaffer I have seen many AT auctions where the buyer apparently said keep the machine, just send the keyboard... I have four of them in my stash (one went flakey though).

Re: Clicky IBM PC/AT keyboards Message #20 Posted by Dave Shaffer on 18 Apr 2003, 1:12 p.m., in response to message #19 by David Smith David, How did it go "flakey"? Like an HP calculator with funny keys?! Maybe you can fix it. (If you don't want to, I might be interested!) These keyboards can be opened up and cleaned. You can also pull the keycaps off, although that doesn't really give you access to the internals of the key switch mechanism. I had a bad key on one of them which seemed to clear up all by itself once it was put back into use.

Re: Clicky IBM PC/AT keyboards Message #21 Posted by David Smith on 18 Apr 2003, 3:29 p.m., in response to message #20 by Dave Shaffer Several of the keys started being intermittent. I opened it up and cleaned it. Not much change. Also the bail mounts to the space bar broke. I'm keeping around for spare parts in case one of the other ones breaks.

Re: IBM SELECTRIC better than computer Message #22 Posted by Bill Platt on 15 Apr 2003, 3:16 p.m., in response to message #15 by NH Back in college (late 80's) one of my professors, who was a really fast (100wpm) typist showed me that she could easiy out-type the buffer on any of the computers we had, including a VAX 11-780 (vt220 terminal), an IBM clone (whatever was right before 286), an Apple 2-E, and the very first Macintosh. She would type in a flurry, and then a few seconds later, the VAX would start to bEEPbEEPbEEEPbEEbEEEP!!!

Re: IBM SELECTRIC better than computer Message #23 Posted by David Smith on 15 Apr 2003, 5:57 p.m., in response to message #15 by NH Never use a Selectric for typing classified/confidential stuff. It is a very easy task to take the sounds that a Selectric makes and reverse engineer the letters that are being whacked by measuring the times if the various clicks and whirls and clunks the machine makes... Selectrics are definitely not Tempest qualified and are banned from all classifed govt work.

Re: IBM SELECTRIC better than computer Message #24 Posted by NH on 15 Apr 2003, 6:54 p.m., in response to message #23 by David Smith THAT's how the neighbors knew what I wrote about them . :o| I'm going to go and watch all my James Bond movies again, and see if they screwed up by putting IBM Selectrics into top-secret government settings.

Re: IBM SELECTRIC better than computer Message #25 Posted by glynn on 15 Apr 2003, 9:46 p.m., in response to message #23 by David Smith Seems like it would just be easier to read the carbon-film ribbon. That's what I used to do.... ;-)

Re: IBM SELECTRIC better than computer Message #26 Posted by David Smith on 16 Apr 2003, 5:45 p.m., in response to message #25 by glynn Ribbons always go in the crypto burn bag...

Re: IBM SELECTRIC Message #27 Posted by Ernie Malaga on 15 Apr 2003, 7:32 p.m., in response to message #15 by NH In 1974, when I was 19, my father bought me an IBM Selectric I (the rounded one). Using it I learned to type and eventually reached my top -- 90 words per minute back then, although I've slowed down after the years. But the Selectric isn't such a great machine, in my opinion. That typewriter went on repairs so many times that I lost count. Good thing that a friend was an IBM technician and always billed it as if the machine were still in warranty. (Shhh -- don't tell IBM!) My father, on the other hand, had a Remington Portable dated 1924 that never needed repairs, never jammed, never failed to operate. Now THAT'S what I call a good machine. Of course you can't change typefaces and the keys are harder to press. Me, I prefer my Macintosh for typing documents. After all, it allows me to _erase_ and rearrange things. 8^) -Ernie

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #28 Posted by Scuba Diver on 15 Apr 2003, 11:04 p.m., in response to message #14 by Christof Does anyone have an Apple 2C? Didn't that come with a toggle that allowed the user to switch between QWERTY and Dvorak? I never saw a 2c up close so I don't know if the keycaps were removable; I sure hope that they were, otherwise you wouldn't be able to move the keycaps around when you switched keyboard modes...

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #29 Posted by Ellis Easley on 15 Apr 2003, 11:09 p.m., in response to message #28 by Scuba Diver I don't know about the AppleIIC (I think that's the correct spelling!) but I'm sure I've seen a computer with the option of interpreting the keyboard as the Dvorak layout rather than qwerty. Since I haven't seen that many computers, I think it was an option with MS Windows at some point.

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #30 Posted by Ellis Easley on 15 Apr 2003, 8:02 a.m., in response to message #12 by Christof I knew the ultimate purpose was to prevent jams. Slowing down the typist might be a side effect. But isn't the Dvorak layout designed to speed up typing by putting the most used letters under the strongest fingers?

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #31 Posted by Scuba Diver on 16 Apr 2003, 6:40 p.m., in response to message #30 by Ellis Easley Thanks for correcting me Ellis. Actually, I think it was the Apple ][c :) Anyway, here is a blurb that I found on a site I found through google, www.dvortyboards.com. According to the site, the Dvorak keyboard puts the 5 vowels and 5 most common consonants on the middle row; this means that your fingers do less travelling, thereby reducing repetitive stress disorders. "Enter the PC age and Apple computer...Then the Apple IIc was introduced, with a QWERTY/Dvorak switch right there in front where everybody could see and use it...Dvorak, along with many other international keyboard layouts is available through Windows: Settings - Control Panel - Keyboard - Language - Properties. There are even Dvorak layouts for one-handed typists, left or right." Anyhow, it seems to make sense, I just can't see me learning it...you can't teach an old dog new tricks! B.

Re: O.T. regarding the order of letters Message #32 Posted by Ellis Easley on 16 Apr 2003, 7:03 p.m., in response to message #31 by Scuba Diver I think now maybe it was a ][C I saw with the Dvorak option - and thanks for the better spelling, I saw it in my mind but didn't think there was anything on the keyboard to do it!

Just to be pedantic; it was the " //c". Message #33 Posted by glynn on 17 Apr 2003, 1:35 a.m., in response to message #32 by Ellis Easley :-)

Re: Just to be pedantic; it was the " //c". Message #34 Posted by Ellis Easley on 17 Apr 2003, 4:02 a.m., in response to message #33 by glynn I guess ][ was pre-C

Re: Just to be pedantic; it was the " //c". Message #35 Posted by Massimo Gnerucci (Italy) on 17 Apr 2003, 5:12 a.m., in response to message #34 by Ellis Easley Yes. The "e" model logo already was printed as "//e". Massimo

Re: Just to be pedantic; it was the " //c". Message #36 Posted by Scuba Diver on 18 Apr 2003, 12:40 p.m., in response to message #35 by Massimo Gnerucci (Italy) Let's just be thankful that the HP logo has remained the same!

Re: Just to be pedantic; it was the " //c". Message #37 Posted by Massimo Gnerucci (Italy) on 18 Apr 2003, 1:47 p.m., in response to message #36 by Scuba Diver Well... it was once turned upside-down to form the "dy" logo of Dymec. http://www.interex.org/tech/csl/RTE/archive/poyner1.htm Massimo

HP Logo Message #38 Posted by Michael F. Coyle on 18 Apr 2003, 5:42 p.m., in response to message #37 by Massimo Gnerucci (Italy) Well, way back when, the HP logo was in "portrait mode" rather than "landscape mode" like it is now. Somewhere over at work we have a 200C floating around with the original (?) logo. (Another OT logo question: when did Tektronix switch from the round to the rectangular CRT in their logo? I'm guessing 1970-ish.) - Michael

Re: HP Logo Message #39 Posted by Ellis Easley on 21 Apr 2003, 5:46 p.m., in response to message #38 by Michael F. Coyle A question about the different HP logos came up a while ago and I thumbed through "The HP Way" but the only picture of a logo in that book is from a 1967 trade show booth decorated with the portrait mode logo. At one point the HP logo was neither portrait nor landscape mode, it was just a circle not quite enclosing the lower case "hp", the top of the "h" and the bottom of the "p" traveled a good way past the circle. You can see this logo on the HP200A oscillator in the HP Virtual Museum: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/museum/earlyinstruments/0002/0002front.html At one point HP spun off a company called Dynac to build systems integrated from HP products. The name Dynac was chosen to fit the upside-down HP logo: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/museum/earlyinstruments/0006/0006front.html The portrait mode logo encloses the circle in a tall rectangle and truncates the excursions of the letters at the perimeter of the circle with the region below the circle solid color and the region above the circle scored horizontally. It gives me the impression of "earth and sky". I have two HP oscilloscopes from the late 50's and early 60's. Both pieces of equipment have only the round logo and the manual for the older scope has it too but the manual for the newer scope has the portrait mode logo on the covers and title page. As it happens, the older scope has a plain round CRT and the newer one has a post-deflection acceleration CRT which blocks the beam from reaching the phosphor at the very top and bottom of the round face, sort of like the portrait mode logo cuts off the tails of the letters. Later oscilloscopes with PDA have rectangular faces. I have always thought that the landscape mode HP logo reflects the change from round to rectangular CRT's on oscilloscopes. For a while the landscape mode logo was blue on the right and black on the left, later it was blue on both sides with the letters still black, and now both sides and the letters are all in a convenient color already in use on the panel. Did HP feel black and blue for awhile? It would seem to have been HP's heyday (70's-80's) but if the logo represents an oscilloscope, HP probably did feel beat up by Tektronix!

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall