Phrasing and Vowel Signs in a Court Dictation
You are the stenographer attached to a civil judge in a Pune district court. At 10:40 a.m. the judge dictates a 12-minute summary of a pending suit at about 80 words per minute. The passage includes: the plaintiff's advocate argued that the defendant had not complied with the interim order; a memorandum of appeal; a questionnaire; the name Kulkarni; the amount Rs 1,20,000; and the word notwithstanding. You write Pitman shorthand. In the final three minutes the judge speeds up and does not repeat the last sentence. Your notes contain some outlines without vowel signs. At 11:05 the clerk tells you the fair copy must be ready by 11:45 because the judge will sign it before lunch. Names and amounts must match the record exactly. You have 25 minutes for transcription and revision. You must decide which outlines to phrase, when to insert vowels, and how to handle doubtful words without leaving blanks.
1. For the phrase the plaintiff's advocate argued that the defendant had not complied, explain which joins you would phrase in Pitman and which you would keep separate. Give the risk that decides each case.
Read the worked answer
Phrasing is a tool for speed, but in a court record the outline must be readable by another stenographer. I would keep the tick for the and phrase had not because it is a frequent, stable join and the sense group is tight. I would phrase plaintiff's advocate only if the possessive s and the following vowel join cleanly; if the join produces a thick or ambiguous stroke, I would separate them. I would not phrase argued that across the boundary between the reported clause and its verb; the that tick can be lost and the reader may misread the grammar. I would also keep defendant separate because the following had begins a new verbal group. The deciding test is not whether the phrase is common in theory but whether the written outline can be read back after 20 minutes. A doubtful join saves a fraction of a second and costs a wrong word.
2. How would you record Kulkarni, Rs 1,20,000 and notwithstanding, and what would you do if one outline remained doubtful at transcription?
Read the worked answer
Kulkarni is a proper name, so I would insert vowel signs at the first occurrence and check the spelling against the cause title; if the title gives a different spelling, the title wins. For Rs 1,20,000 I would write the figures exactly as dictated and, in the fair copy, follow the court's format: figures first and the amount in words in brackets if that is the practice. I would not convert lakhs or add a comma that changes the reading. Notwithstanding is a long word; I would use the prescribed contraction if it is part of my practised vocabulary, otherwise the full outline. If an outline is still doubtful, I would put a small query mark in the margin and resolve it before the fair copy is signed; I would not leave a blank or substitute a word that fits the sentence. A blank forces the judge to guess; a query is at least visible.
3. With 25 minutes left before the fair copy is due, set out your transcription and revision plan. What would you refuse to change in the dictated text?
Read the worked answer
I would spend about three minutes reading the notes through for gaps, then 15 minutes transcribing, then five minutes checking names, figures, dates and the case number, and the last two minutes on the fair copy and signature block. Because the judge speaks faster in the last three minutes, I would transcribe that section first while it is fresh, not in strict page order. I would refuse to modernise shall to will, to turn interim order into temporary order, or to complete an unfinished sentence by invention. If the judge's sentence is grammatically incomplete, I would transcribe it as spoken and mark it for the judge's attention. The fair copy is a record, not an edited essay; silent correction can change the legal meaning.