Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009

I think court records have to be exact. From time to time in AUE we have had
requests for assistance from someone whose job was to produce transcripts of
audio recordings of court proceedings. She would hear spoken sounds that she
didn't recognise as words. She would give the context and an indication of the
sounds. Often someone here would recognise the word.

I believe that Hansard scribes are more active in making the incoherent
coherent.

For many years I was secretary to a university committee. I had the essential
assistance of a shorthand taker. The transcripts from the shorthand taker were
direct speech but I used them as the basis for the minutes which were written
in indirect speech. Very occasionally a member would insist on being quoted
verbatim but most of the time members were happy with my summarisation of
their discussions. There was one occasion when a heated argument broke out.
The chairman allowed it to continue for about three-quarters of an hour. After
a few minutes the shorthand taker looked at me pleadingly. I told her to stop
taking notes until the argument was over. I made a few longhand notes. The
minute of that item was one of the briefest I have written for a discussion:

   A said ....
   B disagreed, saying ....
   A lively debate ensued.
   No agreement was reached.

At the next meeting the minutes were approved without discussion.