On emphases of the Urtext : an article of ACIM

Doug Thompson informed me that the typewriter can draw underline. I didn't know this up to now.

Then I became aware of the fact that there are three kinds of emphasis in the Urtext.
Three kinds are ALL CAPS, underline by typewriter and underline by hand.
And I think this would show the process of retyping.

When I compared the urtext manuscript with shorthand Notes,
I found the fact that underlined emphases in the Urtext almost correspond with the Notes' emphases.

The retyping process which I imagined is this.

1. Helen read the Notes aloud and Bill typed them. The manuscript would have had no emphasis at that time, because reading the Notes aloud with indication of emphasis is so inefficient.
2. Helen read the words aloud which have emphases,
   Bill heard them and wrote the marks in the first Urtext.
   The reason why it is clear is that there are wrong emphases of similar word in one paragraph.
   If he looked at emphases of the Notes, he would have distinguish them by their difference of location.

     For example, there are "know" with underline and "knowing" with ALL CAPS at T 4 E 21.
     "know" was emphasized in the Notes, but "knowing" wasn't emphasized in the Notes.
     Both words are emphasized in the Urtext. "knowing" has ALL CAPS, and "know" has underline.
     Probably, Helen read "know" aloud and Bill misunderstood this emphasized word is "knowing", then he marked up "knowing" at first typing.

3. Helen retyped Bill's Urtext and emphasized these marked up words with ALL CAPS.
   At that time, if missing emphases were found, she would emphasize with underline by typewriter.

4. After retyping, she would find still more missing emphasized words in comparison with the Notes, then these words would have been underlined by hand.

It's only my fantasy, but I am excited by imagining of ACIM's birth.

海外の人も読んでくれるかと思い英語で作文してみました。たぶんおかしいところもあると思いますが雰囲気は分かってくれるかな？