Spelling Errors: Stupid? Lazy? Or A-OK?

[Betty]

Making an Arguement for Misspelling (not)

Good spellers, Smith says, should be able to go on writing as usual; those who find the current rules of English too hard to learn should have their spelling labeled variant, not wrong.

This article would lead one to believe that spelling errors just can't be helped. They are everywhere and we should just accept them as a new way to spell things. Since it's happened in the past, and other countries do it, should we also?

I think not. I hate spelling errors in official things. Sure - they happen a lot in emails and on message boards - but I have a hard time counting those...

But in official things - say your term paper, a menu, signage at a national park, your newspaper, your company's logo - all those should be spelled correctly. And for the record, I've found spelling errors in all of them.

The company logo and national forest were the most alarming with the logo leaving out a double letter (either the last of the first word of the first of the last word) which was not on purpose because everywhere else it was spelled correctly.

And also at Sequoia - a word spelled wrong on a sign.

I also believe I'm a hypocrit as I can't seem to catch my own spelling errors right away. I seem to have to send something to the printer and get it past the point where I can't "stop the presses" and then - bammo - look at that glaring error right there.

Which is why someone else always proofreads for me. Usually more then one person.

Sew, whut du u theenk? Kepe on spelling korect? Or shude we all be labuled as varient and not rong?

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry, and maybe it's because I'm a good speller, but I feel poor spelling is a sign of ignorance. Not stupidity, per se. But obviously ignorance of the way words are properly spelled.

I think that bespeaks a certain lazyness and a likely lack of rudimentary education.


I can't stand it when entities that should be able to afford copy check end up spelling things wrong in written form. Absolutely retarded.


I'm much more forgiving of individual people. English can be a tricky language as far as spelling goes. But, c'mon ... we all had a grade-school education, didn't we?

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Betty

Making an Arguement for Misspelling (not)



I also believe I'm a hypocrit as I can't seem to catch my own spelling errors right away. I seem to have to send something to the printer and get it past the point where I can't "stop the presses" and then - bammo - look at that glaring error right there.

Bammo!

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I think that bespeaks a certain lazyness and a likely lack of rudimentary education.

Bammo!

[Alex]

For me the primary issue is confusion. Collectively deciding that truely is an acceptable form of truly doesn't offend my senses.

Language is not rules, it is usage. If 100% of the time the answer given to 2+4 is 9 it doesn't become correct. But if everybody spells twelfth as twelth then that is now the correct spelling.

The line, though, is extremely fuzzy and ill defined. But in general I would be ok with semi-official attempts at spelling normalization.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Originally Posted by Betty

I also believe I'm a hypocrit as I can't seem to catch my own spelling errors right away.

I see what you did their.

I walked into a book store the other day to tell the woman at the counter that the sign advertising "Dog Day's of Summer" didn't need an apostrophe. She didn't seem to be too bothered.

Unforgivable in a children's book store.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

I see what you did their.

I walked into a book store the other day to tell the woman at the counter that the sign advertising "Dog Day's of Summer" didn't need an apostrophe. She didn't seem to be too bothered.

Unforgivable in a children's book store.

The problem of the abused apostrophe is endemic at this point. I see it absolutely everywhere. Even if someone questioned whether they should use the apostrophe, they would have only too look at their environment to have the wrong choice reinforced.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

The problem of the abused apostrophe is endemic at this point. I see it absolutely everywhere.

The one that irritates me the most is the difference between it's (conjunction for 'it is'.... just say the sentence using the non conjunctive form and see if it sounds right) and its (possessive).

But yeah... plural, means no apostrophe (i.e. two dogs). Singular possessive is apostrophe before the 's'. (i.e. that dog's bone). Possessive for multiple is apostrophe after the 's'. (i.e. those dogs' home). Yeesh not hard to learn.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

The problem of the abused apostrophe is endemic at this point. I see it absolutely everywhere. Even if someone questioned whether they should use the apostrophe, they would have only too look at their environment to have the wrong choice reinforced.

Wouldn't normally do this, but you used the bolded word incorrectly and exactly opposite of its meaning. Epidemic is what you wanted (spread throughout the environment as opposed to native or localized to a very specific environment).

Let's make this thread the "pointless pedantry" equivalent of the Sooo... thread or one of the random thoughts thread. The appropriate thing would be to post how I'm wrong and then we can argue over the detailed parsing of medical vocabularies spread into the vernacular.


As for the article I don't think it meant to say that the rules really are too difficult to learn but that obviously they are difficult enough that many people haven't learned them. And that by the time you are teaching college classes it isn't worth the distraction of responding to them to the detriment of the actual class. That ultimately, knowing whether something is an affect or an effect is not particularly important to understanding the proper application of carbon dating.

And I think the last paragraph in the article is the key one. He isn't calling for wholesale abandonment of spelling rules and willy nilly ad hoc redefinition of variants. Simply that there are some words so commonly misspelled that maybe it is time to stop wasting energy calling them mistakes and move on.


Finally, my most recent example of egregious apostrophes:



Egregious because it is unnecessary and contributes to the suggestion that there is fun in Modesto.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Alex

Finally, my most recent example of egregious apostrophes:



Egregious because it is unnecessary and contributes to the suggestion that there is fun in Modesto.

A much needed, and appreciated, belly laugh for the day. Bwahahaha.

For the record, I am an atrocious speller and proofreader. This is why editors and proofreaders are needed!

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Alex

Wouldn't normally do this, but you used the bolded word incorrectly and exactly opposite of its meaning. Epidemic is what you wanted (spread throughout the environment as opposed to native or localized to a very specific environment).

I suppose I wasn't aware that Canada and the UK were likewise having issues with apostrophe abuse. But I see your point. I was more focused on the fact that it meant it was prevalent and fully ingrained in the culture.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
en·dem·ic Audio Help (ěn-děm'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Prevalent in or peculiar to a particular locality, region, or people: diseases endemic to the tropics. See Synonyms at native.