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

[Alex]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Every writing class I have ever taken taught that it is proper usage to include it. The practice of omitting it was started by newspapers in order to save space.

Here's a good presentation of the argument against, one that is accepted by many English speaking countries and the majority of American non-academic styleguides (which, as you suggest, are primarily newspapers and magazines).

Personally, I use the serial comma, but I agree with the con argument that 90%+ of the time it serves no functional purpose and so to the extent that a rule is needed it should be simply that the comma is mandatory only when its use eliminates ambiguity.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I simply don't agree. Every writing class I have ever taken taught that it is proper usage to include it.

Whereas my college courses taught that either was correct.

Ironically, I use (and prefer) the serial comma.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Somebody (possibly someone on this board, but I cannot recall) taught me this quick reference: any time you are going to use "its" or "it's", test the sentence by using "it is." If "it is" works, then use the contraction "it's." If it doesn't work, use "its."

If only I could remember this. I am constantly getting this wrong and I've tried to get a good pneumonic device to help me out, but to no avail.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

If only I could remember this. I am constantly getting this wrong and I've tried to get a good pneumonic device to help me out, but to no avail.

I'm sorry, but . . . bammo!

At least you didn't say "pneumatic device." That would have been quotable.

[Alex]

The Oxford or serial comma is completely a choice of style (though using it is more commonly American while not is more commonly British). I prefer to have it (simply because to me the ambiguity caused by absence is more annoying than the ambiguity caused by its presence).

But if I'm a descriptivist when it comes to usage of language I am outright indifferent when it comes to punctuation rules (we need them and should generally follow the agreed upon rules but they are fundamentally arbitrary and do not have any inherent rightness).

[Alex]

As far as my typos go, they usually don't have anything to do with ignorance but simply that I can type too fast and my brain has an amazing capacity for homophones and just seems to randomly spit one out when possible.

Though for some reason I always have to correct "rediculous" to "ridiculous." Which is very weird because I never type "ridicule" as "redicule."

[CoasterMatt]

Proper punctuation and capitalization is the difference between "I had to help my uncle Jack, off a horse.." and "I had to help my uncle jack off a horse.."

[CoasterMatt]

Damn it... fixed.

[€uroMeinke]

Its all about communication, and so while I am a "C" speller I use whatever tools to help me out sometimes, not with success. I'm Aural, so when I write, aside from the usual typos, I tend to dictate from the voice in my head and thus make lots of errors with homonyms, or mixing of with have. I don't over think it though because I'd otherwise not write anything.

That said, while spelling and grammar help create standards that facilitate communication, the fact that one can correct someone else's spelling and grammatical errors implies that the intended message got through just the same - so the corrector - outside the academic environment - comes across as self-righteous and annoying.

[CoasterMatt]

The following snippet of text has been circulating on the net for a while: "... randomising letters in the middle of words [has] little or no effect on the ability of skilled readers to understand the text. This is easy to denmtrasote. In a pubiltacion of New Scnieitst you could ramdinose all the letetrs, keipeng the first two and last two the same, and reibadailty would hadrly be aftcfeed. My ansaylis did not come to much beucase the thoery at the time was for shape and senqeuce retigcionon. Saberi's work sugsegts we may have some pofrweul palrlael prsooscers at work. The resaon for this is suerly that idnetiyfing coentnt by paarllel prseocsing speeds up regnicoiton. We only need the first and last two letetrs to spot chganes in meniang."