duz reely pore spelign mak yoy luk stoopid?

Is this going to be on the test?

tardis wrote: My vote: Did you do lots of acid back in the day, sir?

Peter Rideout wrote:  Yeah, a kid actually asked me that in the middle of a class on Romeo and Juliet. He raised his hand, I thought "wow -- I've inspired one of them to ask a question!" and he asked that. I did not "dignify it with an answer." (Of course, they all took that as a "yes.")   All of those silly questions are real, & from my HS teaching days.

I actually took 2 hits of acid before an English class once


Edited by tardis - September 26 2006 at 15:35

Visitor13 wrote: Fair enough, but just thought I'd point out that looking stupid isn't the same as being stupid. And therefore very poor (or rather careless) spelling on Internet forums makes you look primarily inconsiderate of others, IMO. This is not the same as stupidity (although it can be just as harmful).

Peter Rideout wrote: ^ Well, Yeats, Einstein and Christie would have had editors. (A human forerunner of spell check software.)   Branson I don't know -- Virgin Records? He'd have a secretary. What does this change? But for those people they'd still look stupid because of their poor spelling. And as children they were perceived as stupid because of it.   Da Vinci? Hadn't heard that of him, perhaps so -- but I can't read medieval Italian. Neither can I, but there are people who can, and they say he had major problems with his spelling.   Anyway, the poll targets consistently "really poor spelling" (sic), and some particular posts I've read here from some seeming English speakers -- one in particular.   More than anything though, it's a cry for the simple use of spell check by those who post consistently garbled, near-unintelligible stuff here. It's not targeting the average Joe or Jane, or any who weren't born into the language. Fair enough, but just thought I'd point out that looking stupid isn't the same as being stupid. And therefore very poor (or rather careless) spelling on Internet forums makes you look primarily inconsiderate of others, IMO. This is not the same as stupidity (although it can be just as harmful).   Plus, it's meant to make you chuckle.... And I did laugh... even though most of the options above should have made me cry.

^ Well, Yeats, Einstein and Christie would have had editors. (A human forerunner of spell check software.)

Edited by Peter Rideout - September 25 2006 at 19:19

tardis wrote: My vote: Did you do lots of acid back in the day, sir?

My vote: Did you do lots of acid back in the day, sir?

condor wrote: Convention for convention's sake restricts any progress or individuality. I only use this outdated, debased, organic grammar & spelling because it is the only system you know and can use. A debate amongst ordinary people and academics is vitally required to plan and restructure the English language. However, like most other important institutions, it will probably be left to the suffocating vagaries of tradition and its assorted outdated meaning. Even if I wanted to spell correctly (in the real sense), our contemptible alphabet and keyboards do not allow me. And anyone who thinks English spelling is quaint or charming is the kind of person who thinks Chinese girls looked pretty with feet bound so tight they became gangrenous. Our current language is just one of many ways of communicating. Language's popularity has more to do with economic and military power than any intrinsic advantages. Lastly, the dictionary may have been a regressive invention. It tried to set in stone what always changes: the pronunciation of words.

Edited by Peter Rideout - September 24 2006 at 21:37

Convention for convention's sake restricts any progress or individuality. I only use this outdated, debased, organic grammar & spelling because it is the only system you know and can use. A debate amongst ordinary people and academics is vitally required to plan and restructure the English language. However, like most other important institutions, it will probably be left to the suffocating vagaries of tradition and its assorted outdated meaning.

Even if I wanted to spell correctly (in the real sense), our contemptible alphabet and keyboards do not allow me. And anyone who thinks English spelling is quaint or charming is the kind of person who thinks Chinese girls looked pretty with feet bound so tight they became gangrenous. Our current language is just one of many ways of communicating. Language's popularity has more to do with economic and military power than any intrinsic advantages.

Lastly, the dictionary may have been a regressive invention. It tried to set in stone what always changes: the pronunciation of words.
    

Edited by condor - September 24 2006 at 12:23

Falling Flower wrote: I learned my English of crappy American soaps on television so you can't really expect me to write all sophisticated and spell every word correct, because I can't.   In school here we get 1 hour of English per week, and if I learned only that, I would now know how to give directions in English and not much more.   And I'm sure that there are more people like me, so does that make us stupid?   And I find myself rather smart actually, tho I may look stupid to you because I don't use big words and make spelling mistakes.

Edited by Peter Rideout - September 24 2006 at 11:24