Comments on: Monthly Gleanings http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Tue, 21 May 2013 22:08:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Paul Peterson http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/#comment-138682 Paul Peterson Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:07:51 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/#comment-138682 Do away with traditional English spellings and life will become a lot more difficult for students of historical (Germanic) linguistics. Fie! On a side note, I have found myself substituting 'any longer' for 'anymore' as a rule (despite the fact that the 'anymore' appears in my mind every time as the first option). I've been in the dark as to whether a correct spelling exists since I began writing, and have noticed that in most of the literature I have read it is 'any more.' Do away with traditional English spellings and life will become a lot more difficult for students of historical (Germanic) linguistics. Fie! On a side note, I have found myself substituting ‘any longer’ for ‘anymore’ as a rule (despite the fact that the ‘anymore’ appears in my mind every time as the first option). I’ve been in the dark as to whether a correct spelling exists since I began writing, and have noticed that in most of the literature I have read it is ‘any more.’

]]> By: Laura J. http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/#comment-133287 Laura J. Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:13:42 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/#comment-133287 The native Japanese phonetic script is actually the very paragon of easy learnability; it's only their insistence on keeping Chinese mixed in with it that makes it difficult to read on an adult level. The native Japanese phonetic script is actually the very paragon of easy learnability; it’s only their insistence on keeping Chinese mixed in with it that makes it difficult to read on an adult level.

]]> By: Allan http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/#comment-128863 Allan Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:35:55 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/#comment-128863 Yes, spelling should cater for reeders, but also for riters. If riters find riting difficult, they wil tend to avoid it. And reeders wil then miss out. Throwing in extra letters just so reeders can distinguish, say, 'rein' from 'reign', seems odd when we dont toss in enny extra sound when saying the words. We no them from context. Just as we do with homografs, such as, 'sound', 'bar'. I would hate to be a Japanese having to memorize their orthografy. The ame of an alfabet is to make reesoning and logic the tools to help us reed, rather than us having to memorize most of the dictionary. [In this note, i hav made homografs where most reeders did not expect them: 'no' for 'know', 'reed' for 'read'. Not being used to them, u probbably found them a little disruptiv, but did u misinterpret them?] Yes, spelling should cater for reeders, but also for riters. If riters find riting difficult, they wil tend to avoid it. And reeders wil then miss out.

Throwing in extra letters just so reeders can distinguish, say, ‘rein’ from ‘reign’, seems odd when we dont toss in enny extra sound when saying the words. We no them from context. Just as we do with homografs, such as, ‘sound’, ‘bar’.

I would hate to be a Japanese having to memorize their orthografy. The ame of an alfabet is to make reesoning and logic the tools to help us reed, rather than us having to memorize most of the dictionary.

[In this note, i hav made homografs where most reeders did not expect them: 'no' for 'know', 'reed' for 'read'. Not being used to them, u probbably found them a little disruptiv, but did u misinterpret them?]

]]> By: Book Calendar (Nishan Stepak) http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/#comment-126507 Book Calendar (Nishan Stepak) Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:10:39 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/#comment-126507 I rather like the old rules of spelling. It is like the concept of precedence in law. Go with what has been proved to be useful over time. Introducing lots of new rules without a solid historical foundation is a mistake. The seeming extra bits in spelling give a certain charm to our language and make it more eccentric and thus more interesting. I rather like the old rules of spelling. It is like the concept of precedence in law. Go with what has been proved to be useful over time. Introducing lots of new rules without a solid historical foundation is a mistake. The seeming extra bits in spelling give a certain charm to our language and make it more eccentric and thus more interesting.

]]> By: Scott de B. http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/#comment-126429 Scott de B. Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:52:36 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/2008/01/spellcheck/#comment-126429 English spelling may be difficult, but there is evidence that the inclusion of superfluous letters makes words more distinctive and thus easier to read. Distinguishing feet and feat is but one example. Since a word is written only once but potentially read thousands of times, it makes sense to cater to readers rather than writers. And one cannot ascribe literacy problems to our spelling system; Japanese orthography is infinitely more complicated, yet they have one of the highest literacy rates in the world. English spelling may be difficult, but there is evidence that the inclusion of superfluous letters makes words more distinctive and thus easier to read. Distinguishing feet and feat is but one example. Since a word is written only once but potentially read thousands of times, it makes sense to cater to readers rather than writers. And one cannot ascribe literacy problems to our spelling system; Japanese orthography is infinitely more complicated, yet they have one of the highest literacy rates in the world.

]]>