Syntax with Mark Twains help joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 24 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#487,648
"SPELLING"
"I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing. I have a correspondent whose letters are always a refreshment to me, there is such a breezy unfettered originality about his orthography. He always spells Kow with a large K. Now that is just as good as to spell it with a small one. It is better. It gives the imagination a broader field, a wider scope. It suggests to the mind a grand, vague, impressive new kind of a cow."
"I have had an aversion to good spelling for sixty years and more, merely for the reason that when I was a boy there was not a thing I could do creditably except spell according to the book. It was a poor and mean distinction and I early learned to disenjoy it. I suppose that this is because the ability to spell correctly is a talent, not an acquirement. There is some dignity about an acquirement, because it is a product of your own labor. It is wages earned, whereas to be able to do a thing merely by the grace of God and not by your own effort transfers the distinction to our heavenly home—where possibly it is a matter of pride and satisfaction but it leaves you naked and bankrupt."
"I never had any large respect for good spelling. That is my feeling yet. Before the spelling-book came with its arbitrary forms, men unconsciously revealed shades of their characters and also added enlightening shades of expression to what they wrote by their spelling, and so it is possible that the spelling-book has been a doubtful benevolence to us."
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#487,649
@previous (Syntax with Mark Twains help)
shut the fuck up syntax
Syntax without Mark Twain replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#487,652
@previous (E)
Inventive spelling (sometimes invented spelling) is the use of unconventional spellings of words.
Conventional written English is not phonetic (that is, it is not written as it sounds, due to the history of its spelling, which led to outdated, unintuitive, misleading or arbitrary spelling conventions and spellings of individual words) unlike, for example, German or Spanish, where letters have relatively fixed associated sounds, so that the written text is a fair representation of the spoken words.
Syntax without Mark Twain double-posted this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#487,653
@487,649 (E)
Theories of supporters of Inventive spelling
Those who favor inventive spelling tend to believe in constructivism, a theoretical perspective on learning (an epistemology) grounded in postmodernism and holism. Constructivists believe that knowledge is created by individuals in a social context. Because knowledge is cultural, there are no right answers. In terms of inventive spelling, constructivists are likely to believe that the child is inventing spellings in accord with his or her understanding of language and print. These spellings are neither right nor wrong; they reflect the child's development as a speller.
dw skg joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#487,654
i am the best speller
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#487,656
@previous (dw skg)
So fare I am the very worst speller.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#487,663
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#487,689
@previous (dw skg llc)
That jest was jest on pappose
cccuuunnttt !CUuNTTZV9M (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#487,796
Bump - postmortem pls
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#487,819
Well, I'm actually using a cell phone the majority of the time, and it's a pain to edit. That being said I do tend to ignore other people's mistakes, I think it should be more about what's being said, and less about how well presented it is.
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#487,820
But also I have poor grammar, never really bothered to learn how to properly write. I just write like I talk, basically. Which I know isn't what you're supposed, to.! Do.
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#487,826
@487,819 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
really? i find that people care way more about presentation than they do about content. if you present something better than someone else you immediately gain more credibility. it's basically the scientific law behind every presidential election.
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#487,835
@previous (squeegee)
I agree that people tend to care more about style than substance, but I personally make a point to look at what's being said more than how it's being said. Especially things like simple spelling errors.
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#487,861
@previous (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
not me. i use spelling as a quick and dirty method of determining whether an individual's ideas should be dismissed or more thoroughly digested. i hit one spelling mistake or obvious grammatical error and i'm out.
be like leave that shit to the professionals, yo
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ replied with this 12 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#487,866
@previous (squeegee)
I think that's extremely narrow minded. Even the beloved Kimmo Alm made exceptions for foreigners who didn't have the firmest grasp on the language.Consider dyslexics for exampe for whome spelling comes unnaturally do we dismiss their thoughts because of their spelling errors? Or even more simply, someone could be very good at mathematics, and terrible at grammar. And finally nearly every great piece of literature had an editor, and even then you can find spelling errors here, and there.
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#487,867
@487,826 (squeegee) > really? i find that people care way more about presentation than they do about content. if you present something better than someone else you immediately gain more credibility. it's basically the scientific law behind every presidential election.
Then you have never attended an Engineering meeting. Presenter can throw in all kinds of bells n whistles - bang up Graphics and may have fantastic style. Engineers on receiving end look for the slightest technical detail they can pick apart. I know cause once just once at a conference an Engineer presented a paper - fantastic presentation that wowed everyone - One problemo
He put up the full schematic of his design - Took me the 1/2 hour of his paper to figure out why it could never work - even if modified - He was trying to break a basic law of physics.
At end I stood up to mic to point out this flaw and he looked and me looked at his slide and said Yep I agree. Or in other words that wanker rushed a paper - used presentation to wow all of us and never did bother to submit circuit to even Spice simulator (computer simulator) Takes a few minutes
> it's basically the scientific law behind every presidential election.
10/10 fully agree with THAT!
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#487,868
@487,866 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
disagree. editors are not there to spell and grammer check authors. editors trim whole sections and request revisions. more than likely what you see as spelling errors in literature came through during some kind of transcription.
also i would dismiss a mathematician if he wasn't able to keep his proofs orderly and correct. sloppyness or carelessness or ignorance shows itself in writing as easily as mistakes come across in mathematics. glaringly.
that's why mathematicians are so precice,
and writers are such good spellers.
so yeah, maybe somone can be good at something and also NOT be a good writer. but them being good at something does not qualify them to write about it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#488,030
@previous (squeegee) > that's why mathematicians are so precice, > precice
Shitlisted.