Spelling error triggers flamewar October 17, 2001 12:06 PM Subscribe
nasty flaming over spelling, for goodness sake.
[1]
[2]
[3 snappy comeback]
what is it about spelling that gets people so riled up?
[1]
[2]
[3 snappy comeback]
what is it about spelling that gets people so riled up?
I'm of two minds on this (I'm of two minds on everything). On one hand, I distrust people who can't or won't spell correctly, whether it be because of dyslexia or laziness. On the other hand, I know that's unfair of me. I force myself to remember that many, many great writers (such as F. Scott Fitzgerald) were horrible, atrocious spellers, and usually awful with punctuation. Their messages, however...
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:38 PM on October 17, 2001
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:38 PM on October 17, 2001
I have officially stopped pointing out spelling errors on MetaFilter [Unless of course it's someone who I can't offend in any other way. Then they're fair game] Mostly, if someone points out a spelling error of mine, I can say "thanks for letting me know," and just feel like a goober for a minute or two. That's OK. Everyone should feel like a goober from time to time.
But it is one of those situations where, for example, if you sent out a memo at work full of misspellings...well, people might think a little less of you. Why would they think that? Because you can't even be bothered to spell-check your memo. This implies laziness, like it or not. And many would assume that if you can't perform an extremely basic function like spell-checking, you are less likely to be a real thorough type of person.
For myself, when I read an email that has a bunch of misspellings, my first assumption is that the sender is lazy or just doesn't give a crap about spelling. Sorry, but that's always my first reaction. I'm not going to call them on it necessarily, and if I find out later they are dyslexic, or do not speak English as their first language, I will modify my view.
One other reaction I usually have is that the person sending me the mail doesn't give a monkey's testicle about his/her reader (namely me). Then I think of it as a common courtesy issue.
ps moz, that's "rightious"
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:28 PM on October 17, 2001
But it is one of those situations where, for example, if you sent out a memo at work full of misspellings...well, people might think a little less of you. Why would they think that? Because you can't even be bothered to spell-check your memo. This implies laziness, like it or not. And many would assume that if you can't perform an extremely basic function like spell-checking, you are less likely to be a real thorough type of person.
For myself, when I read an email that has a bunch of misspellings, my first assumption is that the sender is lazy or just doesn't give a crap about spelling. Sorry, but that's always my first reaction. I'm not going to call them on it necessarily, and if I find out later they are dyslexic, or do not speak English as their first language, I will modify my view.
One other reaction I usually have is that the person sending me the mail doesn't give a monkey's testicle about his/her reader (namely me). Then I think of it as a common courtesy issue.
ps moz, that's "rightious"
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:28 PM on October 17, 2001
I've been thinking more and more lately that we were better off in Shakespeare's time, when words didn't have standard spellings. Admittedly, some standardization of spelling does improve readability, but if readability were the main reason for uniform spelling, we would have gone ahead and adopted some sort of logical spelling system by now. As it is, standardized spelling is little more than a handy way to belittle people who fail to observe it.
I will say that the claim "the people who can't spell are the ones who do not read" is utterly false, and is disproven by even the simplest observations.
posted by moss at 1:56 PM on October 17, 2001
I will say that the claim "the people who can't spell are the ones who do not read" is utterly false, and is disproven by even the simplest observations.
posted by moss at 1:56 PM on October 17, 2001
I don't think that this issue is spelling as much as it is jfuller not agreeing with others, and using this issue as an argumentative lever. It is an admittedly poor, pedantic device, and one that can backfire, as it did to him.
posted by Avogadro at 2:02 PM on October 17, 2001
posted by Avogadro at 2:02 PM on October 17, 2001
yeah, which was why I didn't say anything in the thread.
(tho instinctively I find myself in the same camp with Kafkaesque - as a writer, I find myself making snap judgements about people based on the way they communicate in writing. it really is the experiences in my first post that remind me that spelling & grammar have only a loose association with any kind of smarts. (when mom went back to college, she gave me her papers to proofread...but it was her own intelligence & hard work that gave her success.))
posted by epersonae at 3:24 PM on October 17, 2001
(tho instinctively I find myself in the same camp with Kafkaesque - as a writer, I find myself making snap judgements about people based on the way they communicate in writing. it really is the experiences in my first post that remind me that spelling & grammar have only a loose association with any kind of smarts. (when mom went back to college, she gave me her papers to proofread...but it was her own intelligence & hard work that gave her success.))
posted by epersonae at 3:24 PM on October 17, 2001
I know some smart people who can't spell worth a damn. *I've* always had an easy time spelling, but I'm a terrible typist, which amounts to the same thing.
what's the deal, as long as the meaning is clear? if the poster is concerned about the unconscious reactions of others to their misspellings, they can use the spell check, it's right there.
attacking someone's spelling is not only rude, it's usually a cheap shot taken when someone doesn't have a substantive attack on the argument at hand, and we should all remember that.
posted by rebeccablood at 4:00 PM on October 17, 2001
what's the deal, as long as the meaning is clear? if the poster is concerned about the unconscious reactions of others to their misspellings, they can use the spell check, it's right there.
attacking someone's spelling is not only rude, it's usually a cheap shot taken when someone doesn't have a substantive attack on the argument at hand, and we should all remember that.
posted by rebeccablood at 4:00 PM on October 17, 2001
I will say that the claim "the people who can't spell are the ones who do not read" is utterly false, and is disproven by even the simplest observations.
I disagree. Or, rather, I think the correlation is much stronger than you are willing to admit. Certainly, it's not perfect, but it does exist. Ditto for vocabulary.
posted by rushmc at 5:29 PM on October 17, 2001
I disagree. Or, rather, I think the correlation is much stronger than you are willing to admit. Certainly, it's not perfect, but it does exist. Ditto for vocabulary.
posted by rushmc at 5:29 PM on October 17, 2001
Rushmc, you ignorant slut.
In fact, I'm a copious reader who has spelling problems. Dyslexia is a separate issue from literacy.
posted by dong_resin at 5:40 PM on October 17, 2001
In fact, I'm a copious reader who has spelling problems. Dyslexia is a separate issue from literacy.
posted by dong_resin at 5:40 PM on October 17, 2001
there is a correlation...probably much, much stronger with vocabulary (the words you know) than spelling (can you actually spell those words?)...but, particularly with spelling, the correlation is weak enough that it's a bad assumption to make.
add the possibility of bad typing (as noted by rebecca), then the well-known weirdness of English spelling & grammar, and voila! the person with spelling problems is both common, not a non-reader, and not an idiot.
no excuse for not using spell-check, of course, unless you're on Opera.
dong_resin, thank you for using "you ignorant slut"! that's the insult of choice in my writers' group. :)
posted by epersonae at 6:06 PM on October 17, 2001
add the possibility of bad typing (as noted by rebecca), then the well-known weirdness of English spelling & grammar, and voila! the person with spelling problems is both common, not a non-reader, and not an idiot.
no excuse for not using spell-check, of course, unless you're on Opera.
dong_resin, thank you for using "you ignorant slut"! that's the insult of choice in my writers' group. :)
posted by epersonae at 6:06 PM on October 17, 2001
I'm here to help.
posted by dong_resin at 6:10 PM on October 17, 2001
posted by dong_resin at 6:10 PM on October 17, 2001
Man, I can't spell for poop, but I got a near perfect score on my SAT. So what does that tell ya? Doesn't tell much, just thought I'd brag.
posted by Doug at 9:36 PM on October 17, 2001
posted by Doug at 9:36 PM on October 17, 2001
Dyslexia is a separate issue from literacy.
Dyslexia is also a separate issue from laziness and ignorance and complacency, dork.
Spellcheckers are for the weak.
posted by rushmc at 6:24 AM on October 18, 2001
Dyslexia is also a separate issue from laziness and ignorance and complacency, dork.
Spellcheckers are for the weak.
posted by rushmc at 6:24 AM on October 18, 2001
I entirely agree with the premise "I will say that the claim "the people who can't spell are the ones who do not read" is utterly false, and is disproven by even the simplest observations."
I know quite a few people, who read copiously but can't spell to save themselves in "The Typing of the Dead"
And not because they can't type.
Good spelling is either an exercise in rote-learning, or (much, much less commonly) having been taught about the derivations of words, the study of linguistics. People who read, and read for the love of it, see beyond the words, don't see the words at all. The word does not replace the meaning of the thing. The thing exists, the word does not.
Sometimes people are both literate and good at rote learning, sometimes not.
I remember reading the the rules of the english language are so warped, so inconsistent, that people who have trouble spelling often have issues with the logic that is so obviously missing from the way many english words are spelt, and are thus pretty darn intelligent. English is a composite language, evolving all the time.
I can't remember where I read that though so I won't mention it here......
posted by lucien at 6:52 AM on October 18, 2001
I know quite a few people, who read copiously but can't spell to save themselves in "The Typing of the Dead"
And not because they can't type.
Good spelling is either an exercise in rote-learning, or (much, much less commonly) having been taught about the derivations of words, the study of linguistics. People who read, and read for the love of it, see beyond the words, don't see the words at all. The word does not replace the meaning of the thing. The thing exists, the word does not.
Sometimes people are both literate and good at rote learning, sometimes not.
I remember reading the the rules of the english language are so warped, so inconsistent, that people who have trouble spelling often have issues with the logic that is so obviously missing from the way many english words are spelt, and are thus pretty darn intelligent. English is a composite language, evolving all the time.
I can't remember where I read that though so I won't mention it here......
posted by lucien at 6:52 AM on October 18, 2001
I force myself to remember that many, many great writers (such as F. Scott Fitzgerald) were horrible, atrocious spellers, and usually awful with punctuation.
I'm writing here only because I can't allow the horribly, horribly wrong implication that Fitzgerald was a great writer to go unchallenged.
As for the spelling issue: get lives, people.
posted by anapestic at 7:37 AM on October 18, 2001
I'm writing here only because I can't allow the horribly, horribly wrong implication that Fitzgerald was a great writer to go unchallenged.
As for the spelling issue: get lives, people.
posted by anapestic at 7:37 AM on October 18, 2001
Dyslexia is also a separate issue from laziness and ignorance and complacency, dork.
Spellcheckers are for the weak.
Yeeee-haw!
I ain't much `a one fur yer fancy book lurn' and such......
Sheeet.
New fangled technology done be in league wit' th' devil!
Hey sis! Brang that sweet ass back on up here.... talk `a the devil gots me all riled.
Yeah, I'm the dork. I'm guessing we're too cool to crack a book and learn a wee bit about dyslexia, huh Billy-Bob?
Hey, but keep typing anyway. It's.... funny.
posted by dong_resin at 9:12 AM on October 18, 2001
Spellcheckers are for the weak.
Yeeee-haw!
I ain't much `a one fur yer fancy book lurn' and such......
Sheeet.
New fangled technology done be in league wit' th' devil!
Hey sis! Brang that sweet ass back on up here.... talk `a the devil gots me all riled.
Yeah, I'm the dork. I'm guessing we're too cool to crack a book and learn a wee bit about dyslexia, huh Billy-Bob?
Hey, but keep typing anyway. It's.... funny.
posted by dong_resin at 9:12 AM on October 18, 2001
what's the deal, as long as the meaning is clear?
I'm with rebecca. Anyone who mentions the spelling or grammar of another poster for any reason other than to point out a possible ambiguity is wasting their time in this kind of a forum. Metafilter is about ideas and discussion. It's not a spelling test.
It's one thing to have a problem taking a poster as seriously if they use poor spelling or grammar or punctuation or what-have-you. To a certain extent, we all subconsciously do that, and so long as we recognize that about ourselves, that's fine. But to bring it up in a discussion here? That's pointless and pure irrelevant negativity. Please don't.
As for correlation between spelling ability and reading: I'm sure there is a correlation on an individual basis -- the more you read, the better you, personally, will become at spelling, most likely--but that's not the kind of thing you can apply in a meaningful way across a population. Everyone is different. Different brains and eyes process information differently. The process of reading is a lot different than the process of writing.
Okay, that's enough from me on the subject.
posted by daveadams at 9:19 AM on October 18, 2001
I'm with rebecca. Anyone who mentions the spelling or grammar of another poster for any reason other than to point out a possible ambiguity is wasting their time in this kind of a forum. Metafilter is about ideas and discussion. It's not a spelling test.
It's one thing to have a problem taking a poster as seriously if they use poor spelling or grammar or punctuation or what-have-you. To a certain extent, we all subconsciously do that, and so long as we recognize that about ourselves, that's fine. But to bring it up in a discussion here? That's pointless and pure irrelevant negativity. Please don't.
As for correlation between spelling ability and reading: I'm sure there is a correlation on an individual basis -- the more you read, the better you, personally, will become at spelling, most likely--but that's not the kind of thing you can apply in a meaningful way across a population. Everyone is different. Different brains and eyes process information differently. The process of reading is a lot different than the process of writing.
Okay, that's enough from me on the subject.
posted by daveadams at 9:19 AM on October 18, 2001
To use this specific example, you might want to check jfuller's blurb in his profile. What's this? A techy-type person? And lo, may the pedantry flow forth in glorious bounty. When you spend a lot of time fiddling with machines (software or hardware) it does tend to rub off in an exaggerated attention to detail. If that's your bag then join in the fun, otherwise ignore it.
posted by MUD at 12:25 PM on October 18, 2001
posted by MUD at 12:25 PM on October 18, 2001
I remember as a kid trying to explain how to spell things to classmates. "Well, you look at the word. And if it looks wrong, you fiddle with it until it looks right." Unfortunately, the other kids had essentially no ability to tell whether a word "looked right" or not and I found myself utterly unable to explain to them how one goes about doing that. I mean, you just look at the word, right? It's either obviously right or it's obviously wrong. There's nothing to think about.
Boy, did I ever learn differently...
posted by kindall at 2:11 PM on October 18, 2001
Boy, did I ever learn differently...
posted by kindall at 2:11 PM on October 18, 2001
kindall--that's how I spell, too. I've met lots of people--avid readers, too--who don't see the shapes of words the way I do, and who are simply terrible spellers. they must have to learn by rote.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:53 PM on October 18, 2001
posted by rebeccablood at 2:53 PM on October 18, 2001
Well, you look at the word. And if it looks wrong, you fiddle with it until it looks right.
Wow... you mean that's not just me?
Neat!
posted by moss at 3:37 PM on October 18, 2001
Wow... you mean that's not just me?
Neat!
posted by moss at 3:37 PM on October 18, 2001
Is there a correlation between those who "spell by shape" and those who can't stand poor spelling?
posted by jaek at 6:01 PM on October 18, 2001
posted by jaek at 6:01 PM on October 18, 2001
Yeah, I'm the dork. I'm guessing we're too cool to crack a book and learn a wee bit about dyslexia, huh Billy-Bob?
So you are disputing my contention and making the claim that dyslexia = laziness, complacency, and ignorance?
Seems to me YOU are the one who'd better go check out that book.
(I won't even mention the laughable hubris of a person who assumes he knows what another MeFi poster knows and doesn't know about a particular topic....)
posted by rushmc at 6:42 PM on October 18, 2001
So you are disputing my contention and making the claim that dyslexia = laziness, complacency, and ignorance?
Seems to me YOU are the one who'd better go check out that book.
(I won't even mention the laughable hubris of a person who assumes he knows what another MeFi poster knows and doesn't know about a particular topic....)
posted by rushmc at 6:42 PM on October 18, 2001
Is there a correlation between those who "spell by shape" and those who can't stand poor spelling?
Perhaps it's just impatience. I.e., I figured out most of this stuff by the time I was ten, what's taking the rest of you so long? I have the same impulse regarding, e.g., religion. I have to suppress it vigorously because it leads to unwarranted feelings of superiority over all mankind.
posted by kindall at 7:48 PM on October 18, 2001
Perhaps it's just impatience. I.e., I figured out most of this stuff by the time I was ten, what's taking the rest of you so long? I have the same impulse regarding, e.g., religion. I have to suppress it vigorously because it leads to unwarranted feelings of superiority over all mankind.
posted by kindall at 7:48 PM on October 18, 2001
Dyslexia is also a separate issue from laziness and ignorance and complacency, dork.
Spellcheckers are for the weak.
rush, maybe it wasn't clear what you were saying up there. In fact, it still isn't, to me anyway.
posted by rodii at 7:51 PM on October 18, 2001
Spellcheckers are for the weak.
rush, maybe it wasn't clear what you were saying up there. In fact, it still isn't, to me anyway.
posted by rodii at 7:51 PM on October 18, 2001
I spell by shape and I'm very tolerant of those who can't spell. but I grew up with some people who can't spell worth beans.
posted by rebeccablood at 9:07 PM on October 18, 2001
posted by rebeccablood at 9:07 PM on October 18, 2001
What rodii has said.
Also, rush, I'm not quite certain how my pointing out your silly assertion that people who can't spell have this problem because they don't read somehow becomes my making the claim that dyslexia = laziness.
As a raging dyslexic, I'm quite aware of just how hard one has to work to deal with it.
Maybe you're too far above me.
Break it down for a mere mortal, if you would.
posted by dong_resin at 1:34 AM on October 19, 2001
Also, rush, I'm not quite certain how my pointing out your silly assertion that people who can't spell have this problem because they don't read somehow becomes my making the claim that dyslexia = laziness.
As a raging dyslexic, I'm quite aware of just how hard one has to work to deal with it.
Maybe you're too far above me.
Break it down for a mere mortal, if you would.
posted by dong_resin at 1:34 AM on October 19, 2001
Rebecca - I'm the same and can 'see' when a word is spelt wrongly, but I often get word blindness (usually after a long day at the PC) and lose my capacity to tell. It's always the simplest words that get you as well. And as a touch typist I often find my fingers doing my spelling for me e.g. typing out 'the' intead of 'to' and adding 'g' or 'e' to words ending 'in'. It's a freaky thing when you realise your brain has been programmed to do something through repetition and your conscious mind is being ignored.
posted by Summer at 4:48 AM on October 19, 2001
posted by Summer at 4:48 AM on October 19, 2001
rush, maybe it wasn't clear what you were saying up there. In fact, it still isn't, to me anyway.
I thought it was pretty clear, but then I guess I would, wouldn't I?
I was pointing out the absurdity of the claim that all bad spellers must necessarily suffer from dyslexia, which is most certainly NOT the case.
I'm not quite certain how my pointing out your silly assertion that people who can't spell have this problem because they don't read somehow becomes my making the claim that dyslexia = laziness.
Your response to my assertion that some people spell badly due to laziness, etc. attacked me as being anti-dyslexic. Get over yourself. I wasn't discussing dyslexia, nor was I denying its existence.
posted by rushmc at 6:17 AM on October 19, 2001
I thought it was pretty clear, but then I guess I would, wouldn't I?
I was pointing out the absurdity of the claim that all bad spellers must necessarily suffer from dyslexia, which is most certainly NOT the case.
I'm not quite certain how my pointing out your silly assertion that people who can't spell have this problem because they don't read somehow becomes my making the claim that dyslexia = laziness.
Your response to my assertion that some people spell badly due to laziness, etc. attacked me as being anti-dyslexic. Get over yourself. I wasn't discussing dyslexia, nor was I denying its existence.
posted by rushmc at 6:17 AM on October 19, 2001
I'm the same and can 'see' when a word is spelt wrongly, but I often get word blindness (usually after a long day at the PC) and lose my capacity to tell.
That's interesting; I've never experienced that. I know when I don't know how to spell a word, and I *look it up* (what a concept). There does seem to be some sort of mental block about those words, some of which are quite simple, however, as I will still, in all likelihood, have to look them up again the next time I want to use them. Fortunately, they are few.
posted by rushmc at 6:20 AM on October 19, 2001
That's interesting; I've never experienced that. I know when I don't know how to spell a word, and I *look it up* (what a concept). There does seem to be some sort of mental block about those words, some of which are quite simple, however, as I will still, in all likelihood, have to look them up again the next time I want to use them. Fortunately, they are few.
posted by rushmc at 6:20 AM on October 19, 2001
It's usually words like cloud, rushmc, or something equally ridiculous. It's like when you look in the mirror and after a while your face loses its familiarity. The bit of your brain that deals with recognition suddenly stops working. You know then it's time to sit down and have a nice strong cup of tea.
posted by Summer at 6:26 AM on October 19, 2001
posted by Summer at 6:26 AM on October 19, 2001
What Summer's describing happens to me too--in fact, with the very same examples (words ending in "in" becoming "ine" or "ing"), among others. Summer, you are my sister in typomisadventures.
posted by rodii at 7:45 AM on October 19, 2001
posted by rodii at 7:45 AM on October 19, 2001
Rush, if you're going to make such jackass broad sweeping statements such as misspelling being mostly caused by laziness, or from just not reading enough, or that spell checkers are for the weak, yeah, you're coming off anti-dyslexic, as that's exactly the sort of crap dyslexics have to put up with.
As for getting over myself.... rush, I'm just too pretty.
Summer, what you're describing happens to me as well.
posted by dong_resin at 10:36 AM on October 19, 2001
As for getting over myself.... rush, I'm just too pretty.
Summer, what you're describing happens to me as well.
posted by dong_resin at 10:36 AM on October 19, 2001
that's exactly the sort of crap dyslexics have to put up with.
I'd say a much bigger burden for them is having to put up with assholic, hypersensitive, clueless spokespersons like yourself. But that's just me. :::shrug:::
posted by rushmc at 5:43 PM on October 19, 2001
I'd say a much bigger burden for them is having to put up with assholic, hypersensitive, clueless spokespersons like yourself. But that's just me. :::shrug:::
posted by rushmc at 5:43 PM on October 19, 2001
Hey! you typed a whole sentence without contradicting yourself once.
You are impressive.
posted by dong_resin at 6:14 PM on October 19, 2001
You are impressive.
posted by dong_resin at 6:14 PM on October 19, 2001
I always put an extra S into Nietzche and I've been reading the man's name for ages, i.e. Nietzsche. The same happens with a lot of other words. If I write down the two possible spellings I know which one is right. But the problem is that repeating this time-wasting exercise over the years, even when bolstered with looking-up, still doesn't lurn me how to rite real proper like!
The only infallible method is public humiliation by correction. At this, MeFi has been very good, specially when, er, posting spelling threads.
Also, rushmc is right, at least for those of us who have only read and spoken English and never written the damn thing. It's the reading that does it for spelling. Alas, doesn't do much for the writing as you're forever stuck in your original language in terms of syntax, sentence-construction and even semantics...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:41 PM on October 19, 2001
The only infallible method is public humiliation by correction. At this, MeFi has been very good, specially when, er, posting spelling threads.
Also, rushmc is right, at least for those of us who have only read and spoken English and never written the damn thing. It's the reading that does it for spelling. Alas, doesn't do much for the writing as you're forever stuck in your original language in terms of syntax, sentence-construction and even semantics...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:41 PM on October 19, 2001
I always put an extra S into Nietzche
S is for superman?
posted by rushmc at 9:58 AM on October 20, 2001
S is for superman?
posted by rushmc at 9:58 AM on October 20, 2001
Who knows? :-)
Heidegger I always give an extra D and take away his second G to compensate, i.e. Heiddeger. On the other hand, I can spell Kierkegaard and of course pronounce it to rhyme with Canadian Film Board but, deep in my mind, it secretly rhymes with Right Guard...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:32 PM on October 20, 2001
Heidegger I always give an extra D and take away his second G to compensate, i.e. Heiddeger. On the other hand, I can spell Kierkegaard and of course pronounce it to rhyme with Canadian Film Board but, deep in my mind, it secretly rhymes with Right Guard...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:32 PM on October 20, 2001
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by epersonae at 12:09 PM on October 17, 2001