John Kettler Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 From Time Warner Cable description of "The Unit" season finale: "The team attempts to locate and diffuse three nuclear bombs..." The sheer inanity of the caption made me laugh. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Well if they go BANG then they really will be diffused : ) Sodding idiots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Reminds me of the confusion between 'dispersed' and 'disbursed'. And then there is the ever-popular mixup between 'lose' and 'loose'. And on and on... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share Posted May 11, 2009 dieseltaylor, Almost went there myself in my post, but decided to leave it hanging. Michael Emrys, Not half as fun as the first time I encountered "divers" and thought it was a typo for "diverse." Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 More and more often I'm seeing "peak" substituted for "peek". At least it didn't read "three nucular bombs". Let's face it: most people don't know how to clearly and accurately speak/write their native language. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 it doesn't matter how we "spell" when we speak, so why should it matter when we write? there/their, to/too/two, at least 10 ways of pronouncing "-ough" (eg enough, brough, bough, thought....slough has 3 different pronunciations......) why bother? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 it doesn't matter how we "spell" when we speak' date=' so why should it matter when we write?[/quote'] Because I can't 'hear' you when you write, and I can't ask for a correction or clarification either. Because one values clear communication? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 we don't need no edjucashun we don't need no thought control no dark sarcasm in the classroom hey teacher, leave those kids alone 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 it doesn't matter how we "spell" when we speak, so why should it matter when we write? there/their, to/too/two, at least 10 ways of pronouncing "-ough" (eg enough, brough, bough, thought....slough has 3 different pronunciations......) why bother? To try to get a reasonable signal to noise ratio. 'To, too' and 'two' are not simply different ways to spell the same word, they are three completely different words with different meanings. To substitute one for either of the others only creates confusion. Of which, I submit, there is already an over-abundance. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Two write brother! There are thought to be a million words in the English language and I would suspect that a misspelling is very probably another word with a proper meaning that you have never heard of. He looked at the pyx/pics . He moved the bales/bails. The idea that spelling does not matter - though apparently a widely held view by illiterates - is plane deft. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Muffley Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The dance group got on the old steam-train. "Too-too!" it went as it left the station. "Too-too!" It was so much fun, one of them just had to "too-too" too. It turned out she had two tutus too, but by then the Man Who Didn't Care For Spelling was looking very bemused. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I place much, if not most, of the blame on the myriad and sundry social, political, economic, and geographic forces/factors which made English into the bipolar bastard language it is today. Unlike other languages (an extreme example would be Finnish, in which every letter has the same sound no matter what the word), a given English word is pronounced with virtual disregard for how that word is spelled. (Also, it doesn't help that a given English word -- "fly" is a good example -- can have over a dozen distinct meanings, including verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc.) Given the inconsistency of English pronunciation vis-a-vis English spelling, I can see why folks whose native language is not English find English such a challenge to learn. Yet it seems that it's easier for a person whose native language is not English to learn any two languages other than their native language than for a native speaker of English to learn how to speak even one additional language. Strange, no? But don't get me wrong -- I cherish English as my mother tongue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 later. ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 one one was one rays hoarse to to was one to one one one one rays to to one one to Say that out loud and it makes complete sense, although it may take you a few attempts to fully parse it. See it written down and it's complete nonsense. Wunwun was one race horse, Tutu was one too. Wunwun won one race, Tutu won one too. Write, spell, and punctuate it like that and it makes complete sense on the first reading. Granted it's a contrived example, but more subtle - and more significant - examples are in the newspapers everyday. So, yeah, I think spelling is important. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I place much, if not most, of the blame on the myriad and sundry social, political, economic, and geographic forces/factors which made English into the bipolar bastard language it is today. Unlike other languages (an extreme example would be Finnish, in which every letter has the same sound no matter what the word), a given English word is pronounced with virtual disregard for how that word is spelled. (Also, it doesn't help that a given English word -- "fly" is a good example -- can have over a dozen distinct meanings, including verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc.) Given the inconsistency of English pronunciation vis-a-vis English spelling, I can see why folks whose native language is not English find English such a challenge to learn. Yet it seems that it's easier for a person whose native language is not English to learn any two languages other than their native language than for a native speaker of English to learn how to speak even one additional language. Strange, no? But don't get me wrong -- I cherish English as my mother tongue. I would hazard that, being as English is so monumentally unstructured, it is difficult for a native speaker to pick up the rigid rules and regulations of another language. Or that English is a wonderfully ironic lingua franca and it is seldom necessary to know another language. Or that we're a bunch of lazy curmudgeons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautrek Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I place much, if not most, of the blame on the myriad and sundry social, political, economic, and geographic forces/factors which made English into the bipolar bastard language it is today. We have a castle nearby which is called Beaver Castle. Buts its spelt Belvoir castle. My lad goes the Beacham school which is actually Beauchamps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Muffley Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hmmmm, nice Belvoir. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 "1" - one one was one rays hoarse to to was one to one one one one rays to to one one to "2" - Wunwun was one race horse, Tutu was one too. Wunwun won one race, Tutu won one too. The lack of punctuation in "1" leaves the reader more or less in the dark about how to say "1" out loud. In the case of "2", the punctuation provides a visual representation (though an imperfect one) of the cadence as well as the emphasis which would make clear the meaning of that particular string of clauses. I would hazard that, being as English is so monumentally unstructured, it is difficult for a native speaker to pick up the rigid rules and regulations of another language. I reckon that's part of it. Also, Americans can afford to be lazy, since -- even though there are millions of people in the US who speak dozens of languages other than English or Spanish -- they have virtually no need to ever speak anything but English. That is not so with tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of other folks round the world; thanks to demographics involving greater numbers of languages in relatively small areas and fewer speakers per langauge, folks in places other than the US have much more occasion to interact with differently-languaged folks and learn one another's language. Or that English is a wonderfully ironic lingua franca and it is seldom necessary to know another language. Over the decades it has become more and more convenient (convenient for Americans/Britons, that is) that more and more people in more and more places speak English. Or that we're a bunch of lazy curmudgeons. I reckon that's part of it too. We have a castle nearby which is called Beaver Castle. Buts its spelt Belvoir castle. My lad goes the Beacham school which is actually Beauchamps. Seems the Normans are to blame. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The lack of punctuation in "1" leaves the reader more or less in the dark about how to say "1" out loud. In the case of "2", the punctuation provides a visual representation (though an imperfect one) of the cadence as well as the emphasis which would make clear the meaning of that particular string of clauses. Absolutely. But a belief that spelling is unimportant, and a belief that punctuation are unimportant can very often be found in the same small places. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hmmmm, nice Belvoir. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 And yet everyone actually understood all the "silly" spelling examples written down.......they're not evidence of how necessary spellign is - they're evidence of how it is not necessary at all! We take meaning of spoken words from context - we do NOT always have the opportunity to query the meaning (eg film & television), and with all those "silly" spelling examples we took the meaning from the context without any great bother too. and in these parts "rays" is not pronounced the same as "race"! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I can't agree with you SO. A language that cannot be self-referenced for accuracy in provision of detail or in historical fact is not one that enables its user to predict. Without the ability to predict, we devolve to a simpler organism, one that cannot engineer. It is from the analysis of disciplined, recorded observation that we have come across rules - laws, mechanisms, whatever - that enable us to do what we do and have done (take a look around you right now and figure how much of the stuff in your immediate field of vision would exist without this ability). If the observations are recorded in such a fashion as to obscure their meaning, they are of little use to anyone and the reason for the language's existance (in written form) has been nullified. It then ceases to exist. The argument that spelling doesn't matter usually includes a caveat - commonly to do with "context" or "cultural understanding" or "corporate knowledge". If the caveat to my understanding is that I already understand, I don't understand why I'm reading what I'm reading, nor do I understand why the writer wrote it. And, again, the language conveys no meaning and might as well not exist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Seems the Normans are to blame. I think you are onto something there. Earlier you alluded to a lack of consistency in correspondence between spelling and pronunciation in English, and I suspect that might have come in with the Norman-French influence. If French has any consistency between spelling and pronunciation, I have yet to discover it. I try to puzzle out how a French word is pronounced from the way it is written and I am thwarted at every turn. Alas, I am apparently doomed never to be a Francophone. Spanish is not a great problem for me nor is German, and Italian is okay too. I haven't tried Portuguese. It sounds lovely but elusive to my ear, so I have kept my distance from it, like a beautiful woman one is not sure can be trusted. French is totally sadistic. French spreads banana peels on one's path and then sneers when one slips. "Oh, you are not French. What a pity. Ha, ha, ha." Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 And yet everyone actually understood all the "silly" spelling examples written down.......they're not evidence of how necessary spellign is - they're evidence of how it is not necessary at all! Wrong, Twinky. If a sentence contains multiple misspellings, let alone typos, errors of diction, grammar and punctuation, the reader has to slow down to puzzle out what the intended meaning could be. This slows the flow of information, distracts from meanings onto means as the reader's attention is subtly shifted from what the words stand for to the words themselves. Plus, it is more likely that the reader will attach the wrong interpretation to the words. Ask yourself how many flame fests begin with one party simply misunderstanding what another meant to say. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Alice threw the looking glass. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.