Don’t be stoopid, spelling matters. (just what I needed to see today after Drew’s post yesterday.)
on 09/10/2008 at 10:25 AM
If you want to be understood, then you must communicate understandably.
It’s as simple as that. If you can’t (or won’t) spell correctly and follow standard conventions of writing, blame only yourself if no one gets your point, or if someone misconstrues it. And we won’t even touch the matters of grammar, diction, syntax, subject/object agreement, and all that.
Tannenberg refers to actual skills that used to be taught in actual schools.
Yeah, I remember those schools, Drew. Vaguely.
Kind of like money that was actually worth something. I vaguely remember that, too....
(sigh)
Okay, I have to admit I do the same. Intentionally misspelling words, that is. I consider it a similar situation to using profanity in comedy. I usually consider a comic who resorts to profanity in his routine to be admitting that he has a poor command of one the primary tools of his trade, that being spoken language. That being said, I concede there are places where the appropriate (to the situation) effect of your words simply CANNOT be gotten without using a “shock word” or two. The point is that such situations should be the exception, not the rule.
But yanno, right around 75% of all human communication is *non-verbal*. It is in facial expression, tone of voice, body language. Things that written text simply cannot accurately convey. So yeah, if I’m tryin for a casual, “just folks” tone to a written piece, I tend to leave off final g’s and such.
I have no problem with students being taught to intentionally misspell words, and when and why they should do so. In other words, teach them how changing the visual presentation of a concept symbol (word) changes the perceived meaning and/or context of the message. But if it’s going to be done, it should be taught as an advanced course, *in addition to* the basics of the language, NOT INSTEAD OF.
Case in point:
“Of course, the fact that Sarah Palin is stunningly pretty is no handicap in her candidacy.”
is a very similar message to
“McCain/Palin 08: Sarah, u r HAWT!!!!!!!!11”
See? The subtext, the concepts the writer is attempting to convey, are quite similar. The difference is that the second was written by someone who has decided that if you want to communicate with DUMBASSES, you should be at least nominally fluent in dumbass.
In today’s world, I must concede that fluency in dumbass, both spoken and written, is a language skill one can ill afford to ignore.
GOF
DUMBASS? Iznt he the guy who wrote Teh Cownt of Monte Carlo en den invented Teh 3 Muskatears Bar?
Ize be bookin it! Ize a reeda, dawg!
09/10/2008 at 11:41 AM
