Comments on: Integrating commonly misspelled words

By: Disinterested in the difference | wongaBlog

Disinterested in the difference | wongaBlog — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:02:49 +0000

[...] few weeks ago I blogged about spelling & grammar. As is traditional in such situations I was wrong about pretty much [...]

By: Apathy Sketchpad » Blog Archive » A Hard Spell

Apathy Sketchpad » Blog Archive » A Hard Spell — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:54:07 +0000

[...] balance, here is another British secularist Andrew expressing the opposite opinion. I reckon that’s some pretty shit-hot balance right there. *And don’t trust me, either [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:57:07 +0000

I could live with that.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:55:24 +0000

Maybe any combination of letters that isn’t any other word should mean ‘manoeuvre’. Sure, some blogs would then read “manoeuvre in manoeuvre manoeuvre the manoeuvre”, but that would probably be no big loss.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:46:36 +0000

That’s fair enough. I admit I was less sure about the i-before-e stuff, but I thought the attitude towards general errors made sense. You’re totally right – it’s backwards not to appreciate the underlying rules.

Can we all agree to declare a free-for-all on ‘maneuver’, though? I hate, hate, hate that word.

By: Abashed | wongaBlog

Abashed | wongaBlog — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:40:48 +0000

[...] that any writing on the subject of spelling or grammar will contain ironic mistakes. As such, I apparently don’t know the difference between ‘alternate’ and ‘alternative’. Ho [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:13:31 +0000

I disagree.

I mean, sure there are common spelling ‘errors’ that should be adopted — I’d have no major problem with “speach”, for example — but some of Smith’s suggestions are idiotic. “Thier” or “nieghbour”, like “ignor”, “opertunity” and “occured” isn’t just non-conventional spelling, it’s outright misleading — not one of those would be pronounced the way the word is usually spelt.

There are systems and rules to the English language, and they’re more complex and applied more consistently than most people — Smith included — think they are. Before anyone starts amending the language they should take time out to learn them. As an example, Smith cites “their” as a word which “break[s] the “i” before “e” rule” — it doesn’t. The “i before e rule” only applies where the sound is “ee” and there’s no preceding ‘c’. Those criteria simply aren’t met in many of the words he suggests changing.

Smith shouldn’t be given such a prestigious platform to pontificate on things he doesn’t understand. He can’t even spell “judgement”.