Spellun Fings Rite Knot Sew Importint AniMor
There is something more annoying than bad spellers on blogs and in blog comments. And that's the spelling and punctuation police. Are these people trying to help, or do they get off slamming others for easy and not generally important errors? Basically, if you can correct
another's bad spelling, then you know what word they were attempting to use. So why bother?
God knows I've unleashed my fair share of horrific spelling, and even worse punctuation and grammar (or should that be "worse, even : grammar?") on this blog. Spell check is fantastic, but I'm an Australian writing a blog for a majority audience almost even split between Australian and American readers. So when I write the word 'colour', do I use the Australian-British spelling - c-o-l-o-u-r - or do I go with the American variant - c-o-l-o-r? Most times, I go with the spelling that looks right in the sentence, if that makes any sense.
As the
internet (e-mail, blogs, social networking, comments) becomes the main form of written communication for at least one third of the world in the next five to ten years, we are going to have to learn to be far less hung up about spelling, and punctuation, in general.
I love the way
uncapitalised and
un-punctuated comments look. So clean and free. I might start blogging like this soon, but my brain and fingers automatically insert commas and full stops without my knowledge. It's hard to shake off the training of English and journalism teachers.
I think there is some wonderful creative spelling going on today, and I think we can do away with a lot of vowels, when, for example, the letters '
clr' are obviously meant to mean the word 'colour' (or 'color) in the sentence. We are already seeing the influence of text messaging and blog comment word shortening slipping into every day usage, and this will only increase as more kids brought up on digital communication move into the workforce, and expand their influence across the new internet media.
I probably spend more time reading blog comments from sites around the world than I do reading actual stories or original blog posts, and the more I'm exposed to what English teachers would have once called "woeful spelling", the less wrong it looks to me. I now love to see the English language changing, evolving, unshackling before my eyes.
It feels like the English language is being set free from the brain-numbing rules and restrictions once imposed by the educated classes, which was also a handy way for the educated, upper classes to find out just how far down the social scale from another someone was. Do World War I letters from the trenches have less emotional power because so many were written by teenagers with little grasp of The Queen's English? I believe, in fact, the complete opposite.
Okay, another long-winded introduction out of the way. Here's the gist of
the news story under discussion :...a British academic has suggested it may be time to accept "variant spellings" as legitimate. Rather than grammarians getting in a huff about "argument" being spelled "arguement" or "opportunity" as "opertunity", why not accept anything that's phonetically (fonetickly anyone?) correct as long as it can be understood?
"Instead of complaining about the state of the education system as we correct the same mistakes year after year, I've got a better idea," Ken Smith, a criminology lecturer at Bucks New University, wrote in the Times Higher Education Supplement.
"University teachers should simply accept as variant spelling those words our students most commonly misspell."
To kickstart his proposal, Smith suggested 10 common misspellings that should immediately be accepted into the pantheon of variants, including "ignor", "occured", "thier", "truely", "speach" and "twelth" (it should be "twelfth").
To that I would add these variants : "
fuku", "
upyors", "
tradishonul", "
yor", "
wanka"...
Akshuly, this is kinda fun.
My Year 7 high school English teacher, however, would be
horifyed.
UPDATE : In an
excellent story, a New York Times journo wonders how exactly she is supposed to excerpt, or quote, blog comments and message board missives with creative spelling and anarchic grammar. Does she leave the words and sentences as the commenter posted them, or should she make the corrections her journo training screams at her that she must?
I am stumped how to excerpt the language on message boards and blogs.
Take a passage signed by zipthwung, an astute online commenter: “pornography if for the ruling classes and their violent vulgar all consuming appetites. Or their slaves.”
Interesting. But so as not to distract you with the typos, should I have repunctuated it, adding commas and plunking a hyphen into “all-consuming”? Should I have turned that “if” to “is”?
Zipthwung — I can testify, as a longtime fan — is a poet and a mystic. Maybe he means “if.”
Week after week, these questions dog me. Sometimes I opt to copy words and paste them into the text of a column — to quote verbatim. I treat message-board words as if they had been written in books, articles, brochures or press releases. Is that what zipthwung wants? Should I care?
My problem with message-board language brings up a prior problem in journalism: the difficulty of translating spoken language into written language. The philosopher Jacques Derrida gained notoriety by dimming the bright line between what was known in strange pre-Internet lingo (French, was it?) as langue and parole. He thought the written-spoken distinction was suspect and by turns collapsed and reasserted itself in the merry game of signification.
The Sanhedrins of style at newspapers are not so amused by the merry game of signification. Most of them seem to believe in standardizing spoken English — to a point. At The New York Times, using nonstandard spelling to reflect dialect — “he wuz a good friend” — is seen as a sketchy business, since no two writers do it the same way and since it can reflect bias. But rhetorical eccentricities ought to be preserved. “I’m friends with him 20 years,” for example, does not have to become, “I have been friends with him for 20 years.”
Some architects of Times style have proposed that communication on a message board should be treated like the text of a novel. As novels of sorts, message boards ought to be excerpted using the same protocols that newspaper critics use to quote from fiction. That is, we should go light on the academic sics, addition brackets and omission ellipses, which in a paper can come across as sneering, cluttered, pretentious or all three.
I’ll go on treating message boards like novels until I am persuaded otherwise.