SPCR

What is it with people typing quite instead of quiet?

Is it a simple transposition typo or do people really not know how to spell quiet? I would normally go for the first explanation, were it not for the woman at my work who does it constantly in emails, and I really don't think she knows she does it.

(Apologies to all those for whom English is not their first language )

I would lean towards transposition error. (Read: I really hope its a transposition error...)

I'd guess it's a simple typo, rather than a genuine spelling mistake.

What drives me into a homicidal rage is when I see "should of/could of/would of" instead of "should have/could have/would have" - I find it genuinely painful to read, and it actually puts me off visiting the distressing number of Internet forums where I know it occurs on a regular basis.

There's no possible excuse or explanation, other than that the writer is a moron.

"That one is quiet to."

Anyone see any problem with that sentence? It's in the same category with "quite" I think. It can't be a typo because it's way too common.

"That one is quiet, too."

One of the more common infractions I've seen: defiantly instead of definitely.

I read fanfiction and it bothers me that quite a few authors (a lot of whom are American, based on their profile page) are lacking in the grammar/spelling department and when you try to bring it to their attention (in a positive manner/constructive criticism), they get defensive.

Yeah, I'm guilty of using run-on sentences...

Puffi wrote:"That one is quiet to."

Anyone see any problem with that sentence? It's in the same category with "quite" I think. It can't be a typo because it's way too common.

Don't get me started. When I come to power, these people will also get a night-time visit from my specially assembled band of educators, who will wear long black leather coats and shiny boots.

At least in their defence they've only made a spelling mistake (albeit one that would shame any half-intelligent 5-year-old), unlike the "should of" micro-intellects who can't even use the correct *$!%ing word...

*looks around for a small furry animal to stamp on...

nick705 I feel your pain...

I wrote:

Some twunt wrote:

I wrote: AAAAAARGH!

That has to be the most awful, all-pervasive affront to English usage ever to appear in recent years. Why is it that people everywhere are doing this to the past conditional? Did English teachers suddenly stop correcting kids' phonetic transcription of the "would've" contraction, or were people always doing this and I'm only noticing it now as I grow older and more cantankerous?

It's not as if it could even be defended by labelling it "modern style" or "part of the natural evolution of the language". Mangled old bollocks is what it is, and it needs to be stopped.

It's called "colloquialism".

Local language.

What I was ranting about is emphatically not a colloquialism. It is a mistake in written English caused by not understanding the contraction "would've" and writing it down as a phoneticisation.

Colloquialisms are words and phrases which arise from the spoken word (not solely "local language"). How can "would of" be a colloquialism when the only difference it has with "would've" is in the way it is written down?

And I really detest it when folk start saying that by mentioning these things I somehow see myself as a self-appointed, one man grammar gestapo. I have no desire to nitpick or have a go purely for the sake of it. I want to be able to use written English to communicate freely without the constant threat of brain haemmorrhage, but apparently that's too much to ask for sometimes.

[/rant]

EDIT: Looking back on that I just realised the original commenter went beyond a simple "would of" or "could of" and combined it with another contraction to make "he'd of". The beast is mutating! Flee!

What's with people who spell copper as cooper? That I see all too often.

Hi,

Another common error is the use "quieten" as a verb, rather than "quiet" -- as far as I know, "quieten" is not an actual word. It is correct to use "quiet" as a verb meaning "to quiet".

nick705 wrote:What drives me into a homicidal rage is when I see "should of/could of/would of" instead of "should have/could have/would have" - I find it genuinely painful to read, and it actually puts me off visiting the distressing number of Internet forums where I know it occurs on a regular basis.

Yes this is indeed very annoying. When I see it I invariably try to use the word "they'd've" in a reply just to give them something think about.

NeilBlanchard wrote:Another common error is the use "quieten" as a verb, rather than "quiet" -- as far as I know, "quieten" is not an actual word. It is correct to use "quiet" as a verb meaning "to quiet".

Now this one I think might be an transatlanticism. To my British English ear to quieten is correct and to quiet sounds like it's from across the pond. A quick Googling of quieten suggests this may be the case.

I stopped caring about spelling properly when my English teacher pointed this out one day. She had another similar example but it escapes me now..

Ghoti spells "fish"

Enough =f
Women(pl) =i
Notion =sh

Rules can and will be broken from now till forever.

On another note i just got a new keyboarrd adn my typos ahave nevre beenn worse.

xan_user wrote:I stopped caring about spelling properly when my English teacher pointed this out one day.

A 14-year-old wrote to us the other day telling us that he was interested in a work-experience placement (summer internship) in space science because he had ambitions of becoming an astronaut.

The words experience, science and astronaut were all spelled incorrectly(*). As was the name of his home town in his return address.

Maybe his letter to NSA axing for a job as a asrtonuat will get him somewhere, once it arrives in the Untied Stats of Amerrika.

(*) Formally (rather than formerly) speaking I suppose I should say "incorrectly spelled", or some other variant.

nutball wrote:Maybe his letter to NSA axing for a job as a asrtonuat will get him somewhere, once it arrives in the Untied Stats of Amerrika.

Now that, I don't think you'll get away with saying it's a typo...

nutball wrote:

xan_user wrote:I stopped caring about spelling properly when my English teacher pointed this out one day.

A 14-year-old wrote to us the other day telling us that he was interested in a work-experience placement (summer internship) in space science because he had ambitions of becoming an astronaut.

The words experience, science and astronaut were all spelled incorrectly(*). As was the name of his home town in his return address.

Maybe his letter to NSA axing for a job as a asrtonuat will get him somewhere, once it arrives in the Untied Stats of Amerrika.

(*) Formally (rather than formerly) speaking I suppose I should say "incorrectly spelled", or some other variant.

The kid could be a better pilot than Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, unfortunately due to his lack of correct spelling we will never know.

Proper grammar/typing skills should not be teh only measuring stick for intelligence. (damn 'the' typos always get me..my fault for taking extra science classes instead of leaning to type adn spell.)

Its a shame to think you would send Benjamin Franklin and JFK packing based on their lack of grammatical prowess. Misfits do have a history of thriving in this country, maybe it because we give them the chance...?

xan_user wrote: Its a shame to think you would send Benjamin Franklin and JFK packing based on their lack of grammatical prowess. Misfits do have a history of thriving in this country, maybe it because we give them the chance...?

I wouldn't claim that very poor grammar and spelling necessarily precludes ability in other areas but, apart from dyslexics, and those who for whatever reason have missed out on basic education, in my experience it usually indicates that the offender is an idiot.

I can't see why extra science classes should result in bad spelling, either - isn't it possible to be good at both? Especially given that scientists tend to read a lot, usually from an early age, and keen readers tend to be naturally proficient in written language...

It helps if you proofread what you've written every once in a while.

If someone doesn't bother to check and see whether they've made any mistakes, I'm not gonna let them fly in any of my spaceships.

Einstein was an idiot then...
He gave up on learning to use English "properly" as it was too complicated.

If one of the smartest men to ever live couldn't figure it out, what hope do I really have? (Eng'rish is not my native tongue either.)

Typing class was an elective, I went with extra physics classes instead. I was banking too heavily on star trek type voice recognition making typing/spelling/grammar obsolete.

no offence, but claiming every Joe Sixpack who can't spell is an unsung genius on the order of Einstein or the political figures you mentioned is clearly absurd. It's perfectly understandable to be defensive when people criticise your written words, as by inference it is a criticism of your intellect and/or education, however given that most school-leavers in the UK today can barely spell their own name, you are clearly not in that league of illiteracy.

Did English teachers suddenly stop correcting kids' phonetic transcription of the "would've" contraction

That's exactly what has happened.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 608432.ece

Millions of people are illiterate and struggle with the basic maths needed to get by in life despite billions of pounds being spent on the problem, an influential committee of MPs said.

Even though GCSE achievement is rising, many teenagers are still leaving school without any qualifications in English and maths,

jaganath wrote:

Did English teachers suddenly stop correcting kids' phonetic transcription of the "would've" contraction

That's exactly what has happened.

Sadly the question was rhetorical. I am the eldest of a very large family and have younger siblings still of school age (the youngest has just started secondary). Simple mistakes are ignored by teachers, and mediocre work is almost invariably marked "very good" or "excellent" provided the sentence construction is relatively clear. I can only assume this is the result of some ridiculous policy decision at some point in the last twenty years.

blackworx wrote:

jaganath wrote:

Did English teachers suddenly stop correcting kids' phonetic transcription of the "would've" contraction

That's exactly what has happened.

Sadly the question was rhetorical. I am the eldest of a very large family and have younger siblings still of school age (the youngest has just started secondary). Simple mistakes are ignored by teachers, and mediocre work is almost invariably marked "very good" or "excellent" provided the sentence construction is relatively clear. I can only assume this is the result of some ridiculous policy decision at some point in the last twenty years.

Yes, it's the same mentality that forbids competitive sports because "someone has to lose" is deemed to be "bad" for personality development.

heh, if you'd like to imagine some _really_ bad cases of systematical misspelling, just think of the havok all those pop-culture buzzwords and expressions derived of or containing english words life (as in 'get a life'), live (as in 'live wire') and live (as in 'to live a life') wreak on the minds of german-speaking people (even those, who have actually learned english, but probably don't get to speak it very often), if you consider that 'v' and 'f' mostly refer to the same phoneme in german... pheeew

Did English teachers suddenly stop correcting kids' phonetic transcription of the "would've" contraction

It is true, you get what you pay for.

Maybe if educators got paid what they should...

Sad to think how many great minds we may never know just cause they cant spell.

We may never get to meet the next Einstein, Franklin or Kennedy, hes already stuck in remedial spelling class, and will never get accepted into college because he lacks the literary function expected by the linguistic zealots.

How important is good grammar in the sense of the big picture?
Did ye' olde ancient tribes fall when no one could spell?
How could man have possibly existed prior to Webster's?

Its freaking letters on a page, and you all know 99 times out of 100 what the author really meant anyway.



I wonder how this thread might discourage new spcr members with poor English speaking backgrounds to not post on the site. Maybe its one of those members that has found the silencing panacea, but doesn't dare share it for fear of having his/her literacy attacked.

Great ideas do not require great spelling.

"Is spelling important?"

Let's ask that again: Is. Spelling. Important?

Standardized spelling is only an essential means of making the written communication of the language you have presumably spoken your entire life accessible to the reader after all, and really, who cares about that? [/sark]

Saying spelling is never important is like saying detail is never important.

EDIT: I did make a blanket apology to those whose first language is not English right at the start. I seriously doubt this thread would discourage anyone from posting anything here either, not even if they had the solution to life, the universe and everything but were a bit insecure about their linguistic prowess.

xan_user wrote:The kid could be a better pilot than Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, unfortunately due to his lack of correct spelling we will never know.

Proper grammar/typing skills should not be teh only measuring stick for intelligence. (damn 'the' typos always get me..my fault for taking extra science classes instead of leaning to type adn spell.)

Its a shame to think you would send Benjamin Franklin and JFK packing based on their lack of grammatical prowess. Misfits do have a history of thriving in this country, maybe it because we give them the chance...?

Maybe this kid is a genius, or a hot-shot pilot, or similar. Maybe he isn't. That'll all come out in the wash.

He's 14, writing his letter at school asking for placements as all kids do at his age, mostly as training for the future useful skill of writing CVs and applying for jobs. Is his teacher checking the letters from all the kids in the class to make sure they give a good impression of the kids and the school to the outside world? If not, why not? If so, why isn't the kid corrected?

blackworx wrote: Saying spelling is never important is like saying detail is never important.

I jsut hda to butt in. As lnog as yuo mkae yrouslef udntersood, seplling ins't ipmtornat, is it? After all, as long as the first and last letter is correct, your mind fills in the most, doesn't it?

Sure, I confess, I have serious issue keeping quiet, quite and quit appart, as well as to and too, not to mention piece, peace, and peas. Then again, I'm a swede and there are several words that is spelled the same but have different meanings, like "Ã¥ker". "Ã…ker" can mean both 'going' and 'farming land'. How should I spell that?

At the end of the day, someone spelling badly is lazy or possibly ignorant, but really, couldn't minding it to this degree also be described in a not so flattering way?

blackworx wrote:Simple mistakes are ignored by teachers, and mediocre work is almost invariably marked "very good" or "excellent" provided the sentence construction is relatively clear. I can only assume this is the result of some ridiculous policy decision at some point in the last twenty years.

I don't think you need to limit it to simple mistakes. When we moved to the US, I was surprised by how low the standards were (at least on the secondary/high school level if you weren't taking AP classes). My brother has pretty bad grammar and spelling (English isn't our first language and he's dyslexic but he was placed in the regular stream) but all his English essays, etc were marked very good. I think if I had submitted those to my English teacher, I'd get a barely passing grade but only because I made the effort to submit my work. The paper would also come back to me with all mistakes underlined or circled in red ink.

I always thought people went to school to learn and improve themselves - not to get a pat on the back telling them how good they were doing even if they're really not.

Tobias wrote:Sure, I confess, I have serious issue keeping quiet, quite and quit appart, as well as to and too, not to mention piece, peace, and peas. Then again, I'm a swede and there are several words that is spelled the same but have different meanings, like "Ã¥ker". "Ã…ker" can mean both 'going' and 'farming land'. How should I spell that?

blackworx has already made a blanket disclaimer/apology to non-native speakers. I think his gripe had more to do with the worsening education system in countries where English is the native language.

I visit a Web forum that has a high a percentage of non-English as a first language participants, but most of them are kids in their teens or early 20s and they aren't there to explain technical matters with precision.

You see all sorts of spelling, grammar and punctuation errors (among native as well as non-native speakers), a bit of leetspeak (I think it might be passé by now), cAmEl TeXt, "teh" and "dis", and whatever else you can think of. I've gotten used to it by now, but to learn here that teachers apparently don't even care anymore is rather astonishing.

I'm wondering at this point, even as the use of English continues to increase around the world, whether written English is turning into a free-for-all with anything goes as long as one gets one's point across, a consequence of the written sphere becoming dominated by Web postings and text messages.

Maybe we will be lounging in our gentlemen's clubs bemoaning the passage of proper English writing while the world outside sails on.

tobias wrote:I jsut hda to butt in. As lnog as yuo mkae yrouslef udntersood, seplling ins't ipmtornat, is it? After all, as long as the first and last letter is correct, your mind fills in the most, doesn't it?

The phenomenon you make use of there is an interesting one, and is more to do with visual perception than it is with spelling. Without standardized spelling, and a foreknowledge of the words used, the phenomenon wouldn't actually exist in the first place.

Either way, if you were to try to read an entire book written like that then it would quickly become very tiring, which is what I'm getting at. I'm not saying every single word, phrase and sentence must conform exactly to some arcane and arbitrary rule system. If I did it wouldn't be long before I was (rightly) hoist by my own petard. I'm just saying it would be nice if people were educated with, and at least paid lip service to, the basics.

ilovejedd wrote:I don't think you need to limit it to simple mistakes.

Sorry, by 'simple' I meant 'elementary' as opposed to 'trivial'

I always thought people went to school to learn and improve themselves - not to get a pat on the back telling them how good they were doing even if they're really not.

My feelings exactly. What's more, the shame is ours when our children leave school with fundamental literacy issues.

blackworx wrote:

ilovejedd wrote:I don't think you need to limit it to simple mistakes.

Sorry, by 'simple' I meant 'elementary' as opposed to 'trivial'

Actually, I meant it's not only the simple mistakes they overlook. Even the more atrocious (sorry, can't think of a milder term at the moment) errors get glossed over.

ilovejedd wrote:

blackworx wrote:

ilovejedd wrote:I don't think you need to limit it to simple mistakes.

Sorry, by 'simple' I meant 'elementary' as opposed to 'trivial'

Actually, I meant it's not only the simple mistakes they overlook. Even the more atrocious (sorry, can't think of a milder term at the moment) errors get glossed over.

That is what I mean too.

(Ever so slightly ironic that in my own thread about quality of written English I should cause this confusion, and for it to be over that particular word! )