Spelling sux - oh, yeah?

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

In "Education" supplement (8th Dec'03), "The Age" has an article entitled -
"Spelling sux, OK?" - which article, as cynics might note, is itself
perfectly spelt. It is one thing to note, condone, or otherwise, tolerate,
slack spelling, but another thing to put it into practice yourself. Of
course, as the article comments, we are all aware that text messages on the
Internet often contain spelling errors. This may be due to various factors:
haste, poor typing ability, indifference, even some sophistication, but is
this something to be applauded, or condemned? The article comments in the
context of the recent movie, "Spellbound", and quotes an author who claims -
"what America's best child spellers typify is knowing how to spell but not
knowing why." This is false, in my opinion. Having seen the film, I can
assert that the eight children were taught spelling using all techniques
available, and this included spelling rules, word origins, meanings, etc.
However, even so, a child can be stumped, as Harry was when confronted by -
"banns", a word he had obviously never seen in print, or othewise
encountered. Even so, how many ways are there of spelling a homophone? He
thought it was pronounced "bands" and spelt it accordingly. "A walk down
any shopping strip will present some memorable howlers" - but how do we know
they are howlers unless knowing the correct spelling? Even with
"spellcheckers" on the average computer, some idea of the correct spelling
is necessary in deciding which option to include in your text. The
"Americanisation" of spelling. Is this something to be meekly accepted, or
vigorously opposed? Americans aren't always right - they just think they
are.
I remember being told that my mother had a job as a shorthand-typist during
the Depression, and, although not a fast typist, was a good speller. So, of
those in the typing pool, she would be given the more important letters to
type. She would correct the boss's spelling errors, and produce a smart
final product. The other girls would speed through a letter, adding a few
errors of their own, then pose around chatting and filing their nails. My
mother eventually typed their dismissal notices.
===============================

Archived from group: aus>education

Reggie Green · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

In a tangential way this reminds me of the time I was sitting in the
State Library in Melbourne and there was a young fellow doing his best
to entice a pretty young Japanese girl into his web.

It is my guess that the young fellow was born in Australia but he had
the distinctive accent (and slang) that has developed in Melbourne's
north-west suburbs amongst the children of migrants from countries
such as Italy and Greece (or maybe even the grandchildren of such
migrants).

Much to the young fellow's embarrassment, the Japanese girl picked
that he was not exactly speaking the Queen's English and asked him
where was he from and where did he learn to speak English.

He replied that he was indeed from Melbourne and that there was
nothing wrong with his English. Instead, he argued, there was in fact
no 'correct English' just 'different types of English'

I imagine this is what they teach out in the government and cheap
catholic schools of Melbourne's north-west, but it did not go down too
well with his prey who by looking at everything around except him made
it clear that she expected anyone who wanted to storm her pearly gates
with his purple-headed devil to enunciate his desire in something
other than a sub-cultural idiom.

No 'correct English' just 'different types of English' ..

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:15:56 GMT, "Don H"
wrote:

>In "Education" supplement (8th Dec'03), "The Age" has an article entitled -
>"Spelling sux, OK?" - which article, as cynics might note, is itself
>perfectly spelt. It is one thing to note, condone, or otherwise, tolerate,
>slack spelling, but another thing to put it into practice yourself. Of
>course, as the article comments, we are all aware that text messages on the
>Internet often contain spelling errors. This may be due to various factors:
>haste, poor typing ability, indifference, even some sophistication, but is
>this something to be applauded, or condemned? The article comments in the
>context of the recent movie, "Spellbound", and quotes an author who claims -
>"what America's best child spellers typify is knowing how to spell but not
>knowing why." This is false, in my opinion. Having seen the film, I can
>assert that the eight children were taught spelling using all techniques
>available, and this included spelling rules, word origins, meanings, etc.
>However, even so, a child can be stumped, as Harry was when confronted by -
>"banns", a word he had obviously never seen in print, or othewise
>encountered. Even so, how many ways are there of spelling a homophone? He
>thought it was pronounced "bands" and spelt it accordingly. "A walk down
>any shopping strip will present some memorable howlers" - but how do we know
>they are howlers unless knowing the correct spelling? Even with
>"spellcheckers" on the average computer, some idea of the correct spelling
>is necessary in deciding which option to include in your text. The
>"Americanisation" of spelling. Is this something to be meekly accepted, or
>vigorously opposed? Americans aren't always right - they just think they
>are.
>I remember being told that my mother had a job as a shorthand-typist during
>the Depression, and, although not a fast typist, was a good speller. So, of
>those in the typing pool, she would be given the more important letters to
>type. She would correct the boss's spelling errors, and produce a smart
>final product. The other girls would speed through a letter, adding a few
>errors of their own, then pose around chatting and filing their nails. My
>mother eventually typed their dismissal notices.
>===============================
>
>