mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (05/02/89)
In article <1982@trantor.harris-atd.com>, chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > > I know that when I see a misspelled word, it just "seems wrong". Have > there been any studies on how people determine spelling? I would also find > that interesting. Me too -- but then I'm primarily a visual person. We have a guy here who is primarily auditory (talks to himself, talks to the computer, etc.) who can hardly spell two words in a row, and incidentally has some of the ugliest handwriting I've ever seen. My gut feeling is to go with Mr. Musciano on spelling, but I've run across too many brilliant people who couldn't spell a lick to totally discount spelling-deficient prose. A resume is another matter, though ... Background on the "peceptual mode" is from NLP: Bandler & Grinder's *Frogs Into Princes*, for example.
ellis@nprdc.arpa (John Ellis) (05/03/89)
> >My gut feeling is to go with Mr. Musciano on spelling, but I've run across >too many brilliant people who couldn't spell a lick to totally discount >spelling-deficient prose. A resume is another matter, though ... Sometime in the last 12 months Newsweek summarized research that indicated that poor spelling ability is a form of dyslexia that is genetically based -- i.e. bad spellers are born not made The article also said that poor spelling is unrelated to intelligence -- However, this should not be used as an excuse -- just as folks who have inherited poor teeth need to floss and brush more, poor spellers need to write carefully and carry a big dictionary/spellchecker -- especially if they are sending a resume to Mr. Musciano.
brian@cat59.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller) (05/04/89)
In article <187@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: > >My gut feeling is to go with Mr. Musciano on spelling, but I've run across >too many brilliant people who couldn't spell a lick to totally discount >spelling-deficient prose. A resume is another matter, though ... > Spelling rules, like all other grammatical conventions, define the language. Break them too many times and more regular folks may have a tough time absorbing the message. I'd assume that the reason some rules (of English) are so difficult to learn/remember is because they are so unnatural. If we were willing to hand our precious pile of >****< to the linguists and psycholinguists for a time, I'm sure that they'd return a more naturally regulated language. Why study and compare all sorts of existing and dead lang's and pursue linguistics if one cannot apply one's conclusions for the better? (A challenge to linguists, folks.)
drew@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Drew Eisenhauer) (05/07/89)
In article <1859@arctic.nprdc.arpa> ellis@nprdc.arpa (John Ellis) writes: >Sometime in the last 12 months Newsweek summarized research that >indicated that poor spelling ability is a form of dyslexia >that is genetically based -- i.e. bad spellers are born not made >The article also said that poor spelling is unrelated to intelligence -- Thank God for small miracles- this obviously would explain why so many people, when they see a mispelling, exclaim, "Well, it just didn't look right!" -- Is not conscience a pair of breeches; though a cover for lewdness as well as nastiness, is easily slipt down for the service of both? -SWIFT internet: drew@umbc3.umbc.edu bitnet: eisenhauer@umbc
jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (05/08/89)
In article <2670@puff.cs.wisc.edu>, brian@cat59.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller) writes: > In article <187@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: > > > >My gut feeling is to go with Mr. Musciano on spelling, but I've run across > >too many brilliant people who couldn't spell a lick to totally discount > >spelling-deficient prose. A resume is another matter, though ... > > > > Spelling rules, like all other grammatical conventions, define the language. > Break them too many times and more regular folks may have a tough time > absorbing the message. I'd assume that the reason some rules (of English) are > so difficult to learn/remember is because they are so unnatural. If we were willing > to hand our precious pile of >****< to the linguists and psycholinguists for a time, > I'm sure that they'd return a more naturally regulated language. Why study and compare > all sorts of existing and dead lang's and pursue linguistics if one cannot apply one's > conclusions for the better? (A challenge to linguists, folks.) Not really; it's not much of a challenge at all. In at least three of the linguistics classes that I took, there were assignments to produce phonemic representations of English. I did it rather differently each time. Occasionally, I still write notes to myself using my spelling system based on classical Hebrew writing. If you were to get together a team of linguists to "solve" the problems of English spelling, they'd mostly get involved in a raging debate due to the fact that there are so many easy ways to do it, and no good way to select one. If, by some fluke, they came up with a proposal, it would probably be so abstruse that nobody else could make head nor tail of it. In any case, nobody is going to phonemicize English spelling. Well, actually, someone might. I've done it three times. But it's moot, because the English-writing population will simply ignore it and continue to spell things "correctly". Recall that the second Roosevelt administration tried to impose a set of spelling reforms on the American public. For the most part, the American public simply ignored the effort, and continued to use the traditional spelling. There are a few cases ("jail" instead of "gaol") that caught on. But it was a wasted effort. Similarly, the USA recently had a big non-celebration of the centennial of our becoming officially a metric nation. Lotta good it did us. -- John Chambers <{adelie,ima,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393) [Any errors in the above are due to failures in the logic of the keyboard, not in the fingers that did the typing.]
barkley@unc.cs.unc.edu (Matthew Barkley) (05/09/89)
In article <1982@trantor.harris-atd.com>, chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > > I know that when I see a misspelled word, it just "seems wrong". Have > there been any studies on how people determine spelling? I would also find > that interesting. ... and ... In article <187@intek01.UUCP>, mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: > Me too -- but then I'm primarily a visual person. We have a guy here > who is primarily auditory (talks to himself, talks to the computer, etc.) > who can hardly spell two words in a row, and incidentally has some of the > ugliest handwriting I've ever seen. > > Background on the "peceptual mode" is from NLP: Bandler & Grinder's > *Frogs Into Princes*, for example. I can't give you references on studies, but Bandler and Grinder in _The Structure of Magic_ (as I recall), say that the winning stategy in spelling is both visual and kinesthetic: visualize the word, then consult your gut as to whether it is right. Along that line, I once asked a brilliant programmer friend how he knew that a particular piece of code was wrong. He went on for about a minute, telling me how "you just have to look at it." All the while, his body language (according to Bandler and Grinder) was shouting that he FELT IN HIS GUT that it was wrong. So don't believe everyone who says, "It looked wrong"; he/she might not mean it. Now, on English spelling: I saw an article titled, "Meihem in Ce Klasrum," which related George Bernard Shaw's ideas for spelling reform, implementing each one in the paragraph following the description. I started with sub- stituting 's' for 'soft c', 'k' for hard 'c', and went on from there. It showz perfektly whei speling reform iz unleikly to sukseed. Matt Barkley barkley@cs.unc.edu Any opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by anyone else, and may not even be my own. How an organization can have an opinion is beyond me.
ramanath@cisunx.UUCP (J Ramanathan) (05/09/89)
drew@umbc3.umbc.edu.UMBC.EDU (Drew Eisenhauer) writes: >Thank God for small miracles- this obviously would explain >why so many people, when they see a mispelling, >exclaim, ^^^^^^^^^^ > >"Well, it just didn't look right!" Well, it just doesn't look right! :-) -jay
shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) (05/09/89)
+-- jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: | Not really; it's not much of a challenge at all. In at least three of | the linguistics classes that I took, there were assignments to produce | phonemic representations of English. I did it rather differently each | time. .... | If you were to get together a team of linguists to "solve" the problems | of English spelling, they'd mostly get involved in a raging debate due | to the fact that there are so many easy ways to do it, and no good way | to select one. If, by some fluke, they came up with a proposal, it | would probably be so abstruse that nobody else could make head nor tail | of it. A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling by Mark Twain For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld. -- Stuart Ferguson (shf@well.UUCP) Action by HAVOC
barkley@unc.cs.unc.edu (Matthew Barkley) (05/09/89)
In article <8068@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, I wrote: > > Now, on English spelling: I saw an article titled, "Meihem in Ce Klasrum," > which related George Bernard Shaw's ideas for spelling reform, implementing > each one in the paragraph following the description. I started with sub- ^^^^^^^^^ Sorry. I meant "It started." > stituting 's' for 'soft c', 'k' for hard 'c', and went on from there. It > showz perfektly whei speling reform iz unleikly to sukseed. ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ Sorry a second time. As I recall, this should be, "unleikli tu suksid." It's much clearer the new way, isn't it? Matt Barkley barkley@cs.unc.edu Any opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by anyone else, and may not even be my own. How an organization can have an opinion is beyond me.
raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) (05/11/89)
In article <11580@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes: >+-- jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: >| If you were to get together a team of linguists to "solve" the problems >| of English spelling, they'd mostly get involved in a raging debate due >| to the fact that there are so many easy ways to do it, and no good way >| to select one. If, by some fluke, they came up with a proposal, it >| would probably be so abstruse that nobody else could make head nor tail >| of it. > > A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling > by Mark Twain > [... much deleted ...] > Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud >hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld. >-- > Stuart Ferguson (shf@well.UUCP) > Action by HAVOC George Bernard Shaw made some similar proposals some years later, and I believe that he was much more serious about it. The one good thing about the Russian revolution is that they reformed the Russian orthography so that it is now straightforward to spell/read Russian words. If you can pronounce a word in Russian, you can spell it. When I was in college, there was a clever, humorous article that claimed that this gave the Russians a real advantage over us; they didn't have to waste time studying spelling like the American kids. The thing to remember about all of this nonsense about reforming orthography is that English is comprised of words from many other languages, and the spelling of many of the words remains little changed from the original. The beauty of this is that intelligent people (go ahead, flame me on this one, I'm looking forward to it), that's right, I said it, INTELLIGENT people can look at a word they don't know, and make logical guesses about the meaning of the word, because of its spelling, which reflects the original language. For example, take the two words threw and through. Clearly, these are from different root words in their original languages, and this information would be lost if spelling reformers got their hands on them. So, as awkward as English orthography may be, it's best to leave it. Finally, if you want to change spelling so that it matches pronunciation, on whose pronunciation would you base it? The Queen, or the people of Queens (NY)? Ok, so that's extreme... here in Canada, the last syllable of Nissan (the car company) rhymes with "man," not "on." Think about it. -Ray Shaw raymond@psych.toronto.edu
drew@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Drew Eisenhauer) (05/11/89)
Subject: Humorous poem about English orthography
IS ENGLISH THE HARDEST LANGUAGE OF ALL?
I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough.
Others may stumble, but not you
On hiccough, thorough, laugh, and through.
And cork and work and card and ward,
And font and front and word and sword.
Well done! And now if you wish, perhaps
To learn of less familiar traps.
Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead: it's said like bed and not like bead--
For goodness sake don't call it deed.
Watch out for meat and great and threat,
They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.
A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.
And here is not a match for there,
And dear and fear for bear and pear.
And then there's dose and rose and lose--
Just look them up--and goose and choose,
And do and go, then thwart and cart.
Come, come, I've hardly made a start!
A dreadful language? Man alive!
I'd mastered it when I was five.
--
Eric S. Raymond (the mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
Email: eric@snark.uu.net CompuServe: [72037,2306]
Post: 22 S. Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718
--
Is not conscience a pair of breeches; though a cover for lewdness
as well as nastiness, is easily slipt down for the service of both?
-SWIFT
internet: drew@umbc3.umbc.edu bitnet: eisenhauer@umbcbrian@cat50.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller) (05/12/89)
>...it is now straightforward to spell/read Russian words. If you >can pronounce a word in Russian, you can spell it. Any written language that is *not* this regular is a pile of sh`t in my self-righteous mind. SHAME on the ineffectual linguists for being to candy-@ssed to overcome the politics that have prevented such a revamping as was done in the USSR. >The thing to remember about all of this nonsense about reforming orthography >is that English is comprised of words from many other languages... This is indeed a problem. Today, however, we can afford to take the effort to corrupt foreign words to more compliant spelling forms. A word in a foreign language is *not* an English word. If we as English-speakers embrace it and choose to adopt/steal it, we have the right to butcher it as we see fit. In fact, we have a responsibility to see that all new words, regardless of their origins, conform to a given set of logical rules. Anyone who argues against the uniform application of logical rules in a modern language in favor of artistic flavor or inorder to preserve the history of the word is fighting against progress. ;-) >The beauty of this is that intelligent people... >can look at a word they don't know, and make logical guesses about the meaning >of the word, because of its spelling, which reflects the original language. So true! And I'm all in favor of storing as much information about a semantic symbol (ie: word) within its spelling, but we don't have to sacrifice intuitive (with respect to a given logical set of rules) spelling to achieve this: >For example, take the two words threw and through. They're both spelled with counter-intuitive (<same paranthetical espression as above>) spellings. That's serves nothing but confusion. Admittedly the greatest mark of a language is what one can do with it, but another important mark is its ease of acquisition. Just because in the past languages that were more powerful were more difficult to learn doesn't me they have to remain that way. All I'm arguing for is the policing of the English language to minimize hap-hazardness and resolve seemingly conflicting rules. It's not just spelling. >Clearly, these ('threw' & 'through') are from >different root words in their original languages, and this information >would be lost if spelling reformers got their hands on them. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A comment like that reflects a half-baked thought. (No flame intended.) It is perfectly possible to adopt new spellings which embody *all* the information contained in the archaic spellings and still conform to more logical spelling rules. The presence of homonyms in any language reflects either a lack of coordination or logic or both amongst its founders. This is just another example of the hap-hazard nature of English. It's most intolerable amongst people who respect order. >So, as awkward >as English orthography may be, it's best to leave it. You're more than welcome to be insensitive to the illogic of the English language. *I* would jump at the opportunity to reform it. >Finally, if you want to change spelling so that it matches pronunciation, >on whose pronunciation would you base it? The Queen, or the people of >Queens (NY)? Ok, so that's extreme... here in Canada, the last syllable >of Nissan (the car company) rhymes with "man," not "on." Regional dialects are rapidly evaporating as mass communication becomes an integral part of modern society. I don't give a hoot as to *whose* pronounciation system we adopt ...so long as its logical and regular. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian (miller). brian@cat50.cs.wisc.edu
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (05/12/89)
In article <8068@thorin.cs.unc.edu> barkley@unc.cs.unc.edu (Matthew Barkley) writes: }In article <1982@trantor.harris-atd.com>, chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: }> }> I know that when I see a misspelled word, it just "seems wrong". Have }> there been any studies on how people determine spelling? I would also find }> that interesting. }In article <187@intek01.UUCP>, mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: }> Me too -- but then I'm primarily a visual person. We have a guy here }> who is primarily auditory (talks to himself, talks to the computer, etc.) }> who can hardly spell two words in a row, and incidentally has some of the }> ugliest handwriting I've ever seen. All very interesting, and I don't want to put a damper on this discussion. However, I'd like to get back to its root for a moment. This all began with a spelling flame at someone's posted article, as I recall. While the discussion of spelling vs. perception vs. "gut feelings" is relevant, the fact is 90% of the spelling errors on the net are the result of ignorance compounded by sheer laziness (boy, am I going to get it for _that_ one! (-:{ ). Someone who's posting to the net must have access to some kind of computer system -- usually Unix. Nearly all such systems, and certainly Unix, have some form of spelling checker program available. While these programs may not cover all the obscure technical terms used here and elsewhere (Unix's dictionary is pathetically thin), they still leave _no excuse_ for misspelling words like "separate", not to mention common typographical errors. Failure to use a spelling checker, particularly if you know you're a poor speller, is an insult to your audience. It says you don't think they're worth the trivial effort of a few keystrokes to clean up your act. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (05/12/89)
In article <2763@puff.cs.wisc.edu> brian@cat50.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller) writes: >>...it is now straightforward to spell/read Russian words. If you >>can pronounce a word in Russian, you can spell it. In Russian, the corresponce between written and spoken language is certainly more regular than many languages, but, strictly speaking, not perfect, despite what Russians (non-linguists, of course) will tell you! How do distinguish an unstressed 'a' and 'o' infallibly? (etc. etc. etc.) (The classic example is the word for "good", which, when written, has 3 instances of one vowel character, each of which are pronounced differently.) : : >It is perfectly possible to adopt new spellings which embody *all* the >information contained in the archaic spellings and still conform to more >logical spelling rules. The proof of the pudding is in ... etc. Juhst hwut is yuhr pruhposuhl? Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov Moffett Field, CA 94035 Phone: (415)694-6117
bgwilkes@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Benjamin G. Wilkes) (05/12/89)
I was glad to see Mr. Raymond Shaw defending the varied spelling of words acquired from other languages. However, he neglects the fact that in addition to discerning _meaning_ from spelling, literate people also often get _pronunciation_ from the pronunciation in the original language. This is not to say that "hors d'oeuvre" must be pronounced as in French, but a Japanese name like Nissan is not an English word and is no harder to say correctly: nee-sahn. Just a bad choice of example, I guess. Ben Wilkes
jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (05/14/89)
In article <1989May10.211236.19705@utpsych.toronto.edu>, raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) writes: > The thing to remember about all of this nonsense about reforming orthography > is that English is comprised of words from many other languages, and the > spelling of many of the words remains little changed from the original. > The beauty of this is that intelligent people (go ahead, flame me on this > one, I'm looking forward to it), that's right, I said it, INTELLIGENT people > can look at a word they don't know, and make logical guesses about the meaning > of the word, because of its spelling, which reflects the original language. True, perhaps, but if English had a standard phonemic spelling system that was similar to other European languages, then we'd not only be able to guess the meanings, but we'd be able to pronounce it in a way that foreigners would easily understand. We'd also find it easier to recognize the word when it was spoken in another language. The garbled, nonstandard semi-system of English spelling has the result of English pronunciations that are often wildly different from the original language (and others which have borrowed the same word). > Finally, if you want to change spelling so that it matches pronunciation, > on whose pronunciation would you base it? The Queen, or the people of > Queens (NY)? Ok, so that's extreme... here in Canada, the last syllable > of Nissan (the car company) rhymes with "man," not "on." This is an easy strawman. No language (of which I'm aware) has a truly phonetic spelling system that reflects exactly the pronunciation of some standard dialect. That would be too messy. Rather, standards are usually phonemic, and use a generic, average pronunciation. This would be just as easy in English as in any other language. Thus, my native dialect (USA West Coast) has merged the vowels in "cot" and "caught", while most dialects preserve the distinction. On the other hand, I pronounce "wh" different from "w", unlike many dialects. These are easy to handle. A standard English phonemic writing system would distinguish the cot/caught vowels, and texts would simply note that some dialects merge them into a single intermediate sound. The standard would spell "wh" as "hw", and texts would note that many dialects omit such initial [h] sounds (and indeed, some dialects omit any initial [h]). Similarly, a standard phonemic English would have many distinct vowel symbols in unstressed syllables, and texts would note that many dialects reduce unstressed vowels to one or two weak vowels. Such a system is quite useful, since it tends to minimize the differences in spellings in different environments. Thus the words "systematic" and "systematize" should start with the same letters as "system", though the vowels are pronounced differently in all three words (in most dialects). The proper term for such a spelling system is "morphophonemic", and it's actually the way most spelling systems work. Thus, in German, the word "Tag" (day) has a final 'g', although it is pronounced [tak]. Adding any suffix that starts with a vowel produces a [g], however, as in such words as "Tagenbuch" (diary). Rather than having two spellings of a root, it's easier to spell it the same everywhere, and have phonetic pronunciation rules. ("Final consonants are devoiced.") Such an approach would work quite well in English, despite the large number of dialects. English isn't really any worse off in this regard than German or Spanish, after all, and they do pretty well with their standardized "phonetic" spelling systems. In fact, we do a lot of it right now (e.g., the "-s" and "-d" endings); it's just not systematic. -- John Chambers <{adelie,ima,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393) [Any errors in the above are due to failures in the logic of the keyboard, not in the fingers that did the typing.]
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (05/15/89)
From article <135@minya.UUCP>, by jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers): > ... Thus the words "systematic" and "systematize" > should start with the same letters as "system", though the vowels are > pronounced differently in all three words (in most dialects). ... Oh they are? What are the different pronunciations? Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
george@sequent.UUCP (George Emery) (05/16/89)
In article <4412@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: > Nearly all such systems, and certainly Unix, have >some form of spelling checker program available. While these programs may >not cover all the obscure technical terms used here and elsewhere (Unix's >dictionary is pathetically thin), they still leave _no excuse_ for >misspelling words like "separate", not to mention common typographical >errors. Unfortunately, spelling checkers do not catch homophones/homonyms which are a large portion of the total spelling errors that _I_ see. It's easy to write a program to check for these, but it's very time-consuming to run them and for social notes -- Usenet postings are largely social -- it's a real pain to run ANY sort of spelling check. We read an article, press "F" for followup, write our response, and then continue to the next article. If I were reading this on a PC, running a terminal emulation program, I'd probably have an as-you-type spelling checker running... but I'm using a terminal, so that's not going to happen. Video terminal manufacturers COULD include an as-you-type spelling checker, but I don't really think it's worth the 100kB of ROM -- especially when cost/ performance of the terminal is a consideration. George Emery ...!tektronix!sequent!crg3!george (503) 257-9731 (voice, home) > >Failure to use a spelling checker, particularly if you know you're a poor >speller, is an insult to your audience. It says you don't think they're >worth the trivial effort of a few keystrokes to clean up your act. > >-- >The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil >Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum >3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 >Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
nick@hp-sdd.hp.com (Nick Flor) (05/17/89)
Can we let the spelling discussion die now? (Or at the very least, edit the Newgroups line to leave out comp.cog-eng) Let's just settle on spelling errors being due to a lack of attention, resulting in combinations of capture, and data description errors. (And for connectionists, lack of inhibitory signals, e.g. teh instead of the). Clearly, spelling ability has little to do with intelligience. Nick -- + Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own, not necessarily my employer's. + + "What's going down in this world, | Nick V. Flor * * o * * + + You got no idea. Believe me." | Hewlett Packard SDD * * /X\ * * + + -- The Comedian | ..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick * * / \ * * +
jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter) (05/17/89)
see1@tank.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher) writes: > > I learned quite a few rules by making and studying lists of similar > words. In almost all expert activities, the *really* good performers > are those who can glance at a large arrangement and grasp a pattern. > And like playing chess, spelling is something you learn by doing until > you *feel* the patterns. Ok, but why *should* spelling be as tough as chess. One of my co-workers tells me that Italian spelling is easy enough that his pre-school daughters already know all the rules and exceptions. raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) writes: > > The thing to remember about all of this nonsense about reforming orthography > is that English is comprised of words from many other languages, and the > spelling of many of the words remains little changed from the original. > The beauty of this is that intelligent people (go ahead, flame me on this > one, I'm looking forward to it), that's right, I said it, INTELLIGENT people > can look at a word they don't know, and make logical guesses about the meaning > of the word, because of its spelling, which reflects the original language. Well you used to be able to tell the subject of a volume measurement by the units used. Gallon = water, pint = beer or blood, bushel = leaves or grain, hogshead = beer again, barrel = oil, gill = medicine or liquor, and cord = wood. In general these have been discarded (except in some barbaric parts of the world :-). Why should millions of man-years be wasted to preserve etymology? There's easier ways to do it. > Finally, if you want to change spelling so that it matches pronunciation, > on whose pronunciation would you base it? Well you could at least remove things that were archaic even when the first dictionary was penned. I think tonite I'll drive-thru Dunkin Do-nuts, rite? *not* I think toni<cough>te I'll drive thro<hack> dunkin<gahh> do<clear phlem> nou<wheeze>ts, ri<final cough>te? -- ___ __ __ {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff (416-595-2705) / / /) / ) -- my opinions -- -/ _ -/- /- No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent. (__/ (/_/ _/_ Greg Bear
jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (05/18/89)
In article <3936@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: > From article <135@minya.UUCP>, by jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers): > > ... Thus the words "systematic" and "systematize" > > should start with the same letters as "system", though the vowels are > > pronounced differently in all three words (in most dialects). ... > Oh they are? What are the different pronunciations? Well, it's a bit hard to do it accurately with ASCII, but I'll give it a go... First, "system" has initial stress, so in all English dialects the "y" would be a full, stressed [I] vowel. The "e", being poststress and final, would range from a weak neutral or schwa to full loss, with [m] as the vowel. Next, "systematize", also having initial stress, would have roughly the same vowel for "y", but the second syllable is no longer final, so it would be reduced even more, to vocalic [m] in most dialects. Third, "systematic" has stress on the third syllable. This would cause the "y" to be partially reduced, to a neutral [I] in dialects (including my native dialect) that maintain two contrasting neutral vowels; in others it would be a plain neutral vowel, except for the few where a vocalic [s] exists. The "e" would be a neutral schwa, or neutral, or weak schwa, depending on dialect; being prestress, it would rarely be reduced to a vocalic [m]. If this medium could transfer arbitrary symbols, I could of course give a much more precise analysis, as could any instructor in an intro course in phonetics, but what can ya do? Comments? I'd be interested in hearing [of] exceptions to the above, or of an unambiguous way of communicating phonetic details via ASCII. -- John Chambers <{adelie,ima,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393) [Any errors in the above are due to failures in the logic of the keyboard, not in the fingers that did the typing.]
raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) (05/18/89)
In article <2010@hp-sdd.hp.com> nick@hp-sdd.hp.com.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >Can we let the spelling discussion die now? (Or at the very least, edit >the Newgroups line to leave out comp.cog-eng) I think that we should limit the newsgroups, but I really felt that this should go to the particular groups listed, since it is directed somewhat to Nick. >Let's just settle on spelling errors being due to a lack of attention, >resulting in combinations of capture, and data description errors. (And >for connectionists, lack of inhibitory signals, e.g. teh instead of >the). Clearly, spelling ability has little to do with intelligience. > These insightful explanations may be perfectly correct, but research on individual differences in cognition (which looks at the construct of "intelligence") suggests that "lack of attention" may well be correlated with whatever underlies "intelligence" generally. Therefore, spelling ability may well have something to do with intelligence. Clearly, there are other factors which determine the amount of attention a person will pay to some task, but intelligence may well play a role. Essentially, in psychology, we like to have evidence for claims about the relation between performance and potentially underlying states or characteristics of the organism. This is not intended as a flame, just an observation. -Ray Shaw raymond@psych.toronto.edu
meadors@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Tony Meadors) (05/19/89)
In article <2010@hp-sdd.hp.com> nick@hp-sdd.hp.com.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: > >Can we let the spelling discussion die now? >... >Clearly, spelling ability has little to do with intelligience. > >Nick > I would bet that given a "real" cross-section of individuals (think of testing everyone that enters the DMV for example) you would find quite a tidy correlation between performance on a spelling test and a standard IQ test: say, 0.3 to 0.4. Why this is, as well as what it means to designers, educators, and we, the poor spellers, is an open question. tonyM Has Wheel of Fortune done more for improving spelling among the masses than our lottery billions? :^)
kent@lloyd.camex.uucp (Kent Borg) (05/20/89)
In article <2763@puff.cs.wisc.edu> brian@cat50.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller) writes: >>...it is now straightforward to spell/read Russian words. If you >>can pronounce a word in Russian, you can spell it. > >Any written language that is *not* this regular is a pile of sh`t in my >self-righteous mind. SHAME on the ineffectual linguists for being to >candy-@ssed to overcome the politics that have prevented such a revamping >as was done in the USSR. (How many people outside the USSR speak Russian? How many people outside of the US speak English? Not very comparable.) What is the value of a language? Well, if I know English I can listen to radio phone-in shows and I can read USENET. I can also read Shakespeare (Though I'm not sure I know how to spell it). What if we regularized English? First, to get people to change, we would need French-style language police (only worse) checking up on the radio shows and trying to control us on USENET. How successful would they be? How many people do you personally know who speak Esperanto? In a `free society' I don't think it would work, nor would it work here. It would only make matters more muddled and worse--but--it might accomplish *just* enough that any children or grand children I ever have might *not* be able to read Shakespeare, and certainly not Chaucer. English is an extremely powerful and rich language, it is *the* most widely known language (yes, more than even Chinese), and (to put it in computer terms) it has the largest installed base (i.e., literature). Do you really think some language committee would do any better? Then have the US Congress, England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, many others, *and* the UN each tack on a few amendments? Translate everything in the New York Public Library and Harvard's Libraries and the Library of Congress and the British Museum and ... Don't be silly. Kent Borg kent@lloyd.uucp or ...!husc6!lloyd!kent
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (05/23/89)
In article <748@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> meadors@cogsci.UUCP (Tony Meadors) writes: } I would bet that given a "real" cross-section of individuals (think of } testing everyone that enters the DMV for example) you would find quite } a tidy correlation between performance on a spelling test and a standard } IQ test: say, 0.3 to 0.4. Why this is, as well as what it means to } designers, educators, and we, the poor spellers, is an open question. Possibly because you're a compulsive gambler? (-: (What you would bet on has little to do with what is). -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
ellis@nprdc.arpa (John Ellis) (05/23/89)
> > I would bet that given a "real" cross-section of individuals (think of > testing everyone that enters the DMV for example) you would find quite > a tidy correlation between performance on a spelling test and a standard > IQ test: say, 0.3 to 0.4. Why this is, as well as what it means to > designers, educators, and we, the poor spellers, is an open question. > You would lose -- As I posted a couple of weeks ago, research has discovered that poor spelling is a form of dyslexia that is an inherited trait -- the problem is that some people have difficulty visualizing letter and numbers (e.g. phone numbers) in the correct sequences This same research shows that there is no correlation between spelling and intelligence! J. Ellis
lady@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Lee Lady) (05/24/89)
ENOUGH! I try to restrain myself, really I do. I have kept my mouth shut (keyboard shut) up to now, but this is too much! In article <2055@arctic.nprdc.arpa> ellis@nprdc.arpa (John Ellis) writes: > -- As I posted a couple of weeks ago, research has >discovered that poor spelling is a form of dyslexia that is an >inherited trait -- the problem is that some people have difficulty >visualizing letter and numbers (e.g. phone numbers) in the correct sequences > Spelling was one of the earliest things investigated by NLP. The NLP "spelling strategy" must be ten years old now, and still people are simply pretending it doesn't exist. NLP claims that there are two sorts of mental images: Remembered images ("eidetic" images), which reproduce things seen before, and _constructed_ images. NLP claims that most people's eyes move up and to the left when looking at ("accessing") eidetic images, and up and to the right when accessing constructed images. (Left-handers are occasionally the reverse.) If you watch a poor speller trying to spell a word you will very likely see his eyes (or even his whole head) move up and to his right. Whereas a good speller's eyes will move to the left. If you want to teach someone how to be a good speller, simply tell him to stop *imagining* what the word should look like and instead *remember* what it looks like, the same way he remembers what his mother's face looks like, or what the door to his office looks like, or what the map of the United States looks like. You can suggest that it will probably help if you moves his eyes up and to the left. Obviously he should start out with simple words, but once he learns the basic strategy his progress can be quite fast. -- Lee Lady lady@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu Dept of Mathematics lady@uhccux.bitnet University of Hawaii {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!lady Honolulu, HI