Bad speelers of t wurld untie

icowden

Über Member
Location
Surrey
Hmmm ....

None of this:-

University tutors are being told not to dock marks for spelling mistakes because requiring good English could be seen as “homogenous north European, white, male, elite”.
is supported by the rest of the article. As others have suggested, it is just gammon baiting. The rest of the article is concerned with guidance around whether good spelling and grammar should be held up as being more important than the academic content of the material. As the father of a dyslexic child, I deeply appreciate that my daughters school do not penalise for spelling errors in work where the spelling is less important than the content of the essay.

Of course technology helps and when she has access to a laptop, it can help with spelling, but sometimes working out which spelling of a word that has multiple spellings is tricky, even with the grammar helper.

What the article seems to suggest is that admissions should look at the content of the essay then work out whether they can help that person to address spelling, grammar etc in the interests of getting better quality students.

FYI Einstein was Dyslexic.
 

Faratid

Well-Known Member
I see laziness cropping up in our language. Texting is primarily responsible for it with things like, 'Meet U B4 lunch' etc , which is just people not being arsed to spend a few more seconds (literally) typing out 'Meet you before lunch'. Language should not have anything to do with 'white elite'. It has standards like science.
Do people really type text on their smartphones? Have they not heard of 'speech to text'?
 

nickyboy

Norven Mankey
I see laziness cropping up in our language. Texting is primarily responsible for it with things like, 'Meet U B4 lunch' etc , which is just people not being arsed to spend a few more seconds (literally) typing out 'Meet you before lunch'. Language should not have anything to do with 'white elite'. It has standards like science.
Nah

Language is an evolutionary thing without standards. Unlike science. The language I'm using now in this post is completely different from that used 200 years ago and probably incomprehensible to someone 1000 years ago. No doubt in the future people will speak English in a way that I wouldn't be able to understand.

In day to day communication I couldn't care less about someone's spelling or punctuation. So long as I can understand what they're on about. Of course, a Dissertation I would consider to be a different matter
 
OP
Joey Shabadoo

Joey Shabadoo

My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
I was unlucky in that I went to school at a time when it became fashionable not to judge handwriting. My parents cracked up at the English teachers but were told that content was more important than presentation. So my spelling was excellent, grammar fair and vocabulary good, but it was pretty much illegible. It was so bad that I had to write my notes in block capitals so I could understand them myself. My handwriting is still awful and it's just laziness stemming from poor teaching. However, I can get away with it because most communication is online or by typed reports so handwriting doesn't matter.

Education shouldn't be dictated by the current fads or fashions and good communication skills underpin all education.

It's true to say that language evolves but that's not what's happening here (point about dyslexia taken though). This isn't evolution, it's entropy in the sociological sense. It's not an improvement, it's decay.
 

Once a Wheeler

Senior Member
Playing with orthography is fine — Voltaire was a great exponent — and even an old Micky Mouse annual from the 1940s can put modern day texters in their place:

Micky Mouse is very
YYYY
Nature gave him perfect
IIII
Studying the busy
BBBB
While he lies at
EEEE
Goofy you will not
XQQQ
Caution he'll not
UUUU
He'll remember now for
AGGG
To study only
BBBB
In
KGGG

English orthography is notoriously idiosynchratic, especially if you are coming from a language such as Italian or German where things are much more obvious. For the most part, bad spelling just gives me the impression of carelessness or inadequate education. Where it is more annoying is where it distorts meaning. For example, sundry means various so, logically, sundried tomatoes are variegated tomatoes, presumably with green, red and yellow stripes. However, many supermarkets label jars of tomatoes as sundried tomatoes when they mean sun-dried tomatoes, which are uniformly coloured tomatoes which have been dried in the sun.

Similar common errors are constructions such as an ill educated man, which might be an educated man who is ill, in which case it should be an ill, educated man or a man who is ill educated, in which case it should be an ill-educated man. Examples are legion.

Dyslexia or lack of education are usually no fault of the sufferers; so when either of these conditions is known or inferred it enjoins all of us to be forgiving and understanding rather than judgemental. (Yes, judgmental is also correct.) However, sufferers are well advised to use modern technology to help them get their meaning across. Yet here there are other dangers. I once badly mis-typed the word although. The spell-checker threw up as a suggested correction the colloquial term for the exit point of the lower intestine (which Cycle Chat refuses to display!) Very amusing; but nowadays I would have to suspect it was an AI enabled spell-checker giving an opinion on someone who does not even know how to spell although. Duly humbling!
 
Last edited:
It's true to say that language evolves but that's not what's happening here (point about dyslexia taken though). This isn't evolution, it's entropy in the sociological sense. It's not an improvement, it's decay.
okay boomer.

(sorry, couldn't resist that! I'm actually very jealous of your decay/entropy metaphor, good work. It's a sentiment that I've often struggled to find words for ...)
 

The Crofted Crest

Über Member
logically
Language is not logical.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
The language I'm using now in this post is completely different from that used 200 years ago
I'm afraid that claim lacks veracity.

Here's a few books published in the 1820s.

All are easily understandable today, which is partly why they are still read today, and they are certainly not 'completely different' from today's English.

The language does evolve - I find Shakespeare hard work - but it's a very slow process and any noticeable change takes many lifetimes.

Thus we are all stuck with the accepted English of the time in which we live.

  • The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (Paperback) ...
  • The Last of the Mohicans (The Leatherstocking Tales #2) ...
  • Confessions of an English Opium Eater (Paperback) ...
  • Melmoth the Wanderer (Paperback) ...
  • The Last Man (Paperback) ...
  • The Night Before Christmas (Hardcover) ...
  • The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner (Paperback)
 

captain nemo1701

Space cadet. Deck 42 Main Engineering.
Location
Bristol
Nah

Language is an evolutionary thing without standards. Unlike science. The language I'm using now in this post is completely different from that used 200 years ago and probably incomprehensible to someone 1000 years ago. No doubt in the future people will speak English in a way that I wouldn't be able to understand.

In day to day communication I couldn't care less about someone's spelling or punctuation. So long as I can understand what they're on about. Of course, a Dissertation I would consider to be a different matter
Well, I don't dispute that language evolves, many new words and phrases are added annually. However, I disagree on laziness. It's faster & more convenient to use a number (only need to hit one button/key) which is entirely modern thanks to phones. It's perfectly possible to spell correctly - there are even free spell checkers. I guess people want to save mere seconds on texting, which is odd when you think about it. Just what are they saving the time for?. Language does have basic standards regarding syntax. It has to, otherwise by your argument, would we be able to read any older books?.

Crack down on lazy spelling is what I say...harder exams:okay:. Strange thing is that my foreign friends all say English is quite easy to learn. They often speak and write it better than some natives^_^.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

captain nemo1701

Space cadet. Deck 42 Main Engineering.
Location
Bristol
Do people really type text on their smartphones? Have they not heard of 'speech to text'?
That's even lazier... imagine in the future, people unable to spell since they let technology do it for them. However, I expect that even more technology will be invented to get around that issue:okay:. It's a bit like people forking out cash on Alexa only to get it to switch radio stations or look something up for them, which they could do by themselves with a bit of googling. Are we so lazy we can't be bothered to press a button or turn a dial?. I view things like this comparing it to a fast food drive through. I once came out of a cinema with a mate who wanted a burger. The car park was practically empty, so I said park up & I'll go and get the food. He insisted on using the drive through as he claimed it was faster....and we got stuck in a small jam:blush:.
 

Electric_Andy

Heavy Metal Fan
Location
Plymouth
I think there needs to be some relaxation to some degree; I've known lots of very skilled young people who have not got anywhere because they can't get that "bit of paper". If it gives them a leg-up and a few more marks in an exam then that's good. On the other hand, you can't have a teacher who doesn't know their english language. In fact, my son's teacher has come out with some shockers. Once when explaining a scene in "how to train your dragon", she asked the class "what do you think the author is inferring to us in this scene?". That's wrong grammer.

Perhaps for traditional subjects and PGCE exams it should be strict to the letter, but for non-traditional/more vocational stuff I don't think you should lose marks if you have got your point across on the answer. Don't judge a goldfish on its ability to climb trees, and all that.

But the University discussion is a wider problem:
It's all about fleecing kids, saddling them with debt and giving them worthless scraps of paper in return.
I mostly agree with this
 
Top Bottom