The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why do corespondents not use the spell checker  (Read 6459 times)

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« on: 25/10/2009 13:51:30 »
The Naked Science Forum is almost unique in providing a spell checker but there seems a reluctance amongst some corespondents to use it.
Is it because they believe their command of the language is perfect and they have no need of it or are they just impatient to get their copy on line.
The spelling of English can be quite perverse and despite having written it for 75 years I still do not feel completely proficient, I have no objection to new words and spellings such as Thru (through), Snuck (sneaked), or Gotten (acquired) or American spellings such as Color or Plow if that is the region from whence the corespondent is writing.
Another thing I find annoying is the use of lower case "I,s", is it modesty, are you not sufficiently important to justify a capital ?.


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #1 on: 25/10/2009 14:15:21 »
I suspect that a lot of folks don't know that the little squiggly red line under a word means that it failed the spell check; then if they don't know that they wouldn't know that you can right click on the word for some spelling suggestions. :)
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #2 on: 25/10/2009 20:25:26 »
i just don't feel that capital letters are necessary for clarity, though i think grammar and spelling are. if i was writing formally, sure i would write capitals in the correct places, but the only times i will in an informal situation is if i'm using someone else's name out of respect - i don't assume they have the same view as me, so i use the standard that everyone uses.

it's refreshing to hear of someone older accepting the evolution of language. unfortunately the grumpy people voice themselves more often :(
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #3 on: 26/10/2009 02:48:49 »
Good question! Perhaps they are just lazy bar stewards.

Furthermore, what happened to paragraphs? Some posters string twenty sentences together with no paragraph breaks. I find them too hard to read.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #4 on: 26/10/2009 03:51:50 »
Excuse me, but correspondent is spelt with two r's.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #5 on: 26/10/2009 05:49:54 »
I was a little concerned about this spelling, Windows live mail allows correspondent, co respondent or co-respondent while the NSF spell checker rejects the hyphenated form.
I repeat English spelling is perverse and 75 years is not long enough to learn it !.
I stand corrected.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #6 on: 26/10/2009 07:36:25 »
Perhaps they are just lazy bar stewards.

Ah yes, indeed. Lazy tenders of alcoholic beverages.

I quite agree Syhprum. I too am willing to accept new words and some new spellings of words. I certainly accept 'color' when written by Americans, but I think those of us who speak the Queens English, should continue to spell in the Queens English. So for me, 'colour' it is.

I can also accept that there may be a mixture of US & UK English from those of some other extraction, eg. Indian, Italian, German etc. But it does make posts hard reading when there are a host of spelling mistakes, lack of punctuation and, as Geezer pointed out, there are no paragraph breaks. I, for one, frequently ignore such posts, because they become too difficult to understand. I just want to read a post, not decipher it!

I think good English, be it UK or US, should be maintained at all times. So I'm sorry, Glovesforfoxes, but I cannot agree with you.  If we do not set a good example here and on other such sites, how can we expect those for whom English is a second language, to learn the correct spelling and grammar of our language and thus make themselves better understood?

May I suggest, that those for whom English is not their first language, you type your post in 'Word' first and use the spelling and grammar checker, set to English, of course, to help you understand the correct way to navigate this sometimes strange language.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #7 on: 27/10/2009 14:09:25 »
i just don't feel that capital letters are necessary for clarity, though i think grammar and spelling are. if i was writing formally, sure i would write capitals in the correct places, but the only times i will in an informal situation is if i'm using someone else's name out of respect - i don't assume they have the same view as me, so i use the standard that everyone uses.

it's refreshing to hear of someone older accepting the evolution of language. unfortunately the grumpy people voice themselves more often :(

The correct use of capital letter enhances clarity and helps avoid ambiguity.  Saying that they are unnecessary isn't a good justification for not using them, and by not using them you are not only leaving what you write open to misinterpretation but forcing people to make a greater effort to understand it, effort that would be unnecessary if you were to use them correctly.

There are then, serious disadvantages in not using them, while the only advantage I can see is that it saves one keystroke; not a good trade-off, imo.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #8 on: 27/10/2009 18:55:39 »
Excuse me, but correspondent is spelt with two r's.
Actually, corespondent is spelt with 1 r. On the other hand correspondent is spelt with two.
Unless this post is about those people who have been charged with adultery in a divorce case the title is wrong.
Incidentally what's the apostrophe doing in "spelt with two r's"?

BTW, I take it that Don is offering to buy a copy of Wordtm for all our non native English speaking members. Very kind of him.

BTW, re the very first post; you cannot be "almost unique" any more than you can be nearly pregnant or slightly dead.
Things are, or are not, unique. There's no middle ground.
« Last Edit: 27/10/2009 19:02:33 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #9 on: 27/10/2009 19:52:49 »
The correct use of capital letter enhances clarity and helps avoid ambiguity.  Saying that they are unnecessary isn't a good justification for not using them

why isn't it in the context of this forum?

Quote from: LeeE
by not using them you are not only leaving what you write open to misinterpretation but forcing people to make a greater effort to understand it, effort that would be unnecessary if you were to use them correctly.

i disagree. i have been doing this for a couple of years online and as far as i can tell nobody has ever misinterpreted what i've said, and i don't think it requires any more effort to understand my type than properly capitalised type.

Quote from: LeeE
There are then, serious disadvantages in not using them, while the only advantage I can see is that it saves one keystroke; not a good trade-off, imo.

it saves a keystroke every time i need to capitalise, and helps me type a bit faster, allowing my time to be spent procrastinating on forums instead of doing my essay..
« Last Edit: 27/10/2009 19:54:20 by glovesforfoxes »
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #10 on: 27/10/2009 23:30:59 »
I will not use the C word any more but will use the ugly but unambiguous term 'poster', 'almost unique' is of course a tautology but well understood and I can think of no better way to put it.   
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #11 on: 28/10/2009 04:03:09 »
A beautifully crafted post with proper punctuation is a pleasure to read. It permits those gifted with speed reading ability a quick scan to glean all the info. Improper punctuation inserts a blockage that takes a few seconds to climb through. So I vote for beautifully crafted posts that blaze forth with instant understanding. I suspect that it is communication that counts.

On the other hand, if bad punctuation is used to aid the presentation of a point, that is great. It is communication that counts. It is all about getting into another mind that which is in the poster's mind. It is communicating what is felt by one person to another person.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #12 on: 28/10/2009 06:55:47 »
'almost unique' is of course a tautology
No it's not.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #13 on: 28/10/2009 07:13:11 »
'almost unique' is of course a tautology
No it's not.

Oh yes it is.

Good grief, is it pantomime season again already?
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #14 on: 28/10/2009 08:30:33 »
It is possible to approach some absolute states I can see no objection for instance to 'being almost dead', 'almost intelligent' etc such should apply to almost unique.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #15 on: 28/10/2009 19:23:57 »
glvs fr fxs
cn u rd ths?
is t wrth the effrt?
or would it be better if I were not too lazy to bother pressing all the keys?
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #16 on: 28/10/2009 20:43:46 »
The correct use of capital letter enhances clarity and helps avoid ambiguity.  Saying that they are unnecessary isn't a good justification for not using them

why isn't it in the context of this forum?

Umm... I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  I can't figure out what information you're trying to convey.

Quote
Quote from: LeeE
by not using them you are not only leaving what you write open to misinterpretation but forcing people to make a greater effort to understand it, effort that would be unnecessary if you were to use them correctly.

i disagree. i have been doing this for a couple of years online and as far as i can tell nobody has ever misinterpreted what i've said, and i don't think it requires any more effort to understand my type than properly capitalised type.

You can't disagree because it is not down to you.  You are not in a position to say how much effort other people have had to put into understanding you.  Personally, I've had to read everything you've written several times, instead of just once, to try to ensure that I have correctly interpreted what you have written, but even then there is no certainty because the way that you have written it is intrinsically ambiguous.

Quote
Quote from: LeeE
There are then, serious disadvantages in not using them, while the only advantage I can see is that it saves one keystroke; not a good trade-off, imo.

it saves a keystroke every time i need to capitalise, and helps me type a bit faster, allowing my time to be spent procrastinating on forums instead of doing my essay..

That's fine, if you're only writing for your own satisfaction and don't care whether anyone else reads what you write, but if you're writing it with the intention that it be read by others then the onus to ensure it is interpreted and understood correctly is upon you, not the reader.

Incidentally, your excuse is illogical too.  First of all, using capital letters doesn't intrinsically mean a slower typing speed, if you've got two hands to type with, and secondly, you spend your time procrastinating on forums instead of doing your essay anyway, so the speed of your typing isn't a factor.
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #17 on: 29/10/2009 00:16:18 »
Nobody has explicitly stated before that it does require them to use more effort to understand me (and I assumed they would if it did), but since it does, I will capitalise properly from now on. Thanks :)

I was just making a joke with the essay bit.
« Last Edit: 29/10/2009 00:21:02 by glovesforfoxes »
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #18 on: 29/10/2009 08:25:47 »
now bored chemist gave a pretty good example of how difficult it can be to understand what is being conveyed if you dnt use prpr englsh but rezrt to txt typ scrpt wht he did not do is show how difficult it is to read something which i fail to punctuate when one sentence flows into another without a break and when there is no telling where and when i am using an aside or changing tack i think you would all agree that it really does make for difficult reading we break our sentences when we talk we pause raise and lower our tone to punctuate our speech so that we can be understood it therefore follows that we need to do likewise when we write if i were to go on writting a long article i feel sure that any reader would give up on trying to understand what i am writting and as i would do ignore the post altogether and i have to say i would not blame them or to put it another way

Now Bored Chemist gave a pretty good example of how difficult it can be to understand what is being conveyed if you don't use proper English, but resort to text type script. What he did not do, is show how difficult it is to read something which I fail to punctuate. When one sentence flows into another, without a break and when there is no telling where and when I am using an aside or changing tack, I think you would all agree that it really does make for difficult reading. We break our sentences when we talk, we pause, raise and lower our tone to punctuate our speech, so that we can be understood. It therefore follows, that we need to do likewise when we write. If I were to go on writting a long article, I feel sure that any reader would give up on trying to understand what I am writting and, as I would do, ignore the post altogether, and I have to say, I would not blame them.

Now, which is the easier to understand?

I have to say, I found it hard resisting the use of capitals and punctuation in that first paragraph (if you can call it that) and, strangely, I then found it difficult to punctuate it afterwards.
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #19 on: 29/10/2009 08:43:19 »
It makes no difference to me - I'm so used to reading both that I can read them both quickly and easily. I have to say though you were all misrepresenting what I was saying - I would not contract words or type massive rambling sentences, just not capitalise them at the start of sentences. I still use the other grammar and spelling rules, and try to use good syntax and paragraphing where appropriate. I just didn't see the value in capitalisation as it does nothing to add the clarity of the post for me. If it does for other people enough..
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #20 on: 29/10/2009 16:26:30 »
Excuse me, but correspondent is spelt with two r's.
Actually, corespondent is spelt with 1 r. On the other hand correspondent is spelt with two.
Unless this post is about those people who have been charged with adultery in a divorce case the title is wrong.
Incidentally what's the apostrophe doing in "spelt with two r's"?

I was trying to be a smartarse. Why, what's the proper way to write the plural of r?
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #21 on: 29/10/2009 16:47:08 »
Excuse me, but correspondent is spelt with two r's.
Actually, corespondent is spelt with 1 r. On the other hand correspondent is spelt with two.
Unless this post is about those people who have been charged with adultery in a divorce case the title is wrong.
Incidentally what's the apostrophe doing in "spelt with two r's"?

I was trying to be a smartarse. Why, what's the proper way to write the plural of r?

You answered your own question there........ I think.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Why do corespondents not use the spell checker
« Reply #21 on: 29/10/2009 16:47:08 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums