Print

Print


I HVAE ON PLEBORMS WTIH CITAAPL LTETRES


2014-02-05 David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>:

> Teey aee teeeeey reeet.
>
> David Peterson
> LCS Member Since 2007
> [log in to unmask]
> www.conlang.org
>
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Yep. Evidence that English writing -- or rather, that higher levels of
> English *reading* -- is
> > not so much alphabetic as it is ideographic. The overall shapes of the
> words are more important
> > than the occasionally incorrect spelling.
> >
> > IS TIHS NOT TURE? AS LOGN AS HET LTETERS REA KNDIA IN TEH RHIGHT
> > IDERR I CAN RAED IT.
> >
> > I bet that's just a little harder! I find even well spelled all caps to
> be a little harder than normal
> > mixed-case writing. A tad slower to read.
> >
> > Padraic
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Matthew Turnbull <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 5 February 2014, 19:48
> >> Subject: Re: debunk of Cambridge spelling meme
> >>
> >>
> >> Is tihs not ture? as logn as het lteters rea kndia in teh rhigt oderr I
> can
> >> raed it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:40 PM, MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Does anyone here know of a video that debunks the (still ongoing) meme
> >>> about a Cambridge study that 'proves' that spelling is unimportant,
> that
> >>> only the first and last letters are necessary and the rest can be in
> any
> >>> order?
> >>> I saw it recently (in the last month or two, I think), but I can't
> find it
> >>> now, and I'd like to watch it again.
> >>>
> >>> stevo
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>