OT ramblings about lameness and stupidity (was Re: Vhmrrxutkvbziepg)

From: der Mouse <mouse_at_Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: Mon Feb 2 19:48:38 2004

["Teo Zenios" <teoz_at_neo.rr.com>]

> I find that when your word processor has a spell checker and grammer
> checker you start to rely on it (you get lazy)

It may not be entirely coincidental that I _don't_ use spelling/grammar
checking software. :-)

> Most mistakes are obvious typos or wordprocessor screwups based on
> typos ("I walked down to the see" instead of sea), while sloppy it
> doesnt keep you from deciphering the content.

Me, no. But English is my mother tongue.

I have recently been trying to learn Norwegian, mostly by chatting
online with a Norwegian. This is relevant because every now and then
the Norwegian will typo, or use a regional idiom, and even when the
intended word is one I know in its bokm?l form, I will usually be
baffled until the typo is corrected or the corresponding standard form
provided. Thus, I can say from personal experience that yes, when
you're working in a language that you're not fully fluent in, such
mistakes can not only impair but sometimes outright prevent
comprehension.

Now, if we all were native anglophones, or at least had near-native
fluency in English, this probably wouldn't matter. But I don't for a
moment believe that's true.

[Vintage Computer Festival <vcf_at_siconic.com>]

> A misspelled word here and some poor grammar there does not compare
> to full blown Engrish, I would agree, but both are equally annoying.

Well, for things such as product manuals, no, there really is no
excuse.

But for something like a mailing list message, well, when I see Engrish
over a signature like "Hidei Nishimura", I usually cut the poor poster
some slack, provided the meaning is indeed clear. Mistakes arising
from someone of some other native tongue trying to use my language and
not quite having the expertise to do it right I can forgive, especially
since I'm generally far worse in the poster's native tongue. But the
sorts of mistakes are very different: non-native English will have the
wrong preposition somewhere, or will conjugate a verb wrong, or some
such, rather than (say) confusing "your" and "you're". (For example,
that Norwegian I mentioned above has been known to come out with things
like "Well, she (yes, she, despite that Margit persistently told me it
looked more like a man)" (vs "despite Margit persistently telling
me...") - not at all the sort of mistake produced by sloppiness in a
native anglophone.)

/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X Against HTML mouse_at_rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Received on Mon Feb 02 2004 - 19:48:38 GMT