Talk:Spelling

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment

The article needs better organisation although I am at a loss as to how to better organise it. Capitalistroadster 19:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how do the traditional encylopedias (World Book, Brittanica, etc) organize their "spelling" entries? Eep² 12:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)'' Presumably the spelling mistakes in this article are for didactic purposes? Maybe the misspelt words should be italicized? Augusta2 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


National Geographic channel randomised intermediate letters.

National Geographic Channel has a filler item that shows that so long as the first and last letters of a word remain the same, the intermediate letters can be jumbled up and the meaning is still clear. On first impressions, this claim was supprisely true. However, what if there were some words that would be unintelligable if randomised. What if there were some words that change their meaning in a dangerous way if the letters are randomised. Since English has a million, the only way to avoid these spelling timebombs would be to know all the words and the problem pairs. Since that is a lot of work, it is safer just to use normal spelling and to avoid randomised letters.

The following phrase appeared in today's Australian Financial Review, not long after the NG piece.

  • Carpe diem - seize the day - do not waste an opportunity.
  • Crape diem - go the the beach, and waste an opportunity.
  • Carpe diem - szeie the dya - do nto wteas an otpnorpiuty.
  • Crape diem - sfutf teh day - go the the bcaeh, adn wtsae an otuorpunipy.
  • Buy!
  • Sell!
  • Buy! Sell! Cannot get more opposite than that.
  • Bury the Buy order!
  • Buy Order? Bury Order?
  • Buy or Sell? Cannot get more ambiguous/dangerous than that.

Tabletop 11:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spelling unit1

1.fed 2.fell 3.beg

Sensational spelling merge

Obviously the divergent spelling section of this article and the sensational spelling article need to be worked on together. If the proposal is to delete sesational spelling and put it all here, I would suggest caution - this is an interesting enough phenomenon that it could be a good article in its own right. I would rather have a short summary here, with a "main article" reference, and put all the actual material in the other place. --Doric Loon 07:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that sensational spelling could make a good article on its own, then sure, I'll drop the merge request. Was mostly proposing it because it seemed like that it might be doomed to being a permanent stub, but if there's expansion possibilities, we might as well let it have them. SnowFire 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

technopropism

The article mentions "Misspellings ... not caught by simple computerized spell checkers". The article should say what these things are called.

This includes both homophone and also some not quite homophone word substitutions -- for example, I've seen college / collage; immolate / emulate, "wit hat" / "with at", none of which are homophones.

Is "technopropism" (Sandy Reed 1996[1]) ([2]) the best name for this? Or should we stick with malapropism [3]? --75.48.165.135 05:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

missing N's in "Pago Pago"

I have a hunch that the story of the missing typwriter "N" is just that, a good tale. Quite a few names in the South Pacific have missing or silent N's, for example, Nadi Fiji, pronounced "Nandi". The explanation for this that I have encountered, on several occasions (without my ever having seen it written down), is that the earliest printing press in the South Pacific, in the days of shipping by sailboat, did not have enough lower case N's, and had to limit usage of same. (And, of course, maybe this is another good tale.) Tim Ross 10:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I got a good laugh out of this too. There must have been a printing press/typewriter with missing 'm's in it going around too given the frequency of unwritten 'm's in e.g. Fijian names like Sitiveni Rabuka For what it is worth, his surname is pronounced Rambuka. And when Joe Rokocoko's surname was first printed someone must have been missing t and h! Neil Leslie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prescriptive Element

What does this mean? Spelling is "a prescriptive element of language. It is in the article lead. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC) handill[reply]

Confectionary?

Its not spelled wrong wtf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.161.236 (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Merriam-Webster allows of both spellings, reporting confectionary as the earlier usage (1599 vs 1751).71.243.27.217 (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

word definiton

I am looking for a crossword answer for (spelling methods?) I have 6 blocks and also have 5 of the letters any one want to help  ?? blank beahs...need first letter,,thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.196.164 (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the verb to spell

Possibly add a section about the grammar around the verb spell? Commonly people say the past tense of to spell is "spelt" but it is actually "spelled"

'Tis slang though, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.225.98 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's spelt for British, Canadian, and Australian English. It's spelled for Standard American English. Therefore, you spell it correctly either way as long as you're aware of which spelling is which variant - TopAce (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be placed in the article then? 124.176.231.109 (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should be added, and to the first person, it is spelt "spelt" in most variants of English. Shrimp3000 (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example graphic

The Marquess of Queensberry's visiting card may be of historical interest, but I'm not sure it's a good example here. It's totally illegible to ordinary mortals and so impossible to tell whether it's misspelled or not. 86.152.242.213 (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

WP:ENGVAR

before anyone quotes this regarding how others use their own local English dialect when editing or making changes to any Wikipedia article. It should be noted that Wikipedia uses all dialects and no singular dialect takes precedent over any other, and all users should appreciate the differences of spelling and phrasing of others. So there can be no dominant style or preferred dialect as has been suggest by one editor recently. dolfrog (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

Dolfrog: I'm happy to discuss the article with you, but you kind of didn't say anything other than that I'm not qualified or something. That... doesn't help.

Anyway, re this edit: the cite-needed tag bombing seemed a bit over-the-top. Yes everything should have a cite, but that doesn't mean all non-FA articles should be tag-bombed. I removed the cite-needed on a few statements I think are pretty non-controversial.

For the section title, I disagree strongly that that section should only cover the United States. It should cover spelling in all languages, perhaps with an emphasis on English. It's true that the section is somewhat US-centric currently but there's no reason to guarantee it'll stay that way.

The navigational boxes are all only loosely relevant to spelling itself. No need to spam every conceivable navbox here.

Spelling is the lead article in the Spelling Category, so using Category:Spelling| ]] makes sure that it floats to the "top" of the category listing. Also, spelling is *definitely* not a language orthography like, say, Latin orthography or French orthography is. This is a subcategory of Orthography anyway, so if Spelling somehow *was* a Language orthography, then the parent category orthography should be removed - we only need one or the other, and Orthography in general is a far better fit. SnowFire (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling is based on the orthography of any language, the rules of spelling are based onj the orthography of the any language and its various dialects.

No spelling dos not only apply to the USa, but the content of that section only applies to the spelling of English in the USA and no where else so the section does not have enough globla content to not have a USA qualification. Spelling is determined by the orthography of a language be it Engish, French, German Chinese, Arabic etc.

And yes all statements made on this type of article require supportive research based citations especially with regard to the cognitive processes involved in the task of spelling any language. So far you have only demonstrated your completre lack of understanding of language, the structures of international writing systems, and their orthographies, and how this relates to a Wiki Encyclopedia article requiring a global view of a complex issue. Spelling is task performed in all writing systems and in all of the langauges in each writing system < not just a single language from one writing system which happens to be the official language of the USA. dolfrog (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the contnet it would be probabvly better to move or reame the whole article to "Spelling in the USA" so that other countries including the UK could then add their own article regarding the various different cultural ways of spelling English, and those who use other languages could explain and the orthographies that define rules of spelling in their various languages and various dialects. dolfrog (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...well this is going nowhere fast. "Please do not change an article you do not understand?" ...sigh.

"Spelling is based on the orthography of any language, the rules of spelling are based onj the orthography of the any language and its various dialects." I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with respect to the article here, but yes, this is obviously true. If you meant the categorization scheme, WP:CATEGORY says "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Category:Language orthographies is a subcategory of Category:Orthography. Therefore, only one of these categories is necessary. Spelling is part of orthography, but the "Language orthographies" category is for *specific* language orthographies, not everything loosely related. Spelling should be part of the parent cat. You also haven't explained why you continue to remove the custom sort on the Spelling category to go the top - the [[Category:Spelling| ]] (original version) -> [[Category:Spelling]] (your change) item. Spelling should definitely be listed atop the Spelling category.

Changing the section title to "in the United States" will make the "globalization" problem worse, not better. That will tell editors to only add US-centric examples. While I don't think the problem is as dire as you do, I've added a {{globalize}} instead to indicate that examples from the rest of the world should be added.

Citations are of course necessary, but only featured articles have "all" the citations really needed, in general. Every single paragraph in Wikipedia has an invisible "citation needed" after it, if there is no citation currently. Only controversial or suspect content gets a cite needed tag added. Now, are you saying you disagree with those statements I removed the cite needed from, or think they're wrong? If so, fine, but you have to explain why. SnowFire (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truce I have had a look at the last change. From my perspective the navigation templates should also be included as they provide information regarding variations in spelling. There has been a great deal of international research in the last decade regarding reading, writing, and spelling, especially in relation to dyslexia, both developmental dyslexia and Alexia (acquired dyslexia). Spelling is one of the tasks required when using our man made communication system the visual notation of speech, and rules of spelling are dictated by the orthography of the language being used, which is in turn is determined by the writing system being used. The cognitive skill combinations required to perform reading, writing and spelling varies according to the orthography of the lanquage being used. Hopefully we can move forward For my part i can only provide the research information, copy editing is not really an option for me dolfrog (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to do what I can to work any research you dig up into the article.
As for the navigational templates, I dunno. Let me check with a few friends and see what they think. Those 3 templates just seemed like overkill and more likely to guarantee people would look at none of them, but maybe we can keep at least one or two of the more relevant ones. SnowFire (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not understand the origins of language, and especially the visual notation of speech, how can you begin to explain spelling, which is is about orthographic structure of a language, and the writing system being used. And there are spelling differenced between the various dialects of English. So you really do need to understand what spelling is about.dolfrog (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is spelling about

SnowFire to date you have not demonstrated that you have a real understanding of the origins of written language, writing systems, and language orthography which is what spelling is all about. I do not have the time to participate in the type of discussion which you to want to pursue. dolfrog (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of spelling

This article is in great need of a section describing the history of spelling. Spelling was not always considered to be a discipline. It used to be (before 1800?) that if the reader could understand the word(s), then they were spelled "correctly." Our current rigidity is a rather modern contrivance. - left unsigned by someone

I agree that the history of the phenomenon needs to be addressed. However, I wouldn't be too quick to assume that standardized spelling is a modern result. In order to understand the subject more accurately (from a linguistics and orthographical perspective), it has to be examined on a global scale, spanning many cultures, languages, and writing systems, both past and present. I suspect that the emergence of an accepted standard spelling is a natural phenomenon. Standardized spelling establishes whenever a writing system develops in order to exhibit less variation and streamline written communication. I need to verify this conclusion with a reliable source, such as a scholarly book on the topic, which I noticed is lacking in the references section. - The Aviv (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

help

help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.209 (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second language speakers

The article says:

Since traditional language teaching methods emphasize written language over spoken language, a second-language speaker may have a better spelling ability than a native speaker despite having a poorer command of the language.

Personally, I don't completely disagree with this statement, but it would be much better to have a cited source that proves it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orthography vs. Spelling

Does the term "spelling" apply to non-western writing systems and languages -- Arabic, Hebrew, Hindi and Korean for example -- or is "orthography" the only term to use? I'm aware that orthography covers more than spelling in a narrow sense. Hyphenation for example. Nevertheless does "spelling" only apply to languages using Roman, Greek or Cyrillic alphabets? LADave (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with definition

Spelling is a verb or noun that describes the graphemic state of a word. Why is the word "phonemic" or "pronunciation" even mentioned?! A Chinese word can be 'spelled' using Chinese characters that aren't phonemic. It does not apply to non-words either: one doesn't spell an individual letter or a sentence. We spell words.202.189.99.91 (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While Chinese characters as they are used in Chinese and Japanese are considered logograms, and they have different pronunciations in different contexts, they still can be "spelled". For instance, the word for Japanese word for Japan is spelled "日本", and the Chinese word for China is spelled "中国". The characters also represent their respective pronunciations, although they are different in each language. 中国 is pronounced "Zhōngguó" in Mandarin, but "Chūgoku" in Japanese. In either case, that's how the words are "spelled".
Your definition of spelling is spot on, however that would be the Wiktionary entry, not the Wikipedia entry :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a spelling cleanup team on Wikipedia?

If so, maybe mention them in a disambig hatnote thing on this article...? I sometimes notice a widespread misspelling that covers too many articles to be corrected, and wonder if I could instruct someone's bot to fix them all. Things like "seperate", etc. Today I saw "prolongued", which is in 14 articles. Equinox ◑ 21:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed template

Hi @Just plain Bill:, you can follow the link in my edit summary to see the discussion thread for this. The sock edit in question on this article can be seen here. However, if you feel the Wikiquote page on this topic is helpful to the reader, then I have no concern with your revert. I commented here just to make this clear. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the wikiquote entry, and saw some interesting content, nothing offensive or questionable. Not every sock edit is a bad one. (See ad hominem fallacy.) The harpsichord article is on my watchlist, and I've restored the template there as well, after checking it. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Just plain Bill:, WP:SOCKSTRIKE explains the reverts. Since you have verified those pages, you take the responsibility for adding its template. I am fine with that and have no concerns with either of your reverts. Thanks for the kind response. Happy Holidays. --Walrus Ji (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading

Hi I hope to see you there and if you be my friend I hope so my sister is going to be there but she’s going to be in a higher grade to me do you want to be my friend? 96.33.68.180 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Spelling"