Posted by James Briggs on September 27, 2003
In Reply to: Interesting language posted by Bob on September 27, 2003
: : : : : One of my students presented this to the class.
: : : : : Aoccdrnig to a rscheearcer at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteres are in the rghit pclae. The rset can
: : : : : be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.
: : : :
: : : : Not taht I hvae had there emalis aubot taht arleady tihs week.
: : : : It cretinaly wroks!
: : : The article went on to say that, however, certain single letter words like " " and " " will disappear!
: : :::: Hmmmm. This email went round the traps and reached me too. However, my email ended with a comment to the effect of: "See, spelling isn't everything, you can still read this perfectly well." No doubt an excuse on the sender's behalf for his own lack of skills in this area.
: : I pointed out to him that I was still able to read it, but not perfectly well, and not without some difficulty. To me, reading this, is a bit like trying to speak while travelling in your car on a corrugated bumpy road. Lot's of breaks and jumps.
: : I also didn't understand the comment immediately prior to mine, by James Briggs I think, that "words like " " and " " will disappear". I didn't receive that in my emailed version. I did note that they didn't mess about with the 'and' words. They were left in tact. But I didn't understand James' comment.
: I used to tell my writing students that one eternal truth was that there is a writer and a reader, and one of them has to work hard.
My mistake due, in part, to the mention of the Times in the title of one of the earlier posts. There was a letter in the Times this week quoting virtually the same text as the original post here. That letter went on to add the missing words bit. Sorry.