I hate knocking people, but wouldn't you TRY to spell things right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda

Yes, I agree Ron. However, I guess I'm just lazy. When posting I usually use "&" instead of "and", as well as figures "1, 2, 3", etc, simply because it's quicker for me to type.

---

Hmm, quicker to type??

The ampersand requires two keystrokes, one of them on a key that is unfamiliar vs. three keystrokes on familiar keys that many of you can hit without even looking. Not a lot time saving there. Ditto for smaller numbers, e.g., one, two, etc.

But to use 2 instead of "to" or 4 instead of "four" is terrible. I accept that 2-way and 4WD but not in something like "it is 2 bad that he stood 4 president", nor the instance I quoted earlier of "1,2"

Next we'll have ""it is 2 bad that he stood 4 president" written as ""it is 2 bad that he s2d 4 president".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p38arover

Everyone here knows how I dislike poor spelling but I will never refer to anyone who can't spell as stupid.

You will also know that I know I have strengths and weaknesses. There are many things I can't do that bad spellers may be able to do.

However, if you are applying for a job and you know you can't spell, get someone else to proof read it. (Yes, I know I should have used "one", not "you".) I've done that for many of my staff over the years.

As Edd (George130) pointed out, a dictionary is not much use for a bad speller. If one can't spell at all, how does one look up a word? Help is at hand. One can buy bad speller's dictionaries which, I assume, spell words incorrectly and shows the correct spelling. There are a number available. For example: Webster's Bad Spellers Dictionary Review - Eclectic Homeschool Online

The on line Webster dictionary is good in that if you can't spell, it will offer suggestions. Try it: Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

---

I didn't think anyone apart from the Queen and Princess Anne used "one" these days.:p

Actually I always think that "one" instead of "you" sounds so pretentious.

What does irritate me (when I am in the mood to be easily irritated) is when people say "you" when it would be much more sensible to say "I".
I am referring to instances where someone is describing their own reaction or feelings and they speak as if it is generally true or as if it applies to you.

Surely an athlete who has just been asked how they feel as they wait for the starter's gun should say something like, "I am so focussed on the race that there is no time for anything else, so I don't get nervous", rather than, "You are so focussed on the race that there is no time for anything else, so you don't get nervous."

Of course that is not always true. In fact in a very large number of cases the word will be found without too much trouble.

It certainly would not be true in the case of the word that cropped up in this thread. Anyone looking for "definately" in the dictionary would have to be blind not to spot "definitely". In my two volume World Book Dictionary, it is only about six entries or 50mm further down the page and a couple of the entries in between are "definite" and "definite article".

I suspect that the comment about needing to be able to spell to use a dictionary is one of those glib throw away lines that sounds good and is heard so often that people have begun to believe it is true.

It just occurred to me that coloured print is often harder to read, especially for people with problems with their eyesight. Sorry Ron, but I thought the color coded replies would make it more obvious what I was responding to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p38arover

... ... ... .. ... ... ..

But to use 2 instead of "to" or 4 instead of "four" is terrible. I accept that 2-way and 4WD but not in something like "it is 2 bad that he stood 4 president", nor the instance I quoted earlier of "1,2"

Next we'll have ""it is 2 bad that he stood 4 president" written as ""it is 2 bad that he s2d 4 president".

---

Given the current concerns about inflation, the use of those numbers also raised the spectre of Victor Borge's 'Inflationary language".
For the under 50 year olds, he did a comedy routine where he said that since everything else was subject to inflation, the language should be too, so all words that contained numbers should have one added to that number.
So he told a story which began "Twice upon a time there was a loo-eleven-ant in the United States Air Fives named Bob. and included someone describing someone as a "three faced triple crosser" and another character trying to calm things down asked, "Any two for eleveniss?"
Trust me it sounded better when Victor Borge said it than when I write it.

So we could be faced with people writing, "it is 3 bad that he stood 5 president" or even "it is 3 bad that he s3d 5 president".:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p38arover

Hmm, quicker to type??

The ampersand requires two keystrokes, one of them on a key that is unfamiliar vs. three keystrokes on familiar keys that many of you can hit without even looking. Not a lot time saving there. Ditto for smaller numbers, e.g., one, two, etc.

But to use 2 instead of "to" or 4 instead of "four" is terrible. I accept that 2-way and 4WD but not in something like "it is 2 bad that he stood 4 president", nor the instance I quoted earlier of "1,2"

Next we'll have ""it is 2 bad that he stood 4 president" written as ""it is 2 bad that he s2d 4 president".

---

Yes, but for me Ron, it's quicker, as I can touch type very quickly. So in the case of using "&" or "and", using two keystrokes, (notice I spelt it in full - just for you), rather than one, is definitely quicker for me. The same with numbers. It's much quicker to type "1, 2, 3, etc" than "one, two, three, etc". Most especially with numbers, as for example, "3" is only one keystroke, whereas "three" is 5 keystrokes.

I do however agree, I would never use "2" instead of "to", as it doesn't make sense!

It is not a smart solution to replace words and letters with numbers and symbols to speed up typing.

Genuine smart people use Dvorak keyboards:angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

It is not a smart solution to replace words and letters with numbers and symbols to speed up typing.

Genuine smart people use Dvorak keyboards:angel:

---

Why is it not a smart solution to replace words & letters with numbers & symbols to speed up typing, if it speeds up typing?

When I learnt to type, Dvorak keyboards were not an option. It is my understanding that it has only really been in the last few years that the Dvorak keyboard configuration has gained recognition in the wider community, albeit in a select sector, mostly computer programmers.

As it is more readily available now, due to the computer era, I think it is great for people to be able to train on the Dvorak system. However, it would be impractical for me to take sufficient time off work to retrain on a new system, as speed & consistency is paramount in my position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p38arover

Fill? :p


:

---

Dooh :o:D:D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda

Why is it not a smart solution to replace words & letters with numbers & symbols to speed up typing, if it speeds up typing?

When I learnt to type, Dvorak keyboards were not an option. It is my understanding that it has only really been in the last few years that the Dvorak keyboard configuration has gained recognition in the wider community, albeit in a select sector, mostly computer programmers.

As it is more readily available now, due to the computer era, I think it is great for people to be able to train on the Dvorak system. However, it would be impractical for me to take sufficient time off work to retrain on a new system, as speed & consistency is paramount in my position.

---

I know you don't advocate numerals for words (like "Knock b4 you enter") but the answer to your first question is; because even though it speeds up typing, it slows down comprehension. That really only applies to those other uses of numerals that you correctly described as not making sense.

So you must have learned to type before the 1920s or 30s because that is when August Dvorak developed his keyboard. :p
I'm only joking. You're right, it was only a very small group that had even heard of it until recently. Even now most people would not know what it was.

The last point you make is quite right too. The reason we are stuck with the inefficiencies of the QWERTY keyboard is because that is what most people have learned and the cost of changing is enormous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

I know you don't advocate numerals for words (like "Knock b4 you enter") but the answer to your first question is; because even though it speeds up typing, it slows down comprehension. That really only applies to those other uses of numerals that you correctly described as not making sense.

So you must have learned to type before the 1920s or 30s because that is when August Dvorak developed his keyboard. :p
I'm only joking. You're right, it was only a very small group that had even heard of it until recently. Even now most people would not know what it was.

The last point you make is quite right too. The reason we are stuck with the inefficiencies of the QWERTY keyboard is because that is what most people have learned and the cost of changing is enormous.

---

Very true. I think that was the main reason it was never adopted. It was particularly difficult owing to the fact that the system was developed during the depression. The cost of new typewriters (which in those days, were made to last), was too overwhelming. Despite his marketing, unfortunately, it just never took off.

Getting a bit off topic, but the Qwerty keyboard is one of many innovations that seemed like a good idea at the time. It was deliberately designed to slow down typists so as to avoid jammed mechanism in early typewriters.

Like many 'standards' where the reason for them no longer applies, replacement of the Qwerty keyboard will be very difficult, simply because there are too many people that are more or less capable of using it. And very few of these are likely to want to change, even if they know there is a better system, because the process of change is too hard compared to the expected improvement. Same as with Windows, for example.

John