The
copydesk [well, a copy editor] at Wired weighs in on an idea that could ramp up copydesk employment trends from decimation to annihilation. My only other comment: Lady, can you guess how the desk will spell your name in your obit? [Hat tip: John McIntyre]
Proper Spelling? Its Tyme to Let Luce!Quote:
By
Anne Trubek January 31, 2012 |
12:30 pm |
Categories: Wired February 2012
A misspelled tweet describing a crush as adorable is changed to say she is “affordable.” The text message “I like himm” is changed to “I like Himmler.” Damn you, autocorrect! By now most of us have had unfortunate experiences with autocorrection software—innocuous messages turned anatomical or lunch plans morphed into love notes. (Pro tip: Don’t ever abbreviate Wednesday.) Damn You Autocorrect! is even the name of a popular website that collates hilariously obtuse examples of texts perverted by software assistants.
Our supposedly helpful correction software isn’t doing us any favors, and not just because it routinely turns easily decipherable errors into bizarre non sequiturs. And definitely not for any of the reasons your third-grade English teacher might cite: that it makes us lazy or robs us of our ability to spell. No, autocorrect and spellcheckers are wrongheaded because they reinforce a traditional spelling standard. Consistent spelling was a great way to ensure clarity in the print era. But with new technologies, the way that we write and read (and search and data-mine) is changing, and so must spelling.
English spelling is a terrible mess anyway, full of arbitrary contrivances and exceptions that outnumber rules. Why receipt but deceit? Water but daughter? Daughter but laughter? What is the logic behind the ough in through, dough, and cough? Instead of trying to get the letters right with imperfect tools, it would be far better to loosen our idea of correct spelling.
Spelling: A Rebuttal From Wired’s CopydeskQuote:
By Lee Simmons
January 31, 2012 |
12:30 pm |
Categories: Wired February 2012
“English spelling is a terrible mess,” writes Anne Trubek in “Use Your Own Words.” I couldn’t agree more. As a copy editor at Wired, one small but highly visible aspect of my job is to ensure that each of the tens of thousands of words in a typical issue of the magazine is spelled correctly. I’m the guy who’s supposed to remember how to spell colonnade and odyssey and pirhana (… er, piranha). Well, someone’s gotta do it.
Or do they? Trubek isn’t proposing that we reform English orthography—as so many others have suggested, so fruitlessly, over the centuries. Rather, she says we should do away with spelling rules altogether.
On the face of it, that’s an odd sort of logic. To say that something is a mess and then conclude that we ought to remove all constraints and let it get even messier is, at the least, a paradox requiring a good, strong supporting argument. Instead, Trubek waves her hands and declares grandly that “with new technologies, the way that we write and read … is changing, and so must spelling.”
Really? Personally, I like to be able to understand what I read, without having to stop and puzzle over “creative” spellings—whether it’s in a book, on a tablet, or online. What exactly is it about digital media that demands the abolition of spelling rules? The closest Trubek comes to an explanation on this point is when she writes, “Computers, smartphones, and tablets are speeding the adoption of more casual forms of communication—texting is closer to speech than letter writing.”
Ah! If that’s all we’re talking about—brief, informal bulletins to your friends—fine. No one cares how you spell your text messages, any more than they care how you spell your grocery lists or party invitations. Deciphering a few misspelled words in a two-sentence tweet isn’t too burdensome; we’ll do it for a bud. And if we can’t, who cares?