On Orthography and Pet Peeves

        Centuries-long debates have attempted to rate the relative evil of misspelling a word.  Are all misspellings inherently heinous, or do they matter only if they confuse the reader?  What does a misspelling imply—or not—about the writer's intelligence and reliability?  Participants on every side of the debate have relatively sound reasons for supporting their conclusions--whether they promote traditional orthography, standardized spelling reforms, or free-form spelling.  Permit me to drop my two cents atop this dragon's horde of pennies.

        From a historical perspective, orthography has always been—to varying extents and depending on one's point of view—arbitrary.  Alphabets, syllabaries, and logograms are, after all, man-made constructions, invented to represent sounds or ideas, which change over time.  In the English language—and I would venture to say in most (if not all) other languages, as well—spelling once varied widely according to regional accent or personal preference until some fellow thought to publish and popularize a dictionary.  Even once dictionaries became accepted authorities on spelling, orthography has often morphed (though sometimes belatedly or not at all—consider the Great Vowel Shift) to keep pace with changing pronunciations and vocabulary, or—on rarer occasions—to emphasize a new nation's distinctiveness, as with England's former colonies in what is now the U.S..
        Considering how language and accepted spellings change, some people feel it makes little sense to propagandize prescriptive orthography nor to lament "creative" spelling, provided readers can still sound words out and get the meaning.  Furthermore, with PC thoughts of diversity and tolerance, it hardly seems right to penalize people who have learning disabilities for their bad spelling.
        Opponents point out that, although learning spelling may be difficult for the learning disabled, it's not impossible for most to improve with regular effort.  (See this article about teaching spelling to dyslexics.)  They could always borrow or hire an editor when needed, so there's no reason to let everyone get sloppy with spelling just because some in the population struggle with it!  Standardized spelling makes it so readers don't have to take time to puzzle out a writer's meaning.
         Ah, but standards can change, can't they?  What's wrong with easing people's way by making irregular verbs regular or removing unarticulated letters?  "Mass confusion," proponents of traditional spelling would argue.  "Old texts would become almost unintelligible."  Like Chaucer, you mean?  But we still make students read his original words, and they manage (if sometimes only with the help of SparkNotes).  Reforms could be introduced gradually, and books could be reprinted with "modernized" spellings.  ...Yet there are so many logistical problems with that!
        Though spelling is, to an extent, arbitrary, both reformers and traditional orthographers agree that spelling is an arbitration codified in dictionaries and in years of usage.  Just as a law only applies to the people who live under that body of laws, codified by lawmakers, they contend that a spelling only truly applies if it is codified in a dictionary.  (Though, to confound matters, not all English dictionaries include the same new forms, and some note multiple correct spellings for a word.  The majority of the content, however, agrees.)
        If we think of spelling as a codified law, we'll also remember that a law can be amended, so why not do so when a majority of orthographic "lawmakers" agree?  This does happen in a way, but the process, some complain, is too slow or needs to be reversed.  Currently, dictionaries revise their spellings to reflect popular usage, but revisionists feel dictionaries should dictate popular usage, instead.   Laws are also useless unless followed and enforced.  Is that the case with spelling?
        Although police may not arrest a business owner for posting a sign reading "Wellcome" or "You're Video Store," couldn't one view customer criticism or reduced patronage as a form of enforcement?  Educators, certain employers, and peers may enforce spelling through grades, performance reviews, hiring choices, praise, and mockery.  Indeed, most of us do tend to use spelling (fairly or not, and intentionally or not) as one way to judge the writer's intelligence and reliability.  What do you think when you read this: "I want to the carpanter and asked hi to billed me a woden closet with a big mirror and speachieal drawers to put my showas." (From Ghotit.com. It took me a while to figure out the last word!)

        It looks and feels delightful to read a well-written document or story, but even with mundane words, correct spelling helps readers comprehend the meaning, as illustrated above.  This is especially true in the case of homophones and between nigh-unintelligible spoken dialects.  One must note, however, that poor spelling often goes hand-in-hand with poor grammar, which further damages clear, quick communication.  There is, therefore, undisputed value in perpetuating a standard orthography and grammar. 
       Even so, reformers argue that our oral language has changed since some of these spellings were first established, so we have words like "knight," which is no longer said as "kah-knee-kt" or "ka-ni-git."  Consider also the words February, Wednesday, colonel, through, phlegm, knock, queue, and others in which sounds have been dropped or changed over the years.  Is retaining such spellings entirely necessary?  Learning to read and spell such words becomes an extra challenge to those not verbally inclined.

        So the arguments fly.  Myself, I see no harm in a few reforms, starting with standardizing abbreviations like "tho," "thru," and "info."  (Think there's any chance we could popularize "brev" to replace "abbreviation"?  It'd need to be in common use before the spelling could officially change, but consider the irony of the long version!)

        I can overlook the occasional typo, but consistent spelling errors drive me batty.  Among the various, vexing vagrancies that some villains venture to commit with our written language, and with homophones in particular, these are a few of my pet peeves.  (I wonder how many of you read that expecting "these are a few of my favorite things...?"  My thoughts digress.)

• Yea—1) even more so; indeed ("Yea, verily.") 2) a somewhat archaic "yes" ("I can't say yea or nay.")
• Yay—1) exclamation of joy; "Hooray!" ("Yay!") 2) an indicated amount ("It's yay high.")
• Yeah—yes; ja; sure; absoballylutly  ("Want some chocolate?"  "YEAH!")      (Extra Note: "Yea" and "yay" are homophones that rhyme with "way."  "Yeah," however, is a unique diphthong that doesn't seem to rhyme with anything.  Its final "a" sound resembles the "a" in "at.")

• Supposed to (not suppose to) and used to (not use to)    ("I used to try to eat things that I was not supposed to, like my sister's arm.")

• Could've, would've, should've, etc. (not could of, etc.)—the abbreviated word is "have."   ("I should've moved to Texas for the winter!") 

• A lot (not alot)—as in a bunch, a great amount.  ("A lot of people write badly!")

• Cannot (not can not)    ("I cannot believe you forgot that!")

• Then—an adverb of time ("First brush your teeth, and then you may kiss me.")
• Than—a comparison ("He has more wit than wisdom.")

• You're—a contraction of "you are" ("You're from the lunar colony?")
• Your—a possessive form of "you" ("I find your lack of faith disturbing.")

• There—a pronoun for a place; an exclamation of satisfaction ("Sit there in the sun... There, isn't that warmer?")  Note how the locations "here" and "there" have similar spellings?
• Their—a possessive form of "they" ("Their pfeffernuse tastes great with chai.")
• They're—a contraction of "they are" ("They're great bagpipers.")

• Two—the number 2 ("Two cats strolled along the fencetop.")
• To—toward, for the purpose of, etc.  ("She went to great lengths to humor those cats.")
• Too—also; excessively so ("I, too, want a cat so long as it's not too destructive.")

• Write—to inscribe words or music on a surface     ("I hope to write a novel.")
• Right—1) dexter rather than sinister ("Turn right!") 2) correct  ("You were right to write that.")
• Rite—a ceremony or customary practice

• Any kind of misused or unnecessary preposition: ("We are considering on doing that." "Where are you at?")

• The following are other commonly-remarked upon errors that I (unrealistically?) expect people to know by the time they reach high school: site/sight, fill/feel, aspect/respect, weather/whether, which/witch/wich, who/whom, angle/angel, wear/ware/where/were, break/brake, foreward/forward, due/do, dessert/desert, decent/descent, counsel/council, aisle/isle, its/it's, throne/thrown, close/clothes, breath/breathe, advice/advise, accept/except, affect/effect, choose/chose, lose/loose, coarse/course, conscious/conscience, diary/dairy, device/devise, different than/from/to, dual/duel, hoped/hopped, hole/whole, see/sea, role/roll, sit/set, through/threw, wreak/wreck/rack/wrack...

The list could go on, but I think you get my meaning.  
This "rant" comes across as a bit myopic even to me; certainly, from a larger perspective, spelling has little bearing on the important things in life, which we may sum up as as "love God" and "love your neighbors."  Even so, clear written communication, as well as the respectability attached to polished format and content, are incredibly useful tools, especially when interacting with our neighbors. 


What do you think about spelling?  What are your pet peeves?  Write a note below.



See other articles on this topic:
brunerbiz.com "I Judge You When You Use Poor Grammar"
Wikipedia.org "English Orthography"
Spellingcity.com "Importance of Spelling"
Huffingtonpost.co.uk "Best-Funniest Spelling-Grammar Mistakes"
Not about spelling, but funny: Instruct.westvalley.edu "Writing Sample" 

On Trust

During my childhood, Mom hung a certain cross-stitched Bible verse in the restroom, positioned opposite the pot at an adult’s standing eye-level.  Word-oriented as I am, it would take a great mental abstraction—or a book in my hand—for me not read it, sometimes more than once, each time I visited.  The repetition resulted naturally in memorization.  I still recall it today, though with occasional confusion on the wording—it being the King James Version and my own Bibles using NIV or ESV translations.  Still, the central message of the words remain, and over the years, the verse continues to come to mind and guide me at opportune moments, different parts striking me more at different times.

Proverbs 3:5-6 (KJV)

⁵ Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

⁶ In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

“Trust in the Lord.”

I.e. He is trustworthy.  Okay, cool.  But what can I trust Him with?  Health, wealth, and happiness?   If He didn’t spare His own Son poverty and torture and death, why should I expect complete safety?  He’ll do anything to turn the hearts of people back to Him.  I can, however, expect Him to be with me in all circumstances, provide what I need (though not necessarily what I want), provide internal peace in all circumstances, and protect my immortal soul.

“...with all thine heart.”

All, always?  Yes.  I can’t trust halfheartedly, or only when it’s easy or makes sense to trust.

“...and lean not to thine own understanding.”

Do I think that I know better than God or His Word?  Who am I to say that He’s unfair or to think it’s okay for me to do what I want even when it’s against His commands?  If I commit to leaning on His understanding and perspective, I have to seek it by studying His ways and staying in a close relationship with Him.

“In all thy ways acknowledge him,”

This means acknowledging God’s sovereignty over me and the world, privately and publicly.  Not only must my mind admit He’s my Lord, but I also have to put that acknowledgement into practice by obeying Him or else my acknowledgement will be proved a lie.

“...and He shall direct thy paths.”

How?  How do I know He’s leading me or if my own desires are asserting themselves and I assume or claim they’re His?  I must evaluate my lifestyle and actions in light of scripture and the prodding of the Holy Spirit.  

Scripture won’t have exact answers to the right career or possessions or relationships or financial decisions that are appropriate for each person, but it does have criteria: Is my choice motivated by love for God or my neighbor, or by fear or greed?  Are my actions Christ-centered or self-centered?  Am I making the best use of the talents and spiritual gifts God has given me?  What route would best enable me to serve God faithfully (without burning out or succumbing to temptations)?  Do I feel a direction or spirit of restraint from the Holy Spirit?—and if I’m not heeding it, what’s hindering me?  Am I you relying on God to sustain me or putting faith in the false security of wealth, strength, and status?  Have I prayed about the decision—and really listened and watched for a response?

This passage—“Trust in the Lord…”—is not a formula for temporal blessings but for a life of faith that promises blessings that last: a purpose, freedom from fear, and a relationship with the Almighty.