|
Aswad -> RE: Spelling and online... (8/19/2007 11:22:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sexyred1
No, of course there are many things that are as equally important to spend time on, but your communicative ability is so important since it is how you present yourself to the world. Spelling is just one way of doing that.
In all honesty, most people who care that much about spelling are people I couldn't care less about how I present myself to, with the notable exception of business contexts, where I cater to all prejudices I can uncover in the interest of getting their money, of course. (That being the job description, after all: making money.)
Learning how to cook a great meal has brought me far more joy than my usually passable spelling.
quote:
No, my linguistic aptitude is above average, thanks.
You quite clearly said "I disagree" to an assertion that there are better things to learn than spelling. Either you meant that there are no better things to learn than spelling, or you failed to communicate. Clearly, spelling is important to you. But I would expect that you gained more from learning how to walk, how to pen down what you have spelled in your head, how to love, and so forth.
quote:
Communicating quite well HERE? I was discussing the macro, not the micro.
Pardon me, I got the impression we were discussing spelling on CM.
quote:
True, but I also used "lost art" because writing was more valued before the instant and immediate gratification of online happened. People used to actually write letters to each other. Now, it is easier to just IM someone to keep in touch. If you have received a genuine love letter on stationary, it is more meaningful (to me at least), than someone who cut and pastes a bouquet of flowers, for example. Somehow, it is not the same thing and took less effort. Effort is key.
Lots of things were valued. Some of them rightly so, others not so much. Valuing spelling is a formalism, really, a social ritual. Proper spelling, beyond the level where the text is intelligible (i.e. where the text has served the purpose of communicating), is just icing on the cake. It's a memory game used for exclusion, and doesn't add anything. If people have problems with it, I'd prefer if they spend that extra effort on something more meaningful, like the content of what they are saying.
And I have received letters, including love letters. The time would be better spent on a romantic dinner. Besides, don't underestimate the value of the spontaniety of instantaneous communication. Letters may have some value, sure, but they don't enable such extensive social interactions as are possible via a forum. For that matter, you would be unable to decipher any letter I wrote, given my handwriting.
quote:
Absolutely, but I still stand my opinion that it makes them look bad and influences a decision to do business with them. It is also glaringly obvious in a business communication when there are misspellings. It is forgiven more so in personal.
I'd say it depends on the scale of the business involved. If it's a small company, they may not have a proof reader, and I'd give the benefit of the doubt. If it's a large company, then they don't care about presentability, and I would rely on whether they have a reputation for being equally lax in other areas. Lockheed-Martin could write me a letter with not a single word spelled correctly, and I'd not hold it against them. Firestone could not expect the same.
quote:
Well, of course, I am not discussing people who have communication or spelling issues due to those reasons, I am talking about most people where English is their first language.
English isn't most people's first language.
Chinese, specifically Mandarin, is.
quote:
Well, I felt like commenting on it since it is ancillary to the spelling and online discussion.
Not really. It's an argot that may eventually become part of the English language.
One presumes scholars disliked the slow migration from "egoH" to "I".
The same will be the case if "you" ("yus") eventually becomes "U".
It is jarring to me, but the "4" etc. are the ones I object to.
|
|
|
|
