Is spelling old fashioned?

[bojan]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Thanks for sharing your daughter's view. It was good of you. You didnt have to.

All the best to you

But of course I did have to..

I promised, right ?

Otherwise I would have jumped right into my own mouth

[renormalised (Carl)]

If you're to use an example of someone's work as not the way to do things, so long as that person's name is not mentioned or even inferred, I can't see what all the fuss would be about. In order to learn, you must have examples of what is the correct and incorrect way of doing things. If someone creates a report that is utter rubbish, then it's incumbent upon the teacher to show not only that person where they went wrong, but also to show the class the correct way as well. You can only do that by showing them examples of the wrong way, as well. You don't even have to use the whole report, just excerpts from it.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by matt

We need to differentiate between "creatively expressing oneself", which possibly rests within the arts, and the correct application of spelling and grammar.

It is perhaps this confusion which is at the heart of our debate/misunderstanding.

Creative expression is by its very definition a wholly subjective pursuit where breaking the rules is to encouraged and admired, whereas correct application of the English language has some very core rules and regulations which must be obeyed.

I see advertising playing with grammar and spelling all the time. I see journalists, media outlets and politicians using words in ways that were never intended and often to deceive and mislead us. So I have to say its a bit difficult for me to accept that when the average Joe does it as part of popular culture its some how wrong or ignorant or indicative of his level of intellect and when the establishment does it, well, they’re just being creative or clever. No thank you.

[matt]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

I see advertising playing with grammar and spelling all the time. I see journalists, media outlets and politicians using words in ways that were never intended and often to deceive and mislead us. So I have to say its a bit difficult for me to accept that when the average Joe does it as part of popular culture its some how wrong or ignorant or indicative of his level of intellect and when the establishment does it, well, they’re just being creative or clever. No thank you.

You're talking about something completely different.

This is not a debate about truth in advertising, nor about journalists or politicians being deliberately misleading to suit their own political/ideological agenda.

You are off target here, as you are with your justification of mangling the language based on some spurious 'creativity' justification.

Kind regards.....and clear skies.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by matt

You're talking about something completely different.

This is not a debate about truth in advertising, nor about journalists or politicians being deliberately misleading to suit their own political/ideological agenda.

You are off target here, as you are with your justification of mangling the language based on some spurious 'creativity' justification.

Kind regards.....and clear skies.

I wasnt talking about truth in advertising etc either. I was talking about taking liberties with the rules of grammer and spelling and when its acceptable and when its not.

I think what your reasoning leads to is that its OK for the establishment to break as many rules as they like because its some how creative or clever but when the average Joe does it (notwithstanding that his meaning might be equally clear but grmatically untraditional) he's some how wrong. Like I said, no thank you

[matt]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

I wasnt talking about truth in advertising etc either. I was talking about taking liberties with the rules of grammer and spelling and when its acceptable and when its not.

I think what your reasoning leads to is that its OK for the establishment to break as many rules as they like because its some how creative or clever but when the average Joe does it (notwithstanding that his meaning might be equally clear but grmatically untraditional) he's some how wrong. Like I said, no thank you

No...you're doing the same thing to me as you did with Bojan. Accusing me of holding some kind of self-assumed moral and intellectual high ground. It seems you're the one with some kind of chip on your shoulder.

I have maintained from the outset that the rules of the language are the rules. Plain and simple. I try to observe and uphold them in my daily life as a highly trained and thorough professional. I'm not in the habit of getting 'creative' with spelling and grammar.

Do you have any concrete examples of me espousing that it's OK for the 'establishment' to break the rules to be creative or clever?

I thought my position on this subject was very clear.

By the way, you're doing my profession an injustice lumping it in with politicians.

The last time I checked...we are not very often on the same team

And I don't work in the advertising field, so I don't feel qualified to make a statement one way or the other on their behaviour...other than to say I believe they take a few more liberties given they are meant to be 'creative'. (There's that word again).

[matt]

Now...what were we talking about?

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

I'll chip in for the advertising fraternity here. We are VERY thorough in our correct use of English. Unless a play on words or spelling is called for to emphasise a point, or is cleverly used in the form of a pun, it isn't on. We are a creative bunch of people, and our creativity is the basis on which almost subliminal idea transfer can be achieved, with as few words as possible, if we've done our job right. Making a spelling or grammatical mistake is not a product of that creativity. Agency managers that cannot assign creatives who can spell to a design campaign generally don't last long in the business.

Our corporate clients expect no less than Australian dictionary-perfect English otherwise. The very newspapers and magazines we place the material in expect it too. Don't go generalising on the misgivings of the ad trade please. High-end agencies are sticklers for correct use - not the lazy use of words. You won't find people that can't spell or recognise the correct use of grammar in this trade either. I refuse young people all the time when it comes to employment. Can't spell or don't even think it's important? Sorry - no work for you here!

[matt]

Yeah...what Chris said....about our advertising mates

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

...
Our corporate clients expect no less than Australian dictionary-perfect English otherwise. The very newspapers and magazines we place the material in expect it too. Don't go generalising on the misgivings of the ad trade please. High-end agencies are sticklers for correct use - not the lazy use of words. You won't find people that can't spell or recognise the correct use of grammer in this trade either. I refuse young people all the time when it comes to employment. Can't spell? Sorry - no work for you here!

Grammar has cropped up incorrectly spelled multiple times in this thread.

The only words you should ever see "creatively" spelled are trademarks.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

Grammar has cropped up incorrectly spelled multiple times in this thread.

LOL! Bravo - someone's paying attention.

This is why we employ VERY expensive people called proof readers. Those who can spell still make occasional mistakes... and when found will endeavour to go back and correct the error. To top it off - it was I who mentioned that word spelled incorrectly in the first place! We should thank people for pointing out an error that we didn't pick up ourselves first time around. Thank you Andrew!

Originally Posted by mithrandir

The only words you should ever see "creatively" spelled are trademarks.

Now - should you have used, considering we use British English by default here in Australia, "spelt" rather than "spelled"?

[Moon (James)]

Interesting thread.
At work I speak International English. If you adopt common grammatical mistakes it helps your stuffs to be understood.

[TheDecepticon]

Originally Posted by Fossil

And here is why you cannot trust your spell checker!

I have a spelling chequer,
It came with my pea sea,
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye cannot sea.

When eye strike a quay, right a word,
I weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar wright
It shows me strait aweigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
I nose bee fore two late
And eye can put the error rite
Its rarely, rarely grate.

I've run this poem threw it
I'm shore your pleased two no,
Its letter perfect in it's weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

Says it all, I think.
But then a gain, edumacation neva realy dun me ane gud!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Itz tha kweens inglish az itz spokin

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by matt

No...you're doing the same thing to me as you did with Bojan. Accusing me of holding some kind of self-assumed moral and intellectual high ground. It seems you're the one with some kind of chip on your shoulder.

I have maintained from the outset that the rules of the language are the rules. Plain and simple. I try to observe and uphold them in my daily life as a highly trained and thorough professional. I'm not in the habit of getting 'creative' with spelling and grammar.

Do you have any concrete examples of me espousing that it's OK for the 'establishment' to break the rules to be creative or clever?

I thought my position on this subject was very clear.

By the way, you're doing my profession an injustice lumping it in with politicians.

The last time I checked...we are not very often on the same team

And I don't work in the advertising field, so I don't feel qualified to make a statement one way or the other on their behaviour...other than to say I believe they take a few more liberties given they are meant to be 'creative'. (There's that word again).

Sorry,

Had to duck out but back now. Hmmmm, so many issues. First I didnt "Accus[e] .. [you] of holding some kind of self-assumed moral and intellectual high ground". I spoke about where your reasoning leads to. That is, where the logic of your reasoning leads to. Its fanciful to suggest that it was a personal attack and disingenuous of you to challenge me to find examples of where you have esposed these things. The whole reason for me bringing it up was to show that this is where the logic leads. Something I'd be wasting my time doing if thats what you espouse.

As to how you personally conduct yourself in you work and the licence you may or may not take with the language I dont know and its not important to my argument. The thing is, from what I have observed the media (not you personally, I'm not talking about you), politicians and the advertising world are constantly ignoring and bending the rules of grammer, spelling and distorting words when it suites them to get their meaning accross or to crack that joke or to make that pun or to get us thinking in a certain direction. If the language is plyable for them when it suites them then (i) it only encourages us to do the same and (ii) why shouldnt we.

As for me lumping your profession in with politicians. First I'm not talking about you personally but as for your prefession I have to say that yes I do feel that your profession is on the same team as politicians. Certainly not out team.

[bojan]

Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.

Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it's written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.

Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles,
Exiles, similes, and reviles;
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far;
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;
Gertrude, German, wind and mind,
Scene, Melpomene, mankind.

Billet does not rhyme with ballet,
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Viscous, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation's OK
When you correctly say croquet,
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live.

Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
And enamour rhyme with hammer.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
And then singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.

Query does not rhyme with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth.
Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath.
Though the differences seem little,
We say actual but victual.
Refer does not rhyme with deafer.
Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Mint, pint, senate and sedate;
Dull, bull, and George ate late.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific.

Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover,
Between mover, cover, clover;
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice;
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.

Petal, panel, and canal,
Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four.
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean.
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.

Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion and battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.
Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
Heron, granary, canary.
Crevice and device and aerie.

Face, but preface, not efface.
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging.
Ear, but earn and wear and tear
Do not rhyme with here but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk,
Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.

Pronunciation -- think of Psyche!
Is a paling stout and spikey?
Won't it make you lose your wits,
Writing groats and saying grits?
It's a dark abyss or tunnel:
Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.

Finally, which rhymes with enough?
Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?
Hiccough has the sound of cup.
My advice is give it up!

[Scoper (Malcolm)]

I recall the same criticisms and hand wringing over the "decline" of education and the "stupidity" of young people (lack of spelling and grammar etc) being levelled at my generation, I am 56.
This is nothing new. It seems to have always been a favourite pastime for the older generations to deride and belittle the younger ones. Do you baby boomers remember the "young people of today" chant?
And as for "checkout chicks", they are just young people doing a fine job.
They don't deserve to have their work or themselves demeaned.
Here's to our younger generation!
Cheers

[bojan]

The European Commission has announced an agreement whereby
English will be the official language of the EU, rather than
German, which was the other contender. Her Majesty's Government
conceded that English spelling had room for improvement and has
therefore accepted a five-year phasing in of "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly,
this will make sivil servants jump for joy. The hard "c" will be
dropped in favour of the "k", Which should klear up some konfusion
and allow one key less on keyboards.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when
the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f", making words like
"fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are
possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters
which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil
agre that the horible mes of the silent "e" is disgrasful.

By the fourth yer, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as
replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords
kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer
kombinations of leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli
sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and
everivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. ZE DREM VIL FINALI
COM TRU!

Herr Schmidt

[renormalised (Carl)]

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords
kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer
kombinations of leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli
sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and
everivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. ZE DREM VIL FINALI
COM TRU!

Herr Schmidt

I can see it now....millions lining the main square, all holding candles as the imperious leader gives his maiden speech in "New English"...notice the funny symbols on the armbands of their shirts....

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

I'll chip in for the advertising fraternity here. We are VERY thorough in our correct use of English. Unless a play on words or spelling is called for to emphasise a point, or is cleverly used in the form of a pun, it isn't on. We are a creative bunch of people, and our creativity is the basis on which almost subliminal idea transfer can be achieved, with as few words as possible, if we've done our job right. Making a spelling or grammatical mistake is not a product of that creativity. Agency managers that cannot assign creatives who can spell to a design campaign generally don't last long in the business.

Our corporate clients expect no less than Australian dictionary-perfect English otherwise. The very newspapers and magazines we place the material in expect it too. Don't go generalising on the misgivings of the ad trade please. High-end agencies are sticklers for correct use - not the lazy use of words. You won't find people that can't spell or recognise the correct use of grammar in this trade either. I refuse young people all the time when it comes to employment. Can't spell or don't even think it's important? Sorry - no work for you here!

Hey Chris, I'm glad you posted this because I think it makes the point. I agree entirely that for advertising to make its point effectively or creatively its legitimate to "break" or ignore the rules. The advertising industry wants to alert me to the existence of a product or sell me something so it decides that it's ok to forget grammer or spelling because it has a higher priority. Similarly I think why should I observe any more rules then I have to because I have other priorities and as long as i get my meaning accross or get it accross better, whats it matter. The thing about breaking the rules is that eventually the rules lose their legitimacy and then its difficult to expect others to simply accept the lines you draw about when it is and when its not permissible to break them.