Peoples English

I have seen many words missed out, bad puncuation and a lot of spelling mistaks and some unreadable replys.

Originally posted by link92
I have seen many words missed out, bad puncuation and a lot of spelling mistaks and some unreadable replys.

And your point is?

Just three spelling errors in your message above. You're doing rather poorly yourself.

(punctuation not puncuation, mistakes not mistaks and replies not replys)

Don't get me wrong, it's something we all need to work on but there's an existing thread on this subject here already.

Needed time to find that thread: http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26104

Doesn't hurt to remind people to try again, I usually don't see my spelling mistakes until after I've already posted it. I do try to edit the posts and make corrections but I'm sure a quick perusal of my posts here will still turn up quite a number of mistakes.

Link92 does bring up a good point, regardless of whether it's already been mentioned. As long as some people here continue to post without making some effort for proper spelling and grammar, it's important for the rest of us to remind them of this.

Can you read the post at the top,
I know it has 3 spelling mistakes in it, but are they readable?

Of course your original message was readable, for a really good example of how bad the spelling can get yet remain readable look at Raf's post in the thread linked to above. Another good example is this humor text:


Fixing the English Language

Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the European Parliament has commissioned a feasibility study in ways of improving efficiency in communications between Government departments.

European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is unnecessarily difficult - for example, cough, plough, rough, through and thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be administered by a committee staff at top level by participating nations.

In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 's' instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, sivil servants in all sities would resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k' sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters kould be made with one less letter.

There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it kould be announsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'. This would make words like 'fotograf' twenty per sent shorter in print.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are possible. Governments would enkourage the removal of double letters which have always been a deterent to akurate speling.

We would al agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the languag is disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and writ as though nothing had hapend. By this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and peopl would be reseptive to steps sutsh as replasing 'th' by 'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by 'v', vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary 'o kould be dropd from words kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls, difikultis and evrivun vud fin it ezi tu understand ech ozer.

Ze drems of ze Guvernment vud finali hav kum tru.

I don't get the last 2 paragraphs of that, Roy Sinclair.

lol, why didn't I read that post before ... :)

Originally posted by Roy Sinclair
Another good example is this humor text: Oi! You somehow stole that from my thankyou letters two Christmases ago!

Oh, and People's English. Don't forget the apostrophe.

Originally posted by me'
Oh, and People's English. Don't forget the apostrophe.

But shouldn't it be in the pural, so Peoples' English

But People is the plural, not Peoples, so it's People's and not Peoples'.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are possible.
LOL, converting english into Dutch... (I can say that: I am!)
Although the next paragraph looks more like German, and the one after that some kind of Scandinavian...

i dont now wat ur seyin soe cood u tonn it don a bit.
i kan asyoure yoo dat der iss noo spelin misstaks inn my posst.

froom narf!!