I spend more time on these boards reading the thoughts and opinions of others than posting my own, and have gained considerable knowledge by doing so. However, I am disturbed by the frequency with which I encounter glaring spelling errors made by otherwise intelligent and articulate people, and repeated often enough to incriminate the likely culprit, the spell checker. How else to explain the frontiers or boundaries of a country being called “boarders” ? A perfectly legitimate word, spelled correctly in a different context. One that is even more difficult to understand is the repeated use of “interrupt” when the meaning intended was obviously “interpret”. Again, the spell; checker has no quarrel with the word, and the writer goes blithely about his business secure in the knowledge that the offending word has not been flagged or highlighted. I would also like to advise those who are otherwise persuaded that the past tense of lead, (the verb, not the element), is “led”, not lead. Except in my self-appointed role of resident curmudgeon, the minor transgressions of fellow enthusiasts is none of my business, but I feel this may be a less embarrassing way to alert them to the problem. I am afraid that unless something nips it in the bud, the repeated encounter with such errors will be imitated (and spread) by those innocents who don’t know better.
*********************************************************
03-30-03, 02:02 PM
methos
I see you didn't rely on spellcheck and changed your post after rereading. Wink

I disagree with blaming the spellchecker for misspellings. I am a horrendous speller myself, but don't use spell-checker. I usually reread my posts after posting them and edit out any mispellings I find. I have noticed that most of the ones I find are homophones, as the ones you mention. This is without spellcheck, leading me to believe that confusion of homophones is simply a more common type of spelling error, not an after-spellcheck relative increase.

03-30-03, 07:23 PM
frankvan
Methos, I beg to differ. Of course, it's just my personal opinion but I have been around for a long time and I have the impression that spelling errors have been increasing exponentially since spell checkers came into widespread use. The newspapers are full of them,and as you say, most of them are homophones - but interrupt for interpret ?. And our language does contain an awful lot of homophones. Wink

03-31-03, 02:29 AM
Adi
Like Methos, I don't blame the software. It's the same argument made against calculators, that they lower mental calculation ability. You could argue that people have become reliant on both tools, not understanding the limitations of both, and I prefer to believe that the answer is this subtle.

These tools are now so widespread that they have stopped us from thinking about the process behind the tool. We have stopped questioning how they work and simply accept what is delivered. As in so many aspects of life, the intelligent people question whereas the stupid people accept. You see the results when people open their mouths... or type at a keyboard.

04-01-03, 11:35 AM
Johnny Velo
So, how do I find spellcheck on Answerpool? Or, do I have to download this? Confused
I have spellcheck on Outlook Express.

04-01-03, 12:00 PM
Elexina

* Spellcheckers are helpful.
* You have to run the grammar check along with it, or else it won't catch some of the words.
* It still might miss some of the words. But then, those are generally words that you should know. We really need to know the difference between "their," "there" and "they're." We need to be able to determine when it's "than" or "then," when it's "its" or it's," when it's "effect" or "affect," and yes, when it's "border" or "boarder."
* The spellchecker is not perfect. It's just a program. People need to take responsibility for themselves, for portraying themselves as semi-intelligent.



Johnny, there is no spellchecker on AnswerPool. I don't know about everyone else, but before I click 'post now' I cut and paste my entire post into Word and check it there.

Okay, I just checked it. Apparently, 'AnswerPool' is not in the dictionary. Screw it, I’m posting anyway.

04-01-03, 02:03 PM
frankvan
You can write it in Word and spell check it, then cut and paste it in Answerpool, or vice versa, but if you write their when you mean they're or there, it will still appear in your post. I still think that spelling ability has been declining steadily in the past twenty or more years. And I don't mean typos. Crutches are useful too, but it is best if we don't become dependent on them. And I still haven't seen an explanation for two different enthusiasts using "interrupt" when they clearly meant "interpret". Any ideas ?

04-01-03, 02:20 PM
methos
Johnny - I haven't tried it, but I believe this program works:
http://www.iespell.com/

04-01-03, 02:34 PM
Ewood27
Yes, iespell does work. I use it. However, it doesn't seem to work on two-letter words. I mistyped 'are' as 'ar' and it missed it.
04-10-03, 08
:06 AM
clarebear
My Spell Checker

A checker is a blessing ...
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when aye rime.
Each frays comes posed up on my screen
Eye trussed too bee a joule.
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.
Bee fore wee rote with checkers
Hour spelling was inn deck line,
Butt now when wee dew have a laps,
Wee are not maid too wine.
And now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults in awl this peace,
Of nun eye am a wear.
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaws are knot aloud.

04-10-03, 10:02 AM
Ewood27
As Adi says, many people simply rely on what the spell-checker or calculator tells them without applying their brain to cross-check.

I have just tracked down the makers of a particular dog figurine I wanted, for which their website gives the dimensions as 11.875cm. high and 16.5cm. long - a seated yellow labrador. There's a 'convert' button to give Imperial measurements, which come out as 40.75" high and 60.5" long. Clearly nobody has spotted that that's some ten times too much, and would produce a model considerably bigger than the dog! They have simply applied a faulty 'fiddle-factor' and blindly accepted the result.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,