LL-L "Orthography" 2003.09.17 (12) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 17.SEP.2003 (12) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Szelog, Mike <Mike.Szelog at CITIZENSBANK.com>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.09.17 (02) [E]

Yes, that's true as far as looking at the word as a whole - the same has
been noted for languages using the Arabic script, where words have a very
distinct shape by the nature of the script itself. People look more to the
shape of the word than to the actual letters - I believe I had heard that
this is also one of the more common reasons why people mis-read a word;
they're not paying attention to the actual letters, but rather the shape.

Mike S

----------

From: jannie.lawn <jannie.lawn at ntlworld.com>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.09.17 (02) [E]


Andy Eagle wrote:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist
and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you
can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey
lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

I don't agree.  Is there not a link with individual people's intelligence?
What about those who are dyslexic, etc.?  And what about the words that use
the same letters but in a different order?
It actually reminds me of a joke I read not too long ago: 'Bad spellers of
the world, untie!’

Groeten, Jannie Lawn-Zijlstra

----------

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Orthography"

> From: Andy Eagle <andy at scots-online.org>
> Subject: Reading [E]
>
> I came across this today:
>
> Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
> in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
> taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a
> toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae
> we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

I do find this very easy to read, but does it have any proctical
applications, eg for text processing?

And is there an optimal letter order that makes the word easier to read than
all other orderings - so that a text could be produced that, once you got
used to it, would actually be easier to read than a correctly-spelled text?

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: ezinsser <ezinsser at icon.co.za>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.09.17 (02) [E]

Hi all,

Re: Andy Eagle's lines:
> Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
> in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
> taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a
> toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae
> we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

I think this is a good example of what Gestalt principles are all about,
don't you agree?  It should be interesting to hear from folks reading
Braille whether the same visualization of words and sentences does not also
occur in the same way.

Cheers,
Elsie Zinsser

----------

From: Keith Kennetz <kkennetz at uga.edu>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2003.09.17 (02) [E]

From: Andy Eagle <andy at scots-online.org>
Subject: Reading [E]

On Sept. 17 Andy eagle wrote:

>I came across this today:
>
>Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it
deosn't mttaer
>in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt
tihng is
>taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset
can be a
>toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs
is bcuseae
>we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a
wlohe.
>
>Andy Eagle

From: Keith Kennetz kennetz at uga.edu
Subject: Reading [E]

I draeisge.

(That is "I disagree")

This is a spam e-mail--I actually got the same thing in
German from my girlfriend yesterday! As far as I can tell,
there is no research at Cambridge about this.  And while
partially true, in order to work, letters that belong
together, especially those representing a single phoneme
(like "ng", "ch" and "th"), must not be separated too far.
Thus we can recognize "aoccdrnig" but not "anoricrcg".
Another trick is that most of the function words are not
changed, so the paragraph builds context and expectation.  In
isolation I doubt it would so easy to recognize a word, such
as "pclae" and "lsat".

Keith Kennetz
kennetz at uga.edu

================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================