Xref: utzoo sci.lang:4433 comp.cog-eng:1074 sci.psychology:1769
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uwvax!puff!cat59!brian
From: brian@cat59.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.cog-eng,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Spelling and Perceptual Mode (was: Effects of poor writing?)
Message-ID: <2670@puff.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 3 May 89 23:53:17 GMT
References: <39131@bbn.COM> <1982@trantor.harris-atd.com> <187@intek01.UUCP>
Sender: news@puff.cs.wisc.edu
Reply-To: brian@cat59.CS.WISC.EDU (Brian Miller)
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 15

In article <187@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes:
>
>My gut feeling is to go with Mr. Musciano on spelling, but I've run across
>too many brilliant people who couldn't spell a lick to totally discount
>spelling-deficient prose.  A resume is another matter, though ...
>

Spelling rules, like all other grammatical conventions, define the language.
Break them too many times and more regular folks may have a tough time
absorbing the message.  I'd assume that the reason some rules (of English) are
so difficult to learn/remember is because they are so unnatural.  If we were willing
to hand our precious pile of >****< to the linguists and psycholinguists for a time,
I'm sure that they'd return a more naturally regulated language.  Why study and compare
all sorts of existing and dead lang's and pursue linguistics if one cannot apply one's
conclusions for the better?  (A challenge to linguists, folks.)