For all you pedants. Ha!
DonDaddyD
Posts: 12,689
A little off topic, but this is one for the pedants....
Something I found.
Only great minds can read this
This is weird, but interesting!
fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
Something I found.
Only great minds can read this
This is weird, but interesting!
fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
0
Comments
-
-
Seen this kind of thing before.
WIth pedants (I am a self-confessed one, and a good job too as I am responsible for educationg people), it is not that we have a problem reading stuff that is wrong, it just looks, well, kind of ....... wrong.Emerging from under a big black cloud. All help welcome0 -
I was alctlauy qtiue wriroed by how qklciuy I raed taht and wnet bcak trguohh swelor jsut to mkae srue I was gtietng it rhigt, smilpy buesace I dndi't bielvee msleyf 0
-
I think you'll find most can read that, even i can and non words are always a issue.
but yes the brain is clever box, does seem to have a language instinct, book with that very title thats not a bad read.0 -
roger merriman wrote:I think you'll find most can read that, even i can and non words are always a issue.
Why yes. 55 out of 100, I'd say. :P0 -
linsen wrote:
Seen this kind of thing before.
Me too. It is, nonetheless, interesting.
And, what's more, grammar is good.
To steal someone else's joke, grammar is the difference between these two sentences:
I had to help my elder brother, Jack, off his horse.
I had to help my elder brother jack off his horse.0 -
There are, on the other hand, sentences which no amount of grammar can save:
"Andrew Mehrtens loves it when Daryl Gibson comes inside of him" (courtesy of an NZ rugby commentator).
Obviously the "of" is superfluous, but that really doesn't help much.0 -
Greg66 wrote:roger merriman wrote:I think you'll find most can read that, even i can and non words are always a issue.
Why yes. 55 out of 100, I'd say. :P
Ha should of thought of that, i'll blame lack of coffee, but any how i would expect that if one can read, that very few wouldn't be able to read the non words, what makes poor spelling hard is the grammar or rather the lack of it.0 -
I'm not eelinrty ccoievnnd. Mbyae the mnaenr in wchih the lterets are jlbeumd deos mtetar, bcsuaee tihs is jmluebd in the smae mnnear as the pasgase avobe, but dosen't pctlurrailay aeppar to be as ielidmtmeay rdbeaale.0
-
Some people really cannot spell.....
Is it true that people only read using the first few letters of a word?! I guess associationship to context of the passage helps!
As for me...fckuwit...!0 -
Agent57 wrote:I'm not eelinrty ccoievnnd. Mbyae the mnaenr in wchih the lterets are jlbeumd deos mtetar, bcsuaee tihs is jmluebd in the smae mnnear as the pasgase avobe, but dosen't pctlurrailay aeppar to be as ielidmtmeay rdbeaale.
I was wondering if bits like 'ph' 'th' should be left together, but i still found your sentance readable. I think it has something to do with your mind predicting the next word to be one of a few picked out from your vocabulary. Basically working out the probability of it being certain words, and then if you see the start of the word to be one of those, it's already half registered in your brain, so it's processed quicker. I dare say, the more you read, the better you'd probably be able to read all the jumbled sentances too. This would also mean no matter how powerful your brain might be, if you didn't know the word to begin with, you certainly wouldn't be able to work it out with the inside letters jumbled.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:linsen wrote:
Seen this kind of thing before.
Me too. It is, nonetheless, interesting.
And, what's more, grammar is good.
To steal someone else's joke, grammar is the difference between these two sentences:
I had to help my elder brother, Jack, off his horse.
I had to help my elder brother jack off his horse.
Erm. Surely punctuation is the difference between those two sentences? Grammar is the difference between:
I had to help my elder brother Jack off his horse.
I had to help my elder brother Jack off of his horse.
And, with that, I'll get off of my high horse.
_0 -
Deadeye Duck wrote:I was wondering if bits like 'ph' 'th' should be left together
The example text includes "taht" and "Tihs", so I don't think "th" needs to be kept together. Don't make me update my script! 0 -
Woops. Nah, I wasn't thinking of it about the OPs script or mine either. I was just picking at the theory of it, I do it to practically everything. Supposedly our minds think of words phonectically(sp?) as opposed to the actual spelling, so I was wondering, if you kept bits like that together, would the 55/100 ratio increase.Agent57 wrote:Deadeye Duck wrote:I was wondering if bits like 'ph' 'th' should be left together
The example text includes "taht" and "Tihs", so I don't think "th" needs to be kept together. Don't make me update my script!0 -
Underscore wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:linsen wrote:
Seen this kind of thing before.
Me too. It is, nonetheless, interesting.
And, what's more, grammar is good.
To steal someone else's joke, grammar is the difference between these two sentences:
I had to help my elder brother, Jack, off his horse.
I had to help my elder brother jack off his horse.
Erm. Surely punctuation is the difference between those two sentences? Grammar is the difference between:
I had to help my elder brother Jack off his horse.
I had to help my elder brother Jack off of his horse.
And, with that, I'll get off of my high horse.
_
*resists temptation to go off on a really boring ramble about grammar*0 -
Agent57 wrote:I'm not eelinrty ccoievnnd. Mbyae the mnaenr in wchih the lterets are jlbeumd deos mtetar, bcsuaee tihs is jmluebd in the smae mnnear as the pasgase avobe, but dosen't pctlurrailay aeppar to be as ielidmtmeay rdbeaale.
Yeah it is. "particularly" and "iimmediately" don't quite flow as well as the rest, but I can't spell those anyway.0 -
Deadeye Duck wrote:
Woops. Nah, I wasn't thinking of it about the OPs script or mine either. I was just picking at the theory of it, I do it to practically everything. Supposedly our minds think of words phonectically(sp?) as opposed to the actual spelling, so I was wondering, if you kept bits like that together, would the 55/100 ratio increase.Agent57 wrote:Deadeye Duck wrote:I was wondering if bits like 'ph' 'th' should be left together
The example text includes "taht" and "Tihs", so I don't think "th" needs to be kept together. Don't make me update my script!
Hmm, interesting idea. Maybe that boffin at Cambridge should do some more research.
I recall another piece of work which suggested we only need the top part of a word in order to read it. Or was it the bottom? Either way, place a piece of paper over the bottom/top half the word and it's still readable. I think it was probably covering the lower half as there are more ascenders than descenders, and it was something to do with recognising the pattern of ascenders, rather than knowing whether it was an h or b, for example.0 -
I always like these email things where they say something like, "Only great minds can do this", and you read on and they later say that 55% of people can do it. Only 55% of people have great minds apparently.
Think how stupid the average person is, 50% of them are actually stupider than that!0 -
shirley the title of this thread should be
"For all you Pndetas. Ha!"Not climber, not sprinter, not rouleur0 -
Actually, its both - jack is a verb, Jack is a proper noun.Underscore wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:linsen wrote:
Seen this kind of thing before.
Me too. It is, nonetheless, interesting.
And, what's more, grammar is good.
To steal someone else's joke, grammar is the difference between these two sentences:
I had to help my elder brother, Jack, off his horse.
I had to help my elder brother jack off his horse.
Erm. Surely punctuation is the difference between those two sentences? Grammar is the difference between:
I had to help my elder brother Jack off his horse.
I had to help my elder brother Jack off of his horse.
And, with that, I'll get off of my high horse.
_
And with that I'll get off my inflatable nun.0 -
Oh my feking sake!
Look this thread wasn't an invite for all you pedantic geeks to get all excited and proof read the bible. It was supposed to poke at you all and point out that for all your need for correct spelling and grammar its not always necessary or needed.
Oh feck it, go on then, correct this post.
:evil:Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Oh my feking sake!
Look this thread wasn't an invite for all you pedantic geeks to get all excited and proof read the bible. It was supposed to poke at you all and point out that for all your need for correct spelling and grammar its not always necessary or needed.
Oh feck it, go on then, correct this post.
:evil:
You're the one who summoned all the pedants to the thread, DDD, surely you must have seen this coming...
And no, proper spelling and grammar are not always necessary, but always preferable.0 -
I keep meaning to read Chomsky's stuff about language.
When I do I will have something valid to say on threads like this. 8)0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:
You're the one who summoned all the pedants to the thread, DDD, surely you must have seen this coming...
And no, proper spelling and grammar are not always necessary, but always preferable.
Exactly. We've just been laughing at a client who spelt 'aware' as awear. FFS.- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
Il Principe wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:
You're the one who summoned all the pedants to the thread, DDD, surely you must have seen this coming...
And no, proper spelling and grammar are not always necessary, but always preferable.
Exactly. We've just been laughing at a client who spelt 'aware' as awear. FFS.
Grumble.... :evil:Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Porgy wrote:I keep meaning to read Chomsky's stuff about language.
When I do I will have something valid to say on threads like this. 8)
I find some of his work utterly fascinating, some of it utter b*llocks.0 -
God you lot are pretentious.lost_in_thought wrote:Porgy wrote:I keep meaning to read Chomsky's stuff about language.
When I do I will have something valid to say on threads like this. 8)
I find some of his work utterly fascinating, some of it utter b*llocks.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
God you lot are pretentious.lost_in_thought wrote:Porgy wrote:I keep meaning to read Chomsky's stuff about language.
When I do I will have something valid to say on threads like this. 8)
I find some of his work utterly fascinating, some of it utter b*llocks.
pretentious, moi?0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
God you lot are pretentious.lost_in_thought wrote:Porgy wrote:I keep meaning to read Chomsky's stuff about language.
When I do I will have something valid to say on threads like this. 8)
I find some of his work utterly fascinating, some of it utter b*llocks.
What? I do! His stuff on generative grammar is fascinating, but I find his phonology work a bit much. Mind you, I find most phonology falls into that category.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Always Tyred wrote:
God you lot are pretentious.lost_in_thought wrote:Porgy wrote:I keep meaning to read Chomsky's stuff about language.
When I do I will have something valid to say on threads like this. 8)
I find some of his work utterly fascinating, some of it utter b*llocks.
What? I do! His stuff on generative grammar is fascinating, but I find his phonology work a bit much. Mind you, I find most phonology falls into that category.
Recommend me a book!!0
