🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2947@tank.uchicago.edu> goer@sophist.UUCP (Richard Goerwitz) writes:
>Sounds to me as if Chuck Musciano had already made up his mind about the
>correlation between general competence and proficiency at trivial tasks
>like spelling.

     I don't characterize spelling as a "trivial task", although I know many
bad spellers who do.  I believe that spelling does correlate with attention
to detail.  Spelling correctly can be difficult (and don't think that I won't
reread this posting about three times before it goes out :-).

     The example I chose was a resume.  This is an important example, I think,
because it is often a person's only chance to make an impression when trying
to find a job.  When I wrote my resume, I paid a great deal of attention to
spelling, grammar, and punctuation.  I believe that a person should be
disciplined enough to examine and correct such an important document before
submitting it to the scrutiny of someone who, with a single decision, will
affect the rest of their life.  I have strong doubts about a person who
seems to lack this discipline.

     Other, less formal, instances aren't as important to me, although I still
cringe.  I can't count the number of times when things on the net are so badly
spelled that you literally cannot make sense of them.  Often, the entire
sense of a statement will be inverted by a single spelling error.  I resent
having to decode such postings when the original poster obviously did not
take the time to proofread his message before sending it out.

>One thing that concerns me here is that CM might not have the same notions
>about correctness as someone else.  And in fact, there are many grey areas
>in English (and American) usage.  Usage experts themselves often disagree.
>For instance, would you use "whose" for "of which"?  The latter is often re-
>garded as the better of the two.  Only recently has "whose" come to be ac-
>cepted in elite circles as a reasonable replacement for "of which."  So where
>do we draw the line?  Whose elitism will rule the day?  Do you split infini-
>tives?  End sentences with prepositions?  How about good ol' "I" and "me"?
>Will you go with popular usage, and say, "He came with you and I," or will
>you "correctly" say, "He came with you and me"?  Or will you "incorrectly" say
>the last sentence (thinking you are not paying attention to your grammar)?

     Usage differences are a problem, but as I said, I try to calibrate
against the environment and how big a hair is being split.  As the editor
of a newsletter here at Harris, plus having been co-author on several papers,
I have seen tons of bad usage, and try to continue the good fight for clear,
readable, correct English.

     Sentences ending with prepositions amuse me, because I always think of
the (Winston Churchill, I believe) quote that "it is something up with which
I will not put".  

>Geez, in sci... I'd think we would be more concerned with explaining be-
>havior than in guiding it.

     Although I'm reading in comp.cog-eng, I would agree with the statement.
However, my posting stated that I wanted to see the studies regarding spelling,
and went on to state my opinion.  I would guess that studies would show that
spelling skill does affect the impression a person makes, particularly in
formal situations.

     I would also think that scientists are concerned with precision, and
correct spelling is certainly a precise art.  I would imagine that anyone
submitting a paper at least makes an effort to spell things correctly, and
in certain situations, a spelling error can disastrously change what a
person intended to say.

     My spelling nightmare is a spelling error I made in the camera-ready copy
of a paper I had published.  The error is in the TITLE!  Unfortunately, the
error merely created a new, correctly spelled word, so my fancy spelling
checker missed it.  I proofed that title several times, and never caught it.
My mistake, I suppose, was not having someone who hadn't been working on the
paper for two weeks proof it for me.  I'm no less lenient on bad spellers,
and if there were some sort of speller's prison, I'd have to serve my time,
I suppose.

Chuck Musciano			ARPA  : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com
Harris Corporation 		Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck
PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912		AT&T  : (407) 727-6131
Melbourne, FL 32902		FAX   : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}