11th
(Via Assistive Principles) From the “why do we need speed limits” line of thinking, criminology lecturer Ken Smith thinks we should “ignore certain spelling rules altogether”.
I wonder if Smith has ever used spell-check. If you can’t spell correctly, then how do you know that spell-check has corrected the word correctly? That reminds me of the old joke spell-check poem.
Generations of people have learnt to spell correctly, and the reason to use correct spelling is to minimise misunderstanding between people.
Suppose we relax the rules of spelling. Suppose I receive a formal business contract. Even if that contract uses correct spelling, I can choose to “misunderstand” words (because they are allowed to use incorrect spelling and, I suppose, by extension grammar) and suddenly the contract is not a clear-cut agreement, but prone to my own interpretation. Hilarity and chaos ensues.
I agree with Smith that it takes teachers a lot of time to correct spelling and, if English is not the subject, then it’s time that should be spent on other areas. The solution, however, is not to allow poor spelling, but to send the paper back to the student and say “check your spelling, and submit the paper again when it’s correct”. It is, in that case, the student’s responsibility to edit his or her paper with whatever aids he or she needs.
Like the speed limit, we can’t allow people to say “well, f—k it, that guy was speeding, so why don’t we all do it and just ignore the limits?”.
