Proper spelling - is it that important?

Here's the thing. There's a history behind words and how they're spelled. Mr. Smith can't tell us why truly isn't spelled with an e, but for damn sure there's a reason. It's likely rooted in grammatical rules governing the application of suffixes. I'm sure the whole world wasn't conscious of this reason, but just the same a lot of people probably picked up on the pattern and sub-consciously carried it forward.

Language evolves, sure. I don't think it's a process that can be effectively controlled by people. It's kind of like the EPA thinking they can manage the environment. Best just leave it to its own devices.

Of course that means that drawing a hard line and making a stand for the true and righteous way of spelling is a little stupid too. However I'd argue that history has its own inertia, and tradition deserves a little respect.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by nuttyturnip

One could argue that the spelling situation is analogous to teaching mathematics in the age of the pocket calculator. Fifty years ago, kids had to learn about square roots, logarithms and cosines; by the time I was in school, the curriculum consisted of teaching us how to punch those into the calculator. A fundamental knowledge of spelling is still needed regardless, but in this day and age, many people rely on a spellchecker instead of actually knowing how to spell something.

Of course, this doesn't explain why the students in Mr. Smith's class don't use that spellchecker, but the fact remains that our spelling skills may atrophy with such a tool at our disposal.

I don't agree, nutty. I don't think the comparison is apt. We still learn the definition of a squareroot, sine and cosine, etc. In order to calculate those by hand, you have to calculate approximating series out to the nth degree. This is not something that can be easily done without tools.

Spelling is simply learning how the letters fit together to make sounds. This is a process intrinsic (inherent?) to language and the use thereof.

The reference to a spell-checker doesn't really change the argument. A spell-checker still needs a standard against which to check shit, and that standard's gotta be defined by someone. Smith wants to redefine the standard.

There's nowhere I can't reach.