Proper spelling - is it that important?

Link

Originally Posted by Time

Most teachers expect to correct their students' spelling mistakes once in a while. But Ken Smith has had enough. The senior lecturer in criminology at Bucks New University in Buckinghamshire, England, sees so many misspellings in papers submitted by first-year students that he says we'd be better off letting the perpetrators off the hook and doing away with certain spelling rules altogether.

Good spellers, Smith says, should be able to go on writing as usual; those who find the current rules of English too hard to learn should have their spelling labeled variant, not wrong. Smith zeroes in on 10 candidates for variant spellings, culled from his students' most commonly misspelled (or mispelled, as Smith suggests) words. Among them are Febuary instead of February, twelth instead of twelfth and truely instead of truly — all words, he says, that involve confusion over silent letters. When students would ask why there's no e in truly, Smith didn't really have an answer. "I'd say, 'Well, I don't know. ... You've just got to drop it because people do,' " he says. Smith adds that when teachers correct spelling, they waste valuable time they could be spending on bigger ideas.

Word nerds aren't the only ones with a stake in the proposal. People who have trouble with spelling are punished when it comes to applying for jobs or even filling out forms, even though their mistakes are far from unusual, says Jack Bovill, chairman of the British-based Spelling Society, an international organization that has advocated simplified spellings since 1908. A 2007 Spelling Society survey of 1,000 British adults found that more than half could not spell embarrassed or millennium correctly and more than a quarter struggled with definitely, accidentally and separate.

Smith and Bovill are part of a long and illustrious line of spelling malcontents. Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Carnegie, Teddy Roosevelt and even Noah Webster, father of American lexicography, all lobbied for spelling reform, their reasons ranging from traumatic childhood spelling experiences to the hope that easier communication would promote peace. In 1906, Mark Twain lobbied the Associated Press to use phonetic spelling. "The heart of our trouble is with our foolish alphabet," he once wrote. "It doesn't know how to spell, and can't be taught."

Non-English-speaking countries have been simplifying their spelling for centuries: Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Norway, Ireland, Indonesia and Japan, among others, have all instituted such reforms; Portugal in May amended its spelling to follow the simpler Brazilian rules. Since 1755, when the English language was standardized in Samuel Johnson's aptly named Dictionary of the English Language, many variant spellings have become widely accepted on both sides of the pond. In 1864, for instance, the U.S. government officially changed the spelling of words like centre and timbre to end in the variant -er; more recently, at the beginning of the 20th century, fantasy became an accepted variant of phantasy.

But some language purists insist that there is value to the top-down rules of English. "People who spell a lot of words incorrectly either aren't paying attention or don't care," says Barbara Wallraff, who writes the Wordcourt column on language and writing problems for the Atlantic and King Features Syndicate. "Why are we changing our language to accommodate — with two m's — them?"

Joe Pickett, executive editor of the American Heritage Dictionary, says that changes to dictionary entries are always on the table, but he and his seven fellow editors are a tough crowd. They keep an eye on print publications to see whether a variant usage has started to become mainstream. Any word that seems to be a good candidate for an update undergoes rigorous scrutiny as the editors seek input from a panel of some 200 orthographic and lexicographic whizzes. Even among this writerly crowd, 13% admitted in 1996 to combining a lot into a single word. But 93% still considered it an error and corrected it in their own writing — leading the editors not to change the entry. Variants are added to the dictionary, Pickett says, "only when we're really convinced that even people like us don't notice [the misspelling] much."

Smith, for his part, insists that he is advocating only for minor changes. "I'm not saying to people who have actually gone to all the trouble to learn all the exceptions to the rule that they should unlearn it. I'm just saying, let's have a few more variant spellings," he says. And if that doesn't catch on, he has another idea. "In the 21st century, why learn by heart rote spelling when you can just type it into a computer and spell-check?" he asks.

Grammar police of GFF, does this sound as wrong to you as it does to me? As long as a person gets close, we ought to give them credit? This seems like the beginning of a slalom down the slippery slope of laziness.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

This I just cannot condone. Because of my being deaf, I learned how to spell every word correctly before I type them online because I do not want to appear as a fool. Extra harder for most words that has silent letters, I still consult this handy dictionary on my right every now and then.

I did not get taught and be reprimanded after so many times to just let it slide to laziness. Can anyone say ASL? (And that's not what you think it is.) American Sign Language is atrocious in this regard. Because of the time spent on spelling it out on words that doesn't have a "hand" sign yet, (you can't sign as fast as you speak), they shortchange a LOT of words. Its really sad to the fact that it really influences a lot of deaf people's grammar to this day.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

It's good to be correct, to a point. I used to subscribe to Language Log a blog by linguists (I stopped because they were pretty spammy), and I was fascinated to find out that linguists are not interested in beating people over the head with a bunch of rules in a musty book printed a hundred years ago, but how people actually use language.

Take the phenomenon of Eggcorns for instance. For people who are too lazy to click:

Originally Posted by WIKIALITY

...an idiosyncratic substitution of a word or phrase for a word or words that sound similar or identical in the speaker's dialect. Characteristic of the eggcorn is that the new phrase makes sense on some level ("old-timer's disease" for "Alzheimer's disease"). Eggcorns often involve replacing an unfamiliar, archaic, or obscure word with a more common or modern word ("baited breath" for "bated breath").

Linguists have actually set up a website to find and track eggcorns on the interwebs. Being able to Google Search for a phrase is a linguist's dream, apparently. I guess it makes sense -- they can see how real people are using language without any observational bias: people don't know they're being listened to. You can also see how many "ghits" a phrase has. It's pretty cool to watch linguists at work -- it totally shattered my mental model.

Anyway, my point is: nobody except a grammar nazi gives a shit if you occasionally make a typo or comma splice. The point isn't to have perfect grammar: the point is to clearly and concisely communicate what you are trying to say. Language is a tool to communicate. The more smoothly, more clearly and more emotively you can do this the better, and that's the point. Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma? As long as it's not ambiguous and reads cleanly, you're good. Fret not.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

There's a reason spelling counts: standardization.

If everyone just goes about spelling words however he or she pleases, then we lose a consistent foundation for our language. Vernacular changes, and alternate spellings are often grandfathered into academic acceptability, but this is something that should happen through time, not the abandonment of structure altogether.

Words are tools to convey ideas. When we accept a proper spelling, we're effectively choosing which particular tool represents the concept of, say, "cat." We insert that tool into context and everyone involved recognizes it - "I know that idea!", everyone says to himself. Though different spellings can still function as these tools, they lose some efficacy, we're forced to pause and examine the tool we've been given, as though it was produced in some foreign country that operates under different laws. Maybe the tool will fit, maybe it won't. God help us if the word it means to be is a homonym; context doesn't always fill in the gaps.

Standardization holds each of us accountable to the same rules. Without them, we could be as cavalier as we wished and chalk all misinterpretations up to reader error, not authorial stupidity. It also allows us to observe relative levels of intelligence; an employer does not wish to hire morons. It is not the employer's duty to lower the hiring requirements; it's the applicant's responsibility to achieve competency!

Basically, if you can't spell, go work at McDonald's. Poor English skills don't seem to bother them.



I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

There's a reason spelling counts: standardization.

Also if you spelled standardization "standurdizashun", most folks would be unable to determine what you were trying to say without taking time to sound the word out.

More than just a bunch of arbitrary rules that serve no purpose, proper spelling allows others to quickly parse what you're trying to say. More than anything it's an optimization for reading speed.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Crash, you'd be surprised how many times in a restaurant illiteracy or bad spelling habits has gotten a plate fucked up. It's understandable if it's something French like WHORE DUHRVS that almost never gets written outside of the industry, but more often I see mistakes in very simple things like hamburger (hambirgur), lettuce (letis), bacon (bakin). Combined with bad handwriting or recipes that don't make a lot of sense to begin with and you'll end up with a plate of hamburger and baked lentils when it was supposed to be a bacon burger with lettuce.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Iago

It's understandable if it's something French like WHORE DUHRVS that almost never gets written outside of the industry, but more often I see mistakes in very simple things like hamburger (hambirgur), lettuce (letis), bacon (bakin).

Wow. I can understand some spelling mistakes like the word "separate" becoming "seperate," but spelling like that looks too tacky to take seriously let alone read. It reminds me of a talk one of my high school teachers had about the English language.

How would you pronounce this word: ghoti?

With the right conventions, it would actually be pronounced "fish". The "gh" would form the noise similar to the "gh" in "rough", the "o" would come from the "o" in "women", and the "ti" would come from the "ti" in "station". Here's an exciting Wikipedia link!

Of course, that's a very extreme example, but as long as the reader can easily get the gist of what's being said, a few simple misspellings (or mispellings even though my spell check says otherwise) shouldn't hurt.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I also understand that language evolves, but not because some asshole students can't learn how to spell properly.

It's not hard: if you don't know how to spell it, look it up.

Sometimes, people think they know how to spell something and they've been doing it wrong all the while. If you get something tagged on your paper for misspelling (fuck you, misspelling is correct), perhaps you should investigate it!

It makes my SKIN CRAWL when I see some papers (yes, I do get to see academic papers, compliments of my sister) with words that have been mangled into oblivion, I want to know why professors aren't taking points off -or even mentioning it- to their students.

"It's about the content, not the grammar or spelling" is the response I usually get.

How can students know if they're fucking a word up if they're not told.

I'm no college graduate, but I do my damnedest to present myself in an acceptable fashion.

I get sick to my stomach when I see college graduates not spelling words properly. It seems that it is the BASIC FOUNDATION of a good education to at least give a shit about how things are spelled.

So yea, after that long rant, I am saying that you don't twist the English language to accommodate some punk-ass lazy fuckwits. There are ways to remember how to spell things (I use them ALL THE TIME without thinking - "accommodate" is one of them!); people should start using what they learned in school.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think I've said my peace in this thread but I noticed this:



How ya doing, buddy?

I don't mind a few spelling errors here and there, but it's ridiculous how little people seem to care about it. So many of them are caused by nothing more than laziness, but they always respond with some line about it being close enough or that they've just never been good with spelling so they don't bother trying. It's not difficult to grab a dictionary or simply choose a word you do know how to spell, and with resources like spellcheckers and dictionary.com there's very little excuse these days.

Online classes are the worst, since apparently people still see it as just the internet rather than school. In the three classes that I took there were so many chat abbreviations and shorthand being used in formal papers that some were barely legible. While I can't blame teachers for feeling like giving up out of frustration, they need to do their jobs and drive home the importance of not spelling like an idiot.

Most amazing jew boots

While I agree with not allowing students to become lazy with their spelling, Smith does bring up an interesting point in the last sentence:

Quote:

"In the 21st century, why learn by heart rote spelling when you can just type it into a computer and spell-check?"

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by ramoth

I think I've said my peace in this thread but I noticed this:

At the risk of missing obvious irony, do you mean "piece"?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

As an editor for a magazine, I'll go ahead and call this guy a faggot. Naturally, it comes from a college professor---for all that money you're shoveling up their ass every semester, you're still ending up with somebody as lazy and bored as this. And this is the root of the scam many refer to as "education."

There's actually a lot of things that can be tolerated in grammar, but spelling simply isn't one of them.

FELIPE NO

What magazine is that, Megalith?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Non-English-speaking countries have been simplifying their spelling for centuries: Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Norway, Ireland, Indonesia and Japan

It's interesting that they mention Japan, because Japan doesn't really have "spelling" per se, but uses borrowed Chinese characters, kanji 漢字, and combines them together like we tie together certain root words in English. So in English, for instance, the prefix "-ing" is used to nominalize verbs (e.g. the verb "read" becomes the noun "reading"). Now in Japanese, a single character can sometimes function in much the same way. So for example, the word kanji is formed with kan- 漢 (which means China) and -ji 字 (character, letter, etc.)--thus giving kanji the literal translation Chinese character. Individual kanji, in turn, can be further broken down into components, sometimes with amusing results (e.g. kusuri 薬 meaning drug, is formed from 楽 which means "comfort" and an abbreviated 艸 meaning "grass"--thus, "comfort grass").

This is all well and good, but unfortunately, like with English, the reasoning for why certain roots were together to form a particular word isn't always clear. Thus, remembering which kanji to use is a constant issue, particularly in the modern world where modern Japanese language software has made it simply a matter of typing in the phonetic form of the word and then selecting the correct word from a pop-up list, compared to the old days where it was all handwritten. As Nuttyturnip pointed out, spelling-correction software has simplified (a.k.a. dumbed down) writing in English and, far from being a tool, may more accurately be described as a crutch that actually degrades language ability. The results have been similar in Japanese. My point in saying all this is that while the article makes it sound like other countries have been "simplifying their language for centuries," I suspect that all countries' respective group of linguists exercise a certain reluctance to let laziness dictate their respective language's progression.

Basically, this problem isn't isolated to English.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

You forgot that Japan doesn't use Kanji alone. Kana is used on a more common basis than Kanji, and they do shorten their "spelling" on them. Particularly, English derived words written with Katakana. Words that have more than 4 syllables are commonly shortened to 4 syllables or so.

Even on Kanji, words that have more than 4 letters are often shortened. For example, South Korea and China's full name has about 4 Kanji chara. altogether, but are known as 韓国 and 中国 instead, only with 2 Kanji chara.

And besides, this:

Quote:

Now in Japanese, a single character can sometimes function in much the same way. So for example, the word kanji is formed with kan- 漢 (which means China) and -ji 字 (character, letter, etc.)--thus giving kanji the literal translation Chinese character.

Isn't the same as:

Quote:

So in English, for instance, the prefix "-ing" is used to nominalize verbs (e.g. the verb "read" becomes the noun "reading").

Putting a Kan with a Ji is like putting Home and Work and create Homework. Verbs in Japanese work entirely different from English. If you want to compare putting an "-ing" on "running" in Japanese, Kanji has nothing to do with this since the verbs in Japanese utilizes Kana for form changes.

Also,

Quote:

Individual kanji, in turn, can be further broken down into components, sometimes with amusing results (e.g. kusuri 薬 meaning drug, is formed from 楽 which means "comfort" and an abbreviated 艸 meaning "grass"--thus, "comfort grass").

Why are you explaining how Kanji characters are made? It has nothing to do with spelling at all.

Friendly reminder; you might want to actually try speaking Japanese first before jumping ahead on this.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Dhsu

At the risk of missing obvious irony, do you mean "piece"?

Hah! That's actually a perfect example of an eggcorn, which I posted about above!

Delicious.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Scarletdeath

You forgot that Japan doesn't use Kanji alone. Kana is used on a more common basis than Kanji, and they do shorten their "spelling" on them. Particularly, English derived words written with Katakana. Words that have more than 4 syllables are commonly shortened to 4 syllables or so.

I'm aware of hiragana and katakana. I chose not to discuss them because I wanted to make a general point without getting bogged down on details that only someone studying Japanese would know.

Although, honestly, aside from particles, verb stems, and those occasional foreign words, do you really think kana get used more than kanji? I haven't found that to be the case at all.

Originally Posted by Scarletdeath

Even on Kanji, words that have more than 4 letters are often shortened. For example, South Korea and China's full name has about 4 Kanji chara. altogether, but are known as 韓国 and 中国 instead, only with 2 Kanji chara.

Right and you can even come up with constructions like 和英 for 和英辞書. But this just goes to my point that kanji can roughly be analogized to root words in English in the way they can be used as abbreviations and such.

Quote:

And besides, this:

Isn't the same as:

Yeah, I guess if you want to get technical, a true equivalent to -ing in the nominalizing sense would be 事 as in 読む事 which nominalizes 読む. Again, though, I was just trying to illustrate a general point of how one could compare English and Japanese.

Oh and since you bring it up, I wasn't referring to reading as in "I'm reading." Yes, that would be 読んでいる. But I was talking about the nominalized verb form, not the present participle form that you would use that for. Afterall, when you say "I'm reading," you don't actually mean "I am the noun reading." We're talking about two very different usages for the English usage of "-ing."

I do like your example of "home" and "work" forming homework, though. I guess that does illustrate the 漢字 example better.

Quote:

Why are you explaining how Kanji characters are made? It has nothing to do with spelling at all.

I disagree. The way you remember spelling is by taking note of patterns where they exist while being mindful of exceptions. Similarly, the way to develop proficiency in kanji is to learn radicals that form kanji and the patterns that develop in their usage. 金 illustrates this point well, I think, as it's used in a lot of various metals, over and over again.

Quote:

Friendly reminder; you might want to actually try speaking Japanese first before jumping ahead on this.

I'll admit that having been at it for a few years now, there's a lot that I don't know, and it could very well be the case that you're more knowledgeable on the subject than I am as well, but I actually have studied the language.

How ya doing, buddy?

The idea of this kind of (kinda?) makes my skin crawl. As someone said, changing our language to appease the lazy folks who just dont want to learn how to spell correctly is just a bunch of bullshit. Its just another excuse for the people who dont want to try, and another example about how kids are being coddled these days.

And if college professors insist on the whole 'content vs presentation', they're not doing their students any favors because a misspelling on a resume or cover letter would leave them with nothing. Employers look for perfection in these things because it tells them something about who they could be employing.

(And honestly, if this article mentioned the words 'your' and 'you're' or 'there', 'their' and 'they're' as being acceptable mistakes, I was gonna punch something.)

I was speaking idiomatically.

I personally consider syntax so important that I try to go and correct every single grammatical or spelling error that I make.

Hopefully I don't have a single mistake in any of my (serious) GFF posts! (Find 'em if ye can! )

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Ridan Krad

Although, honestly, aside from particles, verb stems, and those occasional foreign words, do you really think kana get used more than kanji? I haven't found that to be the case at all.

Then maybe you haven't study the language deep enough.

Kana is EVERYWHERE. If you want to ignore that fact that Japanese people study Kana before Kanji, then I'd like to point out that the current Japanese society uses a crapload of 外来語, which are all in Katakana. Not to mention that a sentence cannot make sense with only Kanji, 送り仮名 are a must. Mind elaborating on how Kanji is used more than Kana?

Quote:

Right and you can even come up with constructions like 和英 for 和英辞書. But this just goes to my point that kanji can roughly be analogized to root words in English in the way they can be used as abbreviations and such.

Right, somehow I interpret your sentence as saying "Kanji cannot be abbreviated". My bad.

Quote:

Yeah, I guess if you want to get technical, a true equivalent to -ing in the nominalizing sense would be 事 as in 読む事 which nominalizes 読む. Again, though, I was just trying to illustrate a general point of how one could compare English and Japanese.

Again, I somehow thought you were saying that those two sentences that I pointed out were the same.

Quote:

Oh and since you bring it up, I wasn't referring to reading as in "I'm reading." Yes, that would be 読んでいる. But I was talking about the nominalized verb form, not the present participle form that you would use that for. Afterall, when you say "I'm reading," you don't actually mean "I am the noun reading." We're talking about two very different usages for the English usage of "-ing."

I'm fully aware on the usage of -している. I was also pointing out the difference between Kanji and verbs.

Quote:

I disagree. The way you remember spelling is by taking note of patterns where they exist while being mindful of exceptions. Similarly, the way to develop proficiency in kanji is to learn radicals that form kanji and the patterns that develop in their usage. 金 illustrates this point well, I think, as it's used in a lot of various metals, over and over again.

Actually, no. Like my "homework" example, these aren't spelling, these are nouns. A word that uses 金 all over are still nouns. For example, remembering which Kanji makes up 金属 or 金銭 is the same as remembering home goes with work for homework. Spelling are such as 殺された; knowing the 送り仮名 that follows or how to spell　コンビニエンスストア properly.

Quote:

I'll admit that having been at it for a few years now, there's a lot that I don't know, and it could very well be the case that you're more knowledgeable on the subject than I am as well, but I actually have studied the language.

I'll give you the slack since Japanese is a hard language, and you can very well forget plenty without practicing constantly. As for my qualification on the language, I have studied in an actual Japanese school, gotten enough exposure on the Japanese culture, and interacted with plenty of Japanese. In fact, my Japanese Proficiency Level is at 2. I hardly include actual Kanji/Kana in this because I'm too lazy to change the languages with the toolbar.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Scarletdeath

Mind elaborating on how Kanji is used more than Kana?

Actually, on second thought, you're right. When I think about the sheer number of times certain hiragana must get used just to provide grammar, they probably do outweigh kanji, even factoring in long strings of kanji for proper names and such. It's just that you originally said "Kana is used on a more common basis than Kanji," which almost makes it sound like you could get by just knowing kana. Of course, we both know that's not the case. Anyway, I agree with you.

Quote:

I'm fully aware on the usage of -している. I was also pointing out the difference between Kanji and verbs.

And I'm fully aware that you do. My point wasn't to lecture you on the て-form, but to point out that you're not talking about the same -ing usage that I was. Your original response said verbs use kana for form changes which is generally true, and certainly true for ている. However, I was talking about turning a verb into a noun. Let's put it this way:

1) それを食べる事が嫌いだ --> I hate eating that.
2) それを食べている --> I am eating that.

The English equivalent uses -ing in both cases, but it has different functions. When I referred to nominalizing a verb in Japanese, I meant it in the sense of 1) not 2).

Quote:

Actually, no. Like my "homework" example, these aren't spelling, these are nouns. A word that uses 金 all over are still nouns. For example, remembering which Kanji makes up 金属 or 金銭 is the same as remembering home goes with work for homework. Spelling are such as 殺された; knowing the 送り仮名 that follows or how to spell　コンビニエンスストア properly.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear. I meant 金 in the sense of a radical, as in 銀, or 鉄. Remembering the radicals can help break down the kanji itself into components, just as remembering certain letter combinations in English (e.g. -ation), even though they are never used by themselves, can help in remember many words that use them.

Quote:

I'll give you the slack since Japanese is a hard language, and you can very well forget plenty without practicing constantly. As for my qualification on the language, I have studied in an actual Japanese school, gotten enough exposure on the Japanese culture, and interacted with plenty of Japanese. In fact, my Japanese Proficiency Level is at 2. I hardly include actual Kanji/Kana in this because I'm too lazy to change the languages with the toolbar.

Haha, well to be honest it doesn't really feel like you're giving me much slack at all, but thanks I guess.

Congrats on passing the JLPT2, though. Any plans to ever try for JLPT1 anytime soon? I hear that thing's a monster.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Ridan Krad

However, I was talking about turning a verb into a noun. Let's put it this way:

1) それを食べる事が嫌いだ --> I hate eating that.
2) それを食べている --> I am eating that.

The English equivalent uses -ing in both cases, but it has different functions. When I referred to nominalizing a verb in Japanese, I meant it in the sense of 1) not 2).

Point taken. Though, it is a little unfair to compare English and Japanese in this case, since, in the case of 1), それを食べるのが嫌いだ is more commonly used instead. I rarely come across nominalized verbs (like in your example) in Japanese sentences.

Quote:

Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear. I meant 金 in the sense of a radical, as in 銀, or 鉄. Remembering the radicals can help break down the kanji itself into components, just as remembering certain letter combinations in English (e.g. -ation), even though they are never used by themselves, can help in remember many words that use them.

Yeah, but that doesn't make it categorized under "spelling". That's more on calligraphy me thinks; remembering the strokes and how to write certain characters.

Quote:

Congrats on passing the JLPT2, though. Any plans to ever try for JLPT1 anytime soon? I hear that thing's a monster.

I don't plan to go for JLPT1. I actually studied a majority of level 1 syllabus already, grammar and vocab alike, but I cannot catch up on the Kanji. I'm already half-dead memorizing 1.5k Kanji within 1.5 years time

Let's resume this via PM. Getting quite off topic here.

Jam it back in, in the dark.