OT: deos tihs rlaely wrok?

pixyy · Post by **pixyy** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 4:05 am

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Sttsioch uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
ceehiro

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 4:11 am

Wow.

amar · Post by **amar** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 4:22 am

wow, ralelly wroks lkie a cahrm!

Tak_the_whistler · Post by **Tak_the_whistler** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 4:36 am

The U.S. Grammer Guild Monday announced that no more will traditional grammer rules English follow. Combined with this will there new form of organising sentences and spellnigs be, said the Gulid, and that tehy wtih Scittcosh Uinervitsies colabolrtae.

And here's the article:

"Onperatig uendr we are, one mjaor rlue", siad Joyce Waettrs, perdisnet of the U.S. Gmrmaar Gliud. "Mkae Esngilh, wnat we, mroe achriac and dengifiid suiondng to be, as if ervey wrod cnomig form the tnouge of a cenrituens-old, mtysiacl wirzad, is."

Hoed · Post by **Hoed** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 4:37 am

Jeze! Tihs wrkos vrey wlel!

MacEachain · Post by **MacEachain** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:08 am

If taxpayers money was spent on this research, somebody needs their "asre wlel and turely keicekd"

Cheers, Mac

TelegramSam · Post by **TelegramSam** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:19 am

trust me, this is NOT the biggest waste of tax money I've seen in my life, which is really sad when you think about it.

MacEachain · Post by **MacEachain** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:27 am

TelegramSam wrote:trust me, this is NOT the biggest waste of tax money I've seen in my life, which is really sad when you think about it.

Unfortunately you're right.

Cheers, Mac

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:10 am

And how exactly do we cope when several different words, each starting with the same letter, have exactly the same letters?

Tyghress · Post by **Tyghress** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:34 am

I would say that the 'first and last sounds' not first and last letters, need to be the same. I did fine with most of what was written Pix (but wondered whether you were punch drunk until I got into the paragraph) except for the final cheerio, when you broke up the C and H.

The other question is whether it works in all languages. Can some of us non-English speaking folks try it out on unsuspecting friends?

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:44 am

I dno't tihnk taht was a wstae at all.

Andway histay isway away erfectpay imetay orfay Igpay Atinlay!

mat · Post by **mat** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:37 am

MacEachain wrote:If taxpayers money was spent on this research, somebody needs their "asre wlel and turely keicekd"

Cheers, Mac

During a recent spell of academia I was researching attitudes to risk and came accross a 'scientific' paper based upon an experiment whereby the researcher attempted to induce fright in ducklings using a polystyrene cliff.

One might consider this cruel if it wasnt so ridiculous!

mat · Post by **mat** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:43 am

pixyy wrote:Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Sttsioch uinervtisy,

Shouldn't that be "a Sttsioch Uinervtisy"?

Terhe rllaey is no eucsxe for sopply gmmarar!

Zubivka · Post by **Zubivka** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:45 am

Hey, it deos wrok arwihgt!

alsojusttryandsuppresseveryspacebetweenwordsandmostpeoplewhocanreadilyreadwillhavenoproblems
afterallthespaceseparatingwordsandcapitalizingsomeisamodernasinmediævalinventionlikecapitalsandsmallcharsandgenerally punctuationperiodnextline
JUSTTHINKOFTHETROJANCOLUMNANDPLEASEDONTMENTIONTHEDOTSTHEYREBARELYLEGIBLE

Now, it smees fnippilg the letters wroks not the smae dipendeng wehn you laernt to raed, tihs at laest in Fcanre:

the old school would read every syllable, then build the word. This being the long, but precise, way.

the newer, fatser motheds, seem to taech by pettarns, i.e. mroe lkie rezognicing a driwang (i.e. smoe knid of hiegorlyph in thier pirme sense, or rethar idoegarms--a full-wrods besad sombilysm) rethar than alphebatical, ortanoded, heirachrical, cunstroctiun. Nyadawos, I DO hvae to fcae a bit of truoble with kids, in oredr they'll raed waht's wttiren, not waht they fnacy.

You may spot, in the random example above, that the shorter the word, the easier it's identified; over three syllables, some of these spoonerisms do take some effort to dig.
Now, when kids take this pattern of reading, it seems they have more troubles learning new words, because they seem to mentally substitute something they know already for something they should discover. At least, this is my own interpretation of growing dyslexia... Also, they do seem to have some wee problems with spilleng. It makes sense: a new word is something to 1) recognize as such 2) check for meaning and/or spelling in a dictionary. Ignore it, and it seems you can read... "So, why wocking furry?" Rihgt?

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:55 am

pixyy wrote:wouthit porbelm.

That might a bit of a stretch...

Chiff and Fipple Forums

OT: deos tihs rlaely wrok?

OT: deos tihs rlaely wrok?

Re: OT: deos tihs rlaely wrok?

Re: OT: deos tihs rlaely wrok?