ok, this is a stupid topic but here goes.... today at work i saw someone spell cancelled as canceled and it made me very irritated. i come home and i look it up and find it can be spelled both ways?

canceled
cancelled

isnt that weird and annoying at once? how can it be correct to spell a word two separate ways? hmm. which one do you prefer and why?

I just looked it up and it was only spelt the one way in mine-cancelled. Mind you it was an old dictionary, but i've always spelt it with the double L.

If you stop and think about it, there are a quite few words that have alternate spellings.

Gray and Grey. Armor and Armour. Color and Colour. Check and Cheque.

The list goes on and on really. A quick google search on the topic tells us that this sort of thing is a real problem for spelling bees and Scrabble.

Spelling conventions are only just that.. arbitrary conventions. It doesn't bother me that people spell things variously. I can even understand almost every word I see out here on the world wide web, though no one out here can "spell".. but that is a bit of a red herring, since spelling is arbitrary convention, huh? In 50 years it will all be l337 r0x0r d3wds or something anyway..

But you know, a "spell" doesn't work if you don't "do it right"..

Hmmm. Where is the Derrida of magik?

I don't mind if someone types 'color' or 'colour' since either is acceptable, but I see my posterior when someone can't be bothered to look it up... and types something like 'culur' (bad example but hey, I didn't sleep well).

My own thing is to puzzle over whether a word ends in 'ise' or 'ize' only to realise/realize that either is acceptable.

Bah.

well, obviously British and American versions of words are different. im talking about this word. it seems so bizarre. for example, diferent and different are not both correct. this one seems totally arbitrary in its exclusion from the rules. i just am not getting it.

then again, i am an obsessive speller. (pats his dictionary)

Let me tell you, since I invested a lot of my time and energy into earning a useless MA degree in English Language and Literature.. this is what it's good for, so let me roll in it..

Language conventions *don't* make sense. There is no great overarching structure to spelling NOR language. It is all convention.

An interesting story.. Theodore Roosevelt thought spelling wars were stupid, so he proposed making it a national policy to simplify words to their absolute simplest spelling. Some of his ideas (borrowed from an English professor, actually) actually took hold. That's why we no longer spell certain words like we did in the 19th century.. I should remember an example but I don't and all heck if I am going to look one up.

I do know that Roosevelt wanted us to write like this "it is veri gud to meat yu."

Obviously, it didn't catch on.. but if it had, that would be the rule of "spelling law" today. Totally arbitrary to the point of having been promulgated by one man alone.

In the past, spellings never were regularized like they are today. Just look at any Shakespeare play that retains the original spelling. Shakespeare will spell the same words a bunch of different ways. He even used alternate spellings of his own name!

Anyway, a structuralism of spelling is, like all structuralisms, a chimera. Turn away!

haha Sidhe, youre my kind of guy. we had a topic on this once awhile back and i posted the same story maybe one of the Forum Gods will dig it up... i just get lost in all the posts.

I'll tell you what really gets my goat: when people don't understand when to use ->

were
we're
where
wear

or

their
there
they're

or

its
it's


etc.

I use a nonlinear spelling technique combined with spell check. I usually get my point across.

OK, since we are on words, can someone please tell me a simple explanation of the difference between "therefor" and "therefore?" My one active brain cell knows which one to use where, but I spent some thirty minutes (with the aid of a dictionary and examples) trying to explain it to my boss. I will never use those words in official memos again. Can anyone help?

the difference appears to be in pronounciation and how they modify a verb. therefor(accent for) and therefore(accent there).

therefor= for that, for it

therefore= for that reason, because of that


both are adverbs which define an action.

i purchased a jacket and recieved a receipt thereFOR. (for it)

one plus one equals two, THEREfore, two minus one equals one. (for that reason)


LB, that irritates me too. i use them correctly most of the time, but i also hate to type accent marks so i just run them together into one word

for example:
were=we're
theyre=they're
its= its and it's

i think its laziness

Thanks, DS! I'll run that one by da boss-man and see if it sticks to anything.








... probably take about an hour...

I get confused with further and farther.

btw, I hoepe I ben keepen my wordz spelt wright.
(sorry LB, couldn't resist)

QUOTE (SpaceyKC @ Apr 25 2003, 06:19 PM)

btw,  I hoepe I ben keepen my wordz spelt wright.

veri funy KC

However, I agree with LB

here you go, Spacey.

if i swim any FARTHER, i will be FURTHER away from shore than i have ever been.

So you have to go and brag? You know I'm afraid of the water!
(just kidding oh, and thanks)

Well .. Spelling differes from one country to another
for example Color = American
Colour = Brithish

but as I think the right spelling for cancelled is the double L one

i more intrested in why
a dog =1
dogs=2 or more

but SHEEP is 1 or more ,why no single or plural