3 ms·
I understand you, but it's more difficult than if you wrote correctly (according to my arseholish prescriptivist rules, if you like, yes) - you're communicating
by OJFord 4y ago
I understand you, but it's more difficult than if you wrote correctly (according to my arseholish prescriptivist rules, if you like, yes) - you're communicating less effectively by not subscribing to the standard rules; I misread you, take longer to understand your meaning, it takes patience and begins to frustrate.
- SoftTalker 4y agoAlso spoken language is looser. You can't hear the difference between "there," "their," and "they're" but your brain fills in the appropriate meaning. When you see it written though, there is a slight mental stumble as you initially parse the word as written, then understand that it's wrong, and make the appropriate mental substitution.
- epgui 4y agoSpoken language is also different in that, as you correctly point out, it is at times more limited in how much information it contains, but also, in other ways it can be much richer in information than the equivalent writing. Things like nonverbal or tonality can contain a lot of helpful or contextually-relevant information that cannot be found in writing. So writing and speaking, while having a lot of linguistic overlap, are just different beasts. (Ironically I think my grammar in this comment is not great, but FYI English is not my first language-- I'd appreciate a correction if appropriate)
- OJFord 4y agoThat's highly accent dependent। I think I pronounce all three differently (Southern RP-ish (as in not farmer) BrE) but 'their' and 'they're' are close। Rhotic AmE though clearly distinguishes those, and I can imagine them all sounding similar in that sort of accent।