IS spelling going oot the windae?
Was it ever, indeed, in the windae? Is windae how you spell windae? And I don't mean windy. Already, I wish I hadn't started this. You often feel the same reading my stuff? Noted.
Apart from anything else, I'll need to check this article for spelling or risk a letter of complaint: "My attention has been drawn to your edition of April 15 in which you missp - misp - in which you do not spell correctly the word 'herbaishus', as in gardin border, ken?"
I hate to say it, but the open access of the internet has revealed that, very often, our fellow folk cannot spell. I was going to say "for toffee", but they couldn't give two effs for that. One classic I caught recently said: "Manors cost nothing." Er, I think you'll find manors generally cost a substantial amount, while you can often pick up manners for a song. "Red whine does have alcohol in it." Red whine? What's that, a socialist complaint? Here's another: "Low and behold." But it would be beneath me to comment on that.
Folk often spell the same word, particularly names, two or three different times in the same paragraph. Perhaps it's all due to the habit of pressing "send" without a second thought. Falling off my high horse, I must admit: we've all done it.
But don't we all have spellcheckers now? Fair enough, the above examples may be Freudian slips that spellcheckers wouldn't catch. But many others shouldn't get through. "Independance" is a common one, "definately" another. Maybe writing to forums involves using wee boxes that don't spellcheck.
Perhaps spelling doesn't matter, as long as we get the gist. But I suspect most of us like a bit of order in written language. The alternative is a bit of ordure.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article