September 13, 2003

Semonthig To Tinhk Aubot

Sent to me by Jim C:

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

Posted by James at September 13, 2003 11:40 PM
Create Social Bookmark Links

The funny thing is I get email like that all the time (names withheld to protect the guilty.)

And for the most part, on first scan, you can read it.

(Technical mail is a different beast though - on unfortunate typo or misinterpretation can change the whole meaning of the message.)

Posted by: Jim Correia at September 14, 2003 12:03 PM

I constantly transpose letters when I type. Certain words are more frequently mis-typed, like "somehting."

Posted by: JP at September 14, 2003 1:49 PM

Spelling is so last century.

Posted by: Mike at September 15, 2003 12:56 PM

I had hread aoubt tihs too. I wdnoer if the trohey hldos ture for meor clepmox wdros. I sspucet taht we drivee a garet dael form the ctexont of the txet we are radineg. I'm srue the persocs barkes dwon wehn the wrods are mcuh lgeonr... as in "inverteprite" or "costimbeels". Pabblory prallituy wlil also torhw you off.

What might be more interesting is to drop the first and last letters of each word and see how readable THAT is... not very, I suspect. First of all any words under 2 letters disappear altogether. I think this would destroy the context.

ha igh or nterestin ro h irs n as etter ac or n e o eadabl HA ... o er, uspec. irs l n ord nde 2 etter isappea ltogethe. hin hi oul estro h ontex.

Posted by: Chuck S. at September 15, 2003 5:24 PM

Good point about plurality. You basically lose the last letter.

Posted by: JP at September 15, 2003 6:01 PM

Copyright © 1999-2007 James P. Burke. All Rights Reserved