I haven't written a spelling nazi post in a while, but a perfect argument just came my way, and so I feel the need to comment once more.

For those unfamiliar with my spelling nazi posts, and who aren't likely to follow the inevitable links at the end of this post, let me make my argument very briefly. My problem is with those who argue that spelling and grammar "don't matter", that "so long as you understand what they mean" it is good enough. They will often show mock erudition by pointing to the colonial era and earlier when spelling was not standardized (ignoring the fact that even earlier, much Latin and Greek spelling, for example, WAS standardized)*.

My argument is simple. Allowing multiple spellings introduces the possibility of error, a point I am about to make with the example to follow. Nor is grammar any less significant. As English lacks the cases** which make clear function in other languages, grammar is essential to prevent confusion.

Of course some will say "Who cares about formal grammar if you can understand them?" But what may be "clear" to one is not always clear to another, making the subjective standard "makes sense" hard to decide. Just because you THINK others can understand you does not mean they can. Or perhaps they believe they can, but understand differently than you intended. Formal rules upon which all agree avoid this by imposing a single standard meaning. Without such rules, you may be convinced you are being understood, and your listener may be certain he understands, but in truth, you have failed to communicate***.

And having said that, allow me to point out a perfect example, perfect because it is not an example of extremely bad grammar, or of a contrived situation, as some of my previous examples have been, but is a real example and one using a very common error, confusing the homophones "hole" and "whole".

In the case in question, I was reading user comments on a driving game, and saw someone upset over the handling of the "hole thing". At first I assumed that this was meant to read "whole thing", and the writer was upset about the entire game. Later, I discovered there were issues with the way the physics engine worked, including the handling of falling objects and jumping cars, making me wonder if the "hole" could have really meant "hole". Nor did reading more posts make it any more clear, as people did actually write about holes. After reading through the whole set of responses, I came to the conclusion I was not alone in my confusion. There weren't many responses to the post that confused me, but the few who did seemed to be evenly split between those who thought "hole" really meant "hole" and those who thought "hole" meant "whole".

This may seem like a small issue, but consider how much trouble one little word caused in this context. Imagine several such errors in a crucial document, such as emergency instructions. Nor is this the only very simple error that can cause such problems.In the past I have been similarly puzzled by the misuse of the homophones "to", "too" and "two", especially if the writer gets lazy and uses "2" to represent all three. For example, "I am coming with u 2". Does this mean he is also coming or he is coming with two others? It is a small problem, but it is a common mistake and can bring about confusion if the context makes the choice of homophones unclear. "Their", "there" and "they're" has similar potential, though in most contexts it is pretty clear which is meant.

And it just gets worse the more peculiar the spelling becomes. These are pretty common errors, but as the spelling becomes more nonstandard the range of possible meanings becomes greater (as shown in my "monker" post -- "Why Spelling Matters (Again)"). But even with these simple and common misspellings the point should be clear. Once you accept that "spelling and grammar don't matter" you have set the stage for communication to break down. Nor does it matter if you add the caveat "so long as you are clear", because, once you eliminate agreed upon rules, there is no way to know whether you are clear or not.

Which brings me back to my point. Why add that "as long as you are clear" or "so long as they understand"? Isn't that in itself a rule? So what is the point of removing the whole set of rules, which work, to replace them with this vague and unworkable rule? Of course, in practice, this "so long as it is clear" is simply ignored, and we end up with no rules at all, but, if we imagine they are sincere in trying to impose this intelligibility rule, then wouldn't it make more sense to just retain the existing rules of standard spelling and grammar rather than trying to impose a new rule that allows any spelling or grammar but then attempts to impose this nebulous intelligibility rule?

After all, the only way to absolutely ensure intelligibility is to use an agreed upon set of rules. Any other solution leaves open the possibility of confusion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* My counter argument to that specific argument is that we also treated disease with mercury purgatives or bleeding,t hat doesn't mean it was a good idea. And just because Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and Hamilton were bright men does not mean they were right in all things. (See "The Conservative Trump Card") So just because they could function in an era which accepted alternate spellings does not mean that is the optimal system.

** English does technically have cases, but many words are the same in all cases. Even the few case distinctions which exist, mainly in pronouns, are often ignored, another error against which I argue.

*** As I have, in the past, made excuses for my own deviations from correct grammar, I feel I am as guilty as anyone. After thinking about it more I realized my distinction between formal and informal settings was artificial and nothing but an excuse for lazy habits. As such an artificial distinction is not consistent with my beliefs, I am now committed to following the rules of grammar in all settings, not just in my my more formal writing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

As promised here are my spelling and grammar nazi posts, as well as some unrelated posts touching on the topic:

Spelling Nazi
HILARIOS DANCEING CAT
Badly Chosen PC Words
Why Worry About Grammar?
Spelling Nazi Part 2
Why Spelling Matters (Again)
Spelling Nazi Part 3
It Warm's The Cockle's of my "Heart"
Tiny Grammar Gripe
Grammar Nazi Extra
Poor Grasp of the Meaning of Hypocrisy
Pronunciation Nazi
Grammar Nazi
A Grammar Nazi Rerun
Book Reviews? Calling All Readers
Oh No, Not Again
Conspiracy Theorists' False Logic (how bad spelling exposed a suspect document)
Oh No, Not Again
Why Spelling Matters, One More Time
Beyond Grammar and Spelling
A Thought on Iran (see footnote on transliteration)

As the two overlap so much, I have given up on past attempts to separate the spelling and grammar posts into two separate groups.