For your amusement:
- Deos it relaly maettr aubot the splleing or grmaamr, as lnog as you get the msesege?
- I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.
Is this really true? Can you scramble up the middle letters of ANY word and still be able to read it without a problem?
It turns out that the "research at Cambridge University," cited in the jumbled paragraph above, does not exist. At least, it did not exist when that paragraph started circulating.
However, Cambridge researcher Matt Davis, after seeing that paragraph on the internet, delved into this issue in great detail. Click here to read his excellent page on the topic.
The Verdict
On his page, Mr. Davis debunks the theory that you can scramble up the middle letters of a word any way you want to and still maintain readability. Behold:
- A vheclie epxledod at a plocie cehckipont near the UN haduqertares in Bagahdd on Mnoday kilinlg the bmober and an Irqai polcie offceir
- Big ccunoil tax ineesacrs tihs yaer hvae seezueqd the inmcoes of mnay pneosenirs
- A dootcr has aimttded the magltheuansr of a tageene ceacnr pintaet who deid aetfr a hatospil durg blendur
So, just in case you were wondering: No, this does not give you an excuse to stop giving a damn about spelling, or about proofreading. But it does explain why even the best proofreaders overlook some mistakes, especially when they're reading text quickly!
No comments:
Post a Comment