I corrected a typo on a whiteboard at school today - WIBU?

[clary]

We were looking round the fancy new school buildings at my kids' school tonight and there was some teacher writing on a board which included the word "barbeque" [sic]

I was able dextrously to doctor the q to make it a c. I hope this was in order. I also hope the teacher notices

Anastasie

Children are able to distinguish between the different pronunciations of although, cough, rough etc.

Children are also able to distinguish between barbeque and oblique.

It's not a 'dangerous precedent' at all, how ridiculous.

It doesn't exactly make it easier for them though, does it? What is the actual point of this spelling?

I'm not sure what I'm arguing both ways.

It is phonetically plausible based on what we know about the principles of the English spelling system.

They aren't the most common spellings for the sounds and from a reading point of view the letters 'que' are almost always, if not always pronounced /k/. But that's consistent with the orthography of English. There's nothing that says those things have to be the case. It would be different if we were talking about another language with a transparent orthography.

At a phonemic level all the individual sounds can be mapped to known spellings for those sounds in barbeque. Not in the most logical way but the correspondences are still there.

Is your concern with making the spelling of the English language easier for children?

Yes, you have reason - I get what you mean, totally. But it's so much easier just to use the proper spelling, isn't it.

Is it what they call 'corrupted' - I suppose it is.

X posts.

Maud, no, not particularly, but I am against a corruption of a word that makes it harder for them.

Particularly when it is so pointless.

I just fail to understand why any dictionary would condone it, apart from that it is so widespread a corruption as to make it too hard to fight.

Is Anastasie masha in diguise perhaps?

Who's Masha? And no, I don't think I am!

It doesn't make it harder for them. They can still spell it 'barbecue' if they want. Either is acceptable.

Yes, given that you posted upthread that you were 'very cross' at the changing from hadde to had and myghte to might, I don't think you are concerned with making spelling easier for children at all.

I just fail to understand why any dictionary would condone it, apart from that it is so widespread a corruption as to make it too hard to fight.

That's just silly.

Dictionaries (at least in the UK) don't "condone" spellings that they judge to be "correct" based on some set of rules. They just document how words are written. Therefore no justification is needed - or sought - beyond the fact that the spelling "barbeque" is used widely.

As it happens I prefer "barbecue" myself, for reasons of etymology and pronunciation as discussed at length above.

It's not a 'typo' if it's on a whiteboard! So I'd get off my high horse if I were you.

I still read it every time as 'barbeck'. I can't help it.

Maybe you are not a native English speaker? Often non native speakers have difficulty dealing with the many exceptions to the rules of pronunciation in English. It is quite a common problem for those learning the language.

Would everyone be happier with barbequeue?

But an awful lot of people have said it is 'fine' because it's in the dictionary.

Is that not the common reference?

It could be a typo on a whiteboard, we don't actually have enough information to declare that it wasn't (ie it could've been put there via letter stamps)

Anastasie In English, the dictionary is simply the record of use, if you could find a spelling (or usage) that was very common and understood but wasn't in the dictionary it would still be correct even though it wasn't in the dictionary.

It's actually possible that typo for written errors fall into that category to, I don't think any one of us misunderstood what was being described, suggesting that using typo for a written mistake. However it's more interesting that the OP used typo in a sense where they were asserting authority and the writer was an idiot, as typo is normally only used in the mistake of action rather than stupidity.

I bet the teachers look forward to seeing you in school OP.

I thought this was funny not unreasonable. Some people take life too seriously. Respect OP

I'm an English teacher and both is ok

Should that not read "both are ok fatowl?^

Hangs head in shame.

Op .You did not correct a typo on the board. Typo is an abbreviation of typographical error..or the setting of type, it has also come into incorrect usage as typing errors.

How does it feel to be publicly corrected ?

Sorry..evil cackle..so its funny ..

it has also come into incorrect usage as typing errors.

Language evolves as has the meaning of words associated with setting type. There is not much actual setting of type these days.

Thanks for that..I don't feel at all patronised !

it has also come into incorrect usage as typing errors.
Language evolves as has the meaning of words associated with setting type. There is not much actual setting of type these days.

In this particular case, the OP was clearly addressing an alleged spelling error. It was wrong to call a spelling mistake a 'typo'.