I've seen this, and examples, and how the theory was proven. It's interesting in that if you are reading, you don't read each individual word, and then conclude what each sentence means, instead; Yuo reed eech wurd and enstinctifffly mek cents fram de parce.midlet2013 wrote:Recently, I read somewhere that people can easily read wrongly spelt words as long as the first and last alphabet are in the right position. Of coz, it wont make sense if there are many possible words that can be formed. But, for unique and obvious words, it may be possible to read with ease.
The original article took several paragraphs, and then reproduced each in progressively more 'mashed' English. It was really quite amazing how mashed it could get, but you could still interpret the meaning.
That said English is a veeeery elastic language, and even with major abuse it can usually still be understood. Maybe why it remains pre-eminent.
Naturally I'm sure if the jumble were derived from your mother-tongue it might be instinctive, otherwise I expect it makes no sense at all. Do any form of mashing to Norwegian, even the lilt or emphasis of the tone and you might as well be speaking Martian.
But the fact remains, this is a multi-lingual polyglot, and if you are asking a serious question here, it's in your own interests to do your best to speak/write in such a way that the broadest audience will understand.
And writing in 'text-speak' marks you out as naive as to the above fact, and only works against a writer. I.e. why should anyone bother to reply to someone who feels a need to abbreviate the word 'because'?