Not in order

This has been making the rounds on weblogs recently:

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

Toady, I want to empathically stress, in the scape of a few dozen words, that while this phenomenon is quite fakery and there are some argentums in its favor, I resailed that, even regrading conservational English, letter order does matter. I'm not saying the theory is carp; but some of these examples are quite celibate and look baldy. Whatever brakes the laws of a language cerates no problem. But if the misspelled word exists, it's ceratin that you better discanted yourself from the theory.
Here are some classic other pairs to remember:
  • rhinoplasties relationships (my personal favorite)

  • sweatshirt swarthiest

  • lipsticks lickspits

  • proselytes polyesters

  • monetising moistening

  • aquatinting antiquating

  • fractioning - fornicating

Posted by cronopio at 01:33 AM, September 23, 2003