That’s true if the only benefit of proofreading is finding misspellings. But you should be proofreading to find errors of expression in general, and the optimal amount of proofreading for that may imply that you find and fix all misspellings.
That may be good advice for most people. (Or maybe not.) But me, I’m a chronic floccinaucinihilipilificationist. (It’s one of my more endearing traits.) And no, I don’t use a spellchecker. I don’ need no steenkeeng spellchecker.
Oops. I said I knew how to spell it, not what it means. (‘If you never misuse a word, you’re spending too much time second-guessing yourself/reading the dictionary’?) For some reason I thought ‘floccinaucinihilipilification’ meant ‘nitpicking’. Probably I inferred its meaning incorrectly from the context in which it appeared; that was my standard failure mode, during the era when I assume I picked up that word. (In fairness to my child-self, it was before widespread internet access—but not dictionaries.)
Also, I think I was suffering from some kind of localised cognitive impairment when I wrote that comment (sleep deprivation, perhaps). It strikes me as pretty boorish now, as well as incorrect.
You may have been misled by a Robert Heinlein novel where the soi-disant genius narrators agree that that’s what the word means. (‘Number of the Beast,’ I think.)
Motivated cognition. It’s such a good word to show off with. (At least, it would be if it meant what I thought it meant.) In fact, I’m sure I’ve looked it up before. Maybe this time I can remember permanently.
And if you mis-spell too much, or worse use the wrong word (which is increasingly common with spell-checking), you waste any readers’ time trying to figure out what you are trying to say.
If you never misspell a word, you’re spending too much time proofreading.
That’s true if the only benefit of proofreading is finding misspellings. But you should be proofreading to find errors of expression in general, and the optimal amount of proofreading for that may imply that you find and fix all misspellings.
That may be good advice for most people. (Or maybe not.) But me, I’m a chronic floccinaucinihilipilificationist. (It’s one of my more endearing traits.) And no, I don’t use a spellchecker. I don’ need no steenkeeng spellchecker.
You routinely estimate things as valueless?
Oops. I said I knew how to spell it, not what it means. (‘If you never misuse a word, you’re spending too much time second-guessing yourself/reading the dictionary’?) For some reason I thought ‘floccinaucinihilipilification’ meant ‘nitpicking’. Probably I inferred its meaning incorrectly from the context in which it appeared; that was my standard failure mode, during the era when I assume I picked up that word. (In fairness to my child-self, it was before widespread internet access—but not dictionaries.)
Also, I think I was suffering from some kind of localised cognitive impairment when I wrote that comment (sleep deprivation, perhaps). It strikes me as pretty boorish now, as well as incorrect.
You may have been misled by a Robert Heinlein novel where the soi-disant genius narrators agree that that’s what the word means. (‘Number of the Beast,’ I think.)
I believe you are correct.
Motivated cognition. It’s such a good word to show off with. (At least, it would be if it meant what I thought it meant.) In fact, I’m sure I’ve looked it up before. Maybe this time I can remember permanently.
Do mean you’re sesquipedalian?
No, but I am.
And if you mis-spell too much, or worse use the wrong word (which is increasingly common with spell-checking), you waste any readers’ time trying to figure out what you are trying to say.