Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and
lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can
sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed
ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Amzanig huh?


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
waht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the
frist and
lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you
can
sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not
raed
ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Amzanig huh?

This is the second time I've seen it and I'm still amazed at how true it
seems to be. That's really strange!

Billshut.

Peace,
Paul

This is in just about every group.
Glenn Davis
"Creating the perfect mix is like painting a 747 with Q-Tips"

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
waht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the
frist and
lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you
can
sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not
raed
ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Amzanig huh?


After having read that pretty quickly, I'd have to say they're right, and
that is pettry naet.

But they should try it with kids or people who have only been reading a few
years, or don't read much. It's possible the results could be different.

jb

In rec.audio.pro, "reddred" wrote:


"EggHd" wrote in message
...
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
waht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the
frist and
lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you
can
sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not
raed
ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Amzanig huh?


After having read that pretty quickly, I'd have to say they're right, and
that is pettry naet.

I have a suspicion that the text, or rather the 'randomizations' of
the characters, might be loaded to make it easier to read. It would be
easy enough to write a program to randomize all but the first and last
characters of every word, and run it on various texts then "test how
readable" the results are.
That's one reason I really want to know the sources for these
things - was this real research, or did someone make this up?
Snopes lists it, but hasn't made a final statement about it:
http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/cambridge.asp
I really think this is just the result of an overactive mind, not
any researcher at any college.

But they should try it with kids or people who have only been reading a few
years, or don't read much. It's possible the results could be different.

jb




-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

In article writes:

I have a suspicion that the text, or rather the 'randomizations' of
the characters, might be loaded to make it easier to read. It would be
easy enough to write a program to randomize all but the first and last
characters of every word, and run it on various texts then "test how
readable" the results are.
That's one reason I really want to know the sources for these
things - was this real research, or did someone make this up?

If you read it first on the Internet and it sounds amazing, chances
are pretty good that someone worked hard making it up.

On the other hand, if you've read my messages here over a period of
time you'll see that I hit the wrong letters a lot, and you can still
understand what I'm writing most of the time.

So what's the big deal? I hope someone isn't going to use this
"proof" to justify that people no longer have to learn how words are
spelled, though the text messaging over cell phones is doing a pretty
good job of that.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

"Ben Bradley" wrote in message
...

I have a suspicion that the text, or rather the 'randomizations' of
the characters, might be loaded to make it easier to read. It would be
easy enough to write a program to randomize all but the first and last
characters of every word, and run it on various texts then "test how
readable" the results are.

Looking at it, most of the 'random' elements appear to be a simple switch of
adjacent letters. I think this gives credence to your 'overactive mind'
observation and it's also a fairly simple thing for a person to compensate
by switching the letters back as they read.

jb

That's one reason I really want to know the sources for these
things - was this real research, or did someone make this up?
Snopes lists it, but hasn't made a final statement about it:
http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/cambridge.asp
I really think this is just the result of an overactive mind, not
any researcher at any college.

But they should try it with kids or people who have only been reading a
few
years, or don't read much. It's possible the results could be different.

jb




-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley