''LOSE'' AND ''LOOSE''

We're losing the word ''lose''   Friday, September 10, 2004, 02:16 GMT
Why do many people spell ''loose'' when they want to spell [lu:z]. ''loose'' spells [lu:s] not [lu:z].
Mxsmanic   Friday, September 10, 2004, 02:35 GMT
Because many people are functionally illiterate (no, I'm not exaggerating).
Mi5 Mick   Friday, September 10, 2004, 03:30 GMT
<<Why do many people spell ''loose'' when they want to spell [lu:z]. ''loose'' spells [lu:s] not [lu:z].<<

Simply because there are other "oose" endings that are pronounced [u:z], eg. choose, roose. It also looks like an "ose" ending where an isolated, wedged-in 's' is often pronounced [z], eg. lose, rose.

It's easy to mix them up. I do it too sometimes.
Sanja   Friday, September 10, 2004, 08:30 GMT
Exactly, those two words don't even sound the same. I could never mix them up.
Mi5 Mick   Friday, September 10, 2004, 08:48 GMT
Sanja,

If you rely on spelling patterns to match pronunciation, you can easily get mixed up. Mistaking "lose" for "loose" is common for natives as I explained before. The vowel in "lose" rhymes with "oo" which is the usual spelling for this sound, hence "loose", and an isolated 's' in between vowels is more often than not [z].

In your case, you're obviously more "orthographic" than a native. ie: you rely heavily on correct spelling for your means of communication, because you don't speak English as much as a native.
Sanja   Friday, September 10, 2004, 08:53 GMT
True, but I think natives should care even more about correct usage of their language than non-natives, since it is their tool of everyday communication.
Mi5 Mick   Friday, September 10, 2004, 08:55 GMT
Yeah I know. I've heard it all before.
Mxsmanic   Friday, September 10, 2004, 23:33 GMT
Educated and literate speakers do not confuse loose and lose. Mistaking one for the other, in fact, is a sign of functional illiteracy.
Mi5 Mick   Saturday, September 11, 2004, 02:39 GMT
Then what you are describing is a paradox because some educated and literate speakers would be "functionally illerate" judging by the blunders I witness day-to-day, even with their spell checkers and quite often they're the same mistakes. I'm referring to colleagues and friends who supposedly fit this bill, with PhDs and "professional" status.
Mi5 Mick   Saturday, September 11, 2004, 07:36 GMT
* illerate->illiterate: a lazy typo, possibly even a mix-up!
Damian   Saturday, September 11, 2004, 07:54 GMT
Lose / Loose:
They are not even pronounced the same....it's enough to make you almost "lose" ['lu:z] your mind and make you think you have a screw ['lu:s].... with a longer vowel sound in the former.

As Mick says, it's easy to confuse them and believe me, natives do it more often than you would think. Word blindness is quite a common occurrence, even with words you normally know very well.... it's just that the mind sometimes plays tricks on you. The delicious vagaries and inconsistencies of English don't help either, but I think that adds to the fun and interest levels of our silly, stupid language...the one I love so much. God knows how I ever managed to learn it.....I still see something every day I never knew the day before.

I am so, so, so, so impressed with the standard of written English in this forum from non-native speakers. You all eserve the highest accolade. Sometimes I wonder if you really ARE non natives, such is your level of competence.

Not long ago my mother got (temporarily!) confused over the words "onion" and "union" when writing down a recipe...she said she was in a hurry (I don't believe her...it was a case of word blindness!). She was going to put some "unions" into her stew, or whatever she was cooking up. What a silly goose she was! ;-) Sorry, Mum!...

"Cooking"....another word with the double "O" sound with variations. Normally it's short and sharp: ['cuking] but in some northern English accents it's long and drawn out: ['cu:king]. Mick gave some good examples of inconsistencies.

Spell checkers can often give some hilarious results....like a hotel advertising a French widow in every bedroom.
Mi5 Mick   Saturday, September 11, 2004, 08:00 GMT
Thanks mate! At least you know what I'm on about :)

Humans are only human after all and we're not all humourless perfectionists. I'm glad they haven't slashed funding for humanity studies at Uni! That glorious bastion I fork out my bucks to here ;)
Mxsmanic   Saturday, September 11, 2004, 08:37 GMT
One should not assume that a PhD or "professional status" (whatever that means) are guarantees of literacy in today's world, particularly in the United States. I've never met a highly literate person who was a poor speller. It's extremely difficult to read a great deal and very well without becoming a good speller. The claims of English being particularly difficult are unfounded, since there are plenty of people who can spell very well, even without a spelling checker. Bad spellers are almost invariably also poor and/or very infrequent readers.
Mi5 Mick   Saturday, September 11, 2004, 14:06 GMT
Let's get one thing straight: poor spelling is one thing, but common mistakes of this nature is another and this is all that I initially addressed.

>> Educated and literate speakers do not confuse loose and lose. Mistaking one for the other, in fact, is a sign of functional illiteracy. <<

The few educators who preach this zero-tolerance doctrine might be educated and literate speakers but are self-admitted culprits; they do make spelling mistakes too. If it's not one type of mistake, it's another and English orthography is conducive to this. Mental lapses, maybe dyslexia and other factors are at play, but to hint at the suggestion of "functional illiteracy" based on an isolated case is exaggeration... bullshit to say the least.

If we are educated and literate speakers, just how much time spent reading is expected to become "highly literate"? It's all very subjective. Claims of English being or not being patricularly difficult are relative too. At one uncolourful extreme: someone who uses his craft relentlessly will inevitably find it easy, regardless of any universal hardships; but the rest of the spectrum isn't so black and white. In languages that have better spelling representations, such as Spanish, mistakes of this type are less likely to occur.

In any case, marathon reading or "reading a great deal" (if that' makes one highly literate) isn't a form of extreme entertainment that people generally take pleasure in. Realistically it won't be made popular to the masses because frankly, people have better or more pressing things to do with their luxury of time. Of course, relatively few people think otherwise.


PS: substitute "PhD or professional status" with "educated and literate speakers" (whatever that means) to adapt the desired effect.
Sanja   Saturday, September 11, 2004, 14:44 GMT
"Bad spellers are almost invariably also poor and/or very infrequent readers."

Then I have to say that most native English speakers are poor and infrequent readers.... No offence.

"In any case, marathon reading or "reading a great deal" (if that' makes one highly literate) isn't a form of extreme entertainment that people generally take pleasure in."

I enjoy reading, it is one of my favourite things.