[metacritic12]

The sneeze example is contrived because in English, sneeze is both phonetic and a word with common occurence.

A better example might involve a common English word with a wierd, non-phonetic spelling. A word that you might imagine it forgivable for even someone who recieved an English PhD to misspell. After all Chinese is a seperate language from English and it is neccessary for it to be evaluated in its own context.

If you think this definetly couldn't happen in English, take a look again at this post -- for it contains eight outright, unambiguous, misspellings of common English words that I would not be surprised if even an English PhD from Harvard made on occassion, especially if your choice of three students were unlucky and they were having embarassingly bad days. (After all, English PhDs isn't the study of spelling, it's the study of literature).

[addy34]

It may be contrived, but it still highlights the key difference.

Even if sneeze was a word that you were taught once in school and hadn't used for 30 years, you would still likely get close to the correct spelling from the sound (sneaze, snease, sneeze), and seeing the misspelling also helps with recall and to self correct.

This is the "virtual circle" of speaking/listening -> reading -> writing -> referred to by the author, which is not possible with Chinese.

It's true that there are some weird non-phonetic English words that PhDs would likely misspell, but it's not 100% of the language and you still could at least make an attempt.

It's possible to just write Chinese in phonetic form (e.g. pinyin), which bypasses this issue, but you have a secondary problem, which is the extremely narrow range of syllables (~400 * 4/5 tones = 1600-2000), resulting in quite ambiguous text.

[bobbylarrybobby]

Pinyin should be approximately as ambiguous as the spoken language, i.e. not very (especially if whitespace is used to denote word boundaries)

[Chathamization]

Removing the added information would make it much more difficult to parse, though. Paragraphs don't exist in oral English - or spaces between words, quotation marks, capitalization, etc. - but we still find it much more easy to read properly formatted text than improperly formatted text.

Just because people are able to understand strict phonetic transcriptions, doesn't mean it's a good way to convey information (which is why almost no language relies on just strict phonetic transcriptions).

[djtango]

As mentioned in another comment, English has its share of words like that too. For example I'm sure diarrhoea can catch people out.

And how many people drink an espresso every day and think it has an x in it.

I knew plenty of elite students who would make classic English blunders like "expresso" or "pacifically"

[ndsipa_pomu]

> how many people drink an espresso every day and think it has an x in it.

Arguably, "espresso" isn't an english word, but spelling it with an "x" as "expresso" isn't as incorrect as you may think. There's two main theories behind which word to use: "espresso" meaning to "press out" the coffee, or "expresso" meaning "expressly made for the customer" as it's quicker to make than a filter coffee. This is further confused by the Latin root being "exprimire" meaning "to press or squeeze out".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/espresso-vs-expresso...

[labster]

Are those blunders or accents? From my point of view you spelled diarrhea incorrectly, unlike how our lord and savior Noah Webster taught us.

Maybe language is fine if it conveys the intended meaning.

[djtango]

Yes a rose by any other name would smell as sweet and well... diarrhoea is diarrhea

My point was addressing "tsinghua students..." and "Harvard students..." unless they were literary scholars or grammarians their wield of the language may be at the level of "educated" but still plenty fallible. I'm sure those of us who did any post grad would have met people who were smart in a given axis and otherwise very ordinary along the other axes.

[katbyte]

Except most people will get close enough for most other people to understand. English is rather flexible

Not ti mention spelling differences and even all the unique words in different English countries. Or within the uk

[djtango]

Well in other comments, native Chinese speakers brought up that when you forget how to write a character you just write a homonym and readers can guess by the context - which is how Chinese speech works anyway.

So it turns out that humans are rather flexible

[kseistrup]

Or even more classic English blunders, like not being able to choose correctly between e.g. “their”, “there”, or “they're”.

[dayjaby]

I don't think that Chinese people have problems knowing how to spell a character as different characters share the same pronunciation (more or less) if they have the same phonetic component[1]. So pinyin helps literally zero.

What is harder is to distinguish the meaning of all these characters. Let's take this set as an example: 里理哩鲤鯉俚娌悝锂鋰

Ok, they are all pronounced the same, but guessing or knowing all their meanings is a different game. "鲤" has to be a fish that's pronounced li3. That might still be easy, but the more abstract the meaning-giving character radical is, the harder it becomes to distinguish all of them.

[1] https://hanzicraft.com/lists/phonetic-sets

[kaiwen1]

This is not analagous. The sound of every English word give clues – and often precise guidance - on how to write it, but the sound of a Chinese word typically offers no hint of how to write it. If you give me some obscure English word, say "persiflage", I might have no idea what it means, but I can probably spell it. But if you give a Chinese speaker 馘 (góu) in context, almost no one will be able to write it, even if they know the precise meaning ("to cut off the left ear of the slain").

[nkrisc]

I would guess that most Harvard students could spell those misspelled words in your comment correctly if you asked them to directly. When reading we know what the word is supposed to be and we correct it in our mind to the intended spelling. If anything it’s a testament to the resiliency of phonetic alphabets - but more so it’s illustrative of how English pronunciation has deviated from spellings that were mostly set with the advent of printing in England. Most of the misspellings in your comment involve misplaced letters that are not directly pronounced.

Strictly in terms phonetics, why couldn’t “weird” be spelled “wierd” when English also has “tier”? I’m guessing the Normans are to thank for turning “wyrd” into “weird”.

[erremerre]

Something like Wednesday or was it Wensday, Wendsday, Wednsday, Wedensday, Wednseday, Wednesdy, Wednesay, Wedsday, Wednseday, or, Wendseday?

[galangalalgol]

I vote for wedensday as it is the closest to the originating Woden's day.

[defen]

Even with the misspellings it's obvious what words you meant. If someone forgets how to write "嚔" are they just missing a few strokes but it's obvious what they actually meant? Or do they have zero clue what it's supposed to look like?

[Chathamization]

From what I've heard people say (and what I've seen), the most common way to handle it is to simply write another character that sounds the same. In other words, the characters can be used as phonetic elements when it's needed. It looks weird (in the same way that spelling words phonetically in English can look word), but it's doable.

That's for situations where they had to write something by hand but didn't have their phone with them to check (otherwise they can just spend a second to look at the character), which isn't a common occurrence.

[addy34]

It depends, but it's not uncommon to completely forget the entire character. If you sort of remember it, then the muscle memory in your hands often helps to finish the character correctly once you start, at least that's what I've found and heard from others.

[nkrisc]

Therein lies the resiliency of phonetic orthography: despite the misspellings the sound represented by the words did not significantly change thus most readers would never even notice.

If anything it’s a statement on how the orthography of English in particular doesn’t well match the phonetic structure of the language - something due to a confluence of factors in English several hundred years ago, including the rise of printing.

[nkrisc]

Woops, I thought I’d post this comment and it never posted.

[specialist]

Remember the english -> pirate translator? Simularily, per your graf, a "spell wrecker" tool, witch introduces mispellings and other errs, could be amusing.

[ClassyJacket]

Well done. I spotted weird on its own but I had to go looking for the others.