Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Can You Raed Tihs?

Posted by timothy on Mon Sep 15, 2003 06:12 PM
from the you-have-for-years dept.
An aoynmnuos raeedr sumbtis: "An interesting tidbit from Bisso's blog site: Scrambled words are legible as long as first and last letters are in place. Word of mouth has spread to other blogs, and articles as well. From the languagehat site: '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. ceehiro.' Jamie Zawinski has also written a perl script to convert normal text into text where letters excluding the first and last are scrambled."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by inertia@yahoo.com (156602) * on Monday September 15 2003, @06:12PM (#6969201) Homepage Journal
    Quick! Someone go register goaste.cx, micorsoft.com, ssdlhoat.org...etc.

    Actually, does this work well with letter pairs like, "th ch wh sh qu?" I forget what those are called.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2003, @06:18PM (#6969280)
      Actually, does this work well with letter pairs like, "th ch wh sh qu?" I forget what those are called.

      Digraphs? [reference.com]
    • by Bame Flait (672982) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:20PM (#6969315)
      Actually, does this work well with letter pairs like, "th ch wh sh qu?" I forget what those are called.

      The reason it DOES work well with those letter pairs is that they aren't familiar at all in reverse. You're more likely to udnerstand their juxtaposition as what it's supposed to be, because you're used to it being one way.

      Where it DOESN'T work as well is when you begin breaking up complex phonemes or diphthongs in short words. Konw what I'm sayin'?
      • by quinkin (601839) on Monday September 15 2003, @10:13PM (#6971453)
        The best example I can think of for comprehension failure with jumbled text is with ordered interdependant phonemes. For instance - "eau", or "ough".

        Turhgoh = Through

        A topic that does not seem to have had much coverage in this article is the actual iconic visual recognition that our brains appear to use in word recognition.

        Obviously each word approximates a patterned rectangle (serif fonts emphasize this further) with occasional outliers (ie. t, y, l, and any other letters that protrude above or below the base rectangle).

        People with poor eyesight rely on this fuzzy but fast recognition frequently. In fact there is a classic psych experiment based around displaying a word that iconically is very similar to another word, while simultaneously presenting a context that implies the second word, and asking the subject to record the word. The subject mis-records the word roughly 90% of the time.

        Q.

    • by momerath2003 (606823) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:27PM (#6969406) Journal
      I can't believe it! I was assuming that someone, someone out there (especially the first poster) would do it!

      Come on, you slacker trolls!

      (ethighy-ftifh psot!)

    • by inertia@yahoo.com (156602) * on Monday September 15 2003, @06:40PM (#6969546) Homepage Journal
      I noticed that compression is worse using scrambled text:

      [anthonym@uniblab scrbameld]$ ./scrmable.pl genesis.txet
      [anthonym@uniblab scrbameld]$ gzip g*
      [anthonym@uniblab scrbameld]$ ls -l
      total 304
      -rwxr-xr-x 1 anthonym staff 63830 Sep 15 16:33 genesis.text.gz
      -rw-r--r-- 1 anthonym staff 84945 Sep 15 16:36 genesis.txet.gz
      -rwxr-xr-x 1 anthonym staff 1396 Sep 15 15:56 scrmable.pl
      [anthonym@uniblab scrbameld]$ gunzip g*
      [anthonym@uniblab scrbameld]$ zip genesis.zip g*
      adding: genesis.text (deflated 70%)
      adding: genesis.txet (deflated 60%)
      [anthonym@uniblab scrbameld]$


      Interesting. Anyone have an explaination for tihs?
      • by edwdig (47888) on Monday September 15 2003, @07:01PM (#6969724) Homepage
        By randomly scrambling the letters, you're eliminating a lot of the redundancy.

        Huffman compression would be unaffected though, as it works on a per character basis.
      • Compression worse... (Score:5, Informative)

        by douglips (513461) on Monday September 15 2003, @07:07PM (#6969776) Homepage Journal
        That's easy. Let's say you have a text file that consists of 14,000 instances of the word "begat". This compresses to a file that simply indicates "repeat 14,000 'begat '".

        Now, after you scrmable it, it's got equal quantities of begat, beagt, baget, baegt, bgeat, and bgaet. It's not so easy to compress any more.

        Essentially, you're increasing the entropy of the file by a fair amount. Truly random data is not so easy to compress as english, because english has lots of order. Added disorder or entropy means compression is just not as easy.
        • by kcurtis (311610) on Monday September 15 2003, @08:03PM (#6970207)
          My neighbor weighed your argument. He used a beige scale, and decided it was probably the heinous act of a foreigner to make such a statement. And you're weird. So rein in yourself, and remove the veil of ignorance, ye feisty cad!

          Thou should forfeit karma, but that is neither here nor there.
  • At Lsat! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Urantian (263132) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:12PM (#6969203)
    Bad splelnig no logner nedes to hlod aynnoe bcak!
    • Re:At Lsat! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Hamstaus (586402) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:14PM (#6969225) Homepage
      Bad splelnig no logner nedes to hlod aynnoe bcak!

      As if that's stopped anyone on Slashdot before.
    • Re:At Lsat! (Score:5, Funny)

      by scalis (594038) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:17PM (#6969263) Homepage
      So it IS true! Dyslexics definitely has more fnu!
    • by kuwan (443684) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:22PM (#6969341) Homepage
      The best part of the pearl script is the copyright notice:

      # Coyprgiht (C) 2003 Jamie Zawinski
      #
      # Premssioin to use, cpoy, mdoify, drusbiitte, and slel this stafowre and its
      # docneimuatton for any prsopue is hrbeey ganrted wuihott fee, prveodid taht
      # the avobe cprgyioht noicte appaer in all coipes and that both taht
      # cohgrypit noitce and tihs premssioin noitce aeppar in suppriotng
      # dcoumetioantn. No rpeersneatiotns are made about the siuatbliity of tihs
      # srofawte for any puorpse. It is provedid "as is" wiuotht exerpss or
      # ilmpied waanrrty.
    • yeah... (Score:5, Funny)

      by commodoresloat (172735) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:40PM (#6969552) Homepage
      and I, for one, wlcemoe our new dslyxeic ovlrerdos!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15 2003, @06:43PM (#6969570)
      I like the proposed UN English language modifications to make English easier for everyone to learn!

      The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility.

      As part of the negotiations, the British government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short).

      In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly, sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard "c" will be replaced with "k". Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one less letter.

      There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter.

      In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go.

      By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by "z" and "w" by " v".

      During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou", and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

      After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru.
  • Here you go (Score:5, Informative)

    by JM Apocalypse (630055) * on Monday September 15 2003, @06:13PM (#6969205)
    No need to open the terminal ... Jeff comes to the rescue!

    http://jeff.zoplionah.com/scramble.php [zoplionah.com]
  • by tarquin_fim_bim (649994) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:14PM (#6969220)
    WRDOS SBRCALME YOU!
  • holy.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by the uNF cola (657200) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:14PM (#6969226)
    Holy FCUK!
  • FINALLY (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rathian (187923) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:14PM (#6969231)
    Justification for the lack of spell checking on Slashdot...
  • Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Verteiron (224042) * on Monday September 15 2003, @06:15PM (#6969239) Homepage
    So d__s t__s m__n t__t we d_n't n__d t_e m____e l____s at all?
    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Verteiron (224042) * on Monday September 15 2003, @06:20PM (#6969311) Homepage
      Okay, I know it's bad form to reply to one's own post, but I noticed something. When writting "letters", l____rs seems more recognizable than l_____s. Apparently plurals are handled by the brain as the word followed by the plural suffix. Interesting...
    • I t___k y__r p__t is p___f t__t we d________y do n__d t_e m____e l_____s.





      Read: I think your post is proof that we definately do need the middle letters.
      • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Verteiron (224042) * on Monday September 15 2003, @06:24PM (#6969371) Homepage
        Bt we nd te ss fr te wd cs.

        But we need the spaces, at least, for the word cues.

        So how many "bits" of information can we strip from a sentence, on average, before we can no longer intuitively decipher it? The spaces give us information, but not as much as the letters themselves. Yet clearly the ordering of the letters contains much less information than the contents of a word's endpoints. This is odd stuff.
  • by Penguinshit (591885) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:16PM (#6969249) Homepage Journal
    "encryption".

  • by Valar (167606) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:16PM (#6969253)
    It's a perl script to format normal text into text that looks like a perl script? I think my head is spinning.
  • by PredatoryDuck (699918) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:16PM (#6969255)
    I showed this to a student here who is native to Indonesia, so english is not her first language, and she had a very difficult time reading it. Any thoughts on why this might be so tied to your native tongue? I would have thought that anyone fluent in english (which she is) would be able to read the post without much difficulty.

    D
    • by Hamstaus (586402) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:23PM (#6969363) Homepage
      Spoken language and written language are two separate entities when it comes to usage and process. It is not uncommon to find people who are very well-spoken in a second language, but cannot write a word. I would venture to guess that your student takes much longer to read something in English than in her native language, despite her fluency. The patterns of English words would still require more concentration and interpretation by her brain than those of her native language, which have been ingrained into her since she was very young.

      You did not mention if she is a fluent reader/writer, speaker, or both? From what you describe I would say that when you said "fluent" you meant as a speaker.
    • by RobertB-DC (622190) * on Monday September 15 2003, @06:24PM (#6969378) Homepage Journal
      I would have thought that anyone fluent in english (which she is) would be able to read the post without much difficulty.

      Actually, since I'm not British, the final word of the canonical scramble threw me off:

      Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro.

      I read the rest of the text correctly, but I had a devil of a time figuring out the reference to the Miyazaki film Spirited Away, also known as Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi [nausicaa.net]!
  • Throw out the I before E rule once and for all.
  • by kellan1 (23372) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:17PM (#6969273) Homepage
    This meme has been kicking around blogland for a couple of days, and it definitely seems to be true. The only part of the above paragraph that was difficult to read was the sentence, "the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae".

    Normally I would never post a comment about grammar, but it is kind of startling that in a block of text that jumbled the absence of 'the', and the swapping of 'is' for 'are' still jump out at you.
  • Eggs (Score:4, Funny)

    by vevva (693964) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:18PM (#6969283)
    Agrlhit cleevr clogs - see if you can sbarclme eggs
  • by mark_space2001 (570644) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:19PM (#6969300)
    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. ceehiro.

    ...but it's like reading a post by a 12 year old on a forum someplace ... or like playing an online game with a bunch of l33t doodz. I hate it.

    Don't ever do this again, Slashdot.

  • by Mattcelt (454751) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:20PM (#6969319)
    Understanding a language is only 50% comprehension. The other 50% is being able to predict what will come next based on previous experience. This is especially important in spoken language, because the brain simply does not have the power to parse each word separately in real time.

    So while it is possible to understand words that are not spelled correctly, it can still take a while to understand if the nxet few wdors are not qieut waht you epcext. It is aslo mcuh lses pbatldicree wehn you use lgenor wdros.

    I hpoe tihs was an imuilntinag eplamxe!

    Mclettat
  • by gmuslera (3436) * <gmuslera@@@gmail...com> on Monday September 15 2003, @06:22PM (#6969345) Homepage Journal
    Can this assumptions be false for other kind of languages or a priori is universal? At least in spanish after a few tries looked to me less clear than in english.

    Also... what happen when the scrambled word is another valid word? Or a misspelled valid words?

  • by StewedSquirrel (574170) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:23PM (#6969367)
    The "consonant pairs" seem to always be still paired in these words.

    If I type

    sllpenig it's clear I'm typing "spelling"

    but, if I type

    slpenlig it's not so clear anymore.

    What about: according

    Aoccdrnig (as in the article) is ok but...
    aocdrncig is not nearly as clear

    There's a limit to how far your brain can stretch it. Some consonant pairs your brain DOES intepret much like a single letter, because it's an irregularity in english.

    Words that use such consonant pairs and triplets like "tch" are much harder to distinguish when those pairs and triplets (which really sound like a single letter) are split.

    Stewey
  • by vevva (693964) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:27PM (#6969411)
    Eht sbviouo txperimene ot monfirc eht yheort si ot ees thaw sappenh nhew uoy ecrambls ynlo eht tirsf dna tasl setterl dna eeavl eht eiddlm setterl eht eams. Eompletc Kobbledegoog.
  • Ha! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vDave420 (649776) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:32PM (#6969469)
    Not surprising. Your brains does lots of strange things.

    Please go and feed the the cat.


    Bet ya didn't see that, did ya?

    Re-read it slowly.

    -dave-

  • SPAM?!?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mcrbids (148650) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:33PM (#6969477) Journal
    Ok, so now they discover that randomizing the text within words doesn't detract (too much) from readability - does that mean we'll soon be seeing:

    ELNRAGE YUOR PNEIS!!!

    on the subject lines of emails received? How would any of the pattern matching anti-spam methods out there deal with this one?

    And, we just gave them the tool do use!

    -Ben
  • by thejackol (642922) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:43PM (#6969568) Homepage
    This is so darn old... I thought Slashdot was bleeding edge! Here is the original forward FYI:

    Titled: Do Spellings Matter?

    "... randomising letters in the middle of words [has] little or no effect on the ability of skilled readers to understand the text. This is easy to denmtrasote. In a pubiltacion of New Scnieitst you could ramdinose all the letetrs, keipeng the first two and last two the same, and
    reibadailty would hadrly be aftcfeed. My ansaylis did not come to much beucase the thoery at the time was for shape and senqeuce retigcionon.

    Saberi's work sugsegts we may have some pofrweul palrlael prsooscers at work. The resaon for this is suerly that idnetiyfing coentnt by paarllel
    prseocsing speeds up regnicoiton. We only need the first and last two letetrs to spot chganes in meniang"

    And if you liked *that* one so much, you might like this one too:

    Read the sentence below carefully:

    "I do not know where family doctors acquired illegibly perplexing handwriting nevertheless, extraordinary pharmaceutical intellectuality counterbalancing indecipherability, transcendentalizes intercommunications' incomprehensibleness".

    This is a sentence where the Nth word is N letters long.

    e.g. 3rd word is 3 letters long, 8th word is 8 letters long and so on.

    And if you like that one too, here is another one you can try to kill your boredom...

    While sitting, draw clockwise circles on the ground with your right foot. While doing that, try drawing the number "6" in air with your right hand.

    Your foot will change direction.
  • by Xthlc (20317) on Monday September 15 2003, @06:50PM (#6969631)
    My parents are both teachers, and one of the most tiresome quarrels in education is Phonics vs. Whole-Word [acfnewsource.org] debate. Do you teach someone to read by teaching them how to sound out syllables (phonemes)? Or do you teach them to recognize whole-word patterns by rote?

    Experimentally, a pure-phonics approach has proven to have the highest success rate. However, these results would suggest that whole-word approach *does* map onto some important cognitive structure . Perhaps this means that, once past the basic level, whole-word techniques would prove to be valuable in turning beginning readers into advanced readers.
  • by ThesQuid (86789) <(a987) (at) (mac.com)> on Monday September 15 2003, @10:21PM (#6971511) Journal
    Actually, I can think of one extremely interesting application for this idea - cryptography. It is actually highly intelligible, but definitely bound to give any code-breaking algorithims headaches when trying to correlate know words to patterns. I may have to try doing this to send messages to my friend in a chinese prison. I'm sure it would give the censors fits trying to translate it.