Talk:Cacography

Russian internet
The Russian internet section offers no insight into cacography, I suggest it be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 6 June 2011‎ (UTC)


 * I agree. It needs to be explained further, otherwise it shouldn't be mentioned in this article (mention it in Russian internet), and is understandable to only a specific audience. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This article incorrectly defines its subject. This is not what cacography is.
This article claims that cacography is the 'deliberate' use of bad spelling and grammar for comic effect, but I've just checked Oxford, Collins and Merriam-Webster dictionaries (and also Wiktionary) and they all concur on the fact that it is simply bad writing in general - there is no 'deliberate' element to it.

While the info about its use in humour might be interesting and could perhaps remain included here, the intro sentence needs to be rewritten to clarify what the topic itself is. I don't want to do that myself because it's an integral change to an article which other people seem to have put some work into and which I have just stumbled upon without any particular interest in the topic.

Alternatively, I'd be happy to nominate the whole article for deletion if others thought that suitable. It seems to me that there is no meaningful or useful info here about actual 'cacography' at all - only about humorous effects which might be better covered elsewhere (in articles about malapropisms, sensational spellings, etc). Liamcalling (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * did you check the refs cited, did you try to google, in addition to dictionaries? Are you aware that general purpose dictionaries sometimes miss some special meanings of words? For example, . Your first suggestion was good: start with the generic dicdef meaning, and descibe specializations of this meaning in various areas. - Altenmann >talk 06:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the use as intentional, comic mispelling is well-documented in the two book citations given (1917 and 1994). Apparently this has not found its way into dictionaries. I edited the article to address what I take to be the concerns of Liamcalling and Altenmann, which I share -- namely, the dictionary meaning should be acknowledged.


 * The reference [1] by Altenmann should be added to the main page. It gives an academic usage that is intentional, but serious, rather than comical. In addition, it gives a source for the amusing double antonymy cited in the first paragraph. 2001:171B:2274:7C21:7477:5625:3765:DCB7 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)