4

Good examples would be writing "nite" for "night", "4" for "for", "wimmin" for "women". I guess it also applies to substituting final s with "z", as in "wordz". In the way that Prince was prone to. Recently I've seen it a lot in alternative literature and music.

Example sentence: "Nice ... in that album title 'Only Built 4 Cuban Linx'"

I can't find them under figure of speech schemes on Wikipedia. Which is odd, because this sort of rhetorical device seems to me currently more popular than, for example, hysteron proteron.

These stylistic devices are different from “kinda”, “sorta”, “coulda”, “shoulda”, “lotta”, “oughta”, “betcha”, “tseasy” etc., in that these are informal contractions, coming from "natural" speech acts like slurring. This question is about deliberate misspelling for artistic or satiric effect.

Maarten
  • 335
  • 1
    I know that Heinz, in Britain, and no doubt other companies, have infuriated primary-school teachers with their advertising slogan BEANZ MEANZ HEINZ. – WS2 Jan 02 '18 at 10:11
  • There is also an overlap with textspeak, again already covered on ELU. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 02 '18 at 11:07
  • 1
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensational_spelling – Max Williams Jan 02 '18 at 11:35
  • I would say "mishpelleng". – Hot Licks Jan 02 '18 at 13:31
  • Also satiric misspelling. There is a whole slew of subgenres – Maarten Jan 02 '18 at 14:38
  • @EdwinAshworth - not really, your supposed duplicate ask for a specific usage of misspelled terms, and as a matter of fact the answers are different. – user 66974 Jan 02 '18 at 19:23
  • @user159691 If you look at all the overlapping previous threads, you will find the terms 'eye dialect', 'textspeak', 'sensational spelling' ... And note that the question was modified before you posted this observation. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 03 '18 at 00:59
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth - you’ve been trying to CV this question twice with inappropriate older questions. Finally the correct original one has been found. – user 66974 Jan 03 '18 at 07:07
  • 1
    It was pretty clear that I didn't mean contractions and that people on Stack Exchange are overly eager to close questions and find duplicates. I guess you get internet points for it? – Maarten Jan 03 '18 at 07:33
  • @Maarten Not at all. There have been complaints about mediocrity on the site. Would you buy a textbook that repeated the same material every 300 pages? Would you say that having confusingly overlapping threads every so often helps people with finding answers they are looking for? The ELU model is not primarily Q and A. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 03 '18 at 11:10
  • @user159691 I assume you didn't bother to do any checking at all for duplicates to help with the housekeeping on ELU? Admittedly, it gets very onerous. Especially when questions are tinkered with to make candidate duplicates seem less fitting. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 03 '18 at 11:12
  • @Maarten - yes, others have noted this attitude: https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11065/overuse-of-possible-duplicate-claim-to-evade-or-disqualify-answers – user 66974 Jan 03 '18 at 11:44
  • @EdwinAshworth - your assumptions ar not always correct, and as a matter of fact I did check, but I could find the exact duplicate, neither did you. – user 66974 Jan 03 '18 at 11:51
  • "Especially when questions are tinkered with ...". Gaslighting much? I have only appended the final paragrah to my question, which is official SE Meta advice on dealing with questions that are erroneously marked as dupes. Onerous, onery, onanist. – Maarten Jan 03 '18 at 14:24
  • "Would you say that having confusingly overlapping threads every so often helps people with finding answers they are looking for?" Yes, and it is much more useful than it is confusing. People primarily come to SE through typing keywords on Google and don't read it front to back like textbook. – Maarten Jan 03 '18 at 14:29
  • "The ELU model is not primarily Q and A" You must also have laughed when you typed this. – Maarten Jan 03 '18 at 14:38

1 Answers1

3

I think it is generally referred to as eye dialect:

the literary use of misspellings that are intended to convey a speaker's lack of education or use of humorously dialectal pronunciations but that are actually no more than respellings of standard pronunciations, as wimmin for “women,” wuz for “was,” and peepul for “people.”.

(Dictionary.com)

Community
  • 1
user 66974
  • 67,349