Cna yuo raed tihs?

[classical_hero]

I ma wodnerign fi oyu acn rdae adn udnrestadn htis, sniec teh worsd aer nto spleled crorcetyl. Otfen ew ptu oto mcuh epmhaiss no corcrtley pseelnig wrods, dna sa scuh, ew gte oot psasoinaet abotu mkaign srue taht eth owrds aer ni teh corecrt odrer. Tish si a shmae, beacues ew rae ton lal bonr sa egnlihs spaekres, nad htis acn ptus fof soem fo rou onn ntavie egnlsih sepakesr.

I ma donig htsi ot ese fi ew aer os acuhgt pu ni eth wrods taht ew relaly od nto ees teh indvidaul letetrs, btu hte worsd sa a wohle.

Palese wiat fro teh plol berfoe yuo psot. Tahnks fro nto psotnig bferoe hte plol.

 

[Gogf]

I am a native English speaker and I can understand it. Interestingly, the word with an extra letter ("ptus"/"put") was the only one I had trouble with (well, that and caught...).

 

[C~G]

Yes, but much more slower than normal text.

Example with Gogf's post here you can let each sentence flow through your eyes and you can understand what he says
but with your message classical hero I must concentrate into each word separately (and translate? them) which takes time.

EDIT: So it's not only singuler letters, neither words, but also whole sentences that people understand instantly.
Erik Mesoy talked about this when he told about his amazing rate of reading.

 

[Riffraff]

not a native speaker, but no problems reading the text.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Ah, that again? You can read words even if all the middle letters are jumbled, according to research. I can read it, but the concept is not entirely true since it won't work for some words. This is mainly due to man's penchant for pattern recogntion.

 

[Riffraff]

Yes, but much more slower than normal text.

Example with Gogf's post here you can let each sentence flow through your eyes and you can understand what he says
but with your message classical hero I must concentrate into each word separately (and translate? them) which takes time.

actually with me the text flows just like a normal text, just slower - but ive read such texts before so i might have accustomed to them..

edit: if the first and last letter of each word is kept constant, then you can really read it without much of a speed loss

 

[C~G]

actually with me the text flows just like a normal text, just slower - but ive read such texts before so i might have accustomed to them..

Well, I as well but the speed is clearly slower. With normal text you can easily capture parts of it into memory while reading it and then go through it in your head while you are already reading the next sentence. With that kind of jigsaw text my memory doesn't allow interpreting it afterwards. But that is just me.

 

[classical_hero]

I am a native English speaker and I can understand it. Interestingly, the word with an extra letter ("ptus"/"put") was the only one I had trouble with (well, that and caught...).

Actually that is a grammatical error. I either should have this puts off, or this can put off. That grammatical error puts the flow of that sentence right off, which is why you had a problem there. You were reading the sentence as it should have been read, and the error puts you off track, just like it did for me. That brings up another interesting point, that it appears that errors in grammar are much more of a vital part of english than correct spelling.

I can read what I said at about normal speed, but typing it took about 5 times longer than normal though.

 

[Tycoon101]

I nca lrebay ader oury atetmens.

 

[Red Stranger]

on,

net crachaters

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

I nod't nuredtsdna it etiher.

 

[Dann]

Not a native speaker, yes I can read and understand, albeit very slow, and the "puts" thingy put me off too. (pun unintended).

 

[classical_hero]

I nca lrebay ader oury atetmens.

Barely was tough to get at first, since it being at the front, it looked quite a bit like an I. But once I realised it was an l, not and I, the word made perfect sence.

EDIT. I think I should have put a proviso on the speed of how we read it, since not everyone could read it as fast as normal. Oh well, but it does seem that spelling is not that important.

 

[Dionysius]

<purged.>

 

[The Last Conformist]

I could read it, and now I wonder why I bothered.

 

[salty mud]

Yes, but slower than usual.

 

[Urederra]

Non-native english speaker but I can read it. That is not new to me either, seems that the little study some psychologist made (what SS-18 ICBM says) was quite successful.

I nod't nuredtsdna it etiher.

That is not proper according to the study. People can read texts even if the letters of the words are jumbled. The first and last letters of every word have to be placed correctly, though. So nod't and nuredtsdna are more difficult to understand because you jumbled the first and last letters too.

That also works for Spanish, and my guess is that also works with other latin and german based languages. It also works with Basque, (non latin but uses latin alphabet) I wonder if there are some alphabet based languages where that rule does not work. I guess It doesn't work in chinese, japanese or korean, but I don't know about greek (my guess is that it does work), hindi, hebrew or arabic.

 

[Cuivienen]

There were many two-letter words where the letters were reversed, which made them difficult to understand. One of the key aspects of the study is that the first and last letters must stay in place. (There were a few scattered other cases of this in the text.)

 

[Urederra]

There were many two-letter words where the letters were reversed, which made them difficult to understand. One of the key aspects of the study is that the first and last letters must stay in place. (There were a few scattered other cases of this in the text.)

Exactly... you can only jumble letters in words with 4 or more letters.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I could understand it.