close enough to write

Careful readers will recall that while in the process of writing the August newsletter I learned that bandanna was spelled with double n's. But of course, this isn't really true, since it's spelled bandana.

Right?

I decided to see if Google could help me, but all I got was 180 million answers, the number of results returned for bandana; the bandanna search variant returns a measly 183 million links, so I suppose it remains the 'correct' spelling by a narrow margin. Of course, like any good American I know that a simple majority tally means nothing. So, I spent the better part of the last five minutes doing some research to see if I could find the equivalent of an electoral college for this Spelling Decision 2020. My research suggests the official spelling is indeed bandanna, so if you are preparing for any spelling bees (spelling b's?) I advise a double-n on that second 'n'. But I also found plenty of voices insisting that bandana is becoming more common (and not just because people are forgetting how to spell); you can safely type in bandana when browsing websites like Amazon, which returns over 100 thousand results regardless of the spelling.

I am in favor of such trends. Language is merely a representation of how we communicate with each other; as our communication changes, so must its representation. I still remember the day I learned "before" was equally comprehensible when written as "b4". This spelling had nothing to do with merely combining a letter and a number, both of which had always existed; the catalyst was how the internet chat medium prized speed and brevity above all other concerns. The trend continued unchecked as texting became commonplace; emojis smirk in the faces of those who criticize logographic languages. The rapid acceptance of smiley faces and their endless variants as suitable forms of communication suggests a golden rule for writing - the right way is whatever gets the message across.

It's telling that Amazon and Google, two of the world's most valuable companies, have no problem accepting bandana; in a sense, their businesses rely on customers getting the message across. They know that most ideas can be communicated in multiple ways and they know that most ideas are valuable; if bandana works for them, it should work for me. People are not making typing errors when they type bandana; a word taking a new spelling is an olde story. But unlike in the past - when each person who questioned bandanna's gluttonous hoarding of n's was marked down on the report card and told to get back in line - we are now equipped with the internet, which counts among its many capabilities the power to unite spelling rebels in its endless war against inefficiency. It's possible that in a couple hundred years languages everywhere will have become transformed by an unprecedented number of new spellings, driven largely by the internet and its power to collect and share new ideas.

Broadly speaking, I recommend that everyone learn the grammar rules and try to use correct spellings. But I wouldn't go farther than further than beyond that, particularly with spelling. It's not just that I have personal views on the matter, which I may cover later this summer - it's that I suspect we are at the start of a major transformation in the way confusing words are spelled (and these would be the only ones worth memorizing). The idea of learning the 'correct' spelling for so many words seems to me like a waste of time when the internet is dramatically tilting the playing field to favor speed over precision; in this new world, the correct spelling includes any variant that can be attributed to one intention. They say close only counts in horse races and hand grenades, or something like that; I'll have to Google it, because I know it counts there, too.