<p>Cato: Well, how do you define an error? If I've intentionally written hopeful with a second l (as a private joke/identifier to a friend of mine on this site), can the incorrect spelling be said to be so egregious that I stand no chance of admission? In every tradition of philology and linguistics the mere orthography of a language is the LEAST important aspect because it is historically arbitrary . I mean, we're speaking English, so let's use Indo European languages to back my claim.</p>
<p>Start with the oldest, Sanskrit. It's a root based language characterized by ablaut of a root form, the affixing of a stem formant (eg. Present Indicative looks different from Future), and declension (or declination) based on tense, mood, voice, number, and grammatical gender. All of this was systematized before the introduction of a script which is purely phonetic.</p>
<p>Now let's fast forward several thousand years (and several thousand miles) to American English. We just barely have subject and object case forms (who and whom, lol, anyone seen that Office episode?) as opposed to Sanskrit's 8 (nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genetive, locative, vocative), and we have a smorgasbord of vocabulary effected (the verb form of effect) by a typhoon of immigrants who gave us loan words. Now, have we preserved the orthography of those languages? For one, the script of Kanji/Katakana/Hiragana for typhoon is nowhere near what I've written. Even words cognate to English(that use Latin script to boot!) got their spelling changed! Brahta (Sanskrit) Bruder (German,Latin script) to Brother(English, Latin script)? </p>
<p>I mean, what I've just demonstrated there is called Grimm's law (deals with shifting of stops/fricative i.e. d/k/p/f/b etc and things like/s/sh/retroflex s etc) and doesn't even bother talking about the script that things are transliterated in!</p>
<p>Orthography is meaningless; it's just a convenient construct for languages which are subject to change!</p>
<p>(And also, your screen name provides no space between Cato (the many people named so or the think tank?) and numerals. That is nonstandard English practice for designating by number and could constitute the kind of error you feel denies me and another person you don't know admission to Yale)</p>