Dear Red Squiggles,
I understand why you correct me when I try to spell the opposite of “output” as “imput”.
I understand but I object.
I know that this word comes from in + put, but you see, English has a grand and noble tradition of changing n to m in front of p, because both m and p are pronounced with the lips, while n is said with the tongue.
Indeed, countless other English words have been persuaded by the sleek economy of producing with a single mouth-gesture the two sounds mp instead of the clumsy double-speak of np.
Think imp and amp and ump, sympathy and empathy, important and impatient and imperial.
Why should input be the only exception to this elegant pattern?
In fact, the n is already losing. I defy anyone to say input five times fast and not end up saying imput instead.
Input imput imput imput imput.
Red Squiggles, I don’t want it to be completely over between us. I still want you under other words in my life. I want to keep you under “aslo” and “becasue” and “recieve” and “theyre” and “i’ts”. And many others.
But not imput.
It’s time for writing to catch up to speech. It’s time for us as a society to embrace the spelling that has hitherto been the practice of merely a bold few. It’s time to stop pretending that imput is a typo, when it is in fact logically superior.
The collective usage of speakers determines the norms of a language. So if enough people start writing imput it will get added to the dictionaries and yes, even spellcheck.
Red Squiggles Under Imput, this is war.