Very frequently, someone who is bad at spelling will confuse two homonyms. On occasion, such a person will declare that their convention is correct in the face of all opposition. The comments you—who are amused by word substitutions—have written could equally have been written by an arrogant ignoramus.
If you want to make a joke by substituting “quail” for “quale”, you need to set it up more explicitly.
(Regarding the substitution of “wang” for “wand”: “wang” is not an expected typographical or orthographical error for “wand”—as the letters “d” and “g” are separated and the sounds “nd” and “ng” are likewise distinguished—so the substitution is unlikely to be accidental. That doesn’t hold here.)
Very frequently, someone who is bad at spelling will confuse two homonyms. On occasion, such a person will declare that their convention is correct in the face of all opposition. The comments you—who are amused by word substitutions—have written could equally have been written by an arrogant ignoramus.
If you want to make a joke by substituting “quail” for “quale”, you need to set it up more explicitly.
(Regarding the substitution of “wang” for “wand”: “wang” is not an expected typographical or orthographical error for “wand”—as the letters “d” and “g” are separated and the sounds “nd” and “ng” are likewise distinguished—so the substitution is unlikely to be accidental. That doesn’t hold here.)
The joke was further obscured because “quale” and “quail” aren’t homonyms. “Quale” rhymes with “Wally”, not “trail”.
...did not know that, actually. Thanks!