Steve Bett wrote:

>
> Barry and Peter,
>
> Peter is probably on target with the late Chris Upward being a
> spelling reform advocate. (see www.spellingsociety.org) keyword
> Upward).

When did he die?

> Other than the fact that Prof. Upward evidently disagreed with Peter
> on some issues, I can't see any grounds for Peter's other remarks.

Which remarks? The comments on the "generalizations"? (Some of which
were statements of fact, some statements of opinion, and some too vague
to interpret.)

> Upward believed that modernizing English spelling would accelerate
> literacy.
>
> There is some evidence to support such a belief. According to
> Laubach (1960), the more phonemic and transparent the writing system,
> the quicker it could be taught to illiterates. The simpler the code
> the quicker it can be mastered. Laubach claimed that he and his
> teachers could teach illiterates to read and write their own language
> in 3 months (2 hours per day) unless they happened to speak French or
> English. These languages took considerably longer.
>
> Of course the ability to read aloud is not the same as understanding
> the words you have pronounced. It just means that you can match up
> your sight vocabulary with your ear vocabulary.
>
> You can teach a shallow orthography in about 3 months. (Most schools
> in Italy and Spain, for instance, take about 7 months). Code literacy
> means that the person can write any word they can pronounce and
> pronounce any word they see written and associate it with their
> speaking vocabulary.

Why is that an advantage?

> When there are multiple dialects to be represented by one writing
> system, the task is more difficult. One would have to choose a
> broadcast dialect to represent. If we achieved a perfect description
> of NBC or BBC English, it would not be perfect with respect to other
> dialects.

That's why English orthography is admirably suited to its place in the
modern world.

> I don't think there are any more dialects of English than there are
> dialects of Spanish. So while this is a major problem it does not
> mean that a more transparent representation of English speech is
> impossible or impractical.

I know of two principal dialects of Spanish: Continental and American,
with noticeable variation within American Spanish.

Contrast that with the multiplicity of dialects within England itself,
within North America, and South Asia, South Africa, Australia, and New
Zealand, all very different.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...