And I really liked the point made in the article that the *meanings* of words can often be worked out from their spellings, due to the high use of suffixes and prefixes. And the different root languages used. Hence simplified *spelling* might make writing the word *down* easier (although I doubt it) it certainly wouldn't help in understanding what it *meant.* So vocabulary would decrease.
Yes, it strikes me as being like the "Hooked on Phonics" program that touts how much it helps people to read. In my opinion, this is a false claim. From what I understand, it teaches people to be able to say the words they see written, but does nothing for *comprehension,* without which it doesn't qualify as "reading" in my book (puns, me? ::G::).
no subject
no subject
*beats head against wall*
no subject
The "new spelling" looks a lot like gibberish and has now given me a headache trying to figure out what it was trying to say.
I can see it now. In the future, speakeasies will be clubs where people go to play scrabble using traditional spelling. ::g::
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject