amh (08/03/82)
New York Times had an editorial today on spelling reform mentioning an organization pushing for spelling reform. They are starting from a corporate level as opposed to approaching literary types as has been the traditional approach. The Times argues however, and I agree which is why I am posting this, that attempts at spelling reform are doomed to fail due to some nature of language. They also argue however that language is ever evolving, and that it is a force like that of Adam Smith's invisible hand guiding the market place that guides our language reform. Any responces? Aldon Hynes BTL Pisc. ...!pyuxjj!pyuxcc!amh
samm (08/09/82)
I hope that 'responces' was an intentional error (otherwise comments about glass houses would be in order). In any case, I'd like to air the following ideas: 1. Only the most finicky would get very excited about an occasional mistype or even spelling error: none of us (even 'furriners' like me) can claim to be perfect. (For instance, that should have read "not even 'furriners' ...", but I don't want to go edit this. 2. Some sort of Gresham's Law (I hope I have the lawmaker right) operates in language - bad usage is easier, and so tends to spread. 3. Most Americans write atrociously, and the problem can only be corrected by better education from 1st grade on up. Most adults, e.g., readers of netnews, would rather argue at length why it isn't necessary to write well than spend a few seconds with a reference book (dictionary or style manual). NOTE THAT I SAID MOST, NOT ALL, SO DON'T SEND ME PROOF OF YOUR LITERACY. Responses, if interesting, will be read. Chanchal Samanta BTL-NP ...harpo!houxb!samm