Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!levy From: levy@fisher.UUCP (Silvio Levy) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Spelling reform does *not* discourage reading literature Message-ID: <388@fisher.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 20:45:50 EST Article-I.D.: fisher.388 Posted: Thu Nov 8 20:45:50 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 07:58:49 EST References: <1310@ihuxq.UUCP> <2718@ncsu.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics Lines: 22 The idea that phonetic spelling would make Shakespeare (or this century's literature) hard or impossible to read is ridiculous. We do not read Shakespeare today as it was written four hundred years ago; we read him in today's spelling. Similarly, if we were to have phonetic spelling, we would read Shakespeare, Thackeray, Thoreau or Maya Angelou in the new spelling. It would actually make reading easier. (Admittedly some of Ogden Nash's punch lines would lose their punch...) In Brazil and Portugal we had a spelling reform in the thirties that abolished many etymological bugaboos, especially double letters (which are not pronounced double in Portuguese). As a consequence Portuguese is a fairly phonetic language; from the spelling it is (essentially) possible to predict the pronunciation, at least in each region of Brazil or Portugal, since the pronunciation certainly varies with the region. This reform came about by common legislation to the two countries. It was certainly not too painful, except to some diehard reactionaries. Now it would be unthinkable to revert to the previous, presumable more learned, spelling. The reading of the classics was in no way harmed; people still read everything from Camoes to Machado de Assis, in the new spelling, of course. Silvio Levy