Re: Language revival (was Re: Which auxlangs? (was Re: I won't [to] start a flame war))
| From: | Boudewijn Rempt <bsarempt@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, November 23, 1999, 6:52 |
|---|
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, David G. Durand wrote:
>
> But these are characteristic of _all_ language reforms. There are some
> lovely hypercorrections in Sanskrit, as well as misanalyses of various
> roots, and false archaisms. What's wrong with this?
Hear, hear!
<...>
> On the other hand, literacy rates are much higher, I believe, and that is
> obviously a good thing.
>
According to my Chinese language professor (now emeritus), the
script has little to do with level of literacy. Literacy in Japan
is quite high, despite them having four separate scripts, and there
is no appreciable difference in the length of time needed to learn
Simplified Chinese compared to Traditional Chinese. I don't think the
rise in Turkish literacy rates was brought about by the script reform,
but rather by the spread of education.
Boudewijn Rempt | http://denden.conlang.org