Linguaphile wrote:Woods wrote:linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:linguoboy wrote:I think this is a very ableist argument given that anywhere from 3% to 7% of the world's population suffers from some form of dyslexia
If hypothetically the features I propose would be beneficial to 93 to 97% of the population, would it make sense not to include them because they could aggravate "some form of" dyslexia already present in the remaining 3-7%?
I think so. The harm to dyslexics is considerable. So I think the benefit to the general populace needs to clearly outweigh that harm. So far, you haven't demonstrated any kind of benefit at all. (You've hypothesised that there might be a benefit, but you haven't shown that there is.)
Maybe we need to ask a speaker of 10+ languages how they feel about it.
That's what you've done here, actually. Most of us have studied a lot of languages.
I meant C1+ mastery. Studying really doesn't count. It is just no proof of anything, besides your interest. If you could use them effectively in all kinds of contexts without mixing them up, that would be another story. And for this, using a common convention like the digraphs in closely related languages would undoubtedly help!
Linguaphile wrote:The different spellings are part of what makes each language unique and interesting
I completely disagree.
Linguaphile wrote:Why lose that, when it's not that hard to learn it the way it is?
Because it is hard. In the case of Spanish, as I mentioned it feels like a complete waste of time to learn to rewrite what is essentially another version of the same in a different way. It would probably feel the same for a Spanish-speaking person learning French. If your purpose is to spend 10 years learning French and then another 5 years learning Spanish, then it is easy. If your purpose is to be able to communicate with as many people in the world in their native language without reinventing the wheel every 200 kilometres, then it isn't.
Oh, so cool - so you have a table for each word with its 250 versions in the 250 languages you learn and think that's more cool than agreeing that as long as it's a Greek word which reached those languages through Latin it can be written the same way in all the languages that use the Latin script so you can focus on learning something else - the native words of this language for example?
linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:Maybe we need to ask a speaker of 10+ languages how they feel about it.
Why? They're such an infinitesimally tiny sliver of the user community that their opinion really isn't worth considering.
For the same reason I mentioned above - if you want to learn something, learn from those who can do it. I'd model the dyslexics' learning process after the polyglot's and not vice-versa.
linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:But there should be some kind of way for speakers of e.g. French and Spanish to communicate with each other without using English, don't you think?
It doesn't matter what I think; what do speakers of French and Spanish think? If using English works well for them, then this is a solution in need of a problem.
It's a workaround.
linguoboy wrote:Woods wrote:I don't know how you can call a success something which only purpose is to artificially separate this language from Danish, by introducing changes which otherwise make no sense at all. I'd call it a disaster.
My standard for "success" is a reform which was actually generally adopted.
Yeah, I got it. Just the word "success" seemed completely unfit there, so I made a comment about it. Kind of saying that World War II was a success for the Soviets because they defeated the Germans. I wouldn't say so.