> >Wrong. There was a concerted effort by the loony left to destroy
> >decent education in favour of whatever trendy piffle that was the
> >order of the day.
>
> >I had to unlearn the reading I knew before I went to school in favour
> >of some stupid phonetic system (anyone remember ITA?) in 1970, finally
>
> As a child of '72 I too suffered from the phonetic system.

well, it seems none of us from '74 were taught formal english grammar at
school. i picked grammatical terms up from spanish, treat grammar mostly
as instinctive.

the political changes are interesting though. remember that the years
during which we perhaps should have been taught formal grammar coincide
with the first years of the conservative government. though i suppose
before the national curriculum, policy was implemented on a council level;
i was schooled in fairly left-voting areas in, near, london.

political left vs theoretical left, or extreme liberalism. i don't
remember being subjected to this phonetic system, think it was rejected in
favour of something called 'emergent reading' which is as useless if not
backed up by non-school reading experiences. (piaget[0] was influential i
think). so we align two kinds of left as the discarding of old structures
and the development of new ones.

later in this thread someone mentions the lack of english equivalent of
the Academie Francaise. the history and the politics of a language are
reflected in it; england has no constitution, but a convenient
counterbalance. "it is better for the law to be known" says dr johnson's
dictionary, "than to be right." is that quite a perlish statement? is our
code determined by any kind of politics?

someone else mentioned the pr(eo?)scrptive/descriptive grammar thing in
terms of natural and machine languages, and where perl fits in, in being
so context-dependent. i'm very into the idea of writing or generating
grammars and lexers for experimental, artificial languages that would be
free of the wrong kinds of context. don't find lack of formal grammar
schooling a problem, everything can be learned. circularly, perhaps it is
good not to impose too many high-level structures on the minds of
children.

must...switch...off...rant...mode...

zool

[0] http://www.piaget.org
 this is nice, programmatic:

His researches in developmental psychology and genetic epistemology had
one unique goal: how does knowledge grow? His answer
is that the growth of knowledge is a progressive construction of logically
embedded structures superseding one another by a process of inclusion of
lower less powerful logical means into higher and more powerful
ones up to adulthood. Therefore, children's logic and modes of thinking
are initially entirely different from those of adults.

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.zooleika.org.uk
is love a sine wave?



Reply via email to