Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
#211
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: A is for apple, B is.. WAS: Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
loan-word variations as they go along."
Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
Earle Horton wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>
> Earle
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>
>>phonics
>>
>>
>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>learned via osmosis.
>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>
#212
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: A is for apple, B is.. WAS: Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
loan-word variations as they go along."
Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
Earle Horton wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>
> Earle
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>
>>phonics
>>
>>
>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>learned via osmosis.
>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>
#213
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: A is for apple, B is.. WAS: Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
loan-word variations as they go along."
Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
Earle Horton wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>
> Earle
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>
>>phonics
>>
>>
>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>learned via osmosis.
>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>
#214
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: A is for apple, B is.. WAS: Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
For really good readers, the book and its printed words simply
disappear. For them, reading is just like watching a movie;
characters appear, they talk and they act.
Bad movies are just as easy to watch as good movies, but not nearly as
much fun. Bad writers interfere with the reading process, making it
difficult to read. Good writers make the reading process disappear,
but great writers not only make the make the reading process
disappear, they make the story interesting and fun.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:21:33 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
wrote:
>
>It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
>
>Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
>learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
>individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
>speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
>instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
>complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
>loan-word variations as they go along."
>
>Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
>resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
>automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
>vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
>On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
>information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
>characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
>
>The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
>have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
>get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
>
>
>Earle Horton wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
>> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
>> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
>> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
>> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
>> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>>
>>>phonics
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>>learned via osmosis.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>
>>
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
disappear. For them, reading is just like watching a movie;
characters appear, they talk and they act.
Bad movies are just as easy to watch as good movies, but not nearly as
much fun. Bad writers interfere with the reading process, making it
difficult to read. Good writers make the reading process disappear,
but great writers not only make the make the reading process
disappear, they make the story interesting and fun.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:21:33 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
wrote:
>
>It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
>
>Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
>learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
>individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
>speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
>instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
>complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
>loan-word variations as they go along."
>
>Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
>resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
>automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
>vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
>On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
>information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
>characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
>
>The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
>have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
>get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
>
>
>Earle Horton wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
>> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
>> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
>> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
>> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
>> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>>
>>>phonics
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>>learned via osmosis.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>
>>
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
#215
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: A is for apple, B is.. WAS: Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
For really good readers, the book and its printed words simply
disappear. For them, reading is just like watching a movie;
characters appear, they talk and they act.
Bad movies are just as easy to watch as good movies, but not nearly as
much fun. Bad writers interfere with the reading process, making it
difficult to read. Good writers make the reading process disappear,
but great writers not only make the make the reading process
disappear, they make the story interesting and fun.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:21:33 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
wrote:
>
>It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
>
>Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
>learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
>individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
>speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
>instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
>complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
>loan-word variations as they go along."
>
>Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
>resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
>automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
>vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
>On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
>information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
>characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
>
>The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
>have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
>get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
>
>
>Earle Horton wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
>> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
>> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
>> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
>> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
>> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>>
>>>phonics
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>>learned via osmosis.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>
>>
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
disappear. For them, reading is just like watching a movie;
characters appear, they talk and they act.
Bad movies are just as easy to watch as good movies, but not nearly as
much fun. Bad writers interfere with the reading process, making it
difficult to read. Good writers make the reading process disappear,
but great writers not only make the make the reading process
disappear, they make the story interesting and fun.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:21:33 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
wrote:
>
>It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
>
>Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
>learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
>individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
>speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
>instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
>complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
>loan-word variations as they go along."
>
>Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
>resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
>automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
>vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
>On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
>information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
>characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
>
>The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
>have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
>get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
>
>
>Earle Horton wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
>> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
>> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
>> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
>> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
>> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>>
>>>phonics
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>>learned via osmosis.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>
>>
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
#216
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: A is for apple, B is.. WAS: Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
For really good readers, the book and its printed words simply
disappear. For them, reading is just like watching a movie;
characters appear, they talk and they act.
Bad movies are just as easy to watch as good movies, but not nearly as
much fun. Bad writers interfere with the reading process, making it
difficult to read. Good writers make the reading process disappear,
but great writers not only make the make the reading process
disappear, they make the story interesting and fun.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:21:33 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
wrote:
>
>It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
>
>Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
>learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
>individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
>speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
>instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
>complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
>loan-word variations as they go along."
>
>Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
>resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
>automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
>vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
>On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
>information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
>characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
>
>The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
>have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
>get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
>
>
>Earle Horton wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
>> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
>> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
>> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
>> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
>> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>>
>>>phonics
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>>learned via osmosis.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>
>>
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
disappear. For them, reading is just like watching a movie;
characters appear, they talk and they act.
Bad movies are just as easy to watch as good movies, but not nearly as
much fun. Bad writers interfere with the reading process, making it
difficult to read. Good writers make the reading process disappear,
but great writers not only make the make the reading process
disappear, they make the story interesting and fun.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:21:33 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
wrote:
>
>It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
>
>Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
>learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
>individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
>speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
>instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
>complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
>loan-word variations as they go along."
>
>Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
>resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
>automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
>vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
>On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
>information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
>characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
>
>The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
>have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
>get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
>
>
>Earle Horton wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
>> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
>> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
>> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
>> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
>> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>>
>>>phonics
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>>learned via osmosis.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>
>>
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
#217
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: A is for apple, B is.. WAS: Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
For really good readers, the book and its printed words simply
disappear. For them, reading is just like watching a movie;
characters appear, they talk and they act.
Bad movies are just as easy to watch as good movies, but not nearly as
much fun. Bad writers interfere with the reading process, making it
difficult to read. Good writers make the reading process disappear,
but great writers not only make the make the reading process
disappear, they make the story interesting and fun.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:21:33 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
wrote:
>
>It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
>
>Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
>learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
>individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
>speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
>instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
>complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
>loan-word variations as they go along."
>
>Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
>resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
>automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
>vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
>On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
>information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
>characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
>
>The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
>have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
>get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
>
>
>Earle Horton wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
>> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
>> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
>> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
>> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
>> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>>
>>>phonics
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>>learned via osmosis.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>
>>
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
disappear. For them, reading is just like watching a movie;
characters appear, they talk and they act.
Bad movies are just as easy to watch as good movies, but not nearly as
much fun. Bad writers interfere with the reading process, making it
difficult to read. Good writers make the reading process disappear,
but great writers not only make the make the reading process
disappear, they make the story interesting and fun.
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:21:33 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
wrote:
>
>It wasn't that many centuries ago that written English was phonetic.
>
>Back in the 1960s some then-new research showed that proficient readers
>learn on their own to scan the outline shape of words instead of
>individual characters. "Ah ha!" was heard from the ivory tower, "we'll
>speed things up by teaching kids to `sight read' the shapes of words
>instead of making them learn to read characters, then syllables, then
>complete words. They'll just pick up the phonics and the foreign
>loan-word variations as they go along."
>
>Hey, guess what. We didn't. Short-cutting the learning process
>resulted in kids who can read silently and quickly, but who don't
>automatically sound out words. I've got a fairly large written
>vocabulary but I can't correctly pronounce a distressing portion of it.
>On the other hand, even with my nearsightedness I can read highway
>information signs long before my traveling companions can make out the
>characters, so maybe it is useful for something after all.
>
>The bottom line is that you have to walk before you can run, and you
>have to learn the rules of a language before you can understand how they
>get broken. Shortcutting the process just cheats the kids.
>
>
>Earle Horton wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
>> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
>> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
>> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
>> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
>> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>> news:440FAE37.5D891012@***.net...
>>
>>>phonics
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was taught not to use phoenix, the teacher read to us and we
>>>>learned via osmosis.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>
>>
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com
#218
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
Hi Earle,
I would guess it's like memorizing all the symbols of the Japanese
written language. Which my dyslexic reversal of letters would never
compensate for.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>
> Earle
I would guess it's like memorizing all the symbols of the Japanese
written language. Which my dyslexic reversal of letters would never
compensate for.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>
> Earle
#219
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
Hi Earle,
I would guess it's like memorizing all the symbols of the Japanese
written language. Which my dyslexic reversal of letters would never
compensate for.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>
> Earle
I would guess it's like memorizing all the symbols of the Japanese
written language. Which my dyslexic reversal of letters would never
compensate for.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>
> Earle
#220
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic Dana Corp files for bankruptcy
Hi Earle,
I would guess it's like memorizing all the symbols of the Japanese
written language. Which my dyslexic reversal of letters would never
compensate for.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>
> Earle
I would guess it's like memorizing all the symbols of the Japanese
written language. Which my dyslexic reversal of letters would never
compensate for.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Earle Horton wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Some of the more recent studies indicate that phonics in English may be a
> waste of time, as English is not written phonetically. Incredibly, people
> who read and write well just know all of the words of the language as unique
> symbols, at a subconscious level. There is simply no time to put the
> phonetic information together during normal processing of written language.
> Your osmosis theory has some merit.
>
> Earle