Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
http://www.nooalf.com/LoJIK3.htm introdusez an advanst form uv Nooalf.

Herez a sampl story http://www.nooalf.com/4MUNKEZoLT.html

I can read it OK, but Ive red entire books upside down and chapterz in the mirror right side up & upside down, plus am fluent in Nooalf. My first real test case, a doctor, wuz able to read it fairly eazily - not much slower in the mirror imaje sentensez, so I know it can be dun.

Give it a try. Tell me wut you think.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's a stupid idea. Line length ESPECIALLY online is variable because it's dependent on font size, page format, and screen size. That means that when people read they'll be randomly facing alternating text direction within a line.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Your objectionz are entirely dependent on software being adapted to the current single direction convention.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DEVERSE:

Alternatives, such as the Shavian, . . . make much more sense than simply bastardizing an existing system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Some alternatives are funny. In the Shavian system there is letter called Haha. Ha-ha to you. Everybody's a comedian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet#Haha-Hung_reversal

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
You make light of the difficulties in changing.

---

Quote:

---

Retraining to drive on right side would not stick with some people and there would be a temporary surge in wrong way collisions. How big a surge is too much? www.worldstandards.eu/cars/list-of-left-driving-countries/

I know how to make the changeover gradually: North-South roads continue to drive on the left and East-West roads switch to right. That will get people slowly accustomed to the change before it becomes universal. Nothing could go wrong with this innovation!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
There are times I would like to respond to your posts but trying to understand them for me requires to much effort. I feel bad about that because I wish to support the browncoats who post here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Because a line-break character is SO much more complicated than randomly reversing - then de-reversing - character strings?

---

Quote:

---

And btw - this whole notion you have has gone from being an idea to a religion - and NO objection, no matter how well founded, will cause you to objectively reevaluate it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think you're confused about what you're trying to do, JO. At first, you were all about phonetic English because it made reading EASIER, it would allow people think more clearly.

Now, you just seem to want to make reading HARDER. What is the purpose? To make people smarter in general? To promote brain flexibility?

---

Quote:

---

Making people jump thru mental hoops doesn't make people generally smarter, all it does it make them meet that SPECIFIC challenge more efficiently, by requiring them to build up better (specific) heuristics.

---

Quote:

---

It's like learning chess doesn't make you smarter in anything but chess.

---

Quote:

---

It's the process of SUCCESSFUL LEARNING that makes people smarter: if they can learn how to learn, and they enjoy learning, they will continue to learn throughout life.

---

Quote:

---

Introducing needless stress and pointless barriers to reading (learning) look to be counterproductive, IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DEVERSE:
The funnier part is too many of the university students I see write almost as if they were students of nooalf.

---

Quote:

---

Which reminds me, why is it nooalf and not nualf or neualf or even nualgh(gh as the "gh" sound in enough)? Very disappointing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DEVERSE:

Quote:

---

Which reminds me, why is it nooalf and not nualf or neualf or even nualgh(gh as the "gh" sound in enough)? Very disappointing.

---

Its actually spelt NQaLF. If you hav a Nooalf font, you can see that the Q looks like 'OO'. So, 'Nooalf' iz really a traditionalized spelling that looks close and will usually be pronounced correctly by most peeps.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

---

That answer didn't make any sense what so ever.
I spoke with the professor at the linguistics college at the university where I teach and she looked at your webpage.
She asked me to thank you for the longest and best laugh she has had in a very long time.


Oh let the sun beat down upon my face;
With stars to fill my dream;
I am a traveler of both time and space;
To be where I have been

Quote:

---

I think you're confused about what you're trying to do, JO. At first, you were all about phonetic English because it made reading EASIER, it would allow people think more clearly. Now, you just seem to want to make reading HARDER. What is the purpose? To make people smarter in general? To promote brain flexibility?-SIGNY

Its not harder after you get used to it. Its eazier. Az explained on the 3rd LoJIK paje, not having to zip back to the left savez a bunch uv time, especially if the text iz small and the paje iz wide. -JO

---

Quote:

---

Making people jump thru mental hoops doesn't make people generally smarter, all it does it make them meet that SPECIFIC challenge more efficiently, by requiring them to build up better (specific) heuristics.-SIGNY

Reading in alternating directionz iz a basic mental skill, analojus to hopping on 1 foot, then the other. Certainly better than training kidz to only hop on their rite foot. Sumwun who learnz this from the beginning will hav no discomfort with it, just az you hav no discomfort with reading regular english. -JO

---

Quote:

---

It's like learning chess doesn't make you smarter in anything but chess.-SIGNY

Anybody who iz haf way competent in chess will disagree vehemently.- JO

---

Quote:

---

It's the process of SUCCESSFUL LEARNING that makes people smarter: if they can learn how to learn, and they enjoy learning, they will continue to learn throughout life.-SIGNY

Then you shoud be fluent in oltalf befor the summer iz over! KoNGRaTS!

---

Quote:

---

Introducing needless stress and pointless barriers to reading (learning) look to be counterproductive, IMHO.-SIGNY

Traditional English iz doing exactly that. Why do you think we hav such terrible literacy rates?-JO

---

Quote:

---

All this to "save time"? What is the importance of saving a few microseconds?

---

Quote:

---

Sorry to say, but there are many studies that disagree with that feeling, and not just about chess.

---

Quote:

---

It's the process of SUCCESSFUL LEARNING that makes people smarter: if they can learn how to learn, and they enjoy learning, they will continue to learn throughout life.

---

Quote:

---

You ignored the rest of my post, about learning a VARIETY of things. Also, about exercise, sleep, and lack of stress being a predictable extender brain-power. If I'm going to learn anything, it's not going to be noo-alf.

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I think it should be introduced gradually, like we see "Kwik Kleen" and "donuts" and "redi mart" all over the place.

---

Quote:

---

I agree. I have no problems with the idea of phonetic English myself.

---

Quote:

---

One of the things I noticed is that ALL English-speaking nations fare more poorly at math than non-English speaking nations, and that may not necessarily be because of the confusion and inconsistency introduced by English spelling, but because the schools are spending SO MUCH TIME...

---

Quote:

---

Like I said, I think it could be introduced over 20 years or so, getting rid of some of the more ridiculous constructs first would be a great idea!

---

Quote:

---

...have to define for the reader WHICH side they should begin on, and probably have a "reset" every paragraph or so,

---

Quote:

---

Also, as my hubby pointed out, if the point is to save time, why don't you just start scanning at the BOTTOM of a page from the previous page if that ended at the bottom? In other words, instead of going top to bottom, also go bottom to top?

---

Quote:

---

All this to "save time"? What is the importance of saving a few microseconds?-SIGNY

Its millisecondz. I dont know how many on averaj, but it can be alot if the text iz small and closely spaced. Then if it wun uv thoze big thick books with tiny type on thin paper, you get lost all the time. And your attitude iz all rong. Everything we make, everything in nature gets revolutionized and refined. The unrefined stuff loozez the rase and goez extinct.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry to say, but there are many studies that disagree with that feeling, and not just about chess.-SIGNY

Got anything to back that up? I googled 'chess increases intelligence'. All the paje 1 rezults are basicly saying yes. https://www.google.com/search?q=chess+increases+intelligence&rlz=1
CAACAC_enUS555US556&oq=chess+increases+intelligence&aqs=chrome..69i57.18066j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

---

Quote:

---

A: It used to be thought that chess masters had extraordinary memories, but this was shown to be untrue. Shown a board position for a very brief period of time, a chess master can reconstruct it from memory with much greater accuracy than a novice. However, if pieces are randomly arranged on the board, then experts are just as bad as novices. This was taken to indicate that the difference between experts and novices is that experts are able to rapidly extract features and detect patterns or structure in arrangements of chess positions, forming simpler representational units that can be encoded faster and with greater accuracy. These are typical characteristics of perceptual learning and exist in many domains of expertise, e.g. bird watchers, radiologists, etc.

See Chase and Simon's chapter in Visual information processing (1973) and Thought and choice in chess by de Groot (1946/1978). The latter work showed that there was no difference between masters and controls in general cognitive abilities, only this memory difference for board positions. Another useful resource could be The psychology of chess skill by Holding (1985).

Q:Thank you for the answer and for providing source. But since chess is also about pattern recognition, would it be right to assume that proficient chess players are in general better at perceiving patterns (whether it be in terms of complexity or speed)?

A: No, they are just better at perceiving chess-related patterns. Practicing any perceptual task (like albasri mentioned:birdwatching and radiology) will improve your proficiency at those tasks, and even make them automatic (ie expert birdwatcher quickly categorizes bird based on gender, species etc). The abilities of an experienced chess player may extend to something similar like checkers, but they would be no better at perceiving patterns in general than a control-matched person who doesn't play chess.

---

Quote:

---

It's the process of SUCCESSFUL LEARNING that makes people smarter: if they can learn how to learn, and they enjoy learning, they will continue to learn throughout life.-SIGNY

Learning wut? Do you believ memorizing factoidz iz the essense uv thinking?

---

Quote:

---

You ignored the rest of my post, about learning a VARIETY of things. Also, about exercise, sleep, and lack of stress being a predictable extender brain-power. If I'm going to learn anything, it's not going to be noo-alf.-SIGNY

I didnt ignore it. I didnt hav anything to say about it. Why wont you lern Nooalf? Duz it friten you? Chanje iz scary. Peeps perseev it az their world falling apart. Everything they bilt being displased by better new stuff.-JO

---

Quote:

---

Personally, I think it should be introduced gradually, like we see "Kwik Kleen" and "donuts" and "redi mart" all over the place.-SIGNY

Lots uv namez are popping up that are proper Nooalf or close.

I agree. I have no problems with the idea of phonetic English myself.-SIGNY

But you just sed you wont lern Nooalf!-JO

---

Quote:

---

One of the things I noticed is that ALL English-speaking nations fare more poorly at math than non-English speaking nations, and that may not necessarily be because of the confusion and inconsistency introduced by English spelling, but because the schools are spending SO MUCH TIME...-SIGNY

Its the time and the fundamental consept in my opinion. The notion that tradition and authority are more important than lojik and efficiency gets pounded into kidz hedz from the 1st day uv preskool till their last day in collej.-JO

---

Quote:

---

Like I said, I think it could be introduced over 20 years or so, getting rid of some of the more ridiculous constructs first would be a great idea!-SIGNY

Bad idea. Everybody woud be in a continuous state up update. Looks like you didnt make it to paje 2 uv the plain text. You did read paje 1, rite?
http://www.nooalf.com/plaintext.htm Therez also a big section in the old pajez called The Feared and Reviled Schlok Tank Analojy. It wuz created for spelling reformerz to explain why the gradual introduction consept cant work.

---

Quote:

---

...have to define for the reader WHICH side they should begin on, and probably have a "reset" every paragraph or so,-SIGNY

Its good stratejy to know exactly wut you are arguing agenst. If you knew how to play chess that woud go without saying. oltalf flips the letterz. It duznt just re-order the letterz in the wordz and wordz in linez.

---

Quote:

---

Also, as my hubby pointed out, if the point is to save time, why don't you just start scanning at the BOTTOM of a page from the previous page if that ended at the bottom? In other words, instead of going top to bottom, also go bottom to top?-SIGNY

First, kuz you are turning a paje (or clicking to the next)

---

Quote:

---

so need to repozition you gaze anyway. Not having a standard starting point woud be slower. 2nd, you arent alwayz reading from the beginning uv sumthing. You woud often be haf way thru the 2nd line down before figuring out that the paje began at the bottom.

---

Quote:

---

1. Fixing the root problem is always better than patching up side effects. As you can see, adding 8 letters to the alphabet was not impossible. It seems like a radical proposition, a nonstarter, but it turns out to be no big deal at all. Way better than a bunch of digraphs, rules and exceptions.

---

Quote:

---

2. Asking literate adults to convert is a waste of time. Very few will agree to, so comprimising the system to accomodate them is pointless.

---

Quote:

---

3. English spelling is not a system, it is a collection. Trying to simply regularize the existing mess becomes a guessing game for each word, trying to keep it 'familiar looking'. Thus, one of the main problems, learning to read and write, will remain an onerous chore of memorizing each word.

---

Quote:

---

4. A valid complaint by the already literate is that they will have to relearn spelling for their entire vocabulary in order to be good spellers. A major undertaking since its 1 word at a time rote memorization - thousands of times more work than learning Nooalf.

---

Quote:

---

5. Expenses resulting from a conversion to any new system are not reduced by it being closer to the old system. Street signs, place names, documents, devices, etc. that need to be replaced only because there is a new system will cost even more if that system is less efficient than it could be. Also, cost as an objection to any reform fails because things often need to be replaced anyway due to wear, damage, or technological obsolescence, so it is a questionable complaint anyway.

---

Quote:

---

6. The typical literate adult has read each of the common words of the lexicon countless thousands of times. Any change at all just looks wrong. The failure of the Chicago Tribune campaign proved that even the mildest set of simplifications will be rejected, so apeasememt does not work.

---

Quote:

---

7. The current population of literate English speakers, including ESL foriegners is somewhere under 2 billion. Even if you count them all as staunch objectors to change, they are still only a tiny fraction of the number of users that will accumulate through future generations. What seems like a majority now becomes a minority in a few generations and quickly shrinks to insignificance. Every little comprimise that panders to the current generation is pure waste to all future generations, potentially trillions of individuals.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Fixing the root problem is the only way to really solve a problem, but this statement says nothing about the rate at which the problem will be solved.

---

Quote:

---

If the nooalf system is SO easy and SO automatic, then literate adults will have no problem adjusting to the the new spelling. Like I said, we're already adjusted to Kwik Kleen, to why stop there?

---

Quote:

---

3. I truly don't understand the point of this point, which seems to undercut nooalf entirely.

---

Quote:

---

First of all, most people DON'T learn English by rote memorization ("sight reading");

---

Quote:

---

I don't even understand what "familiar looking" is supposed to mean.

---

Quote:

---

Learning the Cyrillic alphabet, where letters are just close enough to letters that you already know ... but aren't the same thing.

---

Quote:

---

Putting gender on every single word that modifies a gendered noun - which is everything, in French.

---

Quote:

---

6...The failure of the Chicago Tribune campaign...What is this? Link or cite please.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Why should I care about having credibility with you?

---

Quote:

---

Shouldn't you care more about having credibility with the world at large?

---

Quote:

---

And I did read enough to know this:

There's no even-handed examination of the pros and cons,

---

Quote:

---

And I'll leave you with one major exception to your assumptions, and that's the Chinese, speaking their tonal languages and writing in completely non-phonetic picture characters - who seem to have a far better handle on literacy and education than we do. According to you, that should never happen.

---

Quote:

---

For now, I'd be happy with fohnetik Inglish!

---