🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <17158@mimsy.UUCP> folta@tove.umd.edu.UUCP (Wayne Folta) writes:
>IMHO, a general rule is: one's knowledge, intelligence, and curiosity are
>*usually* reflected in the breadth and depth of one's reading and the breadth
>and depth of one's reading is usually reflected in one's grammar and
>spelling.

Interesting.  But am I the only one that gets impatient with this sort
of thing?  Sci.lang is a good place to argue out linguistic theories.
So, if this is your theory, please offer us some evidence - an experiment
or an observation of some kind that will provide us with some basis for
agreeing with you.  You don't have to be a "linguist" per se.  We just
need something tangible to work with.

No offense or anything.  My best friend is a cabinet maker who has hardly
picked up a book since he got out of High School.  He's also one of the
most intelligent and thoughtful people I know, and he has a thriving bus-
iness as a fine woodworker in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.  In my experi-
ence, this sort of person is not rare.  If we are to posit some correlation
between ability to spell or concern for things like typos and ability to
perform in a real, working environment, doing things that may or may not
involve spelling and typing things correctly, we must offer something more
than personal feelings.  Or else we gotta move to talk.lang....

                                       -Richard L. Goerwitz
                                       goer@sophist.uchicago.edu
                                       rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer