Talk:Alphabetic principle

message: I added some information to this section, but when I look at it, it is clear that it is too heavily weighted toward pedagogy.  I'm working on the Reading education and Reading skills acquisition articles also and will work to move some of this information into those articles.  
I'm having difficulty identifying where the line should be drawn in this section.  Suggestions and edits welcome.  
Best, Rosmoran 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Place of the alphabetic principle in beginning reading

message: Hi,
I think that this phrase should be reverted.  The text as revised implies that all written languages are phonological, which is most definitely not the case as they are not all alphabetic. 
I'm open to discussing this, however, so am not yet making the change.  I will soon if there is no response to my post. 
Best, Rosmoran (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in lead section "all written languages" 

message: Italian is my first language, by the way.
The text used to say that Italian is "a well-known example of a language with a spelling that is frequently updated to keep following the alphabetic principle" -- unsourced, by the way. Well, it's not the case. Italian spelling reforms are actually rare, and the language academia is commonly perceived to be quite conservative with respect to the changes in a living language. The "Accademia della Crusca" has a semi-official role in these matters, decreeing about the correct uses of the language -- France also has a similar institution for the French language, with a similarly conservative stance.
This may sound surprising to English native speakers as English is a much more fluid language, at least in its present form, but the truth is that languages like Italian or French evolve much more slowly: grammar, spelling and pronunciation are perceived as proscriptive rather than descriptive, and variations are just considered "incorrect". And since the sanctioned pronunciation does not change, spelling is also very "static".
I've changed the link so that it just says that Italian closely follows the alphabetic principle, which of course is correct.
--positron (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Italian in See Also 

message: The classification of languages should be improved using good sources. There is a very clear "ranking" of all languages from the "simplest" one to the most complex one, but the article currently follows no rule to mention them; for instance, it currently lists «Finnish, Estonian, Italian, Spanish, Armenian and Georgian» but not Romanian which is among the most "simplest" languages with regard to spelling. Nemo 09:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language classification 

message: Plus every single letter corresponds to a sound and to a certain extent, much like English, I think that Greek adheres to the Alphabetic principle.
Perhaps it deserves some kind of mention for at least partially adhering to the Alphabetic Principle. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Greek (with clear diphtong pronunciation) is at least in part phonetic 

message: All European languages, except English and French have Phonetic Ortography, not just the ones you mention in the article. The phonetic alphabets in these languages are used for its ancient purpose - to enable writing the words by the phonetic rule one latter - one sound. That's what the alphabet is created for, not for making a circus of the words. Regards;50.98.147.64 (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the Irish language is certainly written purely phonetically! AnonMoos (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: </irony> --Thnidu (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Endeavor not to conflate/confuse phonetic and phonemic. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  All European languages except English and French 

message: Wugapodes (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: One reference on this page consisted of the single name "Chall", which was totally useless. This was on the second sentence in the second paragraph of section  Role in beginning reading,
: Proponents of phonics argue ... upon which comprehension depends.
 found that the ref
: was introduced in this edit on 1 July 2010 by an IP editor who has never made any other edits.  There is nothing in the context at the time to help with filling out the details. 
(See , where the discussion took place.)
 found the book, by educator and literacy researcher  Jeanne Chall, that was probably meant. I have added a proper citation for that book, though of course without page number; but we can only suppose that that's the source that was meant.
--Thnidu (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chall 

message: "Two contrasting philosophies exist with regard to emergent readers learning to associate letters to speech sounds in English." Fair enough, given the extreme phonological-graphemic incoherence of bough, rough, through, though, cough... and numerous other series, if only pairs -- pairs/pears, peace/piece, red/read, right/rite, fined/find... machine/decline, climb/limb, look/kook, some/home... etc. etc.). What about reading/spelling in near-phonemic scripts such as Italian and Finnish? Basic level question: Does the concept of the spelling bee even make sense for those languages? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Role in beginning reading" section needs to go beyond English 

message: User:Rosmoran left the following as hidden text in the article in a 2007 edit, but then failed to perform any further action with this text. BD2412 T 04:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unactioned hidden text