Stan, you wrote:

>Kjell et al.
>  My only qualms about the "simplified" orthography is that it was a mistake
>for these various languages to let the orthographists bamboozle them into
>making these procrustean regularizations of their spelling, so that they
>now have a poorer basis than do the English and French in analyzing word
>meanings by distinguishing words with different spelling (and meaning)
>that have the same sound.

This is a common argument against a reforming of the spelling in many
European languages. Unfortunately spelling reforms are generally made from
political reasons and not in order to make it easier for the citizens.

In the old Swedish spelling there was a distinction made betwen the Swedish
_supin_ (which does not behave as the latin one) and the past participle.
So in saying : _I have learnt the lesson_ (learnt is supin in Swedish) or
The Lesson is learnt_ (learnt is past participle and you had to insert a
_d_ before the _t_ to show that, but it was not shown in the pronunciation
and was a hard classmarker for those who had not had enough schooling).

The teachers were those who wor most in faver of the 1906 spelling reform.

Just giving some perspectives...

Kjell [log in to unmask]
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64  UPPSALA
Suedia - Sweden