Re: Are there dyslectic Japanese?

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 01:07:40 GMT, in message
<BFF1AD8A.4BE0%rolomail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Rolomail <rolomail@xxxxxxxxxxx> caused electrons to dance and
photons to travel coherently in saying:

>On 1/16/06 16:17, in article 43cc0c8d.686300390@localhost, "Doug Wickstrom"
><ceo (at) fat24.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:31:14 -0800, in message
>> <630b8e5503f4ccd2c5e95db187b42c6a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Dan Rempel <drempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> caused electrons to dance and
>> photons to travel coherently in saying:
>>
>>> Rolomail wrote:
>>>> On 1/16/06 11:52, in article
>>>> 18f2913a347a899f28995a025f9d15c6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Dan Rempel" <ceo
>>>> (at) fat24.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rolomail wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/16/06 8:17, in article 43cb9ce5$0$2053$626a54ce@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
>>>>>> "Arekusu"
>>>>>> <ceo (at) fat24.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In the developped countries, the official literacy rate of 99% is not
>>>>>>> the actual reading ability rate. Unesco says in Europe about 10 -13% of
>>>>>>> the adults can't read simple sentences. That must be about the same in
>>>>>>> Japan for hiragana, more for kanjis. Just show a map to some people in
>>>>>>> the street...
>>>>>> At first glance, I found this statistic shocking... But then I thought...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Standford IQ test allots 15 points per standard deviation, which in a
>>>>>> two tailed distribution, would put what? 18% of the populatin at an IQ
>>>>>> less
>>>>>> than 85? I vaguely recall that an IQ of 85 can be used as a definition of
>>>>>> legally slow (at least in criminal defense). So, if only 13% of Europe's
>>>>>> population cannot read simple sentences, at least 5% of the population is
>>>>>> doing way better than expected... That is to say, at least 5% are reading
>>>>>> simple sentences real slowly, while 2/3 of the legally slow can't read
>>>>>> simple sentences at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Begs the question,
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> Take for example Dan's EDICT sized vocabulary, mental clarity, and pedantic
>>>> power...
>>>
>>> Clear I ain't, pedantic I are, begging the question that wasn't.
>>
>> You might have explained, for the English usage challenged, what
>> "begging the question" is.
>>
>> To "beg the question," is to use a circular argument.
>> Ultimately, it comes down to the form of "something is something
>> because it is something.
>>
>> Rolomail, your example doesn't "beg" the question you pose, it
>> "raises" the question.
>
>I beg to differ with you.

OK. Stand uncorrected if you wish. Ignorance is bliss, after
all, except when 'tis folly to be wise. You probably use
"flammable" instead of "inflammable," too, because, after all,
things that are _in_flammable won't burn.

Still and all, I'd be careful with open flames when near things
that are inflammable, and begging a question does _not_ raise it.

I hope you don't teach English.

--
Doug Wickstrom <nimshubur@xxxxxxxxxxx>

"We find two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take
possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt ends-the
nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians who are
ostensibly its servants, but in reality dominate it and plunder it."
--Friedrich Engels

Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.


.

Relevant Pages