Re: LOGO-L> Language vs Visual

[Tom Woods <woods@moose.ncia.net>]

James Hoburg wrote:
>> any fair test of either the efficiency or learning
>> difficulty of Morse code or ASCII would of neccessity have to involve an
>> effort commitment approaching that of learning, say, German, Chinese or
>> any other new and unfamiliar language.  Wouldn't effort-to-fluency be a 
>> reasonable gauge?

Jeff Richardson wrote:
>Except that ASCII and Morse are not languages. They are synthetic codes 
>for abstracting existing character sets, which in turn represent language...



Perhaps a valid comparison would be learning to read. In reply to Jeff's
earlier post about the difficulty of reading morse or ascii, I'd say yes, of
course it's harder to read these codes compared to reading the alphabet. But
look at how long it takes to learn how to read the alphabet! My question is,
is there anything about morse or ascii that would make it harder to learn
than alpha characters? 

Perhaps the fact that there are more ascii codes to remember would make it
harder. Morse has less so maybe it would be easier. My guess is that given
sufficient time to learn morse (or ascii), one would find reading morse,
ascii, or alpha characters all of about the same difficulty.

Tom 



>Jeff
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
>questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
>unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.