ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>People found out that in vitro vitamin E is an antioxidant,
>so they recommended it as a supplement. It's "logical"
>that it should be helpful. What happened next? Quote:

Another example are low-calorie sweeteners. It is "logical"
that they will reduce diabetes and weight gain as they do
not contain the calories of sugar. But measuring:

|Low calorie sweeteners are supposed to help people lose
|weight, but they are actually contributing to type 2 diabetes
|and weight gain, a review of different studies reveals.
....
|Although it is not clear why, artificially sweetened
|beverages have been shown to increase the risk of
|cardiovascular disease, stroke, dementia, and death.

But the spelling rules used in school are not even simpler
in "theory", as I will explain now:

The decision diagram for an /s/ sound at the end of a syllable
to be used in schools today looks like this:

1.) Does the word end in "-s"? ("Aas", "Bus", ...)
2.) If not: Does the word end in "-ß"? ("Fraß")
3.) If neither 1 nor 2, then it must end in "-ss" ("muss").

For the decision "1.)", there is no rule. One needs to memorize
the spellings of the words. For the decision "2.)", the length
of the preceding vowel can be used. If it's long, then one
writes "ß". This might seem to be easy, until one compares it
with the decision process in the traditional spelling, which is:

1.) Does the word end in "-s"? ("As", "Bus", ...)
2.) If not, then it must end in "-ß".

For "1.)" the above applies. But instead of the decision "2.)"
based on the vowel length, the traditional spelling requires no
decision at all, because in the traditional spelling a German
word never ends in "-ss"!

On 2024-03-04, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>> The fairly minor modernizations of the French (1990) and German
>> (1996) orthographies also triggered major outcries. People react
>> with kneejerk refusal without even knowing what it is that they are
>> against. That's one for the psychologists. It's as if people feel
>> that something is taken away from them. Very odd.
>
> I think people who are good at the existing system have an ego stake
> in maintaining it.

It's not clear that, on average, those who are better at spelling
object more to reform. My entirely subjective impression is that
it's the opposite; those who would profit the most from it are the
most opposed.

You could certainly observe people loudly proclaiming that they
would continue to spell such-and-such that old way and not this new
way, but they had it the wrong way around. Dunning-Kruger is very
strong there.

In France, the reform appeared to have been mostly forgotten until
it showed up in school textbooks a number of years ago. Something
needs to be done! Appeal to the Academy! Oh, wait...

PS: You may have noticed that Stefan Ram has a very strong opinion
on what is at this point a historical change (28 years ago!).
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de