Hi Mike No I don't there is any misunderstanding in the context & period we are talking about it In the period, literate would mean having the ability to read and write to some very basic level, enough to read basic words and write a small amount I am not suggesting they would be proficient enough to write a thesis or dissertation but just the bare basics The schedules left with the household were not particularly difficult to understand but many people (and enumerators) misunderstood them and entered the wrong things in the wrong places or in some cases entered people that were not there on the night or omitted others But they still do that today I shall not repeat what I have said on the subject of signing the register as I have already said it in previous posts As to my great grandmother, no I credit her with more intelligence, she completed a full sampler with alphabet included when aged ten, I suspect that not many ten year olds today could do the same, and back then a fair portion would have been by candle light to boot Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 25/07/2014 20:15, Mike Fry via wrote: > Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or glossed over to > a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted literacy at > various times through the ages. > > Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old 3Rs that I > fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before sociologists were > invented and started mucking around with society! [Personal Opinion]

The whole idea of samplers done by girls was to complete them under the tutelage of their mother or some other adult female. It was a learning exercise. If she was capable of doing it without instruction there would not have been much reason for having her do it. Bonnie On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Nivard Ovington via <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike > > No I don't there is any misunderstanding in the context & period we are > talking about it > > In the period, literate would mean having the ability to read and write > to some very basic level, enough to read basic words and write a small > amount > > I am not suggesting they would be proficient enough to write a thesis or > dissertation but just the bare basics > > The schedules left with the household were not particularly difficult to > understand but many people (and enumerators) misunderstood them and > entered the wrong things in the wrong places or in some cases entered > people that were not there on the night or omitted others > > But they still do that today > > I shall not repeat what I have said on the subject of signing the > register as I have already said it in previous posts > > As to my great grandmother, no I credit her with more intelligence, she > completed a full sampler with alphabet included when aged ten, I suspect > that not many ten year olds today could do the same, and back then a > fair portion would have been by candle light to boot > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > On 25/07/2014 20:15, Mike Fry via wrote: > > Overall, an interesting discussion. What's getting lost here, or glossed > over to > > a large extent, is the varying definitions of what constituted literacy > at > > various times through the ages. > > > > Nowadays, we have a modern definition, largely based on the good-old 3Rs > that I > > fondly remember from my childhood. Those were the days before > sociologists were > > invented and started mucking around with society! [Personal Opinion] > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >