Txt spk, grammar Nazis and language evolution

JC 2K3

I was thinking the other day about attitudes towards txt spk, particularly on this site, and of grammar Nazis, which are plentiful on this site, and of the arbitrary nature of language and its evolution. And a lot of things occurred to me that just don't make sense.

Let's start with txt spk. It's just a shorthand version of the English language, yet it is utterly despised by so many, to the point that there are even rules against it on this site. However, it doesn't really make sense that it should be so hated when it is usually quite comprehensible. Personally, even I get annoyed when I see it, but thinking back, I didn't always, and I reckon that posting on internet forums such as this one has induced such a hatred of it in me. Also, comments are often passed about those who use text speak, saying that they are unintelligent or have a low IQ. However, the exact same posters are the ones who say things like "My brain hurts reading that, I can't decipher it" or "It took me 10 minutes to figure out what that meant". Surely if they are having difficulty deciphering what is actually quite straightforward shorthand the majority of the time then they are the unintelligent ones?

And now on to the related issue of grammar Nazis. Why is it that in a perfectly comprehensible post, people will point out and actually get quite angry at the fact that someone has used "their" instead of "there", "too" instead of "to" or misplaced an apostrophe. Again, I'm guilty of this myself, although in this case I'm not so sure that it's been induced upon me by the internet so much as I was a good student in primary school who had a good grasp of the English language and was always careful to use the correct words in the correct places. Perhaps seeing others online write perfectly coherent posts which are grammatically incorrect is frustrating on some level to me because logically I'm realising the futility of certain rules in the English language?

I mean, fundamentally, if something's comprehensible and unambiguous does it really matter if the grammar is not 100% correct and why? Is this not how languages evolve? Did the syntax certain people are very anal about not come to be in the first place through people using originally incorrect grammar or words?

And if it was decided that "there" was to be accepted as a synonym for "their" and "they're", that numbers were to be introduced to the English alphabet and words like "l8r", "2moro" etc. accepted as proper words and if "grammer" was to become an acceptable spelling of "grammar", would you oppose such changes or simply adjust your grammar checking radar appropriately. Are you not, after all, just adhering to arbitrary conventions when you point out spelling and grammar errors in the first place?

Kiera

The fact your title has "text speak" in it made me not read a single thing in your post. Plus its too long :P

Roadend

Text speak is for the lazy, I don't care how long it takes off texting, I refuse to respond to a txt speak message.

stovelid

JC 2K3 wrote: »

And if it was decided that "there" was to be accepted as a synonym for "their" and "they're", that numbers were to be introduced to the English alphabet and words like "l8r", "2moro" etc. accepted as proper words and if "grammer" was to become an acceptable spelling of "grammar", would you oppose such changes or simply adjust your grammar checking radar appropriately.

The thing about text-speak is that it is imcomprehensible (or at least requires effort to decipher) to a large number of posters, and therefore its usage is presumptious and rude. The possible future status of text-speak as valid colloquial speech does not mitigate this.

I would largely agree with the grammar points that you made, though.

Holsten

tl;dr

Text speak sucks ass and people should be straight out banned for using it.

Fizman

Roadend wrote: »

Text speak is for the lazy, I don't care how long it takes off texting, I refuse to respond to a txt speak message.

Really?

Roadend, if I dont get a response from dis post within 1 hr, then it will b safe 2assume dat u hav indeed come out of d closet and entered the world of ghey.

Fair enough I tink!

:pac:

Wreck

I agree with much of the op.

Roadend wrote: »

Text speak is for the lazy, I don't care how long it takes off texting, I refuse to respond to a txt speak message.

Texting is for the lazy, if you have something to say to me, find out where I am, come there, and say it to my face.

boring_job_guy

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I was thinking the other day about attitudes towards txt spk, particularly on this site, and of grammar Nazis, which are plentiful on this site, and of the arbitrary nature of language and its evolution. And a lot of things occurred to me that just don't make sense.

Let's start with txt spk. It's just a shorthand version of the English language, yet it is utterly despised by so many, to the point that there are even rules against it on this site. However, it doesn't really make sense that it should be so hated when it is usually quite comprehensible. Personally, even I get annoyed when I see it, but thinking back, I didn't always, and I reckon that posting on internet forums such as this one has induced such a hatred of it in me. Also, comments are often passed about those who use text speak, saying that they are unintelligent or have a low IQ. However, the exact same posters are the ones who say things like "My brain hurts reading that, I can't decipher it" or "It took me 10 minutes to figure out what that meant". Surely if they are having difficulty deciphering what is actually quite straightforward shorthand the majority of the time then they are the unintelligent ones?

And now on to the related issue of grammar Nazis. Why is it that in a perfectly comprehensible post, people will point out and actually get quite angry at the fact that someone has used "their" instead of "there", "too" instead of "to" or misplaced an apostrophe. Again, I'm guilty of this myself, although in this case I'm not so sure that it's been induced upon me by the internet so much as I was a good student in primary school who had a good grasp of the English language and was always careful to use the correct words in the correct places. Perhaps seeing others online write perfectly coherent posts which are grammatically incorrect is frustrating on some level to me because logically I'm realising the futility of certain rules in the English language?

I mean, fundamentally, if something's comprehensible and unambiguous does it really matter if the grammar is not 100% correct and why? Is this not how languages evolve? Did the syntax certain people are very anal about not come to be in the first place through people using originally incorrect grammar or words?

And if it was decided that "there" was to be accepted as a synonym for "their" and "they're", that numbers were to be introduced to the English alphabet and words like "l8r", "2moro" etc. accepted as proper words and if "grammer" was to become an acceptable spelling of "grammar", would you oppose such changes or simply adjust your grammar checking radar appropriately. Are you not, after all, just adhering to arbitrary conventions when you point out spelling and grammar errors in the first place?

+1.

good rant btw .

Roadend

Wreck wrote: »

Texting is for the lazy, if you have something to say to me, find out where I am, come there, and say it to my face.

Macho macho man, I want to be a macho man

JC 2K3

Roadend wrote: »

Text speak is for the lazy, I don't care how long it takes off texting, I refuse to respond to a txt speak message.

Are apostrophes in place of letters for the lazy too?

If I write "2moro" instead of "tomorrow", it lessens what I have to write by 4 letters, if I write "I'd" instead of "I would", it lessens what I have to write by 4 letters (inc. spaces ) also. Are they equally for lazy people?

Roadend

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Are apostrophes in place of letters for the lazy too?

If I write "2moro" instead of "tomorrow", it lessens what I have to write by 4 letters, if I write "I'd" instead of "I would", it lessens what I have to write by 4 letters (inc. spaces ) also. Are they equally for lazy people?

No

studiorat

text speak IMO is a fine for communicating in a personal manner with people you know. It's also fine when you are limited to a certain amount of characters in the size of the message. Writing in the English language outside of this restraint should not be condensed.

Having to have a person try and figure out the meaning of a txtspk phrase is not particularly good manners. You should communicate clearly, txtspk needs to be deciphered and it's not good manners to expect someone to do that because you couldn't be bothered to write the word. There's also issues when communicating to people outside of your local area where slang might be different and with people who may speak English only as a second language.

Fizman

Wreck wrote: »

Texting is for the lazy, if you have something to say to me, find out where I am, come there, and say it to my face.

I hope your not that popular. And if you are, I hope you pay the bus/train/plane fares of your mates who just want to say "HAI".

blah

The thing about text speak is that it is harder to understand than properly written english. It's used for convenience of the writer, but not the reader.

It's like shouting down a corridor to someone telling them to come to you, even though you're the one who wants to talk with them, because it's more convenient for you.

Steve

h8 txt spk bcz i cnt wrk ot wt te fk ppl r acly tryn 2 sy

^^ That may or may not be a sentence, I really don't know.

Cuddlesworth

Txt sapek cmae abuot due to the need to seped up wtrinig msesgaes and aollw the use of sorthhnad to streohn the lnehgt of the mgsaese.

Those uses do not apply to speech or where you have the use of a full keyboard. I can write posts that are comprehensible too but horrific to try read. I choose not to.

Biggins

Reading text is supposed to be about constant fluidity, your eyes should flow across the words at a constant rate of understanding.
Not irritatingly pausing to decipher the latest gobble-de-gook.

Languages should evolve - but not disintegrate into a mass of confusing series of broken rules of grammar.

How are today's or tomorrows children supposed to even learn the basic of ones language when the rules and main structures are being constantly shifted? There has to be some basic foundations that should never change.

Text speak was invented for phones. Lets keep it there!

Terry

10,000 character limit in a post and a qwerty keyboard are but two of the things which make txt spk unacceptable on the internet.

That kids tend to use it in exams just shows that the next generation of children will be lazy ****ers who are unable to spell properly.

See the movie Idiocracy for a view of the future.

Ticktactoe

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I was thinking the other day about attitudes towards txt spk, particularly on this site, and of grammar Nazis, which are plentiful on this site, and of the arbitrary nature of language and its evolution. And a lot of things occurred to me that just don't make sense........................

I know what will solve your problem ere! You see this all came about when you wrote "I was thinking the other day about atitudes towards txt spk" So just dont think! Problem = solved

Indie18

<3BeingIN6th wrote: »

See the movie Idiocracy for a view of the future.

Seen it the other day. It seems like quite an accurate interpretation of where the world seems to be going alright.

JC 2K3

stovelid wrote: »

The thing about text-speak is that it is imcomprehensible (or at least requires effort to decipher) to a large number of posters, and therefore its usage is presumptious and rude. The possible future status of text-speak as valid colloquial speech does not mitigate this.

blah wrote: »

The thing about text speak is that it is harder to understand than properly written english. It's used for convenience of the writer, but not the reader.

studiorat wrote: »

txtspk needs to be deciphered and it's not good manners to expect someone to do that because you couldn't be bothered to write the word.

So how many of those of you who find text speak hard to understand are under 25?

Having grown up with it(i.e. frequently receiving and writing texts using it from the age of about 11 or so), I personally don't find it hard to understand or have to spend time "deciphering" it, and wouldn't think that many of my peers would either.

Now I understand that many of the users on here are older and hence wouldn't be as acquainted with text speak and it's perfectly understandable that posters be expected to write proper English on here. But why the hate towards it?

chin_grin

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I was thinking the other day about attitudes towards txt spk, particularly on this site, and of grammar Nazis, which are plentiful on this site, and of the arbitrary nature of language and its evolution. And a lot of things occurred to me that just don't make sense.

Let's start with txt spk. It's just a shorthand version of the English language, yet it is utterly despised by so many, to the point that there are even rules against it on this site. However, it doesn't really make sense that it should be so hated when it is usually quite comprehensible. Personally, even I get annoyed when I see it, but thinking back, I didn't always, and I reckon that posting on internet forums such as this one has induced such a hatred of it in me. Also, comments are often passed about those who use text speak, saying that they are unintelligent or have a low IQ. However, the exact same posters are the ones who say things like "My brain hurts reading that, I can't decipher it" or "It took me 10 minutes to figure out what that meant". Surely if they are having difficulty deciphering what is actually quite straightforward shorthand the majority of the time then they are the unintelligent ones?

And now on to the related issue of grammar Nazis. Why is it that in a perfectly comprehensible post, people will point out and actually get quite angry at the fact that someone has used "their" instead of "there", "too" instead of "to" or misplaced an apostrophe. Again, I'm guilty of this myself, although in this case I'm not so sure that it's been induced upon me by the internet so much as I was a good student in primary school who had a good grasp of the English language and was always careful to use the correct words in the correct places. Perhaps seeing others online write perfectly coherent posts which are grammatically incorrect is frustrating on some level to me because logically I'm realising the futility of certain rules in the English language?

I mean, fundamentally, if something's comprehensible and unambiguous does it really matter if the grammar is not 100% correct and why? Is this not how languages evolve? Did the syntax certain people are very anal about not come to be in the first place through people using originally incorrect grammar or words?

And if it was decided that "there" was to be accepted as a synonym for "their" and "they're", that numbers were to be introduced to the English alphabet and words like "l8r", "2moro" etc. accepted as proper words and if "grammer" was to become an acceptable spelling of "grammar", would you oppose such changes or simply adjust your grammar checking radar appropriately. Are you not, after all, just adhering to arbitrary conventions when you point out spelling and grammar errors in the first place?

LOL, OMGWTFBBQ, KTNXBYE.

Biggins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

...But why the hate towards it?

Its shows a form of laziness, lack of care towards what your trying to express, degrades the language and rules you were brought up with by your parents and other teachers, etc.

I recommend you read 1984 (George Orwell). Text speak is "Double-plus ungood" - read it in the proper language it was written in and you should understand...

Fulton Crown

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I was thinking the other day about attitudes towards txt spk, particularly on this site, and of grammar Nazis, which are plentiful on this site, and of the arbitrary nature of language and its evolution.

That's a lot of thinkin horse........:eek:

Fulton Crown

Indie18 wrote: »

Seen it the other day. It seems like quite an accurate interpretation of where the world seems to be going alright.

Saw it the other day...please !

dh2007

JC 2K3 wrote: »

And now on to the related issue of grammar Nazis. Why is it that in a perfectly comprehensible post, people will point out and actually get quite angry at the fact that someone has used "their" instead of "there", "too" instead of "to" or misplaced an apostrophe.

Would it not be more appropriate to call them 'punctuation and spelling Nazis'? Bad grammar relates to a different set of irksome traits.



Sorry I'm an awful pedant.

JC 2K3

<3BeingIN6th wrote: »

That kids tend to use it in exams just shows that the next generation of children will be lazy ****ers who are unable to spell properly.

But is that not just an evolution of the English language?

I don't see where laziness comes into this. They just use a shorthand they've been immersed in. If they accidentally use it in an exam it's no different to a kid 20/30 years ago using a slang term accidentally in an exam.

stovelid

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Having grown up with it(i.e. frequently receiving and writing texts using it from the age of about 11 or so), I personally don't find it hard to understand or have to spend time "deciphering" it, and wouldn't think that many of my peers would either.

I don't care if you find it hard to understand it or not. I, and many others, do; generational issue or not.

The point of polite communication is to make it easy to read for the largest amount of readers possible. Text-speak is like a contract: fine between two people who like using it, rude to people who are not used to it.

I'm not a mod, so I don't particurlary care who writes in text-speak. I'll just skip their posts.

Plus I like to write when I post. Text-abbreviation is fine if I'm telling somebody the bus is stuck in traffic, but when discussing issues with near-strangers, I favour expression and manners.

Dragan

Personally i ****ing hate it. It's just one of those things that makes me mentally switch off and lose interest.

Biggins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

...If they accidentally use it in an exam it's no different to a kid 20/30 years ago using a slang term accidentally in an exam.

...and those being examined will be marked down appropriately - then and now.

I believe examiners from this year onwards are being told (by Department of Education) to crack down more serious on poor grammar structuring across the range of exam subjects by the way.

Indie18

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Saw it the other day...please !

Damn you sir.

emeraldstar

JC 2K3 wrote: »

So how many of those of you who find text speak hard to understand are under 25?

Having grown up with it(i.e. frequently receiving and writing texts using it from the age of about 11 or so), I personally don't find it hard to understand or have to spend time "deciphering" it, and wouldn't think that many of my peers would either.

Now I understand that many of the users on here are older and hence wouldn't be as acquainted with text speak and it's perfectly understandable that posters be expected to write proper English on here. But why the hate towards it?

But can you actually say that your eyes could skim as easily through a post written entirely in text speak as it could a post written in correct English?

Even though I have no problem in understanding text speak, it seriously slows down my reading and irritates the hell out of me. (I am under 25 by the way).

FlutterinBantam

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I was thinking the other day about attitudes towards txt spk, particularly on this site, and of grammar Nazis, which are plentiful on this site, and of the arbitrary nature of language and its evolution. And a lot of things occurred to me that just don't make sense.

Let's start with txt spk. It's just a shorthand version of the English language, yet it is utterly despised by so many, to the point that there are even rules against it on this site. However, it doesn't really make sense that it should be so hated when it is usually quite comprehensible. Personally, even I get annoyed when I see it, but thinking back, I didn't always, and I reckon that posting on internet forums such as this one has induced such a hatred of it in me. Also, comments are often passed about those who use text speak, saying that they are unintelligent or have a low IQ. However, the exact same posters are the ones who say things like "My brain hurts reading that, I can't decipher it" or "It took me 10 minutes to figure out what that meant". Surely if they are having difficulty deciphering what is actually quite straightforward shorthand the majority of the time then they are the unintelligent ones?

And now on to the related issue of grammar Nazis. Why is it that in a perfectly comprehensible post, people will point out and actually get quite angry at the fact that someone has used "their" instead of "there", "too" instead of "to" or misplaced an apostrophe. Again, I'm guilty of this myself, although in this case I'm not so sure that it's been induced upon me by the internet so much as I was a good student in primary school who had a good grasp of the English language and was always careful to use the correct words in the correct places. Perhaps seeing others online write perfectly coherent posts which are grammatically incorrect is frustrating on some level to me because logically I'm realising the futility of certain rules in the English language?

I mean, fundamentally, if something's comprehensible and unambiguous does it really matter if the grammar is not 100% correct and why? Is this not how languages evolve? Did the syntax certain people are very anal about not come to be in the first place through people using originally incorrect grammar or words?

And if it was decided that "there" was to be accepted as a synonym for "their" and "they're", that numbers were to be introduced to the English alphabet and words like "l8r", "2moro" etc. accepted as proper words and if "grammer" was to become an acceptable spelling of "grammar", would you oppose such changes or simply adjust your grammar checking radar appropriately. Are you not, after all, just adhering to arbitrary conventions when you point out spelling and grammar errors in the first place?

Great!!!, we will just all work away with our 'do it yourself' ' make it up as you go along language'.

I will be very brief and concise, the only people who want the rules of grammar and language relaxed are the dudes who couldn't be bothered to learn them in the fist place .

All the suits/money/cars and property cannot disguise the accent and grammar.
Thank God for that, as it isolates the scobee and marks their card quicker than any background check.

One just has to listen for a few sentences and you know straight away what you are dealing with,long may it continue and be resisted.

studiorat

JC 2K3 wrote: »

So how many of those of you who find text speak hard to understand are under 25?

Having grown up with it(i.e. frequently receiving and writing texts using it from the age of about 11 or so), I personally don't find it hard to understand or have to spend time "deciphering" it, and wouldn't think that many of my peers would either.

Now I understand that many of the users on here are older and hence wouldn't be as acquainted with text speak and it's perfectly understandable that posters be expected to write proper English on here. But why the hate towards it?

Under 25? Ha ha. Children... ;o)
I was under 25 a long time ago, it's not hard to understand as long as you are not relying on specific information.
Well I'd be a supporter of the AAAAA point of view and prefer an AFZ.
I don't think age has much to do with it. The first time you see a new txt phrase it takes a brief second to figure it out. Wrkn out is mjr BB. What does 8, or 9 or 99 mean?

What's fine for communicating with your peers isn't always useful for communicating outside of that group.

WTF 11 year olds text about is beyond me...

JC 2K3

Biggins wrote: »

I recommend you read 1984 (George Orwell). Text speak is "Double-plus ungood" - read it in the proper language it was written in and you should understand...

Text speak and newspeak have quite little in common really. Newspeak was about linguistic determinism, about limiting the amount of ideas that could be possibly expressed in language, and thus a form of mind control, whereas with text speak there are no restrictions, it's just shorthand. You can translate any piece of literature into text speak without losing any meaning, unlike newspeak. It's not "rly bad", it's just different.

Biggins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Text speak and newspeak have quite little in common really. Newspeak was about linguistic determinism, about limiting the amount of ideas that could be possibly expressed in language, and thus a form of mind control, whereas with text speak there are no restrictions, it's just shorthand. You can translate any piece of literature into text speak without losing any meaning, unlike newspeak. It's not "rly bad", it's just different.

Both are about reducing expressions to basic forms of words. Without an expansion of beautiful nouns, pro-nouns and such like, our languages will not evolve but devolve into a whirlpool of degrading reduced forms of expressionism.

The language of Tolken, Shakespeare and our founding state fathers/mothers should not be allowed to be squashed into an even thinner dictionary, more and more smaller by year after year.

There is beauty in the words "I love you" - The same in text speak just degrades the emotions and shows a lack of real care too...
If its worth expressing, why not do it right?

FlutterinBantam

I do not welcome the bastardisation of our language.
Spoken well, with a full vocabulary and proper grammar syntax, it flows in beautiful skeins of word weaving, and under the direction of a master can transport the reader into realms of descriptive ecstasy which are at the upper end of sensory stimulation.


And you want to change all that for fcukin txt speak???

JC 2K3

Biggins wrote: »

Both are about reducing expressions to basic forms of words. Without an expansion of beautiful nouns, pro-nouns and such like, our languages will not evolve but devolve into a whirlpool of degrading reduced forms of expressionism.

The language of Tolken, Shakespeare and our founding state fathers/mothers should not be allowed to be squashed into an even thinner dictionary, more and more smaller by year after year.

How is adding more words to the language, and expanding the alphabet with 10 new characters(the digits 0-9) reducing expressionism and degrading the language? What's so degrading about, for example, having "2moro" as an acceptable synonym for "tomorrow"?

Do you think the introduction of the use of apostrophes in place of other letters in certain words was a degradation of the English language?

JC 2K3

Biggins wrote: »

There is beauty in the words "I love you" - The same in text speak just degrades the emotions and shows a lack of real care too...
If its worth expressing, why not do it right?

"I love you" is ultimately an arbitrary arrangement of 8 letters. It's the fact that these 3 words are recognised as being beautiful and the fact that the person being told them understands exactly what is meant that makes them special. However, I fail to see how the same could not be attached to "lv u".

Biggins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How is adding more words to the language, and expanding the alphabet with 10 new characters(the digits 0-9) reducing expressionism and degrading the language? What's so degrading about, for example, having "2moro" as an acceptable synonym for "tomorrow"?

Do you think the introduction of the use of apostrophes in place of other letters in certain words was a degradation of the English language?

...but they are not words! They are cheap short cuts that have no place beyond a phone screen.
What's so degrading? I, myself, find it degrading that anyone of major intelligence can belittle themselves (unintentionally) by reducing what could be a beautiful form of expressionism that could be remembered for a long, long time, to a string of lazy short cuts that only portrays poor care in the choosing of grammar.

I'm not saying text speak don't have it's place. It does (on the phones clearly) but lets keep it there for the many, many reasons that make our genuine beautiful language such a wonderful thing, full of grown genuine forms.

JC 2K3

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I do not welcome the bastardisation of our language.
Spoken well, with a full vocabulary and proper grammar syntax, it flows in beautiful skeins of word weaving, and under the direction of a master can transport the reader into realms of descriptive ecstasy which are at the upper end of sensory stimulation.

But full vocabulary and proper syntax are all 100% arbitrary. Why is it not possible for text speak to achieve the same impact?

emeraldstar

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How is adding more words to the language, and expanding the alphabet with 10 new characters(the digits 0-9) reducing expressionism and degrading the language? What's so degrading about, for example, having "2moro" as an acceptable synonym for "tomorrow"?

Do you think the introduction of the use of apostrophes in place of other letters in certain words was a degradation of the English language?

Yes. Why else are contractions unacceptable in formal writing?

FlutterinBantam

For the same reason a beautiful mountain landcape has a greater impact than an industrial wasteland

JC 2K3

Biggins wrote: »

...but they are not words! They are cheap short cuts that have no place beyond a phone screen.
What's so degrading? I, myself, find it degrading that anyone of major intelligence can belittle themselves (unintentionally) by reducing what could be a beautiful form of expressionism that could be remembered for a long, long time, to a string of lazy short cuts that only portrays poor care in the choosing of grammar.

But if they express the intentions of the writer, surely that's all that matters, and any other expectation is elitism, no?

emeraldstar wrote: »

Yes. Why else are contractions unacceptable in formal writing?

They are?

Biggins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But if they express the intentions of the writer, surely that's all that matters, and any other expectation is elitism, no?

Well, to be honest, can you see Tolkien, Shakespeare or Keats for example being expressed as beautiful if converted to text speak?

A writer of words shares a canvas of grammar like an artist places paint upon a similar canvas.

If they (or us) are called elite because they/we do just that, its gives the rest of us something to admire and aspire up to - not look down on and shake our heads in sorrow.
Even elitism (if that's what it is) has its use and place too.

FlutterinBantam

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But if they express the intentions of the writer, surely that's all that matters, and any other expectation is elitism, no?

Eh... no.

emeraldstar

JC 2K3 wrote: »

They are?

Have you ever read a formal piece of critical writing that used 'didn't', 'shouldn't', 'can't', etc. instead of 'did not', 'should not' or 'cannot'...?

MementoMori

There seems to be quite a strong correlation between low-quality posts on the internet and the use of textspeak.

I haven't come across any well-written i.e. well-argued, interesting, informative posts by people using text speak on any forum I've been on.

In most cases the use of text speak seems to be occur on what I would consider posts of limited worth.

I can understand why people use it on phones, but to use it when there is no need for it just strikes me as lazy and ignorant.

While it might save some time for the person writing it, chances are overall it is going to cost the people reading it time, especially when there is probably going to be more than one person reading it. It seems self-defeating to use text speak to try and get your point across, given that text speak will clearly increase the difficulty of comprehension, even if only to a slight degree.

The OP does make some interesting points about the evolution of the language but I would doubt that text-speak is going to be around in any long-term sense i.e. greater than ten years. It is just a form of current slang which I would expect to wane in popularity once the limits on the number of characters when texting on mobile phones disappear.

The issue of the use of text-speak by the OP is marred slightly by what I think is the addition of the separate issue of grammar.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I mean, fundamentally, if something's comprehensible and unambiguous does it really matter if the grammar is not 100% correct and why? And if it was decided that "there" was to be accepted as a synonym for "their" and "they're", that numbers were to be introduced to the English alphabet and words like "l8r", "2moro" etc. accepted as proper words and if "grammer" was to become an acceptable spelling of "grammar", would you oppose such changes or simply adjust your grammar checking radar appropriately. Are you not, after all, just adhering to arbitrary conventions when you point out spelling and grammar errors in the first place?

The reason that "there" is not a synonym for "their" or "they're" is that the words mean different things - by using the different spelling, things become unambiguous. If the same spelling was used in all cases it would lead to ambiguity some of the time. However in a lot of cases it wouldn’t lead to ambiguity. However if people started using any of the spellings it would more than likely mean that over time some people would forget how to use them correctly which would invariably lead to increased levels of ambiguity.

While it is true that people who point out spelling and grammar errors are just adhering to arbitrary conventions when they point them out, they are generally letting people know what the arbitrary conventions are, which has a decent merit in terms of educating people, even if it can be annoying. I'm pretty sure this is what teachers and parents do when they are teaching children how to read, write and even speak. These arbitrary conventions are important because they enable people around the world to use the same language.

I've kinda gotten away from the point but in general I would sum up by saying that I'm of the opinion that text-speak on the internet is a bad thing and I look down on those who use it. I also give less credence to those who misspell words and mangle the language, just like I do in real life. In my experience people with a poor ability at communicating are in the main unlikely to have a hell of a lot worth saying the vast majority of the time.

Terry

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But is that not just an evolution of the English language?

I don't see where laziness comes into this. They just use a shorthand they've been immersed in. If they accidentally use it in an exam it's no different to a kid 20/30 years ago using a slang term accidentally in an exam.

Right. So we'll be a nation of court reporters and secretaries.

emeraldstar wrote: »

But can you actually say that your eyes could skim as easily through a post written entirely in text speak as it could a post written in correct English?

Even though I have no problem in understanding text speak, it seriously slows down my reading and irritates the hell out of me. (I am under 25 by the way).

Giggidy.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Text speak and newspeak have quite little in common really. Newspeak was about linguistic determinism, about limiting the amount of ideas that could be possibly expressed in language, and thus a form of mind control, whereas with text speak there are no restrictions, it's just shorthand. You can translate any piece of literature into text speak without losing any meaning, unlike newspeak. It's not "rly bad", it's just different.

No, it is really bad and it is different.
It promotes bad spelling and bad grammar.

I've taken this from a bebo page chosen at random (I searched for anto).

i love jus about al sports especially boxin(Fukn Legend)... boxin ou in saviours swel... deadli club.:] luv dossin round wit me mates :L :L nun dem turn dwn a drinkin ni haha an yaz no hu yaz are:L

im TAKEN NOW..:D
by me baby hazel luv er wi every bi ov me heart:D
i cudnt live wit ou ere
she as no idea how much i love ere..:D

That just doesn't make any sense.

JC 2K3

Biggins wrote: »

Well, to be honest, can you see Tolkien, Shakespeare or Keats for example being expressed as beautiful if converted to text speak?

I don't know, originally I would have said no, but I'm thinking about it a lot and coming around to the idea.

All that proper spelling and punctuation has got going for it really is tradition of usage...

JC 2K3

<3BeingIN6th wrote: »

I've taken this from a bebo page chosen at random (I searched for anto).



That just doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense.... Could you not understand it?