How does "Internet English" make you feel?

Eliot Rosewater

I assume most people reading this have an idea of what I mean by "Internet English". Its most extreme manifestation is hard-core txtspk, of course, but it covers everything from txtspk to the sloppier posts on boards.ie. I tend to see "Internet English" as more of an attitude than an outcome; an attitude of not caring about the clarity and presentation of one's communication, as opposed to the inevitable outcome this attitude has, of language that bears little semblance to the "proper" way of communicating. Grammar, punctuation and spelling are not, generally, pressing considerations for someone writing "Internet English".

How does this make you feel? And do you think the shift towards "Internet English" has major ramifications? Or am I a pedantic old bore?


I do not wish to impart my opinion yet, for this is not a blog and it may be influenced here, but there is one negative side-effect of this attitude I especially dislike. The act of producing a piece of text, from a small 30 word SMS to this four paragraph post, that is technically sound almost always involves revision. Whenever I see a boards post that is grammatically "all over the place", often times literally, I must assume that the author has not even read over his or her post. Usually this results in a very poorly framed argument.

On the other hand, a grammatically sound post tends to be more convincing, because the author has read over it and clarified their argument and the presentation of their point of view. The art of producing a convincing argument is something that is lost in the world "Internet English", I feel.

looksee

It makes me feel slightly depressed and rather alarmed. One of the main reasons it is worrying is that I find my own ability to spell is slipping. Words that I could spell without thinking I find I quite often have to look up.

On the other hand it has never been the case that everyone is literate to the same degree, its just that now we are seeing spelling and grammar that previously would not have got into the public domaine.

While I can see that it would not be desirable to have people correcting other people's English on such as Boards, at the same time the mistakes are being perpetuated and meanings are changed or lost. I wonder if it would be helpful to have a 'Microsoft Word' type correction facility on message board reply windows? Despite the fact that I detest Word's busybody corrections

There's plenty of it I don't understand, I mean... why? The idea of so called "txtspk" was obviously to fit as much as possible into a 160 character message (not that I ever used it) but I know of teenagers who spell words incorrectly because it seems to be the cool thing to do! Such as spelling "day" as "daii" and one such person, her name is Amy and spells it as Amii on Facebook. What the hell? This makes the word longer, not shorter.

Whippersnapper

Outside the pub:

LIVE MUSIC TONITE!

:pac:

shofukan

You mean like this?
It's called lolspeak!
This might also interest OP:
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

mike65

One manifestation is the incorrect spelling of words through the use of the American version, programme has two mm's and an e at the end for example. 20 years ago the average Irish person would never have used the American spelling, now one is lucky to see it spelt "correctly". How long before the letter U is run out of town?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

It makes me feel lazy. It makes me feel lazy because if I see text speak or acronyms like imkym or whatever they are, I just don't bother reading them. I don't know what they mean, and if you can't be bothered writing it out, I can't be bothered reading it.

I am naturally lazy with mechanics, particularly with apostrophes. I know where they go but I can't be bothered, and I can be this way with accents in foreign languages too.

Email has changed our expectations of correspondence. WHile I feel it has its definite benefits, the drawbacks hardly go noticed. Sitting down to write a letter forces me to think more slowly and to present artfully. With email, everything is so instant. I miss written correspondence. I think I was the last generation to have received and sent love letters. And that is sad.

Don't get me started on facebook. It is the beginning of true attrition. The newest generation will have all their relationships, their voices minimized and refracted through texting and facebook.

I hate it. It's the first time I have ever wanted to rage against modernity.

pickarooney

It's just a matter of register really. We all adapt the way we speak to the environment. On the internet you're addressing nobody and everybody so it makes sense to use the simplest possible register. Your first post here comes across, intentionally or not, as pretentious in this context, for this reason.

You'll often find that the same posters write in different registers from one forum to another.

Your first post here comes across, intentionally or not, as pretentious for this reason.

I do not wish to impart my opinion yet, for this is not a blog

This kind of writing has no place outside of a 19th century novel (anachronisms notwithstanding), IMO.

metrovelvet

I wouldn't give a damn about laziness online if I knew that people knew the correct way of writing/spelling. When people make an obvious typo or mess around with grammar, sure, that's ok. This is a forum and we're not writing essays. But when they use common mistakes, mistakes which are being perpetuated, then I start to twitch.
It does carry over to real life. You would not actually believe an email someone in my company received recently from another company - txtspk, no greeting or signature, nothing. I won't quote it but it's incredible. It looked like a facebook comment.
I really wish schools would place more emphasis on spelling and grammar.

metrovelvet wrote:

I think I was the last generation to have received and sent love letters. And that is sad.

Don't worry, some of us still do

pickarooney wrote:

This kind of writing has no place outside of a 19th century novel

I hate seeing "for" used in place of "because", but that might be the result of reading a few Kevin Myers pieces...

Eliot Rosewater

metrovelvet wrote: »

Don't get me started on facebook. It is the beginning of true attrition. The newest generation will have all their relationships, their voices minimized and refracted through texting and facebook.

Facebook interaction is very uniform, and every going on there seems to lack a personal touch.

pickarooney wrote: »

Your first post here comes across, intentionally or not, as pretentious for this reason.

Definitely not intentional! I tend to write like that at night time when I'm a little tired, for some reason. I'll watch out for it next time ...

looksee

The point about Eliot Rosewater's style is interesting. Yes it sounded a bit pedantic or pompous, and I noticed as I wrote that I was echoing the style, as I also write like that occasionally. My brain is still doing it!

If I were posting in response to a query written in very basic English I would respond in the same way. Because I am aware that readers here will appreciate the use of precise English, I make an effort to use it.

It is interesting because, in a discussion about failing standards of English, a poster is picked up on over-correct use of English, we have to stay in the 'dumbed-down' style, at least to some extent. Style reflects a poster's personality, why is it acceptable to tell someone their style is pompous when we are not allowed to tell someone else their style is illiterate? That's a question by the way, not a criticism.

I think we also have to remember that writing is now public. In the days when people wrote paper letters it is more than likely that a great many illiterate letters were sent, we just didn't see them.

The problem is not so much that people do not speak and write standard English, as it is fashionable to write in the alternative style, and people do realise that it is necessary to switch back to standard English for formal use.

Possibly in time we will have an educated elite who speak 'high' or formal English and a peasantry who feel unable to move out of 'common' English, and there will be a strict division between the two. It has happened before.

Edit to say that I have just noticed I put many more paragraphs into that than I would if I were writing a report, just to make it easier to read...

mike65

Paragraphs are the readers friend, too many don't seem to understand a large block of type is hard work.

metrovelvet

looksee wrote: »

The point about Eliot Rosewater's style is interesting. Yes it sounded a bit pedantic or pompous, and I noticed as I wrote that I was echoing the style, as I also write like that occasionally. My brain is still doing it!

If I were posting in response to a query written in very basic English I would respond in the same way. Because I am aware that readers here will appreciate the use of precise English, I make an effort to use it.

It is interesting because, in a discussion about failing standards of English, a poster is picked up on over-correct use of English, we have to stay in the 'dumbed-down' style, at least to some extent. Style reflects a poster's personality, why is it acceptable to tell someone their style is pompous when we are not allowed to tell someone else their style is illiterate? That's a question by the way, not a criticism.

I think we also have to remember that writing is now public. In the days when people wrote paper letters it is more than likely that a great many illiterate letters were sent, we just didn't see them.

The problem is not so much that people do not speak and write standard English, as it is fashionable to write in the alternative style, and people do realise that it is necessary to switch back to standard English for formal use.

Possibly in time we will have an educated elite who speak 'high' or formal English and a peasantry who feel unable to move out of 'common' English, and there will be a strict division between the two. It has happened before.

Edit to say that I have just noticed I put many more paragraphs into that than I would if I were writing a report, just to make it easier to read...

Don't underestimate the power of mimicry. It is an easy trap to fall into. I do it all the time. I do it on the phone and I do it in emails too. If someone is cold, I go cold. If someone is nasty I go nasty. If someone goes warm and fuzzy, so do I.

If you are spending a lot of time reading 19th century lit, you will start to write like that. And it's not as easy to switch off as you might think.

Which is why... to be a good writer .... one should be a good reader too.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Which is why... to be a good writer .... one should be a good reader too.

I wonder if people are readers these days. I know a lot are, but the majority?
I still remember how stunned I was on hearing someone proudly announce their brother had never read a book outside of compulsory school reading. An intelligent boy doing his LC, and they were happy about this
But you could pick up so much good spelling and grammar from reading books. And from enjoying reading them.

bog master

I am middle aged and find myself using some of the txt speak/internet language at times. Yet, I certainly find my language changes depending on whether it is a formal letter-email,posted reply to say boards ie,an opening post on boards ie, or even a txt.
And I will admit to being pedantic about mispellings.

Formal letter: I tend to follow completely formal grammar and punctuationand will proof read before sending.

E-Mail: Much as the above though perhaps a bit less formal.

Reply to say boards ie: For some reason,particularly with an on going debate, I tend to view this as more of a conversation with that person or group, and will tend write much less formal, and perhaps even write as if I was conversing with that person.

Opening Post: This would tend to be a compromise between formal letter and reply. Grammar and punctuation would be watched, but I would try to get my point across concisely and accurately.

Txt: This all depends on who I am txting. With my children, do tend to use some txt speak, with others much less.

Perhaps with the advent of these newer forms of communication, we adapt somewhat to the form and to those whom we are communicating.

Eliot Rosewater

looksee wrote: »

It is interesting because, in a discussion about failing standards of English, a poster is picked up on over-correct use of English, we have to stay in the 'dumbed-down' style, at least to some extent.

I do think pickarooney had a point though. In terms of style, my post last night wasn't really accessible and the unintended undertones of pedantry and pomposity (is the allusion to alliteration allowable?!) detracted from my credibility. Someone reading my post might have just said "arrogant git, bugger off!", in which case the goal of the post - communicating a point to another person - would have been lost.

(Saying that, I was aware that my post was more formal and archaic sounding the my usual posting style (I think) but I didn't bother amending it because of the intended audience: readers of the English forum.)

looksee wrote: »

The problem is not so much that people do not speak and write standard English, as it is fashionable to write in the alternative style, and people do realise that it is necessary to switch back to standard English for formal use.

The first part is fair, I think. I suppose one just has to accept the fact that the current trends of communication aren't to one's personal liking. The tendency, as always, is to make some damning objective criticism of the thing you dislike, but my criticisms of Internet English are mostly subjective and based on what I personally think is a good way to communicate.

As regards people switching back, I don't think that's strictly true. As bluewolf said, some people are engaging in business affairs through Internet English. I once recall hearing someone say that they weren't aware that the draft of their university thesis had to be grammatically correct.

These may very well be the exceptions. But my principal concern with informal Internet communication is that it will spill over to "real" life

Eliot Rosewater

bluewolf wrote: »

I wonder if people are readers these days. I know a lot are, but the majority?

See this post by donegalfella in the Lit forum.

metrovelvet

bluewolf wrote: »

I wonder if people are readers these days. I know a lot are, but the majority?
I still remember how stunned I was on hearing someone proudly announce their brother had never read a book outside of compulsory school reading. An intelligent boy doing his LC, and they were happy about this
But you could pick up so much good spelling and grammar from reading books. And from enjoying reading them.

Back before all my books were stored in various garages now in two continents, a friend came over and saw my books and thought they were so pretentious [Finnegans Wake wasnt even on it!] he didn't believe I had actually read all of them.

My point is not to illustrate how well read I am, because I am not compared to a lot of people [for example I hate Finnegan's Wake and think it sucks], but to illustrate that the norm now is not to read that much.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Back before all my books were stored in various garages now in two continents, a friend came over and saw my books and thought they were so pretentious [Finnegans Wake wasnt even on it!] he didn't believe I had actually read all of them.

My point is not to illustrate how well read I am, because I am not compared to a lot of people [for example I hate Finnegan's Wake and think it sucks], but to illustrate that the norm now is not to read that much.

Mine are mostly scifi&fantasy I have to admit With a few others thrown in.
I think I must hang around literary types then. Even my friend who is my opposite always has a book in her handbag.

Scoobydoobydoo

It makes me feel really irritated! I think it's extremely lazy and kind of rude. I don't have reason to write that often myself, and find myself questioning my spelling all the time, but the basic stuff I see regularly online, such as the misuse of there, their, & they're or apostrophes thrown in where not required - everybody should know these differences from a young age! I don't understand it to be honest.

looksee

bluewolf wrote: »

Mine are mostly scifi&fantasy I have to admit With a few others thrown in.
I think I must hang around literary types then. Even my friend who is my opposite always has a book in her handbag.

Mine are mostly fantasy too, and I admit to being a lazy reader. I learned grammar many years ago, at school, along with spelling and times tables. They have been much more useful to me than algebra and the formation of an ox-bow lake! And as for stunting creativity, well I work in a creative area and have always had good imagination and lateral thinking abilities.

I was rather amused recently when I was working with a teacher of advanced maths and at intervals we had to tot up a list of numbers. Even with my total lack of mathematical ability (failed inter cert equivalent) I was still able to add the list in my head and get the total before he had done it on a calculator.

There is still a place for rote learning, and riting and rithmatic are two of them.

The Raven.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I assume most people reading this have an idea of what I mean by "Internet English". Its most extreme manifestation is hard-core txtspk, of course, but it covers everything from txtspk to the sloppier posts on boards.ie. I tend to see "Internet English" as more of an attitude than an outcome; an attitude of not caring about the clarity and presentation of one's communication, as opposed to the inevitable outcome this attitude has, of language that bears little semblance to the "proper" way of communicating. Grammar, punctuation and spelling are not, generally, pressing considerations for someone writing "Internet English".

How does this make you feel? And do you think the shift towards "Internet English" has major ramifications? Or am I a pedantic old bore?

I do not wish to impart my opinion yet, for this is not a blog and it may be influenced here, but there is one negative side-effect of this attitude I especially dislike. The act of producing a piece of text, from a small 30 word SMS to this four paragraph post, that is technically sound almost always involves revision. Whenever I see a boards post that is grammatically "all over the place", often times literally, I must assume that the author has not even read over his or her post. Usually this results in a very poorly framed argument.

On the other hand, a grammatically sound post tends to be more convincing, because the author has read over it and clarified their argument and the presentation of their point of view. The art of producing a convincing argument is something that is lost in the world "Internet English", I feel.

I agree wholeheartedly with your description of a large section of Internet writing. However, I would question the term ‘Internet English’ as its classification. ‘English’ writing on the Internet includes all types ranging from the articulate to the semi-literate. What you have described is merely a section, however large, of substandard writing which often includes samples described as ‘Internet slang’, ‘netspeak’ ‘chatspeak’, or ‘txtspk’ etc. which may be affected by the same either directly or indirectly. It often panders to peer pressure or is simply due to laziness or illiteracy.

My concern is that it would be a shame if this form of shoddy writing came to be known as ‘Internet English’, which also includes articulate posts such as yours here, and those of Donegalfella, and others.

To answer your question as to how ‘it’ makes me feel, I have to say that I find it irritating in various degrees. As you rightly pointed out, it is the ‘attitude’ rather than the ‘outcome’, although the outcome is generally unpalatable and often undecipherable, leaving little room for subtlety and quality of communication, which reflects badly on the writer.

There is nothing ‘pedantic’ or ‘pompous’ about a desire for perfection. A well-written piece is not necessarily ‘formal’, which is of a different category. What I find most arrogant is the inevitable scorn towards those who express a concern for the use of correct English when this topic is raised on the English forum. As Looksee rightly pointed out:

looksee wrote: »

Style reflects a poster's personality, why is it acceptable to tell someone their style is pompous when we are not allowed to tell someone else their style is illiterate?

3DataModem

metrovelvet wrote: »

[for example I h8 Finnegan's Wake and think it sux]

With apologies to metrovelvet and mods. Couldn't resist.

metrovelvet

I disgree with pickarooney's criticism of Rosewater's post being archaic and inaccessible.

I would rather a little 19th century than a lot of the acronyms and text speak which I find more inaccessible.

Earthhorse

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

How does this make you feel?

When I meet it en masse, such as over on the YouTube comments section; exhausted and concerned about a generation's ability to communicate precisely.

And do you think the shift towards "Internet English" has major ramifications?

Difficult to say. I think there's a bit of a myth being perpetuated in this thread that previous generations were avid readers and men of letters. The truth is Ireland has had pretty terrible rates of adult literacy for much of its existence.

Or am I a pedantic old bore?

That's entrapment! :pac:

The act of producing a piece of text, from a small 30 word SMS to this four paragraph post, that is technically sound almost always involves revision. Whenever I see a boards post that is grammatically "all over the place", often times literally, I must assume that the author has not even read over his or her post. Usually this results in a very poorly framed argument.

On the other hand, a grammatically sound post tends to be more convincing, because the author has read over it and clarified their argument and the presentation of their point of view. The art of producing a convincing argument is something that is lost in the world "Internet English", I feel.

I agree entirely. What's more, someone who does care about grammar is likely to come across, to the undiscerning reader, as having less to say on an issue because they are taking more time with their arguments and posting less. Those who couldn't care less about grammar, punctuation and word choice, are not only writing less readable posts but more of them; a sort of writing diarrhea some mistake for passion.

looksee wrote: »

I wonder if it would be helpful to have a 'Microsoft Word' type correction facility on message board reply windows? Despite the fact that I detest Word's busybody corrections

FireFox has a built in spell checker and hopefully most modern browsers will follow suit. Very useful when typing words you don't use too frequently, such as diarrhea.

metrovelvet wrote: »

It makes me feel lazy. It makes me feel lazy because if I see text speak or acronyms like imkym or whatever they are, I just don't bother reading them. I don't know what they mean, and if you can't be bothered writing it out, I can't be bothered reading it.

I am naturally lazy with mechanics, particularly with apostrophes. I know where they go but I can't be bothered, and I can be this way with accents in foreign languages too.

Why is it okay for you to be lazy with apostrophes and other mechanics but not okay for people to use acronyms?

looksee wrote: »

It is interesting because, in a discussion about failing standards of English, a poster is picked up on over-correct use of English, we have to stay in the 'dumbed-down' style, at least to some extent. Style reflects a poster's personality, why is it acceptable to tell someone their style is pompous when we are not allowed to tell someone else their style is illiterate? That's a question by the way, not a criticism.

What makes you think it isn't? People get told off all the time on boards for posting illegible crap. Posting txtspk is against the rules and can get you banned.

donegalfella wrote: »

I blame schools for this, at least in part. In recent decades, we've seen educators shift their emphasis from teaching the mechanics of spelling and grammar to encouraging the Holy Grail of expression. If the student churns out a prolix stream of seemingly expressive prose, the goals of English class are seen to be fulfilled, even if he takes liberties with niceties of grammar and spelling. After all, mechanics count for only 10 percent of the marks in Leaving Cert English—so why go to all that extra effort for such a small reward?

Every generation criticises the next's education when it comes to the basics. I'm not saying there's nothing to this but really, the primary driver for what Elliot's talking about is clearly technology, in particular the character and key limit encountered on first generation mobile phones. With the dawn of better predictive text, "swipe" technology and more generous keypads I think we'll see a reduction in txtspk in coming generations.

It matters greatly—and not just on the Internet. Back in March, John Herlihy of Google Ireland spoke on RTÉ radio about the abysmal standard of college graduates' CVs, many of which are littered with basic mechanical errors. Highly qualified people's job applications are going in the bin because they can't write at a level acceptable for a professional workplace. This has obvious economic implications.

For the individual it certainly does (and should). But, unless you're contending that "Internet English" is a solely Irish phenomenon or is particularly prevalent in Ireland, no economic advantage or disadvantage will accrue.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I disgree with pickarooney's criticism of Rosewater's post being archaic and inaccessible.

I would rather a little 19th century than a lot of the acronyms and text speak which I find more inaccessible.

Word choice is important here. He didn't describe the post as inaccessible. His point was about the tone or register that people adapt in different mediums and even in different situations within a given medium. The example he uses from the OP illustrates his point well.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Earthhorse

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Firstly, I would say that most people don't. Secondly, I would say that it is habit forming; so they bring the habit from their mobile to the PC. This is reinforced by the fact that people are not taught how to touchtype and so cannot use the keyboard as it is designed to be used.

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You know what? I should be ashamed of myself. For some reason I don't mind missing apostrophes in words like dont [because it's very obvious what they mean without the apostrophe] but the ever more fluent floating apostrophes are one of my bugbears.

As to your second point, in the little time I have to read, and that half of my life is over, I want guarantees a book is going to be good. If it will take me a third of the remainder of my years left to appreciate that octo-tongued Lochness Monster I think I'll pass.:)

Do they have Cliffe's Notes for it?

looksee

What makes you think it isn't? People get told off all the time on boards for posting illegible crap. Posting txtspk is against the rules and can get you banned.

It doesn't have to be illegible crap or txtspk to be careless and imprecise, and it isn't appropriate for other posters to carp about errors (see point below ), but by the same token, while most of us who are contributing here have no doubt been picked up at some time for poncy/ snobby/ condescending English, it should not happen in a literate discussion.

For the individual it certainly does (and should). But, unless you're contending that "Internet English" is a solely Irish phenomenon or is particularly prevalent in Ireland, no economic advantage or disadvantage will accrue.

It will if foreign investors decide we are not as well educated as they thought we were, and pull out.

Word choice is important here. He didn't describe the post as inaccessible. His point was about the tone or register that people adapt in different mediums and even in different situations within a given medium. The example he uses from the OP illustrates his point well.

I completely agree (about word choice), using adapt instead of adopt, for example, completely changes the meaning of the sentence

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

When I hear about a book that takes serious time and dedication to "get", I think of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance(a well-researched wiki). For example, I can't imagine someone spending years studying Finnegans Wake, pouring over it, dedicating effort and time that could be spent reading other books and then concluding that it is actually quite rubbish. Consequently, I don't even see the point in discussing it because you can't say anything negative about it unless you've put in the years of study and if you have, you are going to invariably declare it a masterpiece or else, improbably, admit that you have wasted years studying a massive prank played by Joyce on literary scholars designed to waste their time. All in all, it's a paradox I don't have much time for.

All that said, I've tentatively scheduled Ulysses into my reading schedule, perhaps in November, just out of sheer curiosity, to see if I too, can become a victim of dissonance! Well if I survive The Sound and The Fury anyway. :pac:

Earthhorse

looksee wrote: »

It doesn't have to be illegible crap or txtspk to be careless and imprecise, and it isn't appropriate for other posters to carp about errors (see point below ), but by the same token, while most of us who are contributing here have no doubt been picked up at some time for poncy/ snobby/ condescending English, it should not happen in a literate discussion.

You've lost me now, I'm afraid. pickarooney was making a point about tone i.e. that the tone of much discussion on the internet is really more like a casual conversation than a Toastmaster's debate, so people use casual language, and play fast and loose with the rules.

But you can pick people up when their posts slide off the page into the realms of incomprehension.

It will if foreign investors decide we are not as well educated as they thought we were, and pull out.

Pull out to where though? They have to decide someone else is more educated than us in order to pull out so again, unless this poor English is exclusive to Ireland it makes no difference to our competitive advantage as a nation.

metrovelvet

looksee wrote: »

It will if foreign investors decide we are not as well educated as they thought we were, and pull out.

D

I think it's the math and not the English that will do this. As in, not being able to count the money you don't have.

pickarooney

Valmont wrote: »

When I hear about a book that takes serious time and dedication to "get", I think of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance(a well-researched wiki). For example, I can't imagine someone spending years studying Finnegans Wake, pouring over it, dedicating effort and time that could be spent reading other books and then concluding that it is actually quite rubbish. Consequently, I don't even see the point in discussing it because you can't say anything negative about it unless you've put in the years of study and if you have, you are going to invariably declare it a masterpiece or else, improbably, admit that you have wasted years studying a massive prank played by Joyce on literary scholars designed to waste their time. All in all, it's a paradox I don't have much time for.

Verily, the Qur'an of the West. (I had to double-check that apostrophe)

looksee

Valmont wrote: »

When I hear about a book that takes serious time and dedication to "get", I think of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance(a well-researched wiki). For example, I can't imagine someone spending years studying Finnegans Wake, pouring over it, dedicating effort and time that could be spent reading other books and then concluding that it is actually quite rubbish. Consequently, I don't even see the point in discussing it because you can't say anything negative about it unless you've put in the years of study and if you have, you are going to invariably declare it a masterpiece or else, improbably, admit that you have wasted years studying a massive prank played by Joyce on literary scholars designed to waste their time. All in all, it's a paradox I don't have much time for.

I wish I had said that

thebullkf

stoopid.


innit.

Eliot Rosewater

pickarooney wrote: »

Verily, the Qur'an of the West. (I had to double-check that apostrophe)

"Koran" all the way, to be honest!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pickarooney

bluewolf wrote: »

Pouring what over it? :eek:

Have you ever been accused of flogging a one-trick pony?

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

Have you ever been accused of flogging a one-trick pony?

I thought a little light humour would cheer everyone up, sorry

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

^ It's true. When I did my MA over here I was shocked to find NUI graduates in the programme who did not know that it was assumed you submit a bibliography with your written work. They were also submitting their essays handwritten. I had been submitting essays typed since I was fourteen. This was before computers, with the good old fashioned typewriter. For every spelling error [this was in high school] your grade was marked down by a whole grade, and we were marked with two grades, one for content and one for form. We of course were all brainwashed into the funnel effect essay structure too, but at least we went into third level [college] knowing a little something and most likely placed into the advanced level composition coursed DF refers too. I remember the ease I had writing compared to my freshman roommate who nearly had a breakdown everytime she had to submit written work.

I was also shocked to find a professional journalist on my Irish MA who did not understand that a sentence should have a subject and a verb. I had to edit his essays, kind of sick that he gets paid more than a 1000 a week for a column in a popular newspaper.

It really is embarrassing. And even more so when I hear Irish people make fun of stupid Americans who can't speak English.

Donkey Oaty

bluewolf wrote: »

I thought a little light humour would cheer everyone up, sorry

I have no problem with your homophonic humour, and I'm a homophone myself.

Now that you have all had a good whine about the appalling standard of English, is everyone agreed that better teaching in schools and universities is the answer, or is there something else that can be done?

pickarooney

If it makes you feel any better, the standard of French among native speakers has dropped even more than that of English.

DHYNZY

I'm not that concerned at all. I'm almost certain that if someone was framing the English language today, as opposed to its evolution over the last few centuries, it would take into account that keyboards/typepads are more often used than notepads/manuscript paper.


Would it be fair to say that the English language is outdated now in a world when people obviously want to be able to say things faster. Is the English language becoming inefficient in a world where efficiency is everything???


Thats the real question. So I see 'txt' language as a justified reaction to a rapid paced world. Why press 6 buttons/keys when you can press 3!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DHYNZY

I'm not suggesting something so unrefined be used, but I'm merely suggesting that we shouldn't be so shocked that there has been somewhat of an evolution in English following on from our keypad lifestyles. I stand strong by my point that English as it is may in fact become a casualty of rapid living, as so much else has! Language is not immune from change in a changing world!

Crazy Taxi

Languages evolve all the time, just try and read something written in "english" 2-300 years ago, you'll be able to understand it but it'll take a bit of work. We are living in a world today which is changing at a rapid rate, just think of the technological advances in the last 15 years, never mind the last 50! I think change happened at a much more sedate pace previously so language evolved very gradually. Now? things seem to change on a daily basis and new words/phrases spring up over night.

metrovelvet

Crazy Taxi wrote: »

Languages evolve all the time, just try and read something written in "english" 2-300 years ago, you'll be able to understand it but it'll take a bit of work. We are living in a world today which is changing at a rapid rate, just think of the technological advances in the last 15 years, never mind the last 50! I think change happened at a much more sedate pace previously so language evolved very gradually. Now? things seem to change on a daily basis and new words/phrases spring up over night.

This is not language evolving, this is language devolving. The day I need babelfish to translate English off the internet, is the day I quit.