As a linguist by profession I have to agree with you BUT there is a difference between evolution and corruption and between what is spoken and what is written. The short cut spelling has come from constant sms (texting) and it hurts my eyes to see it. have we reached such a frantic level of activity that we can't even take the time to spell correctly any longer? (This is a pet peeve of mine) I don't have time to write all that is on my mind about this...it would make a lovely conversation one day. :)
Well...what is "correct" spelling, D? In India,when I was studying, if I spelt a word as "color" instead of "colour", that resulted in 5 marks being deducted from my exam. paper.
See what LA has said, above, about differences in spelling between,say, Elizabethan times and now. So...what is "correct"?
"Textese" may have been born out of the necessity to fit things into that 160-or-whatever character count. But if people can understand what the person is saying, why not?
Compare these two usages:
He reached his destination.
I grew taller.
and
I'll reach the document to you.
She grew her business until it was making profits
In "my world", the second set of usages is "wrong". But these are common usages now....so how can I make judgements?
It's a mark of every development that we have people bemoaning it...when cassette tapes came in, people lamented that it was not like the old spool tapes...why is change always seen as necessarily bad? I feel it just...change...and we have to get used to the new.
Technological change is one thing. And I don't bemoan any of it.
There is a laziness in "textese". Why do we have to always be rushing to get somewhere by cutting corners? I can text with full words and maybe it's a few seconds slower but it sure looks prettier. :)
As a linguist I realize that language evolves but when it's corrupted beyond recognition (and yes, I sometimes have trouble understanding all the shortcuts and know others who do as well),then it's not a good change. I love the richness of language for expression. Taking away from that wealth in the interests of short-cutting is sad.
And as a teacher of languages I see an illiteracy developing that's quite depressing.
Tempting topic, but ..prashanthchengiFebruary 18 2011, 13:19:32 UTC
Nice topic, but I guess one can't take either side without bringing in a bias, be it for or against. For those who do non-stop texting, these shortened words probably make life easy, but how do I feel about it? Call me backward or whatever else, like pondhopper, I too feel it pretty much unacceptable to be pounded upon with such expressions. I met an interesting person online a couple of weeks ago. One thing that kind of stood out immediately was the fact that she was using complete words, properly spelled, even when chatting. And yes, she is younger than even I. When I asked her to what she attributed her 'correct' spellings to, I was surprised by her answer. She attributed it to the T9 dictionary (a word-completer) on her phone! She said that people who don't sms in smsese don't tend to use smsese anywhere else. T9 made it easier for her to type out complete words in her messages and if she typed whole words in her messages, why would she shorten them while writing an email? Or a blog post
( ... )
Re: Tempting topic, but ..depontiFebruary 18 2011, 13:40:14 UTC
Well...since I'm a "purist" in this sense, too...I suppose I'm really trying to give another point of view...but why can't you get into the debate, Ga, that's what I want everyone to do.
As a recovering Grammar Nazi, I agree with you to some extent. I agree the language is evolving constantly, and it's bound to change. The problem is, the SMSspeak trend is more of an aberrant mutation, rather than a bona fide evolution, in my opinion. With cellphones (and now Twitter) imposing a character limit on messages, the users were forced to use abbreviations. But now, it seems to be a trend among the kids, who are just too lazy to type out whole words, even when on a standard keyboard. I suppose I'm a purist, but I find it difficult to read textspeak. But I know that's a subjective opinion. It's more a matter of readability than anything else.
On a related note, here's Stephen Fry's eloquent and brilliant talk about language and its evolution..
The complete talk (which is even better..) is here :
I think this is a change, that we must come to accept as part of language evolution. If the masses communicate this way, and if majority of the people in the current generation can understand it, then it will surely prevail. Some people might feel that the language is being corrupted, but English as a language has always been changing, and this I feel is just the next phase of that... I remember when I was in school being taught about how important it is to use the right grammer when writing letters, yet today it is common to use "newer" language spellings in corporate circles. Using "thru" instead of "through" is no longer considered bad practice for example.. . If I am sending a SMS to say a 50+ year old uncle of mine, I would take the time to type it correctly, yet use the short form when talking to say a person of the same age... and I guess most people are sensitive enough to do that..
Comments 12
(This is a pet peeve of mine)
I don't have time to write all that is on my mind about this...it would make a lovely conversation one day.
:)
Reply
See what LA has said, above, about differences in spelling between,say, Elizabethan times and now. So...what is "correct"?
"Textese" may have been born out of the necessity to fit things into that 160-or-whatever character count. But if people can understand what the person is saying, why not?
Compare these two usages:
He reached his destination.
I grew taller.
and
I'll reach the document to you.
She grew her business until it was making profits
In "my world", the second set of usages is "wrong". But these are common usages now....so how can I make judgements?
It's a mark of every development that we have people bemoaning it...when cassette tapes came in, people lamented that it was not like the old spool tapes...why is change always seen as necessarily bad? I feel it just...change...and we have to get used to the new.
Reply
There is a laziness in "textese". Why do we have to always be rushing to get somewhere by cutting corners? I can text with full words and maybe it's a few seconds slower but it sure looks prettier.
:)
As a linguist I realize that language evolves but when it's corrupted beyond recognition (and yes, I sometimes have trouble understanding all the shortcuts and know others who do as well),then it's not a good change. I love the richness of language for expression. Taking away from that wealth in the interests of short-cutting is sad.
And as a teacher of languages I see an illiteracy developing that's quite depressing.
This needs a long discussion over tea.
:)
Reply
Reply
Reply
But now, it seems to be a trend among the kids, who are just too lazy to type out whole words, even when on a standard keyboard. I suppose I'm a purist, but I find it difficult to read textspeak. But I know that's a subjective opinion. It's more a matter of readability than anything else.
On a related note, here's Stephen Fry's eloquent and brilliant talk about language and its evolution..
The complete talk (which is even better..) is here :
http://fry.positive-dedicated.net/fry-podcast2-episodes-03.mp3
Reply
I do like Stephen Fry.
there will be a variety of opinions on this...and I'd like to hear the whole gamut.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I remember when I was in school being taught about how important it is to use the right grammer when writing letters, yet today it is common to use "newer" language spellings in corporate circles. Using "thru" instead of "through" is no longer considered bad practice for example.. .
If I am sending a SMS to say a 50+ year old uncle of mine, I would take the time to type it correctly, yet use the short form when talking to say a person of the same age... and I guess most people are sensitive enough to do that..
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment