ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: Chavi on December 05, 2010, 04:57:33 pm
-
(http://images.theage.com.au/2010/12/02/2075934/language2main-420x0.jpg)
I see a growing trend in which colloquial jargon is quickly replacing formal language in all forms of communication, to the extent that it impacts subjects such as VCE English.
I understand if you have to use lol, cbf and brb in internet chat, but replacing 'that' with dat, and 'there' with der is pure laziness.
What particularly irks me is the pervasiveness of this phenomenon. Examples include incorrect usage of homophones such as there, their, they're and two, to and two, and plainly making up words: (misunderestimate [kudos to Bush], and "irregardless"). Als'o most of my peers' (Yr 12) sprinkle their essay's with incorrect apostrophe's.
I understand if you're a 12 year old on facebook chat in a hurry - but seeing these mistakes creep up in VCE essays is disturbing.
Discuss.
-
I think it's somewhat two separate issues. We just weren't taught these rules to begin with. The Victorian system emphasises studying texts and so on rather than vocabulary and grammar; I don't think I was ever really taught these properly. While I can get lazy sometimes, I don't see it impacting on my ability to write formally when I want to. They're basically two separate languages for me. But yes, it pisses me off too.
-
WoT YoU ToRkIn 'BoUt? I aInT RekkkIn KnOwBoDyZ LaNGuIgE! GtFo fAg.
-
http://www.theage.com.au/national/far-from-killing-language-text-speak-is-gr8-evolution-20090926-g773.html
http://www.theage.com.au/world/internet-words-form-the-language-of-2moro-20100102-lmic.html
In formal contexts it is not appropriate, but other than that, there is no problem with it. You have to be descriptive.
Linguists seem to agree on this.
Moreover, I look at movements like this, which make me cringe. People seriously need to get over the fact that language change is inevitble, and broadly speaking, on form of language is no better or worse than the other. Different varieties can only be judged according to their suitability to the context, audience and purpose.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/academy-puts-hard-word-on-english-20100701-zqgo.html
-
In essence you are correct, it is quite sad to denigrate formal English language to such a level that it even affects speech with people even frequently saying 'lol' rather than actually performing the action of laughing. Your point on pure laziness however is rather naive, as pretty much every human wants the lazy, easy way out. People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter. VCE English however, due to the stakes partially eradicates this laziness as people try to attempt to get back into writing formal English, often failing due to bad habit. However as Shinny has pointed out, people do realise the differences in the two languages but simply cannot be bothered in changing their ways: it is just an apostrophe after all. In the end there is really nothing you can do as I (and several of my teachers) predict colloquial language such as 'brb' and 'w8' will become official English words allowed in essay use in approximately 20-30 years time.
-
some teachers take this a bit too seriously in my opinion, I got grilled by my literature teacher for using the word 'quasi' in one of my sentences because it was too coloquial... I didn't think it was too bad but apparently it is.
I think that people do make the connection that writing an essay is different to writing in a text message and I doubt that there are many people who actualy use abreviations or very informal coloquialisms in their writing.
Also, I agree that the language should be alowed to evolve, but that doesn't mean you have to be using new words in your english essays, people have to recognise that although the english language can as a whole evolve, they must also modify their use of it to the situation they are in.
-
some teachers take this a bit too seriously in my opinion, I got grilled by my literature teacher for using the word 'quasi' in one of my sentences because it was too coloquial... I didn't think it was too bad but apparently it is.
I think that people do make the connection that writing an essay is different to writing in a text message and I doubt that there are many people who actualy use abreviations or very informal coloquialisms in their writing.
Also, I agree that the language should be alowed to evolve, but that doesn't mean you have to be using new words in your english essays, people have to recognise that although the english language can as a whole evolve, they must also modify their use of it to the situation they are in.
You seem to have the grasp of it pal.
Considered doing EngLang? You just be a natural!
-
In essence you are correct, it is quite sad to denigrate formal English language to such a level that it even affects speech with people even frequently saying 'lol' rather than actually performing the action of laughing. Your point on pure laziness however is rather naive, as pretty much every human wants the lazy, easy way out. People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter. VCE English however, due to the stakes partially eradicates this laziness as people try to attempt to get back into writing formal English, often failing due to bad habit. However as Shinny has pointed out, people do realise the differences in the two languages but simply cannot be bothered in changing their ways: it is just an apostrophe after all. In the end there is really nothing you can do as I (and several of my teachers) predict colloquial language such as 'brb' and 'w8' will become official English words allowed in essay use in approximately 20-30 years time.
I completely agree. Whilst there seems to be a definitive line between colloquial language and 'formal' English as shinny said, Chavi's example of the misuse of 'theirs' and apostrophes is a solid counter-example. But I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I'm talking entirely out of ignorance in regards to the history of the English language here but it is inevitable that language would change as the times change, and, as iNerd said, who's to say that words like 'lol' wouldn't be part of the Oxford Dictionary in the near future? The term 'formal English' is a bit subjective in itself. Just like the distinction between 'right' and 'wrong', the distinction between 'formal' and 'informal' language is getting more and more vague. Just retrace the list of 'new' words introduced into the Oxford dictionary...by 1000 year's time, all the old words would probably get superimposed by new words that were once considered informal. But as usual I'm wandering off a bit. xD
-
some teachers take this a bit too seriously in my opinion, I got grilled by my literature teacher for using the word 'quasi' in one of my sentences because it was too coloquial... I didn't think it was too bad but apparently it is.
I think that people do make the connection that writing an essay is different to writing in a text message and I doubt that there are many people who actualy use abreviations or very informal coloquialisms in their writing.
Also, I agree that the language should be alowed to evolve, but that doesn't mean you have to be using new words in your english essays, people have to recognise that although the english language can as a whole evolve, they must also modify their use of it to the situation they are in.
You seem to have the grasp of it pal.
Considered doing EngLang? You just be a natural!
Not for me, I always saw englang as turning english into science... which is fine but not realy what I was looking for.
-
People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter.
No incentive? What are you talking about? Most kids learn to type from an earlier age. One single letter has no impact on the speed of writing.
Typing up 'that' comes instinctively to me - as it should to every student in VCE level.
-
People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter.
No incentive? What are you talking about? Most kids learn to type from an earlier age. One single letter has no impact on the speed of writing.
Typing up 'that' comes also instinctively to me - as it should to every student in VCE level.
Ever consider that people may choose to consciously spell words differently for group inclusion or to define who they are? Don't assume they are all just lazy...
-
I think it's somewhat two separate issues. We just weren't taught these rules to begin with. The Victorian system emphasises studying texts and so on rather than vocabulary and grammar; I don't think I was ever really taught these properly. While I can get lazy sometimes, I don't see it impacting on my ability to write formally when I want to. They're basically two separate languages for me. But yes, it pisses me off too.
Many of my teachers were schooled in the rules of grammar from an early age. Today such lessons are abandoned in order not to hamper the 'creative potential' of the child (absolute bullshit IMHO)
I don't attribute the blame of language decline solely to the education system. Text messaging, facebook and internet culture are all contributors to the decline of language.
Many claim that the English language is simply evolving. With the examples provided, I can safely say that language is devolving - to the extent that everyone will be conversing in monosyllabic grunts in 20 years time.
-
People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter.
No incentive? What are you talking about? Most kids learn to type from an earlier age. One single letter has no impact on the speed of writing.
Typing up 'that' comes also instinctively to me - as it should to every student in VCE level.
Ever consider that people may choose to consciously spell words differently for group inclusion or to define who they are? Don't assume they are all just lazy...
Looking dumb as exercise in group belonging? I don't think that many blondes who fit the stereotype do so consciously or for want of notoriety. Likewise in this case.
-
People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter.
No incentive? What are you talking about? Most kids learn to type from an earlier age. One single letter has no impact on the speed of writing.
Typing up 'that' comes also instinctively to me - as it should to every student in VCE level.
You miss the point, what is the incentive for teenagers used to 'dat' to switch back to 'that' ? You said yourself that it annoys you that people are lazy and write 'dat' instead of 'that' and I told you it was naive as people are lazy, its an innate sort of trait to take the easy way out. As StoneCold also brought up, which I agree with, there could be a conscious effort to sound 'sxc' or 'cool', expressing one's identity. Although I told you in essence you are right, it's quite sad how low the language has come but in 20, 30 years time 'dat' could become an official word: who knows?
I'm kinda hoping it's XX.X0, saves me having to add the last number each time. I can just say XX.X, considering I'll probably have to say it or type it about 100 times on the 13th. Whatever saves me time or effort is always good :).
...does one number really make a difference on the impact of typing? People are lazy Chavi, I think you should get used to it.
-
I think I should add a few more reasons behind the phenomenon: Laziness, ignorance, acceptance or economy
-
People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter.
No incentive? What are you talking about? Most kids learn to type from an earlier age. One single letter has no impact on the speed of writing.
Typing up 'that' comes also instinctively to me - as it should to every student in VCE level.
You miss the point, what is the incentive for teenagers used to 'dat' to switch back to 'that' ? You said yourself that it annoys you that people are lazy and write 'dat' instead of 'that' and I told you it was naive as people are lazy, its an innate sort of trait to take the easy way out. As StoneCold also brought up, which I agree with, there could be a conscious effort to sound 'sxc' or 'cool', expressing one's identity. Although I told you in essence you are right, it's quite sad how low the language has come but in 20, 30 years time 'dat' could become an official word: who knows?
I guess we can argue about this all day. What I really lament is that language is slowly losing its meaning. How can we truly convey the complexities of our thoughts and emotions, if every expression of joy is reduced to 'lol'?
-
People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter.
No incentive? What are you talking about? Most kids learn to type from an earlier age. One single letter has no impact on the speed of writing.
Typing up 'that' comes also instinctively to me - as it should to every student in VCE level.
Ever consider that people may choose to consciously spell words differently for group inclusion or to define who they are? Don't assume they are all just lazy...
Looking dumb as exercise in group belonging? I don't think that many blondes who fit the stereotype do so consciously or for want of notoriety. Likewise in this case.
Wouldn't say so. If you go to my earliest posts (actually I think I deleted quite a lot of them), you'd see that I typed with no caps and missed punctuation etc as well (oh god, I even see a 'ull' there instead of 'you'll'; *shiver*). It wasn't because I was lazy - I can type properly whenever I want to - it was just that I didn't want to come across being too formal or anything in a place filled with teenagers. It's not being 'dumb' when everyone else is doing it - it's fitting in. I change the way I talk frequently depending on who it is and as a general rule of thumb will mirror how they do. It's just simple communication really; talking on the same level that the other person is on to get your point across.
-
O.M.G
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0479030#m_en_gb0479030
-
People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter.
No incentive? What are you talking about? Most kids learn to type from an earlier age. One single letter has no impact on the speed of writing.
Typing up 'that' comes also instinctively to me - as it should to every student in VCE level.
You miss the point, what is the incentive for teenagers used to 'dat' to switch back to 'that' ? You said yourself that it annoys you that people are lazy and write 'dat' instead of 'that' and I told you it was naive as people are lazy, its an innate sort of trait to take the easy way out. As StoneCold also brought up, which I agree with, there could be a conscious effort to sound 'sxc' or 'cool', expressing one's identity. Although I told you in essence you are right, it's quite sad how low the language has come but in 20, 30 years time 'dat' could become an official word: who knows?
I guess we can argue about this all day. What I really lament is that language is slowly losing its meaning. How can we truly convey the complexities of our thoughts and emotions, if every expression of joy is reduced to 'lol'?
...which I completely agree on, as I stated in my first post, people have even come to the point of saying lol rather then performing the action of laughing which I find quite sad.
-
People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter.
No incentive? What are you talking about? Most kids learn to type from an earlier age. One single letter has no impact on the speed of writing.
Typing up 'that' comes also instinctively to me - as it should to every student in VCE level.
You miss the point, what is the incentive for teenagers used to 'dat' to switch back to 'that' ? You said yourself that it annoys you that people are lazy and write 'dat' instead of 'that' and I told you it was naive as people are lazy, its an innate sort of trait to take the easy way out. As StoneCold also brought up, which I agree with, there could be a conscious effort to sound 'sxc' or 'cool', expressing one's identity. Although I told you in essence you are right, it's quite sad how low the language has come but in 20, 30 years time 'dat' could become an official word: who knows?
I guess we can argue about this all day. What I really lament is that language is slowly losing its meaning. How can we truly convey the complexities of our thoughts and emotions, if every expression of joy is reduced to 'lol'?
...which I completely agree on, as I stated in my first post, people have even come to the point of saying lol rather then performing the action of laughing which I find quite sad.
LOL. Sends a shiver down my spine when I hear people "LOL" in public.
-
People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter.
No incentive? What are you talking about? Most kids learn to type from an earlier age. One single letter has no impact on the speed of writing.
Typing up 'that' comes also instinctively to me - as it should to every student in VCE level.
You miss the point, what is the incentive for teenagers used to 'dat' to switch back to 'that' ? You said yourself that it annoys you that people are lazy and write 'dat' instead of 'that' and I told you it was naive as people are lazy, its an innate sort of trait to take the easy way out. As StoneCold also brought up, which I agree with, there could be a conscious effort to sound 'sxc' or 'cool', expressing one's identity. Although I told you in essence you are right, it's quite sad how low the language has come but in 20, 30 years time 'dat' could become an official word: who knows?
I guess we can argue about this all day. What I really lament is that language is slowly losing its meaning. How can we truly convey the complexities of our thoughts and emotions, if every expression of joy is reduced to 'lol'?
I disagree, I think that enforcing rules and boundaries that cannot be broken and therefore hinder the ability of a language to evolve is far more likely to degrade meaning and emotion. Our new words are not simply grunts or meaningless and shallow expressions, they project and symbolise an entire culture and show how various demographics of society are thinking and feeling as a whole and how this effects their interaction. Just because the culture being represented is popular culture doesn't mean it is an unimportant culture or a shallow culture.
inafter chavi and inerd, but i still wanted to post it.
-
The funny thing is that I find it harder to write in all that colloquial jargon than to just use the full word! It takes a lot of active thinking for me to write a full comment with all the randon abbreviations ESPECIALLY when the abbreviation contains heaps of letters which aren't even in the original word :P
-
I guess we can argue about this all day. What I really lament is that language is slowly losing its meaning. How can we truly convey the complexities of our thoughts and emotions, if every expression of joy is reduced to 'lol'?
By the time a real 'revolution' in language comes, there would indubitably be a new means of expressing meaning. 'Lol', etc. are just novel forms of expression, and not completely meaningless phrases as you make them out to be. Particularly in regards to the sentiments on the use of 'lol' in public, I wouldn't reckon anyone would've heard 'Fair dinkum, mate', etc. 100 years before. As I said, it's just merely a new form of expression.
-
People see no incentive in typing 'that' rather then 'dat' which is faster albeit by one letter.
No incentive? What are you talking about? Most kids learn to type from an earlier age. One single letter has no impact on the speed of writing.
Typing up 'that' comes also instinctively to me - as it should to every student in VCE level.
Ever consider that people may choose to consciously spell words differently for group inclusion or to define who they are? Don't assume they are all just lazy...
Looking dumb as exercise in group belonging? I don't think that many blondes who fit the stereotype do so consciously or for want of notoriety. Likewise in this case.
Wouldn't say so. If you go to my earliest posts (actually I think I deleted quite a lot of them), you'd see that I typed with no caps and missed punctuation etc as well (oh god, I even see a 'ull' there instead of 'you'll'; *shiver*). It wasn't because I was lazy - I can type properly whenever I want to - it was just that I didn't want to come across being too formal or anything in a place filled with teenagers. It's not being 'dumb' when everyone else is doing it - it's fitting in. I change the way I talk frequently depending on who it is and as a general rule of thumb will mirror how they do. It's just simple communication really; talking on the same level that the other person is on to get your point across.
Thank you for summing up my point. :)
-
I guess we can argue about this all day. What I really lament is that language is slowly losing its meaning. How can we truly convey the complexities of our thoughts and emotions, if every expression of joy is reduced to 'lol'?
By the time a real 'revolution' in language comes, there would indubitably be a new means of expressing meaning. 'Lol', etc. are just novel forms of expression, and not completely meaningless phrases as you make them out to be. Particularly in regards to the sentiments on the use of 'lol' in public, I wouldn't reckon anyone would've heard 'Fair dinkum, mate', etc. 100 years before. As I said, it's just merely a new form of expression.
'Fair dinkum mate' doesn't stand for anything nor can it be performed. Saying LOL is disgustingly sad considering its meaning is TO LAUGH....so laugh for god's sake.
-
What's wrong with saying 'lol'? Would you frown if someonesaid ' that's hilarious' instead of laughing?
The current situation is that lol has become more of a word than abbreviation, it's just another way of expressing joy, there's absolutely nothing wrong with english having evolved this way.
Same goes for brb, nfi, omg, stfu, gtfo, my social circle use these ' words' quite frequently in normal conversations.
-
What's wrong with saying 'lol'? Would you frown if someonesaid ' that's hilarious' instead of laughing?
The current situation is that lol has become more of a word than abbreviation, it's just another way of expressing joy, there's absolutely nothing wrong with english having evolved this way.
Same goes for brb, nfi, omg, stfu, gtfo, my social circle use these ' words' quite frequently in normal conversations.
What the hell is 'nfi' ?
If you use the expression LOL which stands for LAUGH OUT LOUD that is quite sad: summon the energy to laugh bro? Those who say "that's hilarious" are implying that they don't find it that funny enough to require them to laugh...yet using the expression LOL and actually not performing it makes no sense.
-
What's wrong with saying 'lol'? Would you frown if someonesaid ' that's hilarious' instead of laughing?
The current situation is that lol has become more of a word than abbreviation, it's just another way of expressing joy, there's absolutely nothing wrong with english having evolved this way.
Same goes for brb, nfi, omg, stfu, gtfo, my social circle use these ' words' quite frequently in normal conversations.
What the hell is 'nfi' ?
If someone tells you a joke but you don't find it funny enough to laugh you can say " that's hilarious ". However if you use the expression LOL which stands for LAUGH OUT LOUD that is quite sad: summon the energy to laugh bro?
I always thought of lol as having several variations for degrees of hilarity... like a lol scale
lol lolol lololol LOL LOLOL LOLOLOLOLOL
You quoted me before I edited my post, *facepalm*.
-
What's wrong with saying 'lol'? Would you frown if someonesaid ' that's hilarious' instead of laughing?
The current situation is that lol has become more of a word than abbreviation, it's just another way of expressing joy, there's absolutely nothing wrong with english having evolved this way.
Same goes for brb, nfi, omg, stfu, gtfo, my social circle use these ' words' quite frequently in normal conversations.
What the hell is 'nfi' ?
If someone tells you a joke but you don't find it funny enough to laugh you can say " that's hilarious ". However if you use the expression LOL which stands for LAUGH OUT LOUD that is quite sad: summon the energy to laugh bro?
I always thought of lol as having several variations for degrees of hilarity... like a lol scale
lol lolol lololol LOL LOLOL LOLOLOLOLOL
until you reach the intensity of ROTFLMAO-copter
you see how ludicrous internet jargon has become? Wait until you start hearing people enunciate this on the street
-
Haha I've always treated 'lol' as something between actually laughing and saying 'that's hilarious'. I mean, if you find something genuinely funny, I don't think your laughter would go something like, "LOL ROFLMAO LOLZ!" - you'll actually laugh.
-
until you reach the intensity of ROTFLMAO-copter
you see how ludicrous internet jargon has become? Wait until you start hearing people enunciate this on the street
Personally I think you have mixed up two separate (but related) shortenings. ROFLcopter or ROFLMAO (note the lack of a T)
I believe that if something is funny enough you will have laughter, if it is merely amusing then you might hear LOL instead of laughter.
BTW @iNerd, nfi=no f***ing idea
-
I don't think that using the word lol is not meant to mean 'I am lauging out loud'. When someone says 'lol' they are saying that they acknowlodge that a joke has been said, but also saying something else depending on the context (this could be an expression of animosity or of happieness or jubilance or anything in between)
To say that using lol is silly is like saying using the word 'mortgage' is silly because it's roots dictate that whoever is using the word should be saying that they are makign a loan of death, or a loan that they will pay back when they die. Which they are not. Likewise, people who say 'lol' do not actualy mean that they are laughing out loud, they're just saying... whatever it is they are saying.
-
I don't think that using the word lol is not meant to mean 'I am lauging out loud'. When someone says 'lol' they are saying that they acknowlodge that a joke has been said, but also saying something else depending on the context (this could be an expression of animosity or of happieness or jubilance or anything in between)
To say that using lol is silly is like saying using the word 'mortgage' is silly because it's roots dictate that whoever is using the word should be saying that they are makign a loan of death, or a loan that they will pay back when they die. Which they are not. Likewise, people who say 'lol' do not actualy mean that they are laughing out loud, they're just saying... whatever it is they are saying.
I can't help but disagree. If you want to acknowledge a joke you say, "that's hilarious". If you find it funny enough to be worthy of laughter then for god's sake LAUGH!!!!!!! Mortgage doesn't stand for anything - Therein lies the fundamental difference: lol is merely an abbreviation for laughing out loud. Although I understand 'lol' on its own is becoming an accepted expression, it merely highlights the point that English language is degrading in quality in both forms, writing and speaking.
And what the hell..I had nfi on what nfi meant, is that new? :P
-
I don't think that using the word lol is not meant to mean 'I am lauging out loud'. When someone says 'lol' they are saying that they acknowlodge that a joke has been said, but also saying something else depending on the context (this could be an expression of animosity or of happieness or jubilance or anything in between)
To say that using lol is silly is like saying using the word 'mortgage' is silly because it's roots dictate that whoever is using the word should be saying that they are makign a loan of death, or a loan that they will pay back when they die. Which they are not. Likewise, people who say 'lol' do not actualy mean that they are laughing out loud, they're just saying... whatever it is they are saying.
I can't help but disagree. If you want to acknowledge a joke you say, "that's hilarious". If you find it funny enough to be worthy of laughter then for god's sake LAUGH!!!!!!! Mortgage doesn't stand for anything - Therein lies the fundamental difference: lol is merely an abbreviation for laughing out loud. Although I understand 'lol' on its own is becoming an accepted expression, it merely highlights the point that English language is degrading in quality in both forms, writing and speaking.
And what the hell..I had nfi on what nfi meant, is that new? :P
No mate, every word has an etymology, almost energy word we use now doesn't carry the current semantics back in the days. awesome doesn't mean something should feared, it means it is pretty damn cool. These semantic shift generally happen over a long time.
With lol, however, the semantic change occurred fairly quickly, that's not to say it cannot be classified as a word. You just cannot accept that an abbreviation can become a word.
-
some teachers take this a bit too seriously in my opinion, I got grilled by my literature teacher for using the word 'quasi' in one of my sentences because it was too coloquial... I didn't think it was too bad but apparently it is.
Since when is "quasi" colloquial?!
...which I completely agree on, as I stated in my first post, people have even come to the point of saying lol rather then performing the action of laughing which I find quite sad.
I don't know, I think it has evolved beyond a simple expression of mirth. I have heard it used to express a kind of sarcasm rather than pure happy amusement (and therefore the requisite neurons for laughing or whatever - shutup I don't know biology - don't actually fire. Unless you are suggesting people should fake laugh, which I think is far worse than saying "lol"). It is merely another form of expression.
No mate, every word has an etymology, almost energy word we use now doesn't carry the current semantics back in the days.
How you know when someone's been studying too hard.
-
No I agree......fake laughing is worse and actually quite hurtful to the person who made the joke (as it becomes rather obvious when you fake laugh). I can't be bothered arguing anymore (food is calling) but I still believe saying LOL is inappropriate given that it's an abbreviation standing for laughter.
-
Every. Typing long eloquent responses aren't easy from a phone, lol
-
If a figure as important as Shakespeare was allowed to make up words, I don't see why we can't keep adding to it as well. As language is a cultural thing, with culture being a thing which is only passed on through some form of communication (typically language), then as culture evolves, so must our language too. The culture nowadays is that of time efficiency and technology, and I think the two of these together brings together the increasing amount of shorthand we see. The culture point then ties back to my previous post about socially fitting in by mirroring how others speak as well.
-
If a figure as important as Shakespeare was allowed to make up words, I don't see why we can't keep adding to it as well.
I had this argument so many times with my year 10 english teacher. I still beieive that 'metalanguigical' CAN BE A WORD!
-
If a figure as important as Shakespeare was allowed to make up words, I don't see why we can't keep adding to it as well.
Because he managed to reach the threshold of importance that positioned him an authority of the English language.
Shakespeare >>>>>>>>>>>>> Us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. 4Chan >>>>> Facebook chat memes
-
If a figure as important as Shakespeare was allowed to make up words, I don't see why we can't keep adding to it as well.
Because he managed to reach the threshold of importance that positioned him an authority of the English language.
Shakespeare >>>>>>>>>>>>> Us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. 4Chan >>>>> Facebook chat memes
It's not that he himself was important, but that the words he added were. He only invented words because words with the function he required didn't yet exist. Not all the words he used are in use nowadays. Culture in itself undergoes a process of natural selection - with ideas or 'memes' (ideas which are passed between generations like how genes are) which are seen as useful and beneficial will continue to be passed on and reused, those which aren't are thrown out. Now we have a functional need for time efficiency and words which describe the technology we now use. Google and Wiki are now basically verbs (actually google is recognised as a verb by Oxford now isn't it?) because they're just such common place sayings. Instead, would you rather say 'I went on Google and searched up..." rather than 'I googled it'? Language is made to be used. As others have said, the definition of formal and informal is subjective and changes, and is likely to be also under the process of cultural selection as described above.
-
I disagree, I think that enforcing rules and boundaries that cannot be broken and therefore hinder the ability of a language to evolve is far more likely to degrade meaning and emotion. Our new words are not simply grunts or meaningless and shallow expressions, they project and symbolise an entire culture and show how various demographics of society are thinking and feeling as a whole and how this effects their interaction. Just because the culture being represented is popular culture doesn't mean it is an unimportant culture or a shallow culture.
I can't help but think of newspeak from Nineteen Eighty-Four when I read through this topic, and newspeak was not an improvement in that society.
The sad thing is, "lol" actually has very little meaning. While it may have started as "lol" I cannot honestly say that any of the people I talk to laugh when they say it. Perhaps if it is put in capital letters, or they use "ROFL" that may indicate genuine laughter, but I am totally against a word becomming part of formal language when in a lot of cases doesn't even signify what it is meant to.
On a side note, language should only evolve if we have more complex or new thoughts to express. And the current trend on the interwebs on twitter, facebook and myspace is quite the opposite.
-
If a figure as important as Shakespeare was allowed to make up words, I don't see why we can't keep adding to it as well.
Because he managed to reach the threshold of importance that positioned him an authority of the English language.
Shakespeare >>>>>>>>>>>>> Us >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. 4Chan >>>>> Facebook chat memes
It's not that he himself was important, but that the words he added were. He only invented words because words with the function he required didn't yet exist. Not all the words he used are in use nowadays. Culture in itself undergoes a process of natural selection - with ideas or 'memes' (ideas which are passed between generations like how genes are) which are seen as useful and beneficial will continue to be passed on and reused, those which aren't are thrown out. Now we have a functional need for time efficiency and words which describe the technology we now use. Google and Wiki are now basically verbs (actually google is recognised as a verb by Oxford now isn't it?) because they're just such common place sayings. Instead, would you rather say 'I went on Google and searched up..." rather than 'I googled it'? Language is made to be used. As others have said, the definition of formal and informal is subjective and changes, and is likely to be also under the process of cultural selection as described above.
Right, I completely agree that new words have to be added in to keep a language relevant. My main problem is with brain-deadening abbreviations such as lol, cbf and wtf that have transcended mere internet usage to enter day-to-day conversations. I also think many of these 'memes' have adverse effects on schoolkids who will struggle to attain the standard of grammar and spelling required for VCE exams.
Luckily, I remember a time when I had to use a library to find information. My younger siblings don't.
-
Chavi's post has made me start wondering if people believe these changes will positively effect society. Do people really see positives in the increased use of acronyms as opposed to formal expression? Should we abandon all synonyms and just use words like "cold" or "hot"?
"Lol" is an abbreviation, it has no real meaning unlike synonyms and antonyms and thus I can't see its genuine contribution to our language
-
iNerd man, you've gotta think more about the context that lol gets used in as well.
There is no single person alive today that has completely removed laughing from their personality, and replaced it with lol. lol is used to like someone said earlier, sort of, acknowledge that someone is being light-hearted or humorous, without actually laughing at the joke. This usually happens when someone says something, intending for it to be funny, but it isn't really. Same reason I always get a little frustrated when you text something funny and get a lol back, you understand what you said wasn't funny, much rather a hahahahahhahaahhahahahahahahaha.
-
iNerd man, you've gotta think more about the context that lol gets used in as well.
There is no single person alive today that has completely removed laughing from their personality, and replaced it with lol. lol is used to like someone said earlier, sort of, acknowledge that someone is being light-hearted or humorous, without actually laughing at the joke. This usually happens when someone says something, intending for it to be funny, but it isn't really. Same reason I always get a little frustrated when you text something funny and get a lol back, you understand what you said wasn't funny, much rather a hahahahahhahaahhahahahahahahaha.
No this is when you do what Mao said and you say "That's hilarious" or "That's funny" or "Good one" or whatever. Why lol? Why bring in an internet abbreviation to every-day-life? I mean when people say 'lol' the first thing that pops into my mind is 'laugh out loud' and then the consequential thought of 'why didn't you just laugh?'. I don't get your text argument, that's a text...not a real life situation. I totally understand the culture shift, language revolution etc etc and I accept the fact that lol has infested the population - that doesn't mean I like it or agree with it; I for one will stick to laughing.
-
I also think many of these 'memes' have adverse effects on schoolkids who will struggle to attain the standard of grammar and spelling required for VCE exams.
Well yeh, that's hard to prove for and against really. I personally admit to occasionally using words like 'lol' (as most people have said, in contexts where I don't actually find it funny otherwise I would just laugh), ceebs and so on, but it doesn't impact on my use of language elsewhere. Whether it affects others...I'm not too sure. I think the evolving language is just a confounding factor for kids who actually don't know grammar and spelling. Although most people don't spell and use grammar correctly online, many can when they wish. For those that can't, I think the education system has failed them. But yes, difficult to isolate either factor and prove it really.
-
No this is when you do what Mao said and you say "That's hilarious" or "That's funny" or "Good one" or whatever. Why lol? Why bring in an internet abbreviation to every-day-life? I mean when people say 'lol' the first thing that pops into my mind is 'laugh out loud' and then the consequential thought of 'why didn't you just laugh?'. I don't get your text argument, that's a text...not a real life situation. I totally understand the culture shift, language revolution etc etc and I accept the fact that lol has infested the population - that doesn't mean I like it or agree with it; I for one will stick to laughing.
...you still don't get it, I mustn't be explaining it right. My text example wasn't an argument, it was just an anecdote. I'm not pro lol, I think it's stupid. But there's more to the semantics and the scenario of the word and it's use, then just laughing. It isn't used in the place of laughing. Maybe once it was, but it isn't now.
-
No this is when you do what Mao said and you say "That's hilarious" or "That's funny" or "Good one" or whatever. Why lol? Why bring in an internet abbreviation to every-day-life? I mean when people say 'lol' the first thing that pops into my mind is 'laugh out loud' and then the consequential thought of 'why didn't you just laugh?'. I don't get your text argument, that's a text...not a real life situation. I totally understand the culture shift, language revolution etc etc and I accept the fact that lol has infested the population - that doesn't mean I like it or agree with it; I for one will stick to laughing.
...you still don't get it, I mustn't be explaining it right. My text example wasn't an argument, it was just an anecdote. I'm not pro lol, I think it's stupid. But there's more to the semantics and the scenario of the word and it's use, then just laughing. It isn't used in the place of laughing. Maybe once it was, but it isn't now.
Fair enough. Although it still is quite sad that the expression has transferred from internet [a technological invention] to life [reality] almost dumbing down humans and as Chavi said, reducing the complexity of our expression by use of internet abbreviations.
-
Fair enough. Although it still is quite sad that the expression has transferred from internet [a technological invention] to life [reality] almost dumbing down humans and as Chavi said, reducing the complexity of our expression by use of internet abbreviations.
Perfectly said, couldn't agree more.
-
I also think many of these 'memes' have adverse effects on schoolkids who will struggle to attain the standard of grammar and spelling required for VCE exams.
Well yeh, that's hard to prove for and against really. I personally admit to occasionally using words like 'lol' (as most people have said, in contexts where I don't actually find it funny otherwise I would just laugh), ceebs and so on, but it doesn't impact on my use of language elsewhere. Whether it affects others...I'm not too sure. I think the evolving language is just a confounding factor for kids who actually don't know grammar and spelling. Although most people don't spell and use grammar correctly online, many can when they wish. For those that can't, I think the education system has failed them. But yes, difficult to isolate either factor and prove it really.
Most research shows that children and teenagers generally have the capacity to switch between the teenspeak register and more formal varieties when required.
I think this thread is nothing more than a prescriptivist rant.
What is it to you the language people choose to communicate with in their own groups?
-
Most research shows that children and teenagers generally have the capacity to switch between the teenspeak register and more formal varieties when required.
[citation needed]
-
Most research shows that children and teenagers generally have the capacity to switch between the teenspeak register and more formal varieties when required.
[citation needed]
I recall seeing evidence of that too in The Age but didn't mention it for this reason.
-
I constantly get into arguments about this; usually because I can barely understand what has been sent to me and usually have to translate it.
Also with education; our two major areas that are holding us back are basic grammar and basic arithmetic. I'm personally only just starting to learn the right conventions in grammar. As for basic arithmetic; the students I tutor can understand most of the year 10/11 content, but have no idea how to add fractions.
Lastly this new vocabulary people use make them sound like aspiring rappers.
-
Most research shows that children and teenagers generally have the capacity to switch between the teenspeak register and more formal varieties when required.
[citation needed]
Read the article I attached on the first page. The one by Dr Carolyn Lee.
-
What is it to you the language people choose to communicate with in their own groups?
It has spread far beyond usage in their own groups.
I do however hate the grammar-nazis on websites that try and berate you for lacking a full stop or capital letter, or mispelling a simple word. Same with the people on youtube who run out of arguments and say "well learn to spell"
-
Everyone just read the article entitled "Language - from sludge to SMS" before making claims which I am yet to see any support for.
And the tool British journalist John Humphrey who claimed in his his book that users of textspeak are 'pillaging our punctuation, savaging our sentences, raping our vocabulary" is not evidence, it is a moronic and unsolicited rant.
-
Most research shows that children and teenagers generally have the capacity to switch between the teenspeak register and more formal varieties when required.
[citation needed]
Read the article I attached on the first page. The one by Dr Carolyn Lee.
A very good article I must add. Whilst I agree with the premise that managerial, bombastic language often masks over meaning - an entirely separate and equally worrying problem -many of her observations pertain to her students - who are presumably, middle-class, well educated and proficient enough for Uni. Nowhere does she mention research to back up her observations.
I've seen examples where VCE students use 'dat' and 'der' in their essays (ie in a formal setting). Not everyone makes it to uni. Whilst I admit that I too on occasions use abbreviations on chat (ppl, m8 etc), the problem begins when internet jargon makes its way into formal prose or conversations.
-
Most research shows that children and teenagers generally have the capacity to switch between the teenspeak register and more formal varieties when required.
[citation needed]
Read the article I attached on the first page. The one by Dr Carolyn Lee.
A very good article I must add. Whilst I agree with the premise that managerial, bombastic language often masks over meaning - an entirely separate and equally worrying problem -many of her observations pertain to her students - who are presumably, middle-class, well educated and proficient enough for Uni. Nowhere does she mention research to back up her observations.
I've seen examples where VCE students use 'dat' and 'der' in their essays (ie in a formal setting). Not everyone makes it to uni. Whilst I admit that I too on occasions use abbreviations on chat (ppl, m8 etc), the problem begins when internet jargon makes its way into formal prose or conversations.
Of course some students will do it. But IMO those with poor literacy and numeracy skills probably know about it and don't really care from my perspective. I know I don't have great spelling and grammar but I am constantly trying to improve it. Those who don't recognise that non standard spellings in formal writing is not acceptable definitely need to address it. But as I said, I doubt they care. To some people (stupid I know) an uneducated persona is seen as a desirable attribute. I 100% agree that textspeak is not for formal prose, but I think on laid back forums such as this, social networking sites, social interactions etc., it is perfectly valid.
-
I 100% agree that textspeak is not for formal prose, but I think on laid back forums such as this, social networking sites, social interactions etc., it is perfectly valid.
I agree with this from my first post. The line between formal and colloquial is becoming blurred though to the extent that it may 'defile' English. After all, we are the inheritors of this language. We are the ones who pass it on to the next generation. We decide whether they will hold educated, reasoned discussions - or descend into an incoherent orgy of lols, thx and cu l8r m8's
-
No mate, every word has an etymology, almost energy word we use now doesn't carry the current semantics back in the days.
How you know when someone's been studying too hard.
That elicited a real, physical lol :)
-
This discussion is reminding me of 1984. Internet slang should stay on the Internet and not find it's way in real life.
-
Worse grammatical case I have ever seen:
"What's Obama?"
Okay, i highly doubt it was grammar, more an ignorance issue.
Other than that, people in year 9 didn't know "I" had to be capitalised when referring to first person/
-
Worse grammatical case I have ever seen:
"What's Obama?"
Okay, i highly doubt it was grammar, more an ignorance issue.
Other than that, people in year 9 didn't know "I" had to be capitalised when referring to first person/
One which really annoys me is 'loose' rather than 'lose'.
"So did you guyz win or loose on the wkend ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"
-
I've seen 's being used (in an attempt) to convert a singular into a plural :o
-
I agree with the mobile phone/FB comment on how they're gradually denigrating the English language. It is commonplace to see teenagers, adults even to tell their friends to 'text' them rather than 'send them a text' and to 'facebook' them, rather than to 'message them on Facebook'. But, it really is just an innate psychological trait of the human mind; languidness.
-
I agree with the mobile phone/FB comment on how they're gradually denigrating the English language. It is commonplace to see teenagers, adults even to tell their friends to 'text' them rather than 'send them a text' and to 'facebook' them, rather than to 'message them on Facebook'. But, it really is just an innate psychological trait of the human mind; languidness.
Or... "google it" instead of "Why don't you just search for it on google?"
-
I agree with the mobile phone/FB comment on how they're gradually denigrating the English language. It is commonplace to see teenagers, adults even to tell their friends to 'text' them rather than 'send them a text' and to 'facebook' them, rather than to 'message them on Facebook'. But, it really is just an innate psychological trait of the human mind; languidness.
Or... "google it" instead of "Why don't you just search for it on google?"
Well, I believe Google is now an official English word, given that it's in the Oxford Dictionary now.
-
Along with "staycation" and "simples". I ask you...
-
I agree with the mobile phone/FB comment on how they're gradually denigrating the English language. It is commonplace to see teenagers, adults even to tell their friends to 'text' them rather than 'send them a text' and to 'facebook' them, rather than to 'message them on Facebook'. But, it really is just an innate psychological trait of the human mind; languidness.
Or... "google it" instead of "Why don't you just search for it on google?"
Well, I believe Google is now an official English word, given that it's in the Oxford Dictionary now.
All this time I thought google was always an official word, haha. But can people actually just make up words which then become official?? o_o
Then again, if they didn't, there would be no words O_O
-
Oh, I don't get how people mix up there and their. Or effect and affect.
-
. Or effect and affect.
I get mucked up with this :S because I always forget the easiest way to remember it...
-
. Or effect and affect.
I get mucked up with this :S because I always forget the easiest way to remember it...
My teacher taught me this:
RAVEN
Remember
Affect
Verb
Effect
Noun
But I still manage to stuff it up from time to time. :P
-
. Or effect and affect.
I get mucked up with this :S because I always forget the easiest way to remember it...
http://www.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/affect-effect-grammar.html
-
. Or effect and affect.
I get mucked up with this :S because I always forget the easiest way to remember it...
My teacher taught me this:
RAVEN
Remember
Affect
Verb
Effect
Noun
But I still manage to stuff it up from time to time. :P
I don't know lol, it's kind of inbuilt into me. I think it's because I read a lot when I was young.
-
I agree with the mobile phone/FB comment on how they're gradually denigrating the English language. It is commonplace to see teenagers, adults even to tell their friends to 'text' them rather than 'send them a text' and to 'facebook' them, rather than to 'message them on Facebook'. But, it really is just an innate psychological trait of the human mind; languidness.
Or... "google it" instead of "Why don't you just search for it on google?"
Well, I believe Google is now an official English word, given that it's in the Oxford Dictionary now.
All this time I thought google was always an official word, haha. But can people actually just make up words which then become official?? o_o
Then again, if they didn't, there would be no words O_O
When Sergei and Larry were still at Stanford thinking up names for their company, someone wrote on their chalkboard "Google" what they actually meant was "Googol" which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes. Just an interesting nerd fact.
If words are used often enough then why shouldn't they be added to the dictionary? (LOL ROFL LMAO are not words.)
-
Oh, I don't get how people mix up there and their. Or effect and affect.
There's a journalist in England, known for his conservative outlook, who deplores the use of "impacted" to mean "affected".
-
Get over people using the wrong terms.
I hate it when the stock-market is described as 'volatile.'
Volatile means 'easily vaporised'.
There is nothing you can do about it and it just has to be accepted.
-
Get over people using the wrong terms.
I hate it when the stock-market is described as 'volatile.'
Volatile means 'easily vaporised'.
There is nothing you can do about it and it just has to be accepted.
nah it means unstable too I think.
-
Get over people using the wrong terms.
I hate it when the stock-market is described as 'volatile.'
Volatile means 'easily vaporised'.
There is nothing you can do about it and it just has to be accepted.
nah it means unstable too I think.
I thought it has somehow evolved into that, but its initial meaning was the chemical one.
-
Of course :D Alot of those words become warped into general use
-
obviously if theres a quick way out for an informal context, cbs.
-
Most research shows that children and teenagers generally have the capacity to switch between the teenspeak register and more formal varieties when required.
[citation needed]
Read the article I attached on the first page. The one by Dr Carolyn Lee.
A very good article I must add. Whilst I agree with the premise that managerial, bombastic language often masks over meaning - an entirely separate and equally worrying problem -many of her observations pertain to her students - who are presumably, middle-class, well educated and proficient enough for Uni. Nowhere does she mention research to back up her observations.
I've seen examples where VCE students use 'dat' and 'der' in their essays (ie in a formal setting). Not everyone makes it to uni. Whilst I admit that I too on occasions use abbreviations on chat (ppl, m8 etc), the problem begins when internet jargon makes its way into formal prose or conversations.
Of course some students will do it. But IMO those with poor literacy and numeracy skills probably know about it and don't really care from my perspective. I know I don't have great spelling and grammar but I am constantly trying to improve it. Those who don't recognise that non standard spellings in formal writing is not acceptable definitely need to address it. But as I said, I doubt they care. To some people (stupid I know) an uneducated persona is seen as a desirable attribute. I 100% agree that textspeak is not for formal prose, but I think on laid back forums such as this, social networking sites, social interactions etc., it is perfectly valid.
This has always got me. My sisters constantly tell me off for putting up an interesting status update, whereas people are applauded for status updates about some crazy weekend. Having said that, the tables will turn when your in your 40's where being educated, rich and respectable are wanted attributes.
-
nah it means unstable too I think.
I thought it has somehow evolved into that, but its initial meaning was the chemical one.
just curious, does anyone use the OED to look at possible semantic shift?
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/linguafranca/stories/2010/3084081.htm
-
This has always got me. My sisters constantly tell me off for putting up an interesting status update, whereas people are applauded for status updates about some crazy weekend. Having said that, the tables will turn when your YOU'RE in your 40's where being educated, rich and respectable are wanted attributes.
:P LOL Irony ::)
-
^ I didn't even realise..just read it as normal.
-
This has always got me. My sister's constantly tell me off for putting up an interesting status update, whereas people are applauded for status updates about some crazy weekend. Having said that, the tables will turn when your YOU'RE in your 40's where being educated, rich and respectable are wanted attributes.
:P LOL Irony ::)
Even more so. haha. How could you not find that one m@tty!
The queens English is certainly not a requirement on this forum. :D
-
Ah, I saw that, but it is not actually wrong the way he had it.
"sisters" may mean multiple sisters, rather than erroneously referring to only one.
-
Ah, I saw that, but it is not actually wrong the way he had it.
"sisters" may mean multiple sisters, rather than erroneously referring to only one.
ah, true!
-
Ah, I saw that, but it is not actually wrong the way he had it.
"sisters" may mean multiple sisters, rather than erroneously referring to only one.
ah, true!
Pwned. ROTFLMAO-copter
-
Ah, I saw that, but it is not actually wrong the way he had it.
"sisters" may mean multiple sisters, rather than erroneously referring to only one.
ah, true!
Pwned. ROTFLMAO-copter
i'd karma you again but I can't :(
-
Of course some students will do it. But IMO those with poor literacy and numeracy skills probably know about it and don't really care from my perspective. I know I don't have great spelling and grammar but I am constantly trying to improve it. Those who don't recognise that non standard spellings in formal writing is not acceptable definitely need to address it. But as I said, I doubt they care. To some people (stupid I know) an uneducated persona is seen as a desirable attribute. I 100% agree that textspeak is not for formal prose, but I think on laid back forums such as this, social networking sites, social interactions etc., it is perfectly valid.
Not only is it valid, it is absolutely necessary. Groups have their own identification, and this can be reflected through a unique use of language.
This has always got me. My sisters constantly tell me off for putting up an interesting status update, whereas people are applauded for status updates about some crazy weekend. Having said that, the tables will turn when your in your 40's where being educated, rich and respectable are wanted attributes.
This is a good example of such identity/language clash. Where one group is into wild social activities for fun, their speech adjust to reflect this behaviour. Later in life, when their mentality changes and they wish to be identified with people like you, you will also notice a change in their language.
There is nothing wrong with the teens saying what they want to the way they want to. So long as they can understand each other, and so long as they are being themselves, who are we to judge?
-
Ah, I saw that, but it is not actually wrong the way he had it.
"sisters" may mean multiple sisters, rather than erroneously referring to only one.
ah, true!
Pwned. ROTFLMAO-copter
i'd karma you again but I can't :(
Haha, the only reason I made that last post was so I could use Chavi's expression of humour. :P
-
Of course some students will do it. But IMO those with poor literacy and numeracy skills probably know about it and don't really care from my perspective. I know I don't have great spelling and grammar but I am constantly trying to improve it. Those who don't recognise that non standard spellings in formal writing is not acceptable definitely need to address it. But as I said, I doubt they care. To some people (stupid I know) an uneducated persona is seen as a desirable attribute. I 100% agree that textspeak is not for formal prose, but I think on laid back forums such as this, social networking sites, social interactions etc., it is perfectly valid.
Not only is it valid, it is absolutely necessary. Groups have their own identification, and this can be reflected through a unique use of language.
Clearly this is a phenomenon that transcends little groups to become a distinct subculture.
Basically everyone uses this kind of language on the net, and kids frequent facebook more and more often. That increases the risk of retarded spelling in essays from 0 to some positive integer - particularly if you spend 3+ hours becoming accustomed to "OMFG going 2 da shopz".
Surely these problems will become more pronounced when today's 12 year old's hit VCE
-
Of course some students will do it. But IMO those with poor literacy and numeracy skills probably know about it and don't really care from my perspective. I know I don't have great spelling and grammar but I am constantly trying to improve it. Those who don't recognise that non standard spellings in formal writing is not acceptable definitely need to address it. But as I said, I doubt they care. To some people (stupid I know) an uneducated persona is seen as a desirable attribute. I 100% agree that textspeak is not for formal prose, but I think on laid back forums such as this, social networking sites, social interactions etc., it is perfectly valid.
Not only is it valid, it is absolutely necessary. Groups have their own identification, and this can be reflected through a unique use of language.
Clearly this is a phenomenon that transcends little groups to become a distinct subculture.
Basically everyone uses this kind of language on the net, and kids frequent facebook more and more often. That increases the risk of retarded spelling in essays from 0 to some positive integer - particularly if you spend 3+ hours becoming accustomed to "OMFG going 2 da shopz".
Surely these problems will become more pronounced when today's 12 year old's hit VCE
There is the chance that some of the 12 year olds will mature to an extent. Not all of them buy into the fads, memes and irritating "1337" speak.
-
English will always be English. Just because some choose to shortcut online which is perfectly fine, doesn't mean formal language is destroyed.. That's way too farfetched to even claim.
-
English will always be English. Just because some choose to shortcut online which is perfectly fine, doesn't mean formal language is destroyed.. That's way too farfetched to even claim.
The argument is that the utter prevalence of poor English as a result of the internet/txt msgingand academic neglect of grammar rules, may hamper the evolution of the English language
-
haha - or else accelerate its evolution into a frightfully efficient, yet barely recognisable, form...
-
haha - or else accelerate its evolution into a frightfully efficient, yet barely recognisable, form...
wtf uze talking bout bro? uzee hectic bru
-
YEH ULEH!
Epic cringe.
-
Chavi's dispredilection (which I somewhat share) for alternative spelling and the pervasiveness of internet speak even in informal speech is purely aesthetic -comparable to disliking an architectural or sartorial trend. Indeed text speak and minimalist slang words, like "sup", are more succinct that their standard counterparts; Orwell, who valued clarity above all else in language would have approved of their use in certain contexts.
(Though I disagree with hardcore descriptivists; Standard English as we know it has its place; you couldn't really imagine a seminal work of fiction or non-fiction being written in msn speak.)
-
I agree with the mobile phone/FB comment on how they're gradually denigrating the English language. It is commonplace to see teenagers, adults even to tell their friends to 'text' them rather than 'send them a text' and to 'facebook' them, rather than to 'message them on Facebook'. But, it really is just an innate psychological trait of the human mind; languidness.
Or... "google it" instead of "Why don't you just search for it on google?"
Well, I believe Google is now an official English word, given that it's in the Oxford Dictionary now.
All this time I thought google was always an official word, haha. But can people actually just make up words which then become official?? o_o
Then again, if they didn't, there would be no words O_O
When Sergei and Larry were still at Stanford thinking up names for their company, someone wrote on their chalkboard "Google" what they actually meant was "Googol" which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes. Just an interesting nerd fact.
If words are used often enough then why shouldn't they be added to the dictionary? (LOL ROFL LMAO are not words.)
English Language and vocabulary development is descriptive in nature, unlike most continental European countries where there is actually a language authority that decides what constitutes correct language. Dictionaries, such as the OED merely recorded what gets used often enough that it enters the general lexicon.
-
I agree with the mobile phone/FB comment on how they're gradually denigrating the English language. It is commonplace to see teenagers, adults even to tell their friends to 'text' them rather than 'send them a text' and to 'facebook' them, rather than to 'message them on Facebook'. But, it really is just an innate psychological trait of the human mind; languidness.
Or... "google it" instead of "Why don't you just search for it on google?"
Well, I believe Google is now an official English word, given that it's in the Oxford Dictionary now.
All this time I thought google was always an official word, haha. But can people actually just make up words which then become official?? o_o
Then again, if they didn't, there would be no words O_O
When Sergei and Larry were still at Stanford thinking up names for their company, someone wrote on their chalkboard "Google" what they actually meant was "Googol" which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes. Just an interesting nerd fact.
If words are used often enough then why shouldn't they be added to the dictionary? (LOL ROFL LMAO are not words.)
English Language and vocabulary development is descriptive in nature, unlike most continental European countries where there is actually a language authority that decides what constitutes correct language. Dictionaries, such as the OED merely recorded what gets used often enough that it enters the general lexicon.
Really? I didn't know codification via the OED was solely based on usage. How do they measure it -do they award different numbers of points for every time the word is used in different contexts or something like that?
-
I agree with the mobile phone/FB comment on how they're gradually denigrating the English language. It is commonplace to see teenagers, adults even to tell their friends to 'text' them rather than 'send them a text' and to 'facebook' them, rather than to 'message them on Facebook'. But, it really is just an innate psychological trait of the human mind; languidness.
Or... "google it" instead of "Why don't you just search for it on google?"
Well, I believe Google is now an official English word, given that it's in the Oxford Dictionary now.
All this time I thought google was always an official word, haha. But can people actually just make up words which then become official?? o_o
Then again, if they didn't, there would be no words O_O
When Sergei and Larry were still at Stanford thinking up names for their company, someone wrote on their chalkboard "Google" what they actually meant was "Googol" which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes. Just an interesting nerd fact.
If words are used often enough then why shouldn't they be added to the dictionary? (LOL ROFL LMAO are not words.)
English Language and vocabulary development is descriptive in nature, unlike most continental European countries where there is actually a language authority that decides what constitutes correct language. Dictionaries, such as the OED merely recorded what gets used often enough that it enters the general lexicon.
Really? I didn't know codification via the OED was solely based on usage. How do they measure it -do they award different numbers of points for every time the word is used in different contexts or something like that?
Pretty much.
-
hahaha.
i love this thread.
anyone who can't type correctly, should not use a computer.
-
hahaha.
i love this thread.
anyone who can't type correctly, should not use a computer.
wat er u talkin about?
-
hahaha.
i love this thread.
anyone who can't type correctly, should not use a computer.
Ge3t da farrk ouda h3r3!
-
Well, I type really fast, anybody on my facebook would know, so sometimes I just type out the sentence without looking and press "Enter"
-
German politician starts a campaign against "Denglish"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1342888/As-say-Denglish-der-boot.html
-
I admit, that sort of language in a VCE essay is not only tactless but also pretty damn right stupid.
That being said, i have nothing at all against "teenagers" changing the langauge. The english language has always been changing. 5 centuries ago, most people nowawayds would have no idea what was being said.
Even 20-30 years ago, the colloquial English language was radically different to what we have today. Words change, new words come, old words go - its all part of the process
-
Do you know what annoys me, and im sure people will agree with this- people who say LOL or ROFL.
I understand people typing such abbrieviations (or acronyms?) but actually orally saying it to people, is just like...errrr...
It's preety much like "you say 'LOL', but i dont see you LOL[ing]!!!!!"
I dont see the point in saying in the first place.
If you saw something funny YOU WOULD LAUGH not say LOL!!!!!!!!!
Obviously, your not LOL[ing] your saying 'LOL' just cause what? Your too lazy to actually laugh??
I dont know about you guys, but i'll be the idiot to laugh at anytime, anyplace. I also have an annoying laugh but thats besides the point :)
I'll be somewhere really serious, and someone would preety much trip, and i'd be standing there LITERALLY LOL.
I dont stand there and say 'LOL' ffs.
Sorry for the random rant.
Oh also, people who say 'awks' its one more syllable to add the 'ward' to the 'awk'. Seriously? Is it going to save you one second of time by not saying 'ward'
Please someone, dont say it will save one second, please.
-
Do you know what annoys me, and im sure people will agree with this- people who say LOL or ROFL.
I understand people typing such abbrieviations (or acronyms?) but actually orally saying it to people, is just like...errrr...
It's preety much like "you say 'LOL', but i dont see you LOL[ing]!!!!!"
I dont see the point in saying in the first place.
If you saw something funny YOU WOULD LAUGH not say LOL!!!!!!!!!
Obviously, your not LOL[ing] your saying 'LOL' just cause what? Your too lazy to actually laugh??
I dont know about you guys, but i'll be the idiot to laugh at anytime, anyplace. I also have an annoying laugh but thats besides the point :)
I'll be somewhere really serious, and someone would preety much trip, and i'd be standing there LITERALLY LOL.
I dont stand there and say 'LOL' ffs.
I say "lol" when speaking, and it's not laziness, and not because I'm using it to replace actual laughter. When something is very funny, I actually laugh. However, there are times when there's something mildly funny. It isn't funny enough to actually laugh, but I find it rather amusing. That's when I say "lol."
When I use it, it's a shorter way of expressing that "I found that fairly amusing," and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able use it in this way.
-
Do you know what annoys me, and im sure people will agree with this- people who say LOL or ROFL.
I understand people typing such abbrieviations (or acronyms?) but actually orally saying it to people, is just like...errrr...
It's preety much like "you say 'LOL', but i dont see you LOL[ing]!!!!!"
I dont see the point in saying in the first place.
If you saw something funny YOU WOULD LAUGH not say LOL!!!!!!!!!
Obviously, your not LOL[ing] your saying 'LOL' just cause what? Your too lazy to actually laugh??
I dont know about you guys, but i'll be the idiot to laugh at anytime, anyplace. I also have an annoying laugh but thats besides the point :)
I'll be somewhere really serious, and someone would preety much trip, and i'd be standing there LITERALLY LOL.
I dont stand there and say 'LOL' ffs.
I say "lol" when speaking, and it's not laziness, and not because I'm using it to replace actual laughter. When something is very funny, I actually laugh. However, there are times when there's something mildly funny. It isn't funny enough to actually laugh, but I find it rather amusing. That's when I say "lol."
When I use it, it's a shorter way of expressing that "I found that fairly amusing," and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able use it in this way.
Awks.