Teens are destroying the English language

[chansthename]

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

[chrisjb]

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.

[iNerd]

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?

[Mao]

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?

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.

[ninwa]

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.

[iNerd]

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.

[Mao]

Every. Typing long eloquent responses aren't easy from a phone, lol

[shinny]

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.

[chrisjb]

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!

[Chavi]

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

[shinny]

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.

[Spreadbury]

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.

[Chavi]

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.

[Spreadbury]

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

[Ghost!]

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.