Teens are destroying the English language

[stonecold]

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

[Mao]

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?

[m@tty]

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.

[Chavi]

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

[Spreadbury]

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.

[darren94]

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.

[Chavi]

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

[dptjandra]

haha - or else accelerate its evolution into a frightfully efficient, yet barely recognisable, form...

[Chavi]

haha - or else accelerate its evolution into a frightfully efficient, yet barely recognisable, form...

wtf uze talking bout bro? uzee hectic bru

[iffets12345]

YEH ULEH!
Epic cringe.

[MuggedByReality]

    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.)

[Glockmeister]

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.

[MuggedByReality]

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?

[Glockmeister]

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.

[jaccerz]

hahaha.
i love this thread.

anyone who can't type correctly, should not use a computer.