Speaking of TxtSpeak [modified]
-
I wonder how people might have felt during the times when "thou art" became "You are". Did they look at "you are" with a similar disdain as we now look "u r". More importantly do you think, after 100 years or so, "you are" will be considered archaic in favor of "u r". What will finally replace "u r"? Brain to brain direct communication instead of language? :~
modified on Monday, August 17, 2009 4:39 PM
Ah, but:
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I wonder how people might have felt during the times when "thou art" became "You are".
Was a progression, whereas:
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
"u r"
is a regression (and if it continues, language will disappear and we'll be back to ape like grunting). On the Radio 4 a few weeks back there was some "professor" spouting nonsense that spelling, grammar and punctuation don't matter. He was an arse, but also a hypocrite - you don't get to be a professor of anything other than broom handling if your spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't up to scratch. I blame the current state of the language, in Britain at least, on the television. Programming appears to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, the most moronic of audience, the most base of human instinct. I haven't seen any challenging, intelligent, uncomfortable or engaging TV in years. I don't think quality TV programs exist any more as everything has been dumbed down to appeal to the most basic human instincts: eating, sleeping and shagging. But that's just me, and I'm rapidly turning into an old git :-D
-
Ah, but:
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I wonder how people might have felt during the times when "thou art" became "You are".
Was a progression, whereas:
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
"u r"
is a regression (and if it continues, language will disappear and we'll be back to ape like grunting). On the Radio 4 a few weeks back there was some "professor" spouting nonsense that spelling, grammar and punctuation don't matter. He was an arse, but also a hypocrite - you don't get to be a professor of anything other than broom handling if your spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't up to scratch. I blame the current state of the language, in Britain at least, on the television. Programming appears to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, the most moronic of audience, the most base of human instinct. I haven't seen any challenging, intelligent, uncomfortable or engaging TV in years. I don't think quality TV programs exist any more as everything has been dumbed down to appeal to the most basic human instincts: eating, sleeping and shagging. But that's just me, and I'm rapidly turning into an old git :-D
martin_hughes wrote:
is a regression (and if it continues, language will disappear and we'll be back to ape like grunting).
It might be a regression to you. However, to me I see it as progression because it communicates the exact same thing (minus your imposed judgement) AND it does so in a much more efficient manner. If ape like grunting is sufficient, imo, it is a regression to use a more "civilized" form of communication.
martin_hughes wrote:
you don't get to be a professor of anything other than broom handling if your spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't up to scratch.
I would argue that you must understand something before are truely able to improve upon it. If you manage to improve upon something you don't understand (and/or are incapable of doing yourself) then it is just luck. I can certainly appreciate the necessity of proper english in times when it is appropriate (like when writing a thesis that will only be read by some old-hat who cares about proper english). But to even try generalizing that people who don't use it all the time are any less intelligent or wise seems a bit idiotic.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
is a regression (and if it continues, language will disappear and we'll be back to ape like grunting).
It might be a regression to you. However, to me I see it as progression because it communicates the exact same thing (minus your imposed judgement) AND it does so in a much more efficient manner. If ape like grunting is sufficient, imo, it is a regression to use a more "civilized" form of communication.
martin_hughes wrote:
you don't get to be a professor of anything other than broom handling if your spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't up to scratch.
I would argue that you must understand something before are truely able to improve upon it. If you manage to improve upon something you don't understand (and/or are incapable of doing yourself) then it is just luck. I can certainly appreciate the necessity of proper english in times when it is appropriate (like when writing a thesis that will only be read by some old-hat who cares about proper english). But to even try generalizing that people who don't use it all the time are any less intelligent or wise seems a bit idiotic.
I tell you what. Use that lovely txtspeak on your resume. It should help you career progress.
-
Ah, but:
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I wonder how people might have felt during the times when "thou art" became "You are".
Was a progression, whereas:
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
"u r"
is a regression (and if it continues, language will disappear and we'll be back to ape like grunting). On the Radio 4 a few weeks back there was some "professor" spouting nonsense that spelling, grammar and punctuation don't matter. He was an arse, but also a hypocrite - you don't get to be a professor of anything other than broom handling if your spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't up to scratch. I blame the current state of the language, in Britain at least, on the television. Programming appears to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, the most moronic of audience, the most base of human instinct. I haven't seen any challenging, intelligent, uncomfortable or engaging TV in years. I don't think quality TV programs exist any more as everything has been dumbed down to appeal to the most basic human instincts: eating, sleeping and shagging. But that's just me, and I'm rapidly turning into an old git :-D
Same in the US of A. TV sucks. Nothing but mindless drivel. :(
-
I tell you what. Use that lovely txtspeak on your resume. It should help you career progress.
you are assuming that I have a need for a resume. yet another archaic and mostly useless (since it doesn't actually have anything to do with someone's skillset or ability to perform job functions) form of communication. And of course we all use some form of text speak in our resumes. Unless your entire resume, including work/education history is in paragraph form. Sure there are rules and formats for proper tabular format in a business document, but that hardly qualifies as proper english. Text speak has rules as well. They just change/evolve at a MUCH more rapid pace than what could be accurately documented and followed.
-
Same in the US of A. TV sucks. Nothing but mindless drivel. :(
-
martin_hughes wrote:
is a regression (and if it continues, language will disappear and we'll be back to ape like grunting).
It might be a regression to you. However, to me I see it as progression because it communicates the exact same thing (minus your imposed judgement) AND it does so in a much more efficient manner. If ape like grunting is sufficient, imo, it is a regression to use a more "civilized" form of communication.
martin_hughes wrote:
you don't get to be a professor of anything other than broom handling if your spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't up to scratch.
I would argue that you must understand something before are truely able to improve upon it. If you manage to improve upon something you don't understand (and/or are incapable of doing yourself) then it is just luck. I can certainly appreciate the necessity of proper english in times when it is appropriate (like when writing a thesis that will only be read by some old-hat who cares about proper english). But to even try generalizing that people who don't use it all the time are any less intelligent or wise seems a bit idiotic.
Sorry, but no. Some simple examples: Uranus - The 7th planet from the sun. According to you, it's You Are Anus. Urologist - Someone you go and see if you've been visiting a manky tart. According to you it's You Are Ologist. Ur - An ancient city in Sumer pronounced "Err". According to you, it's pronounced You are. Your - the second-person personal pronoun. According to you it's Yo! You are! You're - According to you it's Yo! You'Are e! I could go on, but can't be bothered. The point of written communication is to convey meaning without ambiguity. It is not idiotic to suggest that people should communicate clearly and succinctly, but it is a valid critique of those who are too lazy to expend the extra effort in doing so.
-
Ah, but:
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I wonder how people might have felt during the times when "thou art" became "You are".
Was a progression, whereas:
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
"u r"
is a regression (and if it continues, language will disappear and we'll be back to ape like grunting). On the Radio 4 a few weeks back there was some "professor" spouting nonsense that spelling, grammar and punctuation don't matter. He was an arse, but also a hypocrite - you don't get to be a professor of anything other than broom handling if your spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't up to scratch. I blame the current state of the language, in Britain at least, on the television. Programming appears to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, the most moronic of audience, the most base of human instinct. I haven't seen any challenging, intelligent, uncomfortable or engaging TV in years. I don't think quality TV programs exist any more as everything has been dumbed down to appeal to the most basic human instincts: eating, sleeping and shagging. But that's just me, and I'm rapidly turning into an old git :-D
martin_hughes wrote:
you don't get to be a professor of anything other than broom handling if your spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't up to scratch.
I once received a bulk e-mail from a Professor of Communication (I won't say from which establishment to save his blushes) in which not only had he CCed many people (not BCCed), he had also missed out the letter L from "our public-facing website"... I contacted him requesting that he (1) learn how to use BCC and (2) check his spelling, and his two-line reply was riddled with more errors. I despaired for our youth and our future at that point.
I hope you realise that hamsters are very creative when it comes to revenge. - Elaine
-
Ah, but:
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I wonder how people might have felt during the times when "thou art" became "You are".
Was a progression, whereas:
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
"u r"
is a regression (and if it continues, language will disappear and we'll be back to ape like grunting). On the Radio 4 a few weeks back there was some "professor" spouting nonsense that spelling, grammar and punctuation don't matter. He was an arse, but also a hypocrite - you don't get to be a professor of anything other than broom handling if your spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't up to scratch. I blame the current state of the language, in Britain at least, on the television. Programming appears to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, the most moronic of audience, the most base of human instinct. I haven't seen any challenging, intelligent, uncomfortable or engaging TV in years. I don't think quality TV programs exist any more as everything has been dumbed down to appeal to the most basic human instincts: eating, sleeping and shagging. But that's just me, and I'm rapidly turning into an old git :-D
martin_hughes wrote:
Was a progression,
Would Martinolius Hugeseus (your version during the time of "Thou art") have felt the same way?
martin_hughes wrote:
"u r" is a regression
Will MH (your version in 2100) feel the same way? Those are the questions I am asking.
modified on Monday, August 17, 2009 6:27 PM
-
martin_hughes wrote:
you don't get to be a professor of anything other than broom handling if your spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't up to scratch.
I once received a bulk e-mail from a Professor of Communication (I won't say from which establishment to save his blushes) in which not only had he CCed many people (not BCCed), he had also missed out the letter L from "our public-facing website"... I contacted him requesting that he (1) learn how to use BCC and (2) check his spelling, and his two-line reply was riddled with more errors. I despaired for our youth and our future at that point.
I hope you realise that hamsters are very creative when it comes to revenge. - Elaine
Typos are one thing, but willingly doing this sort of thing "Ur gr8 stV Hris nd u mk m1 lif3 c0mpl3t 4r5e" are quite another :-D
-
martin_hughes wrote:
Was a progression,
Would Martinolius Hugeseus (your version during the time of "Thou art") have felt the same way?
martin_hughes wrote:
"u r" is a regression
Will MH (your version in 2100) feel the same way? Those are the questions I am asking.
modified on Monday, August 17, 2009 6:27 PM
I doubt it. Most people back then couldn't read or write, the dictionary (at least the English one) had not yet been invented, people didn't travel much and change would have happened over a much longer period of time. This new fad, and it is a fad, is more to do with rebellious youth than anything else. Way back in the mists of time (the late 1980's) it was called l33t, and it was as shite then as it is now. Sadly there's more lazy youths around to embrace it, but the real world awaits them.
-
I doubt it. Most people back then couldn't read or write, the dictionary (at least the English one) had not yet been invented, people didn't travel much and change would have happened over a much longer period of time. This new fad, and it is a fad, is more to do with rebellious youth than anything else. Way back in the mists of time (the late 1980's) it was called l33t, and it was as shite then as it is now. Sadly there's more lazy youths around to embrace it, but the real world awaits them.
That might be a valid point. But in general grammar and spelling skills of ordinary people are deteriorating in this internet/text messaging/IM age. When I compare what I had written 15 years back to what I write now. I can see the degradation. My fear is that this degradation will become the norm.
-
you are assuming that I have a need for a resume. yet another archaic and mostly useless (since it doesn't actually have anything to do with someone's skillset or ability to perform job functions) form of communication. And of course we all use some form of text speak in our resumes. Unless your entire resume, including work/education history is in paragraph form. Sure there are rules and formats for proper tabular format in a business document, but that hardly qualifies as proper english. Text speak has rules as well. They just change/evolve at a MUCH more rapid pace than what could be accurately documented and followed.
kinar wrote:
you are assuming that I have a need for a resume. yet another archaic and mostly useless (since it doesn't actually have anything to do with someone's skillset or ability to perform job functions) form of communication.
Yet more rubbish. I actually don't need a resume, but that's because I'm now a multi-millionaire. You on the other hand, unless you've inherited some fortune and don't actually need to work, will need a resume/CV if you ever want to work anywhere other than the sort of place that produces its own application forms.
kinar wrote:
And of course we all use some form of text speak in our resumes. Unless your entire resume, including work/education history is in paragraph form. Sure there are rules and formats for proper tabular format in a business document, but that hardly qualifies as proper english.
Nope, I've never read one quality CV that included any form of text speak or short hand. A bullet point can be perfectly formed English
kinar wrote:
Text speak has rules as well. They just change/evolve at a MUCH more rapid pace than what could be accurately documented and followed.
Does it? What are they, then? And what possible benefit is there to taking a well understood and well defined language and turning it in to a stream of random characters?
-
you are assuming that I have a need for a resume. yet another archaic and mostly useless (since it doesn't actually have anything to do with someone's skillset or ability to perform job functions) form of communication. And of course we all use some form of text speak in our resumes. Unless your entire resume, including work/education history is in paragraph form. Sure there are rules and formats for proper tabular format in a business document, but that hardly qualifies as proper english. Text speak has rules as well. They just change/evolve at a MUCH more rapid pace than what could be accurately documented and followed.
kinar wrote:
you are assuming that I have a need for a resume. yet another archaic and mostly useless (since it doesn't actually have anything to do with someone's skillset or ability to perform job functions) form of communication.
Keep on thinking that...
-
Sorry, but no. Some simple examples: Uranus - The 7th planet from the sun. According to you, it's You Are Anus. Urologist - Someone you go and see if you've been visiting a manky tart. According to you it's You Are Ologist. Ur - An ancient city in Sumer pronounced "Err". According to you, it's pronounced You are. Your - the second-person personal pronoun. According to you it's Yo! You are! You're - According to you it's Yo! You'Are e! I could go on, but can't be bothered. The point of written communication is to convey meaning without ambiguity. It is not idiotic to suggest that people should communicate clearly and succinctly, but it is a valid critique of those who are too lazy to expend the extra effort in doing so.
I disagree. According to Professor Xzfgtk Lptr's wonderful abridged version of "Minwbkothnwinglng" (4th edition) 90% of the English language is redundant in both form and function. Urrnginevrywywthths1molfrnd Thrisnoned4pnctnemor. Clear? :D
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
-
I wonder how people might have felt during the times when "thou art" became "You are". Did they look at "you are" with a similar disdain as we now look "u r". More importantly do you think, after 100 years or so, "you are" will be considered archaic in favor of "u r". What will finally replace "u r"? Brain to brain direct communication instead of language? :~
modified on Monday, August 17, 2009 4:39 PM
Probably not since "you are" was the formal form of address, not the informal as is commonly presumed.
-
I wonder how people might have felt during the times when "thou art" became "You are". Did they look at "you are" with a similar disdain as we now look "u r". More importantly do you think, after 100 years or so, "you are" will be considered archaic in favor of "u r". What will finally replace "u r"? Brain to brain direct communication instead of language? :~
modified on Monday, August 17, 2009 4:39 PM
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
More importantly do you think, after 100 years or so, "you are" will be considered archaic in favor of "u r". What will finally replace "u r"? Brain to brain direct communication instead of language?
We'll move beyond the annoyingly stupid 140 character limit to no limit and then our devices will auto-magically replace "u r" with "you are". Unless some a-hat patents the idea and keeps mankind on the path of 1337 speak forever.
Todd Smith
-
Typos are one thing, but willingly doing this sort of thing "Ur gr8 stV Hris nd u mk m1 lif3 c0mpl3t 4r5e" are quite another :-D
martin_hughes wrote:
Typos are one thing, but willingly doing this sort of thing "Ur gr8 stV Hris nd u mk m1 lif3 c0mpl3t 4r5e" are quite another
Yes they are, as you say, another. Text speak is good for shortening message payload while still communicating ideas. In that sense it does fulfill a valid function; reduced bandwidth. As a way of writing I avoid it. I may be a fossil but I still use, somewhat, proper Amerlish, even when texting.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Probably not since "you are" was the formal form of address, not the informal as is commonly presumed.
That is interesting. I did not know that.
-
That might be a valid point. But in general grammar and spelling skills of ordinary people are deteriorating in this internet/text messaging/IM age. When I compare what I had written 15 years back to what I write now. I can see the degradation. My fear is that this degradation will become the norm.
Interesting point. My experience has been, to generalise horrifically, that Indians (and I mean the whole sub-continent) tend to be sticklers for the "Queens English" more than almost all English people are. I've a feeling this is because the language is actually taught and passed on, rather than never taught and passed on. I make fun of Pete coming from up North and his Geordie ways. The truth is for such a small country there are so many dialects in England alone, never mind the British Isles, it's almost impossible to always understand native English speakers. Anyone taught the "Queens English" and expecting to go almost anywhere in Britain (other than Esher) and understand what's said to them is in for a very rude surprise. The locals will probably understand them, but the other way around I'm not so sure about. And this is my point about written communications. I can understand you perfectly, you might be sixth generation American or first generation Indian, I can understand Pete, I can understand Luc... I can even understand Dalek Dave when he isn't doing his CCC's!
