Speaking of TxtSpeak [modified]
-
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
-
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 -
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
-
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!
-
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
Ah, so you've also read his LEGENDARY dissertation, "uhsdbhosdf AKJSDFGBAodyf hjkdfbadhb sadkljfhbasdolasmjdhfb kjhdbu37237eyt23,mbn jhgdsuyiGASD78YET3R8B"?
-
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!
martin_hughes wrote:
I can even understand Dalek Dave when he isn't doing his CCC's!
If I can trade understanding Dalek Dave when he isn't doing CCCs with when he is doing CCCs, I will do it without any problems. Frankly, I have learned a lot of interesting things from CCCs.
-
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?
Of course I mentioned that he was assuming I need a resume. I didn't claim that I ever wouldn't...its a fine line, and you may choose to ignore it if you want, but I'd just like to point it out to you in case you missed it. Attention to detail is the most important skill any person can have in any career field.
martin_hughes wrote:
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.
I had a reply to this typed up but after proofreading it, I decided it was boastful rather than insightful. As a result, it would simply lead to more back and forth until one of us decided it wasn't worth our time anymore at which point nothing would be accomplished. That isn't my style. Lets just say that I don't need to write software and I don't need to make a lot of money to make a living and support my family. I am not wealthy and I expect to never receive any inheritance from anyone. I am infinately employable (even without a resume) because of the way I live my life. If you can figure that one out, then you might have a chance to understand who I am and why I speak the truth. I don't attack your beliefs because I think they are wrong. But they certainly aren't as right as they could be if you open your mind a bit.
-
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
Todd Smith wrote:
We'll move beyond the annoyingly stupid 140 character limit
In reality, the reverse has happened. The place where there was no need for 140 character limit (read Twitter), the imposed limit turned out to be beneficial.
Todd Smith wrote:
our devices will auto-magically replace "u r" with "you are".
The side effect will be that people will continue to type "u r". Just like spell checkers, have caused people to forget the correct spelling of many words, the automatic software will cause people to develop more bad habits.
-
Capitolism at its finest. You make the most money when you appeal to the lowest common denominator. Look at Walmart. And then look at Apple.
kinar wrote:
lowest common denominator. Look at Walmart.
That is offensive because it implies that "mindless drivel" equates to not having a lot of money to spend. They are certainly very different things.
-
Todd Smith wrote:
We'll move beyond the annoyingly stupid 140 character limit
In reality, the reverse has happened. The place where there was no need for 140 character limit (read Twitter), the imposed limit turned out to be beneficial.
Todd Smith wrote:
our devices will auto-magically replace "u r" with "you are".
The side effect will be that people will continue to type "u r". Just like spell checkers, have caused people to forget the correct spelling of many words, the automatic software will cause people to develop more bad habits.
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
The place where there was no need for 140 character limit (read Twitter), the imposed limit turned out to be beneficial.
Who did it benefit?
twitter website.
-
kinar wrote:
lowest common denominator. Look at Walmart.
That is offensive because it implies that "mindless drivel" equates to not having a lot of money to spend. They are certainly very different things.
-
That is interesting. I did not know that.
-
twitter website.
-
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:
Programming appears to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, the most moronic of audience, the most base of human instinct.
Hi Martin, I think you have just handed our knee-jerk-quote-out-of-context trolls a stuffed suckling pig on a platter with apple in mouth with that one :) best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
