I think that webspeak is the natural evolution of notes in class. It's definitely more prevalent, most classroom notes weren't passed around the world on display for everyone. However I don't feel it poses any real threat, even the young gamer crowd for whom I normally reserve most of my "tut-tut's" and head-shaking, seem to appreciate when the writer of something is willing to put effort into their speech. See the popularity of PennyArcade - I take nothing away from the quality of Mike's artwork, he is one of the best comic artists I know of, Jerry's posts are equally enjoyable for me, and frequently cause euphoric feelings while I read them.
WebSpeak: The death of language?
- Thread starter Labyrinth
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Of all the things you might say about my post, you choose a compliment.Saskwach said:You got me. I simplified it a bit too much. I thought it'd be easier to be brief. And the "current" stuff was a bad word for what I was trying to express.
Also, the second last line of your post. Twain? I might remember being told he said that but I'm curious and unsure. And it made me smile.
Sadly, in to many things, Twain quotes included, I am a Philistine. I have heard that it predates Twain and was used by a French noble, which I hope is the case as to better avoid the need to give credit.
Most of my information comes from Unfolding Language [http://books.google.com/books?id=m5TVvzVjtq4C&dq=unfolding+of+language&pg=PP1&ots=dqnx0vruEZ&sig=ITIZIRp_nTjacmUxCJCYmYxsWuM&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dunfolding%2Bof%2Blanguage%26sourceid%3Dnavclient-ff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rlz%3D1B3GGGL_en___US231%26aq%3Dt&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail]by Guy Deutscher, not Twain (unfortunately for all).
And oversimplification, as you could be quick to point out, is another one of my faults. I didn't flesh out what is meant by creation by metaphor, which you seem to have some understanding of.
A quick aside: when you go from an idiom 'drunk as a skunk' to 'skunk drunk' you change the part of speech of skunk. That's as much language change as an e=>3 rule, but most will say in the constructive direction. .
I also seem to to have lost my main point that we have communities of speakers and rules specific to those communities for the purpose of building solidarity. You really can't miss that when you talk about community language.
But distraction will happen when one (or maybe just me) talks about linguistics.
True, but I think most languages have their own barriers. German, for example has a complex system of noun identification. Every noun has a gender, male, female, or neuter. Each of these genders has a different word for "the", der, die, das. And "the" might change again depending on modifiers. It totals out to about 26 "the"s.
Japanese has words pronounced exactly the same way with completely differnt meanings. The words are written differently, so if you can read Japanese it's not so much of a problem. But spoken Japanese can be very frustrating; it's all about context and guesswork.
I'm done prattling.
Japanese has words pronounced exactly the same way with completely differnt meanings. The words are written differently, so if you can read Japanese it's not so much of a problem. But spoken Japanese can be very frustrating; it's all about context and guesswork.
I'm done prattling.
Or maybe it's just because people haven't learned to touch type. Or they have to use a horrid interface such as a cellphone number pad for text messaging.
I used to program using hunt and peck. Painfully slow. I can understand why non-touch typists abbreviate so much. I'm of the opinion that if you want more computer literate and English literate people, you should teach typing in high school (or earlier.)
I used to program using hunt and peck. Painfully slow. I can understand why non-touch typists abbreviate so much. I'm of the opinion that if you want more computer literate and English literate people, you should teach typing in high school (or earlier.)
Which, of course, is why we should all be learning a created, logical language, instead of these evolved messes we call our own. Lojban, Esperanto, Newspeak... anything, really! This crap they call English is just useless.
Proficiency in language is important, but I will contend that what you do with language is much more important than standard language education.stoicfaux said:
Actually, as far as I've seen, the factors that make English hard to learn (at least as a second language, and to a degree a first one) aren't exclusive to the language, and in common usage (the point of having a language) can frequently leave things unclear or up to the wrong interpretation. Puns, poetry, metaphors, and literature are common to pretty much every language, while some don't have the particular factors that you (probably) have in mind, or have little at all in common with English other than the fact that humans are speaking it.stoicfaux said:
But most languages have problems like these, while some seem to be better than others, there are factors that make them better and worse, and probably any language isn't overall better than another language.
Since most of my online conversations and forum posting revolve around gaming, I would like to launch a personal attack at the overuse of acronyms instead of proper game titles. Some acronyms, like KOTOR or WOW, are so common that I have no problems understanding them. But what about recently witnessed acronyms like POPSOT, TSFP, or SHTDDS? You almost need a decoder ring just to know what people are talking about.
In case you're wondering - Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Time Splitters: Future Perfect, and Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga.
In case you're wondering - Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Time Splitters: Future Perfect, and Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga.
God, I hate acronyms, they are nothing more than a headache to me.
Some, like KOTOR and WOW, are no longer acronyms so much as they are actual words now, they're used so often.
Seriously, my friends, the real life ones, spoke KOTOR aloud, like it was the actual word.
Infuriting, really.
Even worse acronyms are the ones that can be confused with games of similar names, like GOW or CC.
Some, like KOTOR and WOW, are no longer acronyms so much as they are actual words now, they're used so often.
Seriously, my friends, the real life ones, spoke KOTOR aloud, like it was the actual word.
Infuriting, really.
Even worse acronyms are the ones that can be confused with games of similar names, like GOW or CC.
Content always trumps form ? if what one is saying is a good argument then it doesn?t matter how its written. The problem is that some people dismiss arguments if they don?t live up to their high ?standards? of English.
However as you your self stated Labyrinth ? Grammar is a convention. To a certain extent so is spelling, though with the written word so prevalent this has mostly changed. Regardless the only languages that don?t evolve are dead languages.
Back to the topic at hand:
?Habit maketh no monke, ne wearing of guilt spurs maketh no knight.? ? Chaucer
Or to phrase it in the modern way of speaking:
?Wearing a habit doesn?t make you a monk; nor does wearing spurs make you a Knight?
What I mean by this is that just because one writes with good English doesn?t mean what they are saying is any more valid than someone who does not. In fact ?good English? is fairly low down on my list. I subconsciously look for the following:
Clarity ? I must be able to understand what the person MEANS, even if that?s not exactly what they are saying.
Succinctness ? Reading overly long sentences, repeated arguments, and generally being overly verbose does not endear me to a poster.
If someone does not achieve these two aims I tend to just skip over their post and read the next one.
I guess my point is really:
Is language dying online?
People from all over the world are coming together to discuss things. I have spoken to people from every continent on Earth. 50 years ago, pfft, 15 years ago this would have unthinkable, and yet now it is some common place that I have yet to hear anyone remark upon it.
So is language dying? Who cares! So long as people are communicating, in their own way, language can go to hell?
However as you your self stated Labyrinth ? Grammar is a convention. To a certain extent so is spelling, though with the written word so prevalent this has mostly changed. Regardless the only languages that don?t evolve are dead languages.
Back to the topic at hand:
?Habit maketh no monke, ne wearing of guilt spurs maketh no knight.? ? Chaucer
Or to phrase it in the modern way of speaking:
?Wearing a habit doesn?t make you a monk; nor does wearing spurs make you a Knight?
What I mean by this is that just because one writes with good English doesn?t mean what they are saying is any more valid than someone who does not. In fact ?good English? is fairly low down on my list. I subconsciously look for the following:
Clarity ? I must be able to understand what the person MEANS, even if that?s not exactly what they are saying.
Succinctness ? Reading overly long sentences, repeated arguments, and generally being overly verbose does not endear me to a poster.
If someone does not achieve these two aims I tend to just skip over their post and read the next one.
I guess my point is really:
Is language dying online?
People from all over the world are coming together to discuss things. I have spoken to people from every continent on Earth. 50 years ago, pfft, 15 years ago this would have unthinkable, and yet now it is some common place that I have yet to hear anyone remark upon it.
So is language dying? Who cares! So long as people are communicating, in their own way, language can go to hell?
Funny thing but what you say you look for in writing: those are the qualities believed to make "good" English. People just argue over the degreee of clarity and bervity.Lightbulb said:
And the belief that form is somehow separate to content is false. As Arnold Bennet roughly said in a book I'll dig out soon to properly quote if you say something like "His form was bad but I understood what he was saying," you are saying that the words he chose were enough to get across his meaning, if only in a hazy way. In other words his form conveyed his content. With truly bad form it would be impossible to understand what someone is saying. If you misunderstood him then his English was obviously bad.
Personally, I think that the value of writing conventions is something like this: a person who takes the time and effort to adhere to some Byzantine collection of by-laws when writing a message obviously cares about what they're saying. At the very least, a person who doesn't take that time and effort quite likely does not care about what they're saying, and if he doesn't care, why should I?
Saskwach said:
1) But it is, or at least should be. A Spanish person who doesn't speak very good English could be saying the most profound thing ever posted in a forum, and yet people would vilify him for his bad grammar. This isn't right. I guess the phrase that sums it up if we are going to fling quotes around: "Don't judge a book by its cover."
2) How can I know if I misunderstood someone?
3) Now you have me wondering if your starting a paragraph with "And" was a deliberate flaunting of convention or just an accident...
But we should. I come here to read your posts and reply to them as I would in a normal conversation. So I find fulfillment in reading your posts. It's not actually about how profound something is, it's about how it is said. Most of the things we're saying here have been said so many times all that is left is to say them in a pleasing way.Lightbulb said: