FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


End of the English Language!





aFamous
"2b,r nt 2b dat iz d Q wthr ts noblr n d mnd 2 sufr d slngs & arowz of outrAjs fortn r 2 tAk armz agnst a C f trblz, & by oposn nd em?"

"The Sun" a UK tabloid daily reports that students are to be allowed to use TEXT-Speak to answer questions in our national exams as long as what they write shows they know the subject.

I for one find this quite appalling and feel that it is yet another nail in the coffin of the English language. Far too often on these boards I have seen text speak used to describe a problem that someone is having and the member trying to help ask them to please write in English. I have even tried to point a user to the International support sites myself when I thought a post was in some other language than English.

Should we accept this sort of thing?
Are the UK exam boards being sensible in allowing the use of text-speak in examinations?
Is this really the beginning of the end for the English language ?


aFamous
meet in rio
I haven't seen the article, but I'm assuming that this new rule has only been created to cover the odd 'u' in place of 'you' and so forth.

I am by no means defending the new ruling, but I don't think it's quite as ridiculous as the tabloids have doubtless made it out to be.

I do cringe when I see for/4, to(o)/2 et cetera, but I don't think that students should be begrudged marks (especially in the Sciences) for the odd 'lazy' word.

As for English as a subject, it has always bothered me that correct grammar, punctuation and spelling contribute little towards the final mark, and so I of course disagree with it being allowed in these circumstances.

No matter what the 'official' ruling, I'm sure examiners will continue to be swayed (even if only subconsciously) by shoddy presentation of ideas.
SFMeatwad
No, English language should be taught and learned more. Just that we need to speak it however we want to:

Slangs
Slanders
Slurrs
etc...

Personally, I am a Southern kid, and I speak however I plea. Especially in English class, where the teacher wants us to speak properly. Well, turns out my grade isn't really that well, so I have to start talking properly, I guess...

Long live the English language!
nilsmo
This was on slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/11/11/1356212.shtml

The discussion at the bottom of the page is interesting.
Blaster
Yea i read about this on rate my teachers. Its kind of cool in a way. But i guess i have mixed opions on this whole thing. It can be a lot easier but it doesnt' teach us how to spell things good and we need that in the real world.
Dean_The_Great
Text speak is not an alternative to the English language. It shouldn't be allowed, because school is designed to teach you the proper way to write things. And, just because you're in science class that doesn't mean you can write however you please.

The world doesn't work that way. When you're an award winning scientist, or a police officer, or an actor; you're going to have to write you're documents properly. If you write your proof, report, or even cover letter improperly, you're going to lose on something.

It's not that hard to get your grammar, syntax and spelling correct. Just do it.
PatTheGreat42
I'm always torn on the subject of what should be allowed as "English." On one hand, you must remember that languages evolve - English today is not the same as English 300 years ago; it isn't even the same as English 50 or 10 years ago. Because it's evolving, I think that "proper" English must also include some of these changes. English teachers teach an outdated English, an English they learned when they were young. So I've never been a fan of "strict" rules of English.

On the other hand, I am no fan of 1337 speak or text speak or I'm-too-lazy-to-type-y-and-o-before-u speak. Just type it out. Yeesh. But in the context of a test, I think students should be required to use something resembling normal English, i.e. most of the words have the right number of letters. Because it's a test, and because it's crunch time, I don't think kids should be particularly marked off if they didn't catch themselves writing b/c or u every once in a while. But nothing like that first line.
blackpowder
The question is---what defines textspeak? It's basically a very unrefined pidgin English right now. It can't be justified if the examiners aren't "fluent" in it---theycan't be expected to learn textspeak just to understand the text writers... What about writing Creole English? Or Cockney slang? Why aren' t those allowed? There are 1000s of examples.

It doesn't make sense, obviously. There have to be limits. It's such a young "language". Cockney has been around for decades, and IT isn't allowed... there has to be some consistency.
sbel
I wouldn't know if it has been implemented JUST recently, but if any of you have recently sat for your cambridge a-level exams, you are infact allowed to write in short forms. Just like in lab related papers like chemistry III.

you can write,
' in xs '
instead of the its full
' in excess '

but i guess this only helps students in a way that the questions can be answered quickly. In these exams, they're just crankin up the number of questions or difficulty (in that manner) when the time given remains the same
The Shogun
This sickens me. Honestly. They make it out as if it's difficult to just learn/speak/write the language properly! It's not! Granted, there are a lot of nuances and specific grammatical rules that make it a difficult language to master, but I'd hardly say that justifies allowing people to develop disgusting habits like using internet shorthand in written assignments and exams.

I'd understand maybe, maybe, like sbel stated that in a non-English course, they might allow you to use certain, more tactful shorthand to speed things up, but on an actual English exam, that would be ridiculous. People seem to miss the point of the course. It's not learning the texts you study (Shakespeare, novels, etc.,) it's about learning to recognise and use various accepted types of English. So anyone who complains about being marked down for improper grammar in their Hamlet thesis, get a clue.
Jayfarer
sbel wrote:
I wouldn't know if it has been implemented JUST recently, but if any of you have recently sat for your cambridge a-level exams, you are infact allowed to write in short forms. Just like in lab related papers like chemistry III.

you can write,
' in xs '
instead of the its full
' in excess '

but i guess this only helps students in a way that the questions can be answered quickly. In these exams, they're just crankin up the number of questions or difficulty (in that manner) when the time given remains the same


That...

That is kind of silly.

Then again, as long as formal essays have the same standard of english, then I guess the English language can still survive. We might invent a few new slang words, but I don't see it being dumbed down to that level any time soon. You can't write a great, descriptive epic in that kind of speak.
Soulfire
It's not that bad. There's slang in every language, this is more of a subset of English than the actual language, everyone is still capable of speaking English. I mean, in school, you don't hear people walking around "Lol, brb" etc. They talk normal.

It's just to talk faster on the computer and cell phone.
coolclay
Quote:
"2b,r nt 2b dat iz d Q wthr ts noblr n d mnd 2 sufr d slngs & arowz of outrAjs fortn r 2 tAk armz agnst a C f trblz, & by oposn nd em?"


What the heck is text-speak? That sure looks like gibberish to me.
chemicalplay
if anyones read george orwell's 1984, you'll know about the plan to reduce the amount of words in the english language. big brother calls it newspeak.

orwell also wrote a large essay like appendix on newspeak, contained in his book.

check it out, is of much interest.
Dark_Tiger
Full text of the AP article from Yahoo.

This is one of those "too stupid to be true" stories for me. I suspect that somewhere, some professor said "We should give at least some credit for answers that aren't in formal English" and the administration translated that into the press release that spawned the "news article," and even with quotes, I use that term loosely, that we see here today.

The policy as stated by the article is patently moronic. The actual thought behind it, that perhaps we should give credit for understanding if it isn't expressed in formal English is less stupid.
JJGY
I find this odd to say the least, and I don't really like the idea. I tend to try and use propper grammar and spelling in everything I write, especially in school. I don't belive in that "it's for the upper class" crap. It simply conveys whatever your meaning is much more effectively and makes it easier for others to comprehend it. Even while texting (which I do often) I use full sentences although I do add the odd in place of a chuckle.
msaarinen
As far as the correct English is required in the English exam, I'll be happy. Would it be better that you wouldn't get full points in a maths exam because your grammar was bad?
eku53ru
The degeneration of the English language...I've heard that a lot of times. Frankly, the way that a lot of people my age and younger "speak" online scare me. It reminds me of when an English class I was in went ballistic the moment the teacher said that "conversate" was not a word present in the dictionary; the many arguments that ensued afterwards were funny for me, but annoying for the teacher. Another English class teacher, from what I remember, forbid the use of TEXT-speak on formal essays; ironically enough, no one said that was an outrage of any kind.

The problem I see with TEXT-speak is that there is no standardized version of it; while you'll find a few similarities between the English TEXT-speak found in different countries, there are enough differences to make each one into a different dialect.
watersoul
Languages are living things and adaptive to the setting its needed in,

Learning Shakespeare at school was a right wind-up, the stories in themselves were good, but the language they were written in may as well have been swahili - soooooo difficult to understand when no-one speaks like that anymore... and why waste time learning the past if its not a history lesson?!!

Choose the words for the situation I reckon, short 4 txt, and long for formal?
mschnell
I personally think that globalization, if anything, is going to prove to have been the end of more languages than anything else these days (besides world war three Very Happy ). As long as English is "the language of business" I think it's not going anywhere, with or without txt-speak. Languages that I could see dwindling are either ones that few people already speak, or languages with characters or symbols that act as whole words letters, because they're so hard to learn to read and especially write.
Traveller
It's not just English - I've seen similar illiteracies applied in Spanish, and a lot of them are based upon English pronunciations: "2" for "tú," "K" for "qué," and so on.

In general, it's a combination of the simplification of some aspects of language along with an increase of laziness.
The Shogun
The weird thing about it is, especially when typing is, it's not even the case that it's necessarily people being lazy. Well, it may have been originally, but once someone is accustomed to using internet slang, it's all a matter of habit. Me for example, I never took to taking shortcuts while typing, it used to really bother me, so I never did it. At this point, after developping significant typing speed playing MUD and being drilled in high school with typing programs, it would actually be slower for me to type in "shorthand" because I would have to think about each word and how I might make it shorter.

If there was a way for people to be prevented from ever developping that habit in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Davidgr1200
The English language is used for communication so the important thing is that the person reading the document is able to unambiguously understand what has been written. Grammar, syntax, spelling etc. are important mainly for this reason. Some people think some forms of spelling are ugly, others think they are nice, but the important thing is that the reader understands what is being written. To that extent I can see the point of being allowed to use this "SMS" method of spelling.
There are two problems however:
1. There are lots of people who do not understand these abbreviations easily - thus making communication difficult (If you write a job application like that your application will most probably be ignored)
2. It increases the likelihood of being misunderstood - different people can interpret the abbreviation differently.

Personally I don't think that allowing too many deviations from the "standard" spellings is a good thing as it is not preparing the student for life in the real world.
Just my twopennorth
reddishblue
I dont understand the txt speak at the top, I am twelve years old...how is my forty year old teacher going to understand that, because they dont know what the hell you're saying they will mark the qeusstion zero and guess what, when im an adult the txt speak will be different so even the people in my generation will not understand the new txt so more marks of zero.
English cannot change if no one understands the change, chaos would erupt.
There will be no marks for answers written in text.

Reddish Blue
soulman
what is the text speak... Oh I dont really think the English can be change into that format within these years or 100 years...
Aless
Better than when everyone was doing l33t (or "1337") speak.
mOrpheuS
I work in the software industry.
It gives me the shivers just to think what I'd do if the piece of code I'm supposed to rewrite/modify was documented in "txt-speak" or "1337".
Not to mention the fact that I could never bring myself to comment/document my own code in such language.

But maybe, the kids now-a-days think otherwise.
I sure hope this isn't allowed in the English language exams. Wink
mschnell
mOrpheuS wrote:
I work in the software industry.
It gives me the shivers just to think what I'd do if the piece of code I'm supposed to rewrite/modify was documented in "txt-speak" or "1337".
Not to mention the fact that I could never bring myself to comment/document my own code in such language.


Hah, that would be a pain. What I always wonder about is how people that don't speak English begin to computer program in English. Last summer I remember looking at a student's computer science class book and I think the commands were in English (I was in China at the time). If programming commands were suddenly switched to Chinese on me I don't think I'd ever try again.
Dark_Tiger
mOrpheuS wrote:
I work in the software industry.
It gives me the shivers just to think what I'd do if the piece of code I'm supposed to rewrite/modify was documented in "txt-speak" or "1337".

Yes, but imagine what you'd have to go through if the documentation was written in proper, paragraph form, English. Odds on, you'd have to give up on English and also use several other launages just so you'd have enough curse words.
Yazz
This is disgusting. I for one have always looked down upon 1337-sp33k. It just seems lame, lazy and gives you the look of a nerdy jerk. Use ENGLISH. RESPECT THE LANGUAGE. It's one of the simplest and most flexible of languages. And not so flexible that you can say Dog and mean 'Four legged beast with sharp teeth'. It's an atrocity to allow people to write like that on exams, let alone the internet. I WISH EVIL THINGS UPON THEM. EVIL THINGS OF EVILALITY!
thegregmann
I say l33t Speak was amazing back in my diablo I/II days but i also agree that we should respect the english language at least in schools considering these kids are our future. Are we going to have to go into a McDonalds and have to decipher what a 1/4 w/ chez is or whatever they might abbreviate it to


aha i just realized that i dont really have a right to complain because i just realized i used absolutely no punctuation yet im to lazy to fix it
Vrythramax
I shudder when I read this language, or worse that it may become some kind of standard....what's wrong with just typing out the whole word? Is it that much trouble? Are people that lazy that they can't hit a few extra keys? Don't let me handle an application for hosting typed in that mannor.....sure to be denied....I can't read typos.


I must agree with mOrpheuS, maybe not in word, but certainly in spirit.

P.S. Max is back.
bartdou
not only in English, but also in Chinese, French and some other language there is similar phenominon, don't worry about that, i think that's normal.
language is alive, they will change too when our living enveronment changes
mschnell
bartdou wrote:
not only in English, but also in Chinese, French and some other language there is similar phenominon, don't worry about that, i think that's normal.
language is alive, they will change too when our living enveronment changes


Hah, I'd like to see some Chinese txt-speak. I don't know how you could actually type it because the computer has to know the character for you to be able to make it show up on the screen.
Vrythramax
mschnell wrote:
Hah, I'd like to see some Chinese txt-speak. I don't know how you could actually type it because the computer has to know the character for you to be able to make it show up on the screen.


oh please...the english version verges me on the ready to puke as it is....don't add another level of difficulty.
windrei
well.... actually i don't understand that kind of phrase... for your question, i think english will not end. It's international language and many people know it.. When we learn English, we learn from the very basic stuffs, which is grammatically right. That means we know such "normal format" of a langauge.. there are some people changing it now and seems to become a culture. But i don't think anyone can change the long long history of a language.
Vrythramax
windrei wrote:
well.... actually i don't understand that kind of phrase... for your question, i think english will not end. It's international language and many people know it.. When we learn English, we learn from the very basic stuffs, which is grammatically right. That means we know such "normal format" of a langauge.. there are some people changing it now and seems to become a culture. But i don't think anyone can change the long long history of a language.


Not the English language my friend, but the shortened "l33t" version of it. I, myself, speak very clear english, and I try to express that in my typing (and posting) as well. We are speaking of a form of "Slang" (for lack of a better term), not English, nor any other language, itself.
Josso
The internet has degraded language a lot but it's useful for people who can't type fast. Still it's mostly being lazy. I'll admit to my spelling being absolutly awful along with grammar most of the time but I can at least respect some form of proper structure in my posts Laughing. I do beleive a lot of extreme text language that is excessively shortened is not allowed on Frihost?

As for l33tspeak, I mean. It's a bit of gamer/geek fun isn't it... no FPS would be complete without constant internet cries of "omg wtf 4imb0t n00bs!". On a more serious note the English language (I'm talking about English English) has been pretty degraded especially in the last 5 years. A lot of strict grammar rules are now ignored/discarded. For example my site... visit it and you'll see "Joss' Site". Now a lot would agree this is right and a lot won't. With some grammatical rules we seem to be in limbo with the old way of doing it and some mistakes that have become acceptable over a period of time.
Vrythramax
@Josso

I agree totally...and completely offtopic....did you "Joss" means luck in chinese...or at least I was lead to believe it did.
woundedhealer
I had a very strict English teacher when I was at school and she was especially strict on grammer. Even though I'm dyslexic, I have a good grasp of reading and writing. I have problems with understanding text-speak and gobbledegooch(sp). I totally support the plain speaking group we have in the UK.

I disagree with the use of text-speak in schools. Writing is a form of communication. If we are to understand what we are reading, there has to be rules which are adhered to.

Many people are unable to express themselves verbally, and resort to swear words and expessions like "and stuff". It's time The English language, both written and spoken forms, was taught better at scool and be more strictly adhered to, that way pupils will not only be able to express themselves better, but also have better job prospects.
Josso
Vrythramax wrote:
@Josso

I agree totally...and completely offtopic....did you "Joss" means luck in chinese...or at least I was lead to believe it did.


No, but thanks for the knowledge. Hey that makes sense, I've always had quite a lot of random luck Laughing
Hunterseaker
It is not only in England were you see this phenominon, here in the Netherlands, someone delivered is examination in sms language....
And it's happing more often. I think it is a realy bad habit to "betray"your own language tho it happens very easily cause of msn and programm's like and it al started with the sms.....
SilverDawn
Personally, I find leetspeak and other bastardisations of English language plain disgusting (and mind you, I'm not even a native speaker) and stupid. Having played enough of online games, I've learned one thing, though. When someone asks you "2 plz hlp 2 do sumthn lol", justifying it with "it takes less time to write", just reply "no", with the same reason.


Regardlessly, there's another way of looking at the issue, though I honestly do not like this viewpoint. As was mentioned before, languages evolve. Cave paintings gradually turned into hieroglyphs, those were replaced with symbols, symbols replaced with letters... This could potentially be the next step for the evolution of language. However, there's several things about it that make me doubt such things, especially the fact that the whole construction of leetspeak and textspeak is, in fact, completely artificial, and would have never emerged without computers. Thus, being a form even more unnatural than normal text, it is not that likely to gain wide spread, unless some brilliant minds, like those in British Education System give it a big hand.

I've read a nice joke about it, though it was in a different language, thus perhaps not quite as amusing when translated.

An old man sat on a bench by his house, smoking a cigarette and musing of something with a dreamy glint in his eye. A young boy emerged from the house. "Grandpa", he said, "Grandpa! Dinner's ready, mom's calling us to eat!". The old man turned to the child, dropping the cigarette and looking irritated. "WTF!", he yelled, "FFS u nub, fu! I r teh leet, lol!". The boy sighed at the old man's rant and quietly sat down beside him. As always, he didn't get a word the man said. Thus ended the last summer day of year 2050"
Vrythramax
@SilverDawn

Please don't even imply that this particular perversion of the language may be an evolutionary step. Evolution takes us forward, not backward.
watersoul
Sorry to seem to be a "defender of the lazy", but text speak does have a place with mobile phones, and it's not just about being lazy...
When mobile cell phones reached the masses commercially, over a decade ago in the UK, the initial call charges were an unbelievable over £1.00 per minute to land-lines, so the SMS text message option at £00.10 per text was the way forward. The only problem was that with only 160 character's to play with, abbreviation had to be used to get a proper message across, anyway, a standard form grew and became widespread, and now if you send a text with all the letters of all words, people wonder why you're being so formal!
Just wanted to qualify my earlier post Very Happy
Vrythramax
watersoul wrote:
Sorry to seem to be a "defender of the lazy", but text speak does have a place with mobile phones, and it's not just about being lazy...
When mobile cell phones reached the masses commercially, over a decade ago in the UK, the initial call charges were an unbelievable over £1.00 per minute to land-lines, so the SMS text message option at £00.10 per text was the way forward. The only problem was that with only 160 character's to play with, abbreviation had to be used to get a proper message across, anyway, a standard form grew and became widespread, and now if you send a text with all the letters of all words, people wonder why you're being so formal!
Just wanted to qualify my earlier post Very Happy


Since you felt the need to dig this topic up again, I must reply....we are not talking about mobile phones (many get a certain number of TOTAL messages for free with thier service plan...sorry your not one), we are talking about posting in a public forum where you have the the time, and hopefully the curtesy, to post properly.
Mannix
I don't see why it should be allowed, is it really that hard just to use normal everyday english?
watersoul
@Vrythramax

Sorry!
...couldnt help myself - you're right and I'll never say another word about it - Proper words and language ONLY in public forums... anything else IS lazy!
Smile
riv_
While I'm about the world's most uptight grammar-phyte (who makes up silly words at will, mind you Embarassed ), I get a litttle frustrated when we all throw our arms in the air like this is something new.
When I was in school (not last week, unfortunately), we (the students) were still being graded for spelling and grammar on every paper submitted, starting in elementary school, at least in theory.
Even back then, letters sent home from the school would use appaling grammar, misplaced quotation-marks and apostrophes, incorrect spelling, etc.
no-one complained. No-one noticed. The standard has been "commuication-only" for many years now.
Years before the internet came along, we - society as a whole - decided that grammar and spelling were flexible and unimportant. That language was intended to communicate ideas and that we needed to mind the rules and structure of the language only as far as we felt was needed to get our point across.
Well, the internet was born, and the whole thing has gone just a step further.
My point? Yes, it sucks. it's a terrible, frustrating step. but it's one step in a long journey... Why are we so concerned now?
tijn01
This is such a stupid idea! We insist on basically making the whole world speak English and then don't even bother to speak it well ourselves.
I know language always changes, and that true English speakers think even us Australians aren't speaking the realy language, but my goodness, this text speak is just laziness, didn't it just start to save time and money when sending text messages?
Do people write email in this speak?
If you can write/type well/quickly why would text speak be quicker or easier?
tomass
I wouldn't say english is easy to learn

Is it not one of the most dificult languages to learn?

But YES i agree totally. I dont mind shortening text for smsing and IM etc... but i dont think it should ever be used in an important or professional context.

If you were to work for a large company for example, you shouldn't use shorthand language at all. I have a few friends who found that out the hard way haha idiots Razz
darvit
I think that it has been pointed out earlier that text-speak originated from the need to communicate faster [e.g. in IM conversations] and to take up as little space as possible [e.g. SMS]. In some countries where texting is not yet entirely free, I think textspeak is acceptable. When brought to the classroom though, well... that's a different [and in my opinion, unacceptable] story.

I couldn't stand reading textspeak in public forums/blogs, and I honestly have to say that I do not have much respect for people who would tYpE LYk diSszz oR sPeLLL sTuFff LYk diSszz AnD uSe sTuPiD aLterN8iNg cApSzz--I mean, what's the point in that? Sure, language changes and evolves over time, but I think that seeing people spell and type like 4 year-olds is bad news. If we would allow this in the classroom, then why must we have the rules of grammar, or spelling, or dictionaries? If language was flexible and dynamic and "free-for-all" [or must I say "opensource"? Laughing ], then we shouldn't have these "guidelines" anymore. Of course, that would be totally anarchy and just plainly insane [and utterly stupid].

I hope that somebody would draw the line and set limits. Otherwise, lanuguage bastardization would never stop.
J0553
For example the l33t:
afk-> Away form keyboard.
OMG-> Oh my God...

And more...
J0553
In this web has got a l337:
http://www.halfrules.net/leet.php
{name here}
I dispise textspeak. If you can't write it out in plain english so everybody can understand you then go away.

Also, J0553, that is not leet. Leet is hacking away letters by replacing them with symbols and numbers. What you've got on your first post is AOLer, which is also pretty dumb outside of a chat room if you're going to use excessive exclamation points.
jharsika
It is true there are more and more abbreviations for things...words that didn't used to be words are slowly making their way into dictionaries. Mostly in speaking language though not written.

In a book called Stories from the Future or something there was noone who could write at all and there was a character called "The Rytr" or something who was the only one in the world who could write down words!
Saskia91
In countries all over the world people learn English. So I don't think this is the beginning of the end for the English language. In fact, I'm more worried about my own language (Dutch)
I have to learn how to write English the right way. Ok, I'm not really good at it, but at least I try. I think people will keep writing English the way it should be written. Becaus if they don't, they'll stop understanding eacother. And what's the point off a world lanuage, if people don't understand eachother??
themadness
I wouldn't write like that even if I could...it looks stupid! Confused
Montressor
Samuel Johnson wrote:
Those who have been persuaded to think well of my design [of the first English dictionary] will require that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those alterations which time and chance have hitherto been suffered to make in it without opposition. With this consequence I will confess that I flattered myself for a while; but now begin to fear that I have indulged expectation which neither reason nor experience can justify... With this hope, however, academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and subtle for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength.

-A quote from the preface of A Dictionary of the English Language written by Samuel Johnson (it was the first dictionary in the English language).

I believe that the French hold national conventions to decide what modern words (like computer) make it into their language and how to modify these modern words to fit the tone of the language (computer = ordinateur).

I agree that shorthand text writing should most definitely not be used in formal occasions, but don't take too much offense if others use it in online forums (using such language in a serious post only lowers the credibility of the poster, but establishes a tone or mood in a less serious post). Overall, I think that languages, once established and tamed, are fairly self-controlled beasts (people are more likely to speak in the language and diction of their culture/subculture, since language is about communication), and don't need too much attention, just some reigning in occasionally...

I people insist in making their "communication" unintelligible, I tend to figure that it wasn't meant to be a literal written communication anyway, just a work of art to study and interpret however the "reader" wishes.
-TomJ-
Aless wrote:
Better than when everyone was doing l33t (or "1337") speak.

Can anyone tell me what l33t speak is?

I know that here in Holland young people tend to abbreviate words by typing homophone numbers (like typing w8 in stead of wait). And usually I am quite able to make out what is intended to communicate.
I started reading this thread because I recognised the quote at the top of the frist posting as being by Shakespeare:
Quote:
"2b,r nt 2b dat iz d Q wthr ts noblr n d mnd 2 sufr d slngs & arowz of outrAjs fortn r 2 tAk armz agnst a C f trblz, & by oposn nd em?"

And as long as the text is understood, I don't really mind. I spend time on msn as well and it is ever so easy to shorten words from time to time.

But sometimes the shortened words are too short: I guess that those shortenings are made with local or regional circumstances/ situations in mind, and when read in an international forum like this, where people from the entire world contribute, this may lead to confusion. I read contributions from people from Malaysia, the Phillipines or Honduras who clearly are no native speaker of English: they can surely express themselves in English, but their English is not perfect: their sentences are unusual, their order of words differs. Still, it is understandable, provided they use "official" English words.

I think that the English language that has been used for centuries, is a perfect platform that may be used by people from all over the world. English in TXT-spelling is too likely to cause confusion, and should be discouraged when communicating internationally.
Jack_Hammer
aFamous wrote:
"2b,r nt 2b dat iz d Q wthr ts noblr n d mnd 2 sufr d slngs & arowz of outrAjs fortn r 2 tAk armz agnst a C f trblz, & by oposn nd em?"

"The Sun" a UK tabloid daily reports that students are to be allowed to use TEXT-Speak to answer questions in our national exams as long as what they write shows they know the subject.

I for one find this quite appalling and feel that it is yet another nail in the coffin of the English language. Far too often on these boards I have seen text speak used to describe a problem that someone is having and the member trying to help ask them to please write in English. I have even tried to point a user to the International support sites myself when I thought a post was in some other language than English.

Should we accept this sort of thing?
Are the UK exam boards being sensible in allowing the use of text-speak in examinations?
Is this really the beginning of the end for the English language ?


aFamous


Absolutely not, I am not a great one for spelling nor grammar though I try my hardest and strive for perfection. In my humble opinion I think we should go back to the good old days of a light tap on the backside if a child stepped out of line. Teachers need the respect they used to get (Thanks for ruining that too Margret Thatcher).
Jack_Hammer
Vrythramax wrote:
I shudder when I read this language, or worse that it may become some kind of standard....what's wrong with just typing out the whole word? Is it that much trouble? Are people that lazy that they can't hit a few extra keys? Don't let me handle an application for hosting typed in that mannor.....sure to be denied....I can't read typos.


I must agree with mOrpheuS, maybe not in word, but certainly in spirit.

P.S. Max is back.


I can see the point of shortening words for speed and saving space on a text message, but there is no excuse for it on anything else. It is not hard to type the word out correctly and takes about the same time. Anyone that writes like this in an exam regardless should fail, even if they know the answer the sheer ignorance and lack of sence to type it in such away... Pure disgust.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.