Will text speak soon replace normal grammar?

Will text speak soon replace normal grammar?

A terrifying prospect, but consider the following

• Language has always evolved
• Most teenager nowadays use it 24/7 (while text messaging)
• "Words" like LOL are making their way into everyday speech.
• More people are using messaging services like Twitter.

What do you think? Will grammar Nazi's prevail, or will the 733T exterminate us?

Hmm I can't see the big deal its just how people choose to express themselves and if anything its making language more easier to understand and universal. Its also adding more a persons vocabulary. If anything it should be seen as a good thing.

I personally think it`s a bad thing, Made even worse by the fact that a lot of teenagers are not very good
at spelling. I had heard of a few cases where text/SMS speak/typing have reached the office area in a
professional capacity, Such as job application forms and office memo`s, Which isn`t good.

A lot of middle age and older generation women (usually mothers of chav's and chavette's) tend to use text
speak a lot more than is healthy.

Yep, I think we are doomed.

Mint.

The problem is that txtspk is hard for us oldsters to figure out, plus it tends to have a "thug" sound to it.

I hear people talk like text speak looks all the time. The thing is, these people are on the South and West sides of Chicago and they're generally involved in drug dealing and gang activity. Type a resume in txtspk and see if you get the job. It looks and "sounds" ignorant to most employers.

These teenagers are unemployable, so they will either starve to death or turn to crime.
Even as criminals they will be failures and be eliminated by other criminals or by the police.
Whatever happens, their genes will not be passed on, so the problem is short-lived. A generation or two.
The language will survive.

An little shorthand text is okay, but too much just makes the person seem unintelligent to me.

If you make yourself appear totally ignorant, then people will think you are totally ignorant. Businesses have enough to do to train you how to do your job without also having to train you to write basic English. Textspeak kills your attempt to get a job before you even get a chance. Think about it.

Originally posted by SpeedyT60:

An little shorthand text is okay, but too much just makes the person seem unintelligent to me.

Shorthand has its use, where space is limited or where you have to write/type really fast. None of that applies to online forums though.

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

These teenagers are unemployable, so they will either starve to death or turn to crime.
Even as criminals they will be failures and be eliminated by other criminals or by the police.
Whatever happens, their genes will not be passed on, so the problem is short-lived. A generation or two.
The language will survive.

The thing is, Where a lot of them are either unemployed or unemployable, They tend to have nothing better to do
than get stoned or drunk, So they have plenty of time to breed like wildfire, As a lot of women seem to fancy
the fick, hard type of guy, Or some women fall into that trap because usually the fick mouthy little sh*t type of
guys tend to get the girls, Then shag them and leave them, Usually with child.

On the other hand, Women of that caliber (chavette`s), Tend to go with anything in trousers, Usually for
(unemployment, Single parent, Child) benefit boosting reasons, And on usually more than one occasion, to boost
benefits even further, Thus the future of the chav/chavette txt speaker etc is sealed, As the poor tax payer is
funding them to survive.

The world is doomed, The chav will prevail.

I dread the thought.

Mint

I myself hate text speak. It's confusing just using the first letter of each word, because it could mean plenty of things. I'm also a grammar freak, I have to correct everything, and text speak is a grammar freaks worst nightmare.

Not if I have anything to say about it. I feel boards like this should be aggressive in banning it and possibly sanctioning members who use it repeatedly.

Word replacement filters would be a good start so that entered phrases like It's for texting, obv, and it won't replace normal grammar. would automatically appear as It's for texting, obviously, and it won't replace normal grammar. That would not only help get the point across, but help non-english speakers learn the language.

Boards like this could actually help people if they wanted to.

Originally posted by MConor:

What do you think?

I think that there should be a wall of seperation between the two depending on the situation.

Text speak is not necessary, only convenient. We should only use conveniences during the time we have left after devoting it to what is necessary.

Texting is a medium that usually limits people to fairly short character lengths. Just like twitter.
It is inevitable that people will find themselves short of space to wrote the full message they wish to send, and thus having to choose between shortening it and paying for another message. (At the time this style evolved such things were not as cheap as they are now)
I see no reason to assume this is indicative of any sort of worsening of grammar or spelling outside of casual communication channels such as texting or internet forums.

Originally posted by Redem:

I see no reason to assume this is indicative of any sort of worsening of grammar or spelling outside of casual communication channels such as texting or internet forums.

I do, See my first post in this thread.

Mint

Argh. Probably so. I look upon it as the next floor of the tower of freaking Babel!

Language evolves, but not with the connotation of progress being made. Language mutates. But its laws of mutation are not Darwinian.

:doom:

Originally posted by Museatlantis:

Hmm I can't see the big deal its just how people choose to express themselves and if anything its making language more easier to understand and universal. Its also adding more a persons vocabulary. If anything it should be seen as a good thing.

No. In fact, deviations from the norm make language harder to understand. It is a new and different form of a language, which means it is as far from 'universal' as you can get.

Originally posted by aefields:

Language evolves, but not with the connotation of progress being made. Language mutates. But its laws of mutation are not Darwinian.

Yes, ae, they are. You are surely aware that I bemoan most of the "innovations" in speaking/writing/communicating that have fairly recently made my style of talking archaic, or worse…. (That would be, incomprehensible.)

But I'll "cut you some slack…". You mean to, seem to, say that you know what you're saying; hence, others must know what you meant. Well, if our language doesn't evolve in such-wise to facilitate this "transaction", where's the impediment?
Can you pinpoint it?

Originally posted by aefields:

But its laws of mutation are not Darwinian. But its laws of mutation are not Darwinian.

Forgive my excessivity: Why?
Because it keeps happening; over and over again; repeatedly, I'd say. But I'm usually told to shut up. Still, the same stuff keeps recurring…

Originally posted by aefields:

Language evolves, but not with the connotation of progress being made. Language mutates. But its laws of mutation are not Darwinian.

Why wouldn't it be "Darwinian"? There is absolutely no concept of things like progress or innovation in evolution, except for the progress to adapt to the environment best, but that has very little in common with what we would typically describe as progress.

I suppose there is devolution as well as evolution although, as was pointed out, txt spk comes as a result of the need for survival in a character-limited medium, so maybe it is a d sort of bastard evolution after all.

A parallel with shorthand?

I see it phasing out, not least amongst those who have something to write about that needs the sophistication of real language to express things of substance.

I believe it won't phase out, it'll just become another form if slang.

Ok I do use text speak a times but most times I'm a flop at it but then I think it was born out of laziness and has grown into a trend. Thanks to facebook, twitter and the rest. I don't even understand what Lol means or lmao... Ok I do know what OMG is but that's that. If text speak has come to stay? Regrettably, yes I think so. If it's going to replace good english not in this life time. You might see more of it in the entertainment sector and in ads but never in academics and formal organizations.

I think English language is just some few micrometres to its elestic limit. Lets wait and see the next super-core language But when is the turn of African language

Originally posted by tyrantnyx:

I believe it won't phase out, it'll just become another form if slang.

In written form possibly, although the need for it has largely gone, but we should remember that it's not a spoken language, in spite of the term txt spk.

Originally posted by aefields:

Language evolves, but

You might want to have a look at an older thread, <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=228129">The evolution of language</a>. On the topic of evolution, there is some appeal to the idea that language is our <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=2524227">peacock's tale</a>.

Did anyone in the 19th Century ever worry that shorthand was going to supplant regular writing?

And has anyone actually ever heard anyone use 'LOL' as a word in a non-ironic context?

Originally posted by DANBUZU:

I think English language is just some few micrometres to its elestic limit. Lets wait and see the next super-core language But when is the turn of African language

please don't go there

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Did anyone in the 19th Century ever worry that shorthand was going to supplant regular writing?

And has anyone actually ever heard anyone use 'LOL' as a word in a non-ironic context?

You've obviously never been to a modern high school

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

And has anyone actually ever heard anyone use 'LOL' as a word in a non-ironic context?

Considering that "lol" is Dutch for "fun" or "amusement," plenty of times. "LOL" as a one-word response to a statement, on the other hand...

I imagine that classic Dutch elementary school calculator humor like 707+707=1414 is now more internationally applicable.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

707+707=1414

LOL to that. wait... I don't get it... LOL that too.

How about smilies replacing words

Originally posted by ensbb3:

LOL to that. wait... I don't get it... LOL that too.

Hold your calculator upside-down. Or use the Internet. 707, 1414

The language is safe. Any language that has "squish" and "squelch" as valid words, with quite different meanings which are clear to anyone, can afford to ignore a soulless barbarian or two with their awkward thumbs and clumsy contractions.

By the same token a language that uses "pepper" for such a wide range of unrelated products should be in trouble, at least culinary.

Originally posted by jax:

By the same token a language that uses "pepper" for such a wide range of unrelated products should be in trouble, at least culinary.

Newspepper, writng pepper, wall pepper..........

Originally posted by jax:

By the same token a language that uses "pepper" for such a wide range of unrelated products should be in trouble, at least culinary.

Most peppers are always referred to as X pepper.

Originally posted by jax:

By the same token a language that uses "pepper" for such a wide range of unrelated products should be in trouble, at least culinary.

Or 'fish' for that matter
( umm, I mean 'ghoti' )

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by ensbb3:

LOL to that. wait... I don't get it... LOL that too.

Hold your calculator upside-down. Or use the Internet. 707, 1414

all i'm getting is: 5318008... lol, not that that is a bad thing.

Ah, but just typing words isn't the same as adding two to get a logical third.

Returning back to the original topic.

Well, as a Grammar Nazi myself, I strongly object the usage of 7331 or Teh Lulspeekz in real life and general communication. Internet language should be at its place. The problem of the general language is that 7331, Lulz etc. have no particular grammar and strict rules, which make it an "open source" language and easy to use for those grammatically disabled untermensch. Too bad, thinking of different words and forms is quite easier, than learning rules and correct structures. This makes me think: "Why the hell shouldn't we GENERALIZE this unterschprache?" Let's make those grammatically disabled learn teh languagiz dey speekz. We would certainly prevail!

Originally posted by quazzzy:

The problem of the general language is that 7331, Lulz etc. have no particular grammar and strict rules, which make it an "open source" language and easy to use for those grammatically disabled untermensch.

What, you mean like, say, English? Pretty much anything you consider a 'rule' is just a relic from the breaking of an existing rule.

Originally posted by MConor:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Did anyone in the 19th Century ever worry that shorthand was going to supplant regular writing?

And has anyone actually ever heard anyone use 'LOL' as a word in a non-ironic context?

You've obviously never been to a modern high school

Agreed, I have heard 'LOL' 'seriously' used as well as 'OMG" it sounds...challenged.

Originally posted by jamestflowers:

Agreed, I have heard 'LOL' 'seriously' used as well as 'OMG" it sounds...challenged.

Lol has been used seriously at least as early as 1561.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Lol has been used seriously at least as early as 1561.

Nonsense! At least I'm reasonably sure that's what Dylan Thomas would have said…

It says "Tschemynckel en hadder gheenen Lol." The t is proclisis, i.e. it's basically how you'd pronounce it. Today we'd write that as 't schemynckel (if we wrote schemijnkel, that is). The en doesn't mean and, but is a negation particle that goes together with gheenen (cf. French). We no longer use negation particles, and presumably common language in the 16th century didn't either, but in formal writing they maintained certain principles, including a non-existent case system, for centuries.

To make a long story short, the line can be translated into modern Dutch as "het scharminkel had geen lol," which translates into English as "the scrag had no fun." A more accurate translation would change scrag to ape or a monkey, but by doing it more literally you can see how the word still exists.

Dylan Thomas would've been wrong.

Frenzie, erudition and learning will make you few friends hereabouts… But I am pleased, if you count me as one! (A case system lost to the actual language centuries ago… What would I know about that? )

Being Dutch, I'm biased toward seeing lol become a proper English word, with a meaning roughly in the semantic field of fun.

Btw, he had no fun "omdat hem zyn wyf Rechts zat in de ooghe," because his wife sat straight in front of his eyes (i.e. straight in front of him). I guess the monkey didn't like his marriage. (As an aside, in Modern Dutch you shouldn't call a woman wijf, because nowadays it means the same thing as bitch.)

Friend — as long as we're clear that we're in the Facebook era. Don't expect me to take a plane to a have a beer.

I've surrendered to a few smileys or "lol". Find them adequate to digital media's style of communication as forums or IM. But I don't know if it's considered as text speak.

I wouldn't say so. Text speak is something like "cu 2moro." The occasional idk, idd or lol doesn't make text speak: only an almost fanatical devotion to brevity does.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Friend — as long as we're clear that we're in the Facebook era. Don't expect me to take a plane to a have a beer.

Friend, as in: Should we find ourselves side-by-side at the bar, we could talk and drink till closing-time without coming to blows… Or –at least– not hold a grudge, if we did. (I'm afraid I'm quite acclimated to the West — the western U.S. of yore!)

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Friend, as in: Should we find ourselves side-by-side at the bar, we could talk and drink till closing-time without coming to blows… Or –at least– not hold a grudge, if we did. (I'm afraid I'm quite acclimated to the West — the western U.S. of yore!)

I'd like to think that'd be the case with most people here.